Labor Day Weekend Meet & Greet

 

Petition to RIDA

 PETITION to protect Riverhead Taxpayers

Say NO to IDA Subsidies for Private Hotel Development

We urge the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency (RIDA) to rigorously evaluate and completely reject the request by Joe Petrocelli for tax subsidies to his five story thirty four million dollar luxury tourist hotel that will dominate half of the new Riverhead Town Square.  

  Sign the petition with QRL code or here https://www.change.org/rejecthotelsubsidy

 ****************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************

The Problem

​Developer Joe Petrocelli is requesting tax subsidies through the Riverhead IDA for a proposed $34 million, five-story luxury hotel that will occupy half of the public Riverhead Town Square.

 

​Tax abatements granted by the IDA directly reduce the local tax base for the developer. When large commercial developers receive tax relief, the financial burden shifts onto local homeowners, working families, and local school districts—including the Riverhead Central School District.

 

​The Solution

​We, the undersigned residents and taxpayers of Riverhead, urge the Riverhead IDA to completely DENY the application for tax subsidies for this commercial hotel project.

 

​Why the IDA Must Deny Tax Relief

 

​1. Economic Logic & Fiscal Responsibility (Logos)

 

​Market Viability: A $34 million luxury hotel in a prime downtown location is a commercial enterprise that should stand on its own financial merits. Public tax dollars should not subsidize private profit margins.

 

​Impact on School & Town Services: Tax breaks starve our public schools and municipal infrastructure of critical revenue. Taxpayers should not subsidize private development while managing their own household budgets and rising living costs.

​Existing Public Support: The development already benefits from state grant funding and an annual $150,000 town commitment to maintain the adjacent Town Square. Additional tax relief is unnecessary.

 

​2. Accountability, Due Diligence & Governance (Ethos)

 

​Need for Independent Financial Vetting: Before considering any financial relief, the IDA must conduct thorough, independent due diligence. The board must examine the occupancy rates, room revenues, and profitability of the developer’s existing local properties (the Hyatt Place and Preston House).

 

​Consistent Precedent: The IDA has previously shown the courage to protect public interest over special interests—such as denying tax concessions in the EPCAL deal. The board should maintain that standard of public stewardship here.

 

​3. Protecting Local Businesses & Community Character (Pathos)

 

​Support Local Main Street: Downtown Riverhead thrives because of established local businesses like the Suffolk Theater, Maximus Gym, Robert James Salon, and Goldberg’s Famous Bagels. Converting convenient parking and open public land for private hotel development directly hurts the existing business community.

 

​Public Land for Public Good: The Town Square was created to serve all Riverhead residents as a vibrant waterfront gather spot, not to serve as discounted real estate for luxury tourism.

 

​Sign the Petition

​By signing, you join Riverhead residents in demanding that the IDA protect local taxpayers, support existing Main Street businesses, and reject unnecessary corporate tax subsidies.

 

1. Reject developer blackmail.  There is too much profit to be made.  Joe won't walk away if you have the courage to say no.
2. Protect the tax revenue of the Riverhead schools.
3. Do serious independent due diligence.  What is Mr. Petrocelli's assured funding in addition to the benefit from State grants and $150,000 annual town payment to maintain the Square ?  What is the occupancy level, room rate and profit from his existing hotels, the  Hyatt and Preston House?
4. Be mindful of the cost to the Suffolk Theater, Maximus Gym, Robert  James Salon and Goldberg Bagels of lost convenient parking.
5. Serve the community not special interests as with your denial of the Ghermezians' deal for EPCAL

 

More background 

The Greenport alternative      https://tinyurl.com/newtownsquare

Board Resolution https://saveepcal.blogspot.com/2026/08/board-resolution-and-ida.html

Letters and Citations in News Review and Local

08.29.2026 Letters

Celebrate suffrage

Aug. 26 is the 106th anniversary of the Constitution’s 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote. The struggle to obtain that fundamental freedom took 72 years. It is hard enough to imagine a country where it was against the law for women to vote; even harder to imagine the arguments used to justify it and the people who voiced them.

We seldom think of what it took: countless articles and speeches; marches and civil disobedience; suffering of vicious verbal attacks, mob violence and official brutality. The first vigils outside the gates of the White House, with banners known as “Silent Sentinels,” led to harsh imprisonment and force feeding, the same barbarity inflicted by the British on hunger strikers in Northern Ireland and by the U.S. on prisoners in Guantanamo.

A few films and TV documentaries have captured the human drama. The League of Women Voters recently showed a video of the premiere of Andrea Ramsey’s “Suffrage Cantata” at the Westhampton Library and provided a very useful full transcript. A different powerful performance can be seen on youtube at youtu.be/cG9Q6-UnYb4.

The play “Failure is Impossible” was first performed Aug. 26, 1995, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the 19th amendment and can be read at archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/script.html It would add to Riverhead’s celebration of the 250th anniversary of independence if a local theater group staged it.

Opposition to the current mass deportation of immigrants is the current expression of the spirit for justice of the suffragists. Their unfinished business can be seen in Riverhead today in the disproportionately small number of women on appointed town boards and committees.

John McAuliff

08.26.2026 News

United Riverhead Terminal to receive over $6M in assessment reductions for seven tax years

By Ana Borruto

John McAuliff of Roanoke Landing criticized the lack of transparency in the United Terminal lawsuit at last Tuesday’s Town Board meeting, saying the settlement number should have been presented to the public “from the get-go.”

“I found it a little bizarre that we can’t get the numbers of how much was involved in the legal settlement that we’re all going to have to pay for, and exactly what it covers,” Mr. McAuliff said. “That ought to have been in the first piece of paper, not hidden behind some kind of legal process that is not explained.”

 06.27.2026 Letters

Misuse of public funds

The Riverhead Town Board misappropriated at least $207,000 of taxpayers’ funds for its share of a law suit that was inherently partisan.  It joined with seven other Republican controlled political entities to attempt to reverse in Federal court a New Y ork State law that ended odd year elections of local governments.  Republican Party committees are lead plaintiffs without paying anything toward the $1.656 million to date in legal fees and costs

On June 10th, as reported by Denise Civiletti in the Riverhead Local, Riverhead and the other towns simultaneously withdrew from the case.   Withdrawal was never discussed publicly by the Town Board.  We await an explanation from the Town Attorney about whether his action was legally, politically or morally motivated.

Both parties surround their positions with noble rhetoric about democracy and participation but have an obvious political self-interest. Democrats who control the State government believe accurately that they do better when more people vote in even year elections. Republicans prefer that fewer of the right people vote, a persistent goal of the Trump Administration.

One can be on either side of the election date issue but recognize the institutionalized corruption of misuse of public funds.  Riverhead should insist that the presumably Republican law firm (Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors) should fully reimburse the town.  Or we should bill the Republican town committee for the $207,000.  At least registered Democrats and Independents ought to get a rebate on our taxes.

John McAuliff

Riverhead Watch

For short video on same topic by County Legislator Greg Doroski , click here      https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JVfP9aiXT/

06.12.2026 BusinessPeconic River Hotel parking fight raises questions for Riverhead Town SquareBy Ana Borruto

Roanoke Landing resident John McAuliff, who urged the Town Board to reconsider the hotel, responded to Ms. Waski’s comments on the low attendance.

“The reason they’re not here, frankly, is because they think it’s useless,” Mr. McAuliff said. “They’ll write you letters, they’ll sign petitions, but they don’t think you’re at all prepared to listen to an alternative viewpoint about the hotel.”

04.25.2026 Letters

The EPCAL opportunity   

Riverhead’s legal victory over the Ghermezians on the EPCAL contract is very welcome. Now that the town has regained control, the challenge for Supervisor Halpin is how to bring the greatest long-term benefit to the whole community. As a participant in EPCAL Watch, I offer these thoughts.

The supervisor should create a transparent and democratic process that supports wide participation in determining the future use of a unique community resource with multi-generational impact. He should invite the advice of economic and social planners in universities, professional associations and the private sector who might want to publicly contribute perspectives on how to best use EPCAL, and establish an open process for citizens of Riverhead to make their own suggestions and describe their dreams. We can learn from each other right away through online exchanges, which can lay the ground for a two-day in person forum with plenary brainstorming discussions and breakout groups to perfect shared interests.

It would be a mistake to assume that the best use is simply to recreate the manufacturing jobs of Grumman Aviation. We must not wait for the next ski tower or drone scheme to arrive; no more Petrocelli-style projects launched behind the scenes and presented as a fait accompli. Personally, I hope that any aviation use is forever off the table.

The one thousand non-developable acres need to be permanently sequestered and protected for environmental reasons. Ideas I’ve heard so far for the 600 developable acres include: returning them to descendants of the farmers from whom the Navy took them; a regional cultural/performance center; a sports hub; a permanent race track; a wind farm; mixed-use agriculture integrated with solar farms; a Shinnecock casino; expansion of manufacturing enterprises already in the Industrial core; a plant to build modular housing; data centers; parkland with hiking paths and campgrounds; use of the rail spur for a distribution center. No doubt many more, as good or better, are out there. The best may come from mutual stimulation and discussion.

The advisory group that worked with Mr. Hubbard and department heads should publish the parameters and procedures they developed for EPCAL proposals. Letters to the editor like this one about the best way to move forward can start the ball rolling.

John McAuliff

Riverhead Watch  

04.18.2026 Opinion

What’s the plan?

A three-to-two majority of the Riverhead Town Board has renewed the effort to grab the Long Island Science Center’s property on East Main Street. After I pushed for clarification at the meeting, it was acknowledged that a hearing must be held and a new resolution adopted before exercising eminent domain and spending more money in court.

However, board members Ken Rothwell, Joann Waski and Denise Merrifield and planning director Dawn Thomas did not answer my question about whether they already have a replacement project in mind. Given the scathing criticism of the current building’s condition, its demolition may be contemplated.

Is this another instance of the inside dealing that brought us Joe Petrocelli’s domineering hotel/condo project on the east side of the Square?

As I attended the bittersweet Forward Frame farewell reception at East End Arts on Saturday, the sun streamed through the west-facing windows of the 1840s Davis-Corwin House, past the early stages of Petrocelli’s construction. That natural light will never be seen again after his massive five-story building is erected.

Is it a hopeless dream to think of the construction halted to allow a green lawn from Main Street to the amphitheater and the river, like Mitchell Park in Greenport? If the board majority is determined to destroy the Science Center building, Petrocelli’s hotel should go there. It will not overshadow as much The Suffolk theater or hide the 19th century arts council buildings, which should frame the east side of Town Square.

John McAuliff

Riverhead Watch

01.24.2026 Letters

Hotel vs. open lawn

People of Riverhead who want to save the Town Square park from a boxy hotel face a serious challenge. Our new supervisor has apparently concluded it can’t be done. Jerry Halpin cites the legal cost of breaking contracts with Joe Petrocelli and opposition from incumbent board members. This echoes how the Republican majority frustrated former supervisor Laura Jens-Smith’s desire to cancel the disastrous EPCAL contract with the Ghermezians. 

Petrocelli’s demolition of the building that housed Craft’d allows him to begin pile driving for his hotel/condo. But it also reveals an opportunity to create more green space between The Suffolk theater and the river. Imagine that Riverhead truly opens the intended vista instead of allowing another intrusive five-story building.

Envision how The Suffolk theater can avoid being overshadowed. Picture how the historic buildings of East End Arts can frame the east side of the park rather than be obscured between the hotel and Heatherwood. Will a lawn leading down to the new amphitheater surpass the feel of Greenport’s Mitchell Park and carousel?

Acceding to a hotel for profit was a political decision to benefit the private interest of a campaign donor. Enough pressure from the community can restore the land to public benefit. Supervisor Halpin needs to hear that one reason we voted for him was to undo the damage of his predecessor. Incumbent Town Board members must recognize that selling off half the Town Square park never had public support.  

Civic minded attorneys: Can you help find a way out of Petrocelli’s contracts? Everyone: Walk by the space, then write the supervisor and Town Board at Townclerk@townofriverheadny.gov

John McAuliff 

10.04.2025 Letters

Craft’D is missed

We went to Craft’D Tavern for its final high-energy night. It was full with a very diverse clientele.

Sean Kenna created a vital, authentic and successful small business loved and enjoyed by the Riverhead community. It was destroyed by a Town Board that preferred to reward its biggest donor, Joe Petrocelli, so he could make more money from a five-story luxury hotel for tourists plus condominiums. The looming commercial choice they made for the Town Square park can be seen at tinyurl.com/RiverheadTS.

Petrocelli will rush to employ his wrecking ball next month, demolishing Craft’D and the historic inlaid floor in the Swezey’s office on the second floor. However, construction won’t start until the new year. Supervisor Tim Hubbard told the last Town Board meeting that even if the majority changes in the Nov. 4 election, nothing can be done to save the Town Square park.

Hopefully Jerry Halpin, Kevin Shea and Mark Woolley can prove him, Bob Kern and Ken Rothwell wrong and bring back an expanded Craft’D in a building that balances and complements the Long Island Science Center on the opposite side of the park.

Mr. Hubbard has been less than transparent in this process, claiming in one board meeting that he was trying to find Sean a similar downtown space at the same price. When challenged with Sean’s statement that the alternative would cost three times as much, Hubbard denied at a subsequent board meeting that he had said anything about cost.

Still unresolved is whether the transfer of land that was obtained with town funds for use as a public park can be sold for the profit of a private developer without authorization by the state Legislature.

John McAuliff and Mary McDonnell 

01.04.2024 People of the Year2023 Person of the Year: John McAuliffBy Chris Francescanihttps://riverheadnewsreview.timesreview.com/2024/01/118601/2023-person-of-the-year-john-mcauliff/

Board Resolution and IDA

 

July 30, 2026

Dear Supervisor, Members of the Board and Town Clerk,

 I see that you are moving ahead with the Petrocelli hotel at Tuesday’s Board meeting.  Needless to say I plan to speak against the resolution approving a special permit and site plan.

 In order to avoid the confusion at the hearing, I am attaching three photos that I wish to show during my remarks.  Please confirm that will be possible.  I am requesting “equal time” for the many slides shown by hotel proponents during the hearing because I was not afforded the same opportunity.  I need these slides to illustrate the dramatic cost of letting Pertocelli take over half of the town square.

Current rendering (Suffolk Theater at top)

ChatGPT version with hotel (approximate proportions)

ChatGPT version with no hotel

Please clarify how this resolution relates to the closing.  Will that require a later resolution with the sale price and other financial arrangements?

 I gather that you decided that you can proceed this far without action by the IDA.  I remain concerned that the language of the Master Developer agreement makes a favorable decision by the IDA a foregone conclusion.   What will happen if the IDA acts independently and rejects Petrocelli’s old school corporate blackmail?  King rooms in his Hyatt hotel run $600 daily during the high season.  Presumably the price will be higher in the more fashionable Peconic hotel and he hardly needs the extra benefit to his profit line of tax forgiveness subsidized by taxpayers and the school system.

 

 There are some operational questions that I hope you can answer at this meeting:

 1. When and why did the Town agree to substitution of extra luxury hotel rooms for condominiums?  Why did you give preference to eighteen transient seasonal hotel rooms over provision of twelve long term upper end housing units with parking?

 2. Are you still giving parking places for out of town hotel guests priority over local clients for the Suffolk Theater, Maximus Gym, Robert James Salon and Goldbergs who will face long walks with limited lighting.

 3. How do you practically avoid traffic disrupting U turns on East Main Street by hotel guests coming from the east and north?

 My larger conceptual questions remain:

 1)  Have you asked Mr. Petrocelli to construct a model so that you can fairly evaluate the impact of a five story hotel on the historic Suffolk Theater and East End Arts Council buildings?

 2) Have you honestly considered whether removing the hotel from the Town Square better honors “furtherance of the goal to create a public gathering space with pedestrian connectivity and open vistas from Main Street to the Peconic River”?

 3)  Are you uncomfortable that no bid contracts and insider dealing create the appearance of a Riverhead version of the corruption in Washington associated with the destruction of the East Wing of the White House, the construction of a new ball room and the reflecting pool debacle?

I have little hope that the carry-on members who dominate the Board will change their minds about this out of control project.  But I do encourage the Supervisor to recall his skepticism about the hotel when he was a candidate.  Voters in November may consider attitudes about diminution of the Town Square relevant to their choice.

 John McAuliff

Riverhead Watch

Rolling Woods

                                           The evolving and growing hotel

 April 2022

 

 August 2025

 August 2026

 the Master Developer Agreement for the Town Square, which propose the construction of a five (5)-story 69,738 sq. ft. gross floor area 94-room hotel, which includes retail spaces, a restaurant, cafe, hotel common spaces and amenities, as well as nine (9) parking stalls on the lowest level,

 

********************************************

Message to an IDA member

August 2, 2026

There is nothing on the IDA website or the Town posting of meetings about an IDA session on August 3 or an agenda. Aren’t both required for an official meeting of a public agency?

 I did review the video record and all I can find is that on December 16,  2025 when the IDA accepted a resolution to approve the Petrocelli application In the words of the chair,  “It’s simply accepting the application; and the resolution clearly states that we are not making any determinations or approvals at this point in time.  Simply that we are going to engage in reviewing the application.”    Another member said that there had been agreement, presumably, in private discussion, to bring them in “as soon as practicable so they can review the most recent plan…to hear the latest  … so maybe we’ll try to do that at the next meeting.”

 However, in the only three subsequent meetings (January, February and March of 2026) there is no reference to the Petrocelli application.  Is it fair to conclude that no action has taken place of any kind?

 Given the seriousness of the issues involved, I assume the IDA will take up the Petrocelli application with rigorous due diligence and will consider:

 1) Procedural problems:  no bid contract, inside deal, limited transparency, lack of public consultation about use of half of the town square for a hotel

 2) Long term irreversible impact on the architecture and character of downtown

 3) Alienation of public parkland for private profit

 4)The cost of the project ($35.1 million) and of tax forgiveness (sales and use tax, mortgage recording tax and real property tax exemptions with a Payment in Lieu of Taxes)

 5) The effect on the school budget

 6) Impact on community housing stock of turning 12 condominiums into 18 transient hotel rooms

 7) Damage to existing businesses of denying convenient parking to their established clientele in order to satisfy hotel requirements

 8) Financial viability and funding of the project with or without IDA subsidy

 I look forward to learning on Monday or at a subsequent meeting how IDA plans to proceed.

**************************

Facebook post from Doug Young of Wading River

This proposal raises serious questions about transparency, fairness, and whether Riverhead is following its own rules — and residents deserve straight answers.

No competitive process. For a project of this scale, the Town should have issued a Request for Proposals. A competitive RFP protects taxpayers and helps ensure the best possible outcome for the community. Bypassing that process isn't a technicality — it's a choice.

Public resources, private benefit. This project receives public subsidies and depends on the Town's public parking garage to support its operations. Infrastructure built with taxpayer dollars should serve the public broadly, not function as a built-in advantage for a single private development — one that already holds the dominant market position for hotels in this area.

Ethics questions that deserve answers.

New York State campaign finance records show that Petrocelli-related entities contributed approximately $11,600 to Riverhead Town Board members, former officials, and the Riverhead Republican Committee between 2005 and 2025.

Under Riverhead's own Code of Ethics, when an elected official receives more than $1,000 in campaign contributions from a person or entity with business before the Town, disclosure — and in some cases recusal — is required before participating in any related official action.

The public record shows:

Former Councilwoman Jodi Giglio exceeded the $1,000 threshold across multiple campaign cycles

Tim Hubbard received $1,750 from Petrocelli-related entities in a single campaign

Kenneth Rothwell received $1,000 from HP East End Riverhead LLC during the 2024 election cycle

Whether any of these circumstances triggered a disclosure or recusal obligation is a question for the Town Ethics Board. But residents deserve to know whether those requirements were met — and whether any required disclosures appear anywhere on the public record.

You can review the campaign finance data yourself (Made by B. Carroll):

Campaign Finance Explorer: https://rike4545.github.io/Riverhead-NY.../campaign-finance/ . He also made one for the Riverhead Budget which is pretty cool given his background in public policy and finance.

One more thing. I was also disappointed that the lone Democrat on the Town Board did not vote against this proposal/resolution. Ethics and accountability aren't partisan issues. When public money is on the table, when the competitive process was skipped, and when the ethics code may have been implicated, every member of the board has a responsibility to ask hard questions — regardless of party.

Transparency isn't optional. It's the baseline expectation for public office.

For those who've suggested I run: the answer is no. There are people with direct municipal administration experience who would be far better suited. What I can do is keep asking questions and making the public record easier to read.

It matters who you vote for. Vote.

***********************************

More pictures and analysis

The Greenport alternative      https://tinyurl.com/newtownsquare

Q & E presentations  https://saveepcal.blogspot.com/2025/08/submissions-on-q-e-for-petrocelli.html

Responses to Board criticism of critics https://saveepcal.blogspot.com/2025/11/town-board-attacks-critics.html