a not-for-profit corporation   
PO Box 424    Kinderhook, NY  12106    518-758-2646   

 
ABOUT KNGG MEMBERSHIP CURRENT ISSUES ANNEXATION/SUBDIVISION ENEWS KNGG MEETINGS
& EVENTS
GOOD GROWTH OTHER MEETINGS
& EVENTS
LAFARGE CEMENT PLANT Media PAST ISSUES Home Page
 

ANNEXATION

A N N E X A T I O N = S U B D I V I S I O N

S U B D I V I S I O N = H I G H E R  T A X E S  

L E T T E R S



DECEMBER 14, 2005

Mr. Douglas McGivney
Supervisor
Town of Kinderhook
Town Hall
Niverville NY 12130

Re Proposal for Annexation of Town Property by Valatie

Dear Mr. McGivney:
The proposal by several developers to have the Village of Valatie annex their properties is at first look absurd. On second look, greed is not absurd; it just causes people to do absurd things.

For whose good: The annexation would benefit the developers. The contention that this proposal would benefit the town, the village, and the school district by adding revenue to their respective entities is a scam. Is it above the scam artist asking a person to give him money so that he can then give back a greater amount to the person being scammed? The whole objective of the scam artist and the developer is to put more money in their pockets, not benefit the community.

Changing the rules: The child who makes up rules of the game as he goes along is booed off the schoolyard. The developers purchased property for which certain regulations applied, and they are requesting that the property be placed under a municipality that has regulations that make more money for them. They should be booed!

Whose goat is getting gored?: The developer states he will pay the extra expense of extending water and sewer lines to those now operated by the Village of Valatie. If Valatie takes on the project to accommodate these developers, the developers can eliminate the costly infrastructure that would ordinarily be an expense of the developer. Who would calculate the true cost over the years for maintenance of the system, or how it would be overloaded?

What about density: More people use more water, more fire services, more emergency services, more law enforcement. How would you calculate the expense of a need for more of these services? How would you do an assessment of the water available in the aquifer? Using it at a faster rate would deplete it faster. Fences may make good neighbors, but so does space between houses.
I remember reading a study that stated that the number of school children in houses is greater than would be in apartments or condos. Condos would allow for conservation of open space by cluster housing.

The wisdom of the zoning: The acreage requirement for single-family dwellings was set by the writers of the law with common sense in mind, not the profit ratio of greedy developers and real estate salesmen anxious to market a lot of houses. Isn’t the petition a variation on spot zoning?

Zoning laws and boundaries of towns and villages should not be flexible and vulnerable to the goals of developers. Allowing developers to build crowded neighborhoods destroys the beauty of our part of Columbia County. Should Little Falls Estates be replicated?

Precedent, precedent, precedent! Considering the amount of land with a potential for development, how often would a greedy developer seek this as a way of enhancing profit. What’s to stop them from seeking a change in the zoning laws?

Traffic: The traffic generated by a development with this density would increase the dangers of the intersection of Main Street and Route 9 and the intersection of the Route 203 bridge and Main Street The DOT has determined that a traffic light at Rout e 9 and Main Streets not feasible there because of road conditions on the incline of the road on Route 9 during wintry weather.

The proposal for annexation by Valatie of town property along 28A near Garrigan Road (currently withdrawn) would add to the problems of this roadway. This road is presently used by a great number of drivers who do not live on the streets leading into Garrigan Road. They use it as a shortcut to 203 and possibly to Route 9. Residents in the area avoid walking on this road because of the traffic and the speed of the drivers.

Devaluing property of homeowners who purchased nearby property: While the annexation would increase the profit of the developers seeking to build on smaller plots, the homeowners of property on larger plots nearby purchased their property because it was in an area that had zoning requiring larger plots. The larger plots cost more, but putting small-plot homes would reduce the value of the larger plots.

Comprehensive Plan: Most comprehensive plans call for maintaining open space. Little Falls Estates should not be the standard for residential development under any Comprehensive Plan. Levittown is not a desirable model.

Affordable Housing: There is a need for affordable housing in Columbia County, but crowding houses on small plots does not mean it will be affordable to the lower-price real estate market.

Rate of Change: Most people accept that change is in a community is inevitable, but when the rate of change is overwhelming, the community loses its balance and its ability to maintain a harmonious environment for residents.

Please plan for good development, and do not allow profit to reign in the development of our community.

Very truly yours,

John Jacklin


November 12, 2005

Further thoughts on annexation from a KNGG Member:

Hi Allen: 

Just an addendum to your take on this annexation scheme.  I agree with everything you are saying.  

What none of the applicants are mentioning, and nobody is pointing out at the village, is that all 3 of these applicants already own the land.  They KNEW what the zoning was when they purchased the land parcels last year.  Buono attempted to sell a house with the current 3 – 5 acre zoning on Rod and Gun Club Rd, but after almost a full year it still has not sold. Now he wants to chop it up to sell cheaper houses and maximize his profit.  If that land were zoned  half-acre 2 years ago when he bought it, not only would several other developers have wanted to purchase it, but the price would have been MUCH higher than he paid for it.  Its sort of like buying a Timex watch for $50, then bringing it back and asking to exchange it for a $5000 Rolex at the same price.  He bought what he bought, exactly like the other 2 did, and they all KNEW at the time what they bought, and that’s why they paid what they did for the parcels.  Now they want to change the sow’s ear into a purse, and increase the value of their land several-fold. 

It would be a little different if they wanted to change zoning or get variances BEFORE they purchase the land, but to change the value of the land AFTER you already bought it is beyond the pale.  Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all build some condos or commercial offices in our back yards to get a little extra income from our properties also, sort of maximize our investment?

A KNGG MEMBER