Readers Write: Misinformation clouds Baxter House

The Island Now

I have to say how disheartening it is to read the local papers, view the news, and hear the comments at the Village of Baxter Estates meetings regarding the Baxter House.

There is such a high degree of false, misleading, and incorrect information around the Village of Baxter Estates’ actions and responsibilities, as well as the rights of the owner of the Baxter House.

Please note that I am certainly not, in any way, defending the neglectful owner; however, the owner does have legal rights that the Baxter Estates cannot ignore.

The drama seems to stem from the Save the Baxter House Coalition, specifically their leader.

While I certainly appreciate and promote the group’s passion and motivation to save this historic building, the group tends to get clouded with false information and misdirection.

In the end, their leader has an ulterior motive; to dissolve the village.

He has stated publicly, multiple times, and has even put in writing his intent to the village.

Do the Baxter Estates residents really want to give up their rights to zoning, planning laws, localized building department, local services, etc. to the Town of North Hempstead?

To clarify the Baxter Estates’ position regarding the Baxter House, I have provided bullet points, in no particular order, to address some of the misconceptions.

• Baxter Estates should purchase the Baxter House — the Baxter Estates residents were surveyed when the house was up for sale as to their interest in purchasing the house.

A significant majority of the residents declined this option so as to not increase their taxes and shoulder the burden of maintenance of the house.

• SBHC has made irrational demands of the village — the Baxter Estates has followed the legal process every step of the way with allowances of time for the owner to comply.

Baxter Estates has spent over $100,000 (of a $1.3 million dollar annual budget) to date on legal fees associated with the Baxter House.

The Baxter Estates trustees are cognizant of the potential of litigation from the owner, as well as the threats of litigation from the SBHC, and have protected the village by following all aspects of the rights of the owner as well as the laws associated with landmarking.

As a reminder, within the village, there are multiple relevant boards, a Building Department and a Justice Court.

Each has a distinct function and processes that must be followed.

We do not randomly alter our processes, even for those who make a lot of disparaging noise.

• Save the Baxter House Coalition claims of lack of due diligence — the mayor and trustees have pursued multiple avenues to ensure Baxter Estates is well versed.

These have included, but are not limited, to hiring structural engineers, meetings with legal architectural and construction experts, review of case law around historic lawsuits, reviewed historic appeals to lawsuits, and received extensive legal counsel, all of which have provided guidance for the decisions the Trustees have made.

• Post-fire closing the roof to protect from water/snow damage to the interior. Please note that the Save the Baxter House Coalition provided Baxter Estates a structural building contractor to offer pro bono work to install plywood on the roof as a protective measure to the house from rain/snow water damage.

Having met with him personally at the house, he determined that the roof was not structurally sound enough to support the weight of the plywood and any potential accumulation of snow as the roof trusses were completely burned.

Upon providing the Save the Baxter House Coalition his assessment, the group deemed him unqualified and insisted that Baxter Estates install the plywood.

The group seems to forget that over one million gallons of water was pumped into the house during the four-hour process of putting out the fire.

That is equivalent to over one and half times the volume of water in an Olympic sized pool… a six inch snow fall equals a bathtub and a half of water.

• Baxter Estates should require the owner to preserve the interior details — Baxter Estates has no jurisdiction over the interior elements of the house.

Only the land use, building exterior and footprint of the house are landmarked.

• Save the Baxter House Coalition social media— The Save the Baxter House Coalition has posted inaccurate information on social media to intentionally slander Baxter Estates.

One recent example was a post of a video taken during our latest snow storm criticizing the Village of improper snow removal.

The road shown in the video was not a Baxter Estates maintained road.

• Lack of communication to community — Baxter Estates trustees kept the strategy for managing the issue as “client-privileged” with the Baxter Estates attorney so as to not have it leaked out on the Save the Baxter House Coalition social media or allow the owner to have insight into Baxter Estates’ next steps.

In addition, I reached out to the leader of the Save the Baxter House Coalition daily after the fire to give an update per his request.

After a week of not hearing from him, I received an email from him indicating the he felt it was a conflict of interest to speak with me.

• Legal expenses – Baxter Estates trustees, at multiple village meetings, discussed the concerns of residential tax dollars being spent on issues surrounding the Baxter House.

It was recommended by the Save the Baxter House Coalition to rely on pro bono attorneys within their coalition.

While the Baxter Estates appreciates the two volunteers, both acknowledged that they had no municipal government experience.

Baxter Estates has been harshly criticized for not using the pro bono legal counsel.

If you needed heart surgery would you have an orthopedic surgeon perform the operation?

In addition, one required a release of liability from the Baxter Estates as he indicated he might sue the Village.

Further, the Save the Baxter House Coalition insisted that the Baxter Estates give zero concern to the cost of legal expenses.

The mayor and Board of Trustees are elected by and serve the residents of Baxter Estates, not others outside the Village.

While we appreciate the sentiment around this historic house, the Village residents come first.

While Baxter Estates encourages freedom of speech, it seems there is a great deal of false information, that I believe, is purposely being circulated.

There does seem to be a ringleader who likes to “grand stand” and see himself in the press.

Who can tell what his true agenda is, public office for the county perhaps?

I guess time will tell.

Not sure I would vote for someone who has taken such a negative and misleading approach to a community issue such as the Baxter House in an effort to dissolve our Village and promote himself for a future endeavor.

Finally, the entire community bears the sorrow of the Baxter House’s fiery fate, while the Baxter Estates Trustees have taken undue heat for the outcome, over which they had no control.

We can all look back and ask ourselves what could have been differently.

The end result is; we have an owner who has a total disregard for the history of our Village as well as the importance of the Baxter House to our community, even recognizing it as a private property.

While I support the Save the Baxter House Coalition’s efforts and mission, they should focus on facts and a strategy that will solve their mission, rather than a smear campaign on the Village Mayor and Trustees.

Christopher Ficalora

Resident and village trustee

Share this Article