To the editor,

The letter appearing in your paper “Looking Back at Marbury” is factually wrong and, based on this, reaches an incorrect conclusion. The New York Times article that the author references, “Dispute Over Housing Project Unsettles Village Politics, has nothing at all to do with Marbury Corners; the article was about the proposed “assisted-living project” on Wolfs Lane that became the central issue in the village trustee elections in the year 2000. Without re-litigating the merits of that proposal, suffice it to say there was overwhelming opposition to the project, which led to the election of three new trustees by an almost two-to-one margin in the largest village election turnout in the last three decades.

The concept for Marbury Corners came two years later when the warehouses, commercial buildings and empty lots along First Street were offered for sale. The letter states that Marbury is now an example of what new development in Pelham ought to be. With this, few would disagree. But it is not because people who oppose development are proven to be wrong. Quite the opposite, those who opposed the assisted-living project in 2000 because it was out of scale and character with Pelham and because it presented an enormous risk to the village, and the school district supported Marbury Corners in 2002 because it was neither. The former was rejected by the community, and the latter received widespread approval. It is no accident that Marbury has had, what is now considered to be, a positive impact on Pelham. It was created through a proactive, open and deliberative process that evaluated, through critical thinking, its size, scale and architecture and the tax, cost and general economic effects on the village and school district.

As with most things, development is not a binary choice. One need not be in favor of all or opposed to all, but should make oneself familiar with the facts, including historical facts, before reaching an opinion.

Arthur L. Scinta

(village trustee 2000-2001; mayor 2001-2003)

123 Cliff Ave.