Thank you for your editorial of June 25 entitled "Time for some Pleasant talk," and the coverage of the Aurora Inn project on July 5. As concerned residents of Aurora and its immediate area, we appreciate your view of the issues involved in Pleasant Rowland's plans for our village. You have accurately pointed out the frustrating air of "mystery" about the scope and pace of these plans: we simply do not know the extent of this project.

However, if "it seems the Aurora community is ready to embrace Rowland and her plans for the village," it is because those of us with serious reservations have been following the usual procedures of working with village government, through requested letters, attendance at meetings, and study of the procedures of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). We are deeply concerned that permissions were granted for demolition of historic buildings before meeting the requirements of SEQRA, and we are anxious that each step in this complex process be taken in correct order. The SEQR process was designed to prevent the kind of aggressive development that gutted cities and towns in the sixties; today, state officials are ready to help any municipality preserve its heritage.

We hope that, in the course of review, the scope of the project will be clarified; in particular, whether the plans still include a dock and whether they are connected, incidentally or directly, to changes on the Wells College campus. An open, orderly review in line with the SEQRA is a way to ensure that the community has a real, not a token, voice in the future over which it exercises stewardship.

Sincerely, signed by 22 local residents

________________

Op-Ed Article in The Citizen, Auburn NY

Sunday, August 1, 2001

MY VIEW:
AURORA FACES HUGE LOSS

Karen A. Hindenlang

Aurora faces the imminent loss of the heart of its National Register Historic District. An application from Wells College to the Village Planning Board calls for the razing of the 1926 Market Building (which incorporates parts of the early 19th century Morgan Store), and the partial demolition and complete interior destruction of the rare and remarkably intact 1833 Aurora Inn.

The State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) is a process by which a community evaluates a project in an unbiased and systematic way. The goal is to eliminate detrimental impacts, preserve community character, and attain the best plan possible through full review and careful consideration of alternatives before a project is approved.

The SEQR process in Aurora has been flawed by major procedural errors from the very start. These flaws will be seriously compounded if the Planning Board proceeds with its apparent intention to make a �negative declaration.� This declaration would assert that the project�s adverse impact is not significant and irreversible (as though destroyed historic buildings could be brought back!), and it would prematurely end the SEQR process. The village has been advised repeatedly by state officials that the project�s impact is adverse, significant, and irreversible, and that the project should be subjected to a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS), the final step in the SEQR process.

A �positive declaration,� on the other hand, would mean that the SEQR process could serve its proper role in historic preservation. Through the subsequent EIS, alternatives would be examined, community input solicited, independent experts consulted, and loss of historic value minimized. This process would add only a few months to the completion of the already delayed project. Why have village officials been reluctant to allow an EIS, when one is clearly mandated by law and common sense?

For the economic well-being of the village, the Inn must re-open as soon as prudently feasible. But it doesn�t have to re-open stripped of all historic value, its most significant and distinctive commercial asset. Many residents wish to exercise the right, provided in State Regulation 617, to ensure an EIS and protect our National Historic Register District from ill-considered and possibly illegal devastation.

Though I speak above for myself alone, I am an officer of the Aurora Coalition, Inc. This group is incorporated as a non-profit organization of residents, alumnae, and friends supporting responsible change in the community. The coalition has drawn wide-spread support and has retained as legal counsel a specialist in SEQR and municipal law. We hope to advocate community development which respects historic preservation.

Karen A. Hindenlang writes from Aurora

____________________________________

Two Letters to the Editor of the Auburn CITIZEN, Sunday 8/26/01

Why couldn't Richard Lord enter the Aurora Inn?

On Thursday, Aug. 16, a state employee in Albany got into a state automobile and drove to Aurora for his first visit ever to this village on the U. S. Historic Register. And indeed, this was a part of his job, since this was Richard Lord, who works in the state department of Historic Preservation. And indeed, Richard Lord was shown much of the village of Aurora that is of historic interest, including the historic Mason's Lodge, with its cornerstone set by Gov. DeWitt Clinton in the early 1800s. In fact, the front page of The Citizen had an interior picture of this building with Aurora's venerable George Peter showing this historic interior to Richard Lord. But then came the historic Aurora Inn built in 1833.

Richard Lord was not allowed to enter this building. Those now in charge of the Inn did not let a historian see what they want to destroy - the staircase and the interior wood trim that was hand-carved more than a century and a half ago. The door of the Aurora Inn was locked to one of the people who could most appreciate it, Richard Lord, a person who has shown himself eager to preserve the best aspects of Aurora's past for the benefit of current and future inhabitants of the village, and indeed, the region and New York state itself.

It is a shame that Richard Lord was treated in this fashion. It is an even greater shame that those in charge, Wells College and the Rowland Foundation, are not willing to listen to Richard Lord's concern and expert advice.

David Kauber, Aurora



Village officials didn't deserve criticism of their actions

I was sad to read the unfair and biased account of the Aurora Planning Board meeting in Sunday's "Our View." Especially your attack on the planning board chairwoman was totally unwarranted. Ms. Gil has really done her homework. She asked for quiet so that the business of the meeting could go forward, noting that there have been nearly four months of discussion, with opportunities for questions and answers. She proceeded to read aloud each question in the State Environmental Quality Review and after each question polled the members of the board. Thus were able to hear each question and observe the unanimous vote of the board.

It is insulting for an outsider to suggest that dissenting opinions have not been listened to in this matter. We all know who the dissenters are, and their agenda has very little to do with the inn or the ugly market. Ms. Gil said that 32 letters were received supporting the renovation project and six against, and these have been filed with the report. I'm afraid that you have been taken in by a small group of people who are doing their best to obstruct and delay a revitalization project that the majority of Aurora residents welcome.

Lili MacCormick, Aurora

___________________________

RESPONSE to LETTER ABOVE
Published in The Citizen, Friday, August 31, 2001

Maintaining Community by Maintaining Discussion

The recent letter, "Village officials didn't deserve criticism" (Sunday, 8/26/01), appears to be in error in stating, "Ms. Gil said that 32 letters were received supporting the renovation project and six against, and these have been filed with the report." I was one of those present at the meeting of the Aurora Planning Board to which the writer refers, and a tape recording confirms my recollection that no such statement was made during the meeting. Ms. Gil did refer to "numerous" letters received; these would have included over two dozen letters, all favoring preservation, attached to a letter from the state Office for Historic Preservation which was appended to the minutes at that meeting. It would not be correct to conclude that the group favoring preservation is a small one, or that all the writers support preservation for the same reason - or have the same "agenda," as the writer proposed.

The Citizen has correctly reported over many articles that the renovation and demolition proposals are controversial. I've found the paper's coverage of the issues prompt, thorough and fair, and the letters printed cover a wide range of opinion. And opinions differ: one person's "ugly" building is "charming" to another. Guidelines and laws concerning both preservation and renovation are there for just that reason, to provide a fair structure for decision-making in the face of different opinions. I favor preservation and careful study of environmental impact because I've seen renovation cut the heart out of communities with little or no lasting economic benefit. Maintaining a sense of community - even through disagreements - ought to be the top item on all our agendas, and the way we discuss these issues should reflect that priority.

Sincerely,
Linda S. Schwab, Aurora

__________________

Letter to the Editor of the Syracuse Post-Standard

Published in the Cayuga Edition, November 2001

Wells alum criticizes response to concerns

To the Editor:

The October 18 Neighbors presented a long letter about Aurora and Wells College by Randi Zabriskie, an alumna and the wife of a trustee. In fairness, I wish the opportunity to provide a different perspective.

Born and raised in Aurora, I graduated from Wells in �75. My Sunday school teachers were Wells students, as was my first swimming instructor. I have fond childhood memories of performing in campus events. Later I worked at the village shop owned by Jane Morgan �34. My father was a village justice of the peace, scout master, and fire chief; my mother worked for the local school district. I babysat for nearly every college family in the village. I share a lot of history with the Wella-Aurora community, and my connections are still strong.

Last spring, a wealthy benefactress arrived in this very small village and staged a media event to unveil to residents her vision for their village. There were many serious questions, but no opportunity to ask them.

The Aurora Coalition is an incorporated non-profit group of residents and alumnae who mounted a legal challenge to the college�s plans to gut the Aurora Inn and demolish an adjacent building without a full review or consideration of alternatives. The group does not reject economic development, but questions a refusal to follow procedures protecting buildings in a National Historic Register District. The group has active support from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Preservation League of New York State.

In response to a different concern, another group of alumnae distributed a petition which objects to the proposed destruction and relocation of college buildings in a Master Plan �unanimously endorsed [by the board] ...as the guiding instrument for campus physical planning,� according to the president. To date, approximately 15% of all living alumnae � over 900 women � have signed the petiion, asking the trustees and administration to preserve and protect the traditional and contemporary architectural beauty that makes Wells unique.

I am a devoted Wells alumna who has given every year to the Annual Fund. I am also a member of the Aurora Coalition, and a signer and promoter of the alumnae petition. These positions are not mutually exclusive. I love Wells. My loyalty is to the institution. I disagree with some of the policies of the current administration. So do hundreds and hundreds of other alumnae. An open discussion of issues and ideas should be welcomed in an academic community, not condemned as personal disloyalty to a president.

To have the wife of a trustee belittle the concerns of other alumnae in the local press indicates disregard for those trained at Wells to make thoughtful, informed decisions. Likewise, it insults many of us to see our Alumnae Association President acting as an administration mouthpiece in the local press (�How can anyone say no?,� by Patti Wenzel Callahan, the Post-Standard of August 31), promoting a plan to destroy historic buildings in Aurora. It is unfortunate that the College responds to widespread concern in this divisive way.

I ask Wells College to show integrity and real leadership, to begin communicating with her alumnae and the community, to start listening instead of dismissing, to accept the fact that dissent is not disloyalty, and to understand that the broadest possible base of support is needed to carry the college into this new century. Sincerely,

Pru Campbell Kirkpatrick
Rochester, NY

_______________________

Letter to the Editor published in the Ithaca Journal on 2/7/02 and the Auburn " Citizen on 2/12/02

WELLS, WORRIES

Nearby Aurora is one of the prettiest villages in Upstate New York.

Its Main Street runs close to and parallel with the shore of Cayuga Lake.

Along with the Wells College campus, Main Street is endowed with fine and varied architecture; churches, private homes, a library cum theater, commercial blocks and most importantly, a splendid early 19th century inn.

The Aurora Inn has served the community and visitors for 168 consecutive years.

With the blessings of Wells College and the ample finances of a sold doll empire, the hapless historic inn is undergoing an inappropriate, irreversible, irresponsible and illegal re-muddling.

The interior is being gutted, the front porches are torn off, the rear wings and additions demolished.

This sort of lead-handed devastation went obsolete with Williamsburg, when it was fashionable to restore only the oldest part of a structure, and deny it all its subsequent history.

This controversial issue has polarized the community. It has pitted neighbor against neighbor, and village boards against the Aurora (Preservation) Coalition.

Meanwhile the Preservation League of New York State as well as the National Trust for Historic Preservation have filed briefs against the project with the division's Fourth Judicial Department in Rochester.

Alas, but the damage has been done, to a National Register building, within a historic district! What a dreadful precedent this sets.

The American Girl Doll heiress might not know better, but shame on you, Wells College!

Victoria Romanoff and Sara Adams

City of Ithaca, Jan. 31

____________

The Auburn CITIZEN, Letter to the Editor published 4/3/02

Coalition is Committed to Protecting Village History

The Aurora Coalition lost its appeal against Wells College and the Village of Aurora on March 15. Naturally, we are disappointed by the decision. It would seem that the State Environmental Quality Review Act, as interpreted by the courts, may be inadequate to protect the irreplaceable historic buildings in our National Register District.

Nonetheless, we remain committed to historic preservation in Aurora, and thank all those who have come forward to help us: the many current and former residents of the village; the National Trust for Historic Preservation; the Preservation League of New York State; the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation; and individual preservation experts from all across the state and the country.

The fact that so many people have come together under difficult circumstances to form a coalition and mount a legal challenge should make it clear to all concerned that Aurora�s rich history belongs to the entire community, and its precious architectural legacy is a part of the nation�s heritage.

We understand it may have been frustrating for the college and foundation to learn that their vision for Aurora was not shared by the whole village, or endorsed by the wider preservation community.

But, as work continues on the project, we can see the impact of what state officials termed a �gut rehabilitation.� This is not a restoration. The plans show that the end result will not reflect any previous historic condition. It is not even fa�ade-ism, as it appears that the remaining brick shell will be substantially redesigned. The Aurora Inn�s exterior elevations and interior floor plan are being radically altered, and the historic integrity of the building lost forever. We believed, and experts agreed, that it was unnecessary to do this in order to make the building a commercial success.

The devastation of the historic heart of Aurora -- the Inn and the Market -- divided the village. We hope the foundation�s other projects will not perpetuate that rift. We call upon the foundation to fulfill its initial promise to the community: to give residents a full voice in planning the village�s future, to develop projects with the broadest possible support, and to protect and preserve our shared history in this National Register District.

Karen A. Hindenlang
Hindenlang writes for the Board of the Aurora Coalition, Inc.

____________

The Auburn CITIZEN, Opinion Editorial published 5/3/02

MY VIEW

History is not a 'campus' issue

In addition to the fine ongoing local coverage in The Citizen, the preservation crisis in Aurora has been the subject of four objective and informative articles from the Associated Press, January through April.

National Public Radio aired a balanced five-minute overview of the controversy on its Morning Edition program of April 3. The Chronicle of Higher Education, a highly respected journal, detailed Wells College's involvement in the situation with a feature story on Feb. 8 headlined: "A Small College Divides Its Village With Unusual Attempt to Revive It." The May/June 2002 issue of the nationally circulated Preservation Magazine carries a long investigative report on Pleasant Rowland and her involvement in Aurora called "All Dolled Up."

The 70-plus member Aurora Coalition -- about half current and half former area residents -- is a new and relatively small grass-roots organization with no political power and little money. It would be irrational to believe, as one of your readers asserted in a letter of April 30, that the coalition could somehow "control" all this media attention.

And it would be delusional to think, as the same letter claimed, that the controversy is merely a campus issue gone public. Can anyone really believe that the staff at the 250,000-member National Trust for Historic Preservation cares about Wells politics? This organization, chartered by Congress in 1949 to lead the nation's preservation movement, strongly supports the effort of the Aurora Coalition to protect the integrity of our National Register Historic District.

From Washington, D.C., the trust's president recently issued a statement saying, in part, "We are pleased to join our local and state partners to seek the review of the highest appeals court in New York. All too often we've seen that communities, in their rush to find so-called improvements, are blinded to what makes them unique and authentic in the first place.

"Unfortunately, that is the case here. The National Trust intends to continue our involvement in Aurora ... in an effort to influence a greater sensitivity to historic preservation concerns." Last summer, village officials informally suggested to concerned citizens that if we didn't like the path they were taking in Aurora, we should go ahead and sue them. Now we have a town official threatening, in a letter to this paper, a suit against the residents who did just that. How does this attitude contribute to making Aurora, as he wrote, a "perfect place to live"?

Readers who would like accurate information about the Aurora Coalition are invited to visit: http://www.geocities.com/auroracoalition.

Ms. Hindenlang is vice president of the Aurora Coalition.

________________________

Return to Village Project Page