|
|
|
|
| GOOD GROWTH
ARTICLES Articles appear in date order with the latest at the top. WIDEWATERS GREENPORT MALL INFO For The Proposal & A More In Depth Look: http://www.mhcable.com/~vmartin/WW/index.html Columbia County Planning Board Said: http://www.mhcable.com/~vmartin/WW/corres/ColCtyPB061220.doc Press Coverage/Commentary Only:
Register Star 12/31/06 Following the
public hearing on the Greenport Widewaters project last night, I have some
predictions to make:
Register Star 12/30/06 To the Town of Greenport Planning Board: As a Greenport taxpayer and resident, I urge the Planning Board to consider a number of economic factors in the Widewater proposal which, in my opinion, have not been given the attention they deserve. It is within the board's power to identify appropriate experts and get their unbiased opinion on these matters, by issuing a positive declaration in the present matter, which will trigger a full SEQR review, and obligate the developer to fund such independent investigations. My concerns all relate to the fact that for every positive advantage suggested by the developer, there seem to be offsetting negative factors which weaken the net benefit to be expected. For instance: 1. Jobs. Widewater anticipates creating 400 new full time jobs and another 400 par time jobs, although they cannot tell us who the employers will be, and they know, or ought to know, that the available work force cannot meet that much expansion.. This "job benefit" assumes that no jobs will be lost due to the new mall, but there is ample evidence that such massive enterprises are extremely damaging to existing businesses when they move into an area. So there WILL be job losses. The NET GAIN (or NET LOSS) in jobs cannot be known until (1) the unnamed tenants of the new mall tell us their plans, not the mall developers; and (2) we know, or can estimate, the downside of the new mall in terms of anticipated business closings and jobs lost. The arithmetic is: NET GAIN OR Loss equals JOBS GAINED minus JOBS LOST. 2. Property taxes. The town will realize revenue from property taxes on the new mall, but the town will have to increase its budgetary expenditures due to the presence of the mall in the town. The expenditures will be for a long list of things from police and fire protection to road maintenance, traffic control, water and sewage demands, and so on. There is also a built-in tax abatement available to the developer, which will greatly diminish anticipated property tax revenue over a ten year period. So once again, the NET BENEFIT to the town is the tax revenue minus the increased expenditures and also minus the tax relief which the State of New York extends to developers at the town's expense. 3. Sales taxes. These are also suspect. We are told that for every million dollars in retail sales made in Greenport, the town only realizes about $800 after the county redistributes revenue to the various towns and municipalities. There are simply too few people living in Greenport, compared to the existing population of commercial enterprises. Doubling the amount of sales space over that of the four existing Fairview Avenue malls is very unlikely to double the amount of sales. Sales made by tenants of the new mall are likely to be made at the expense of tenants of the existing malls. So once again, miniscule as it is under the best of circumstances, the NET BENEFIT of any change in sales tax has to be viewed as REVENUE CREATED minus REVENUE LOST. 4. We all hope no businesses will be crippled by the presence of the Widewater project in our midst. If there are casualties, they are likely to be the smaller privately owned stores and services in our community, and not the larger chains which operate branches here. Those chains have deeper pockets than local private owners, and so the small proprietors are the most vulnerable. Another disturbing fact is that when one looks at the "recirculation" of money, for every $100 spent at a chain store, only $14 is spent again in the purchase of services from other local businesses. When that $100 is spent at privately owned local businesses, $40 is spent again purchasing such services. What this means is that if we rush to welcome big box stores and similar large enterprises into the community, the ripple effect of the damage they do will hurt us deeply, while the benefit they do will be siphoned off to Chicago, Bentonville, or Syracuse. Is this a risk we want to take? These are serious reservations to which there may be definitive answers, if we take the time and trouble to look for them. Voting for a negative declaration will deprive the planning board and the public from getting such answers. Voting for a positive declaration will make it possible to seek the assistance of people who know how to pin down some of these issues. Please cast your vote for a positive declaration. The Independent, Friday, December 29, 2006
Mega-mall draws fans, foes Times Union GREENPORT -- The stretch of Route 9 just north of Hudson is already home to Wal-Mart, Staples, Tractor Supply Co. and a host of other businesses. But the latest proposed shopping center threatens to dwarf all the rest -- a 565,000-square-foot big-box plaza that would house a home-improvement store, a discount department store, another large store, bank branches, restaurants and 15 other shops. No tenant names have been discussed. A public hearing Tuesday night before the Greenport Planning Board brought out a standing-room-only crowd. While the project has many supporters, it also has its critics. Even the Columbia County Chamber of Commerce -- an organization generally known as a friend to business -- has some concerns about the project's aesthetics. "We just want to have the best possible development," said David Colby, president and chief executive of the chamber. "Whatever happens out there is going to affect the community for the next 20 years." The developer behind the proposal is Widewaters Group, a Syracuse-area company that has had both hits and misses in this region. The company, which faces opposition to plans to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Ballston, developed a plaza in Kinderhook anchored by a Hannaford supermarket. That center didn't come without a fight, though: A local citizens' group filed suit to prevent the project, but the case was dismissed. Last spring, Widewaters walked away from a plan to tear down the First Prize Center, a former meatpacking plant at the border of Albany and Colonie, and replace it with a Wal-Mart. The company said Colonie didn't offer enough support. Widewaters also backed a 1998 plan for a Home Depot store at Exit 15 in Saratoga Springs, but controversy caused Home Depot to choose a site instead in nearby Wilton. In Greenport, some in Town Hall support the project. "I think it's something that's needed," Supervisor John Rutkey said. He pointed out that across the Hudson River in Greene County, a Wal-Mart Supercenter was about to open in Catskill and Coxsackie was looking to open its own large shopping center. "If we don't start taking care of our business in Columbia County, we're going to be losing business in Columbia County," he said. Many of the project's supporters said the new stores would bring jobs and more tax revenue to the area. Detractors said they were worried about traffic on the already-busy Route 9, plus what the big stores would do to independently owned shops nearby. One group, Greenport Neighbors, hired Albany lawyer Marc Gerstman to represent them at the public hearing. Gerstman called for the planning board to examine the project under the State Environmental Quality Review process. Don Alger, chairman of the planning board, promised that all impacts from the project would be investigated. But some residents aren't so sure. "I don't think the people in charge of this decision have even considered that it could possibly be negative," said Elizabeth Nyland, a town resident. Greenport has no zoning laws. Marco Marzocchi, general counsel for retail development at Widewaters, said the company planned to keep the community's concerns in mind. He said the site now is occupied by an abandoned movie theater and a steel skeleton from a prior attempt to build a plaza. Before that, a supermarket and a department store operated there. "It's a strong location and a very strong market," Marzocchi said. "The benefits of this project will outweigh all of the impacts." The company hopes to open the plaza by early 2008. Alan Wechsler can be reached at 454-5469 or by e-mail at awechsler@timesunion.com. Chamber feedback The Columbia County Chamber of Commerce offered these suggestions for a proposed retail center in Greenport: -- Exterior
lighting should be designed to eliminate light pollution.
Times Union 12/28/06 To
the Editor:
We
believe these measures will help make for a better gateway to the major business
area in Columbia County, and ultimately result in a better project for all
parties.
Register Star, 12/28/06 There's much ado about Widewaters, the developers that have proposed a mall for the forsaken corner of Greenport where only a skulking rusty skeleton of a phantom K-Mart sits now. This is not Columbia County's first dance with Widewaters; the same development group put a Hannaford in Kinderhook. Concerns from the community there mandated a traffic study, which determined a traffic circle was necessary. And, as anyone who has joined Mr. Toad for a wild ride around the narrow two-lane circle can attest - with five perilous opportunities to enter and exit - it's not for the faint of heart. Now Widewaters has cast its glance on Greenport. And while the developers have hoped to keep their plans low-key, revealing little information to the public about what their intentions are, our pages have been swamped with letters to the editor and op-eds about what the Apocalypse, as built by Widewaters, will look like. We share many of the concerns of these letter writers. Before the first shovel hits the dirt, a full State Environmental Quality Review must be done. This isn't the 1950s, people. We understand our actions have an impact on the planet, so let's be clear about what we're getting into. We're not so delusional as to think that if the Widewaters proposal is shot down that the site will revert to majestic wetlands where the plumed hornswoggle does its mating dance each April, but c'mon. Building something of the magnitude proposed demands environmental study. We also need to know what the plan is for traffic. Fairview Avenue can be a frustrating experience for any driver who hasn't brought along a book or other hobby to keep entertained while sitting in traffic -- not that we recommend that, mind you. Routing overflow traffic through the residential neighborhood of Joslen Boulevard isn't a practical solution. Those who know about this shortcut have already transformed the street into a speedway, putting kids and others in danger. We're flattered that a developer believes in our county enough to invest in it. But deep pockets aren't enough. Greenport is the gateway to Hudson, the county seat. Treat it with respect. Listen to its citizens' concerns, and be more forthcoming with information. Because as things stand now, the silence of Widewaters is deafening.
Register Star, 12/28/06 To the Editor: I am writing in response to the letter from the Tamburros (12/22/06), asking why "people from other towns…feel the need to express their opinions" about the Widewaters plan. At 565,000 sq. ft., this is not just the biggest, most ambitious development to ever hit Greenport, but the entire county. The potential impacts are far-reaching, and not yet fully understood, which is why concerned people from all over (and the County Planning Department, itself) are asking that they be addressed. Frankly, with that much pressure upon it, you’d think it only prudent that our board would want to take all the time needed to have all the answers to which they – and the public – are entitled. All that is being asked at this crucial juncture is that the Widewaters plan undergo a full SEQRA review. If this plan doesn’t merit one, what does? As those most directly affected, people in Greenport should indeed speak up. As Americans, each of us has that right. However, it comes with the responsibility of learning what we can in order to make good decisions, not knee-jerk ones. We might come to different conclusions, but at the very least, let’s learn the facts before doing so. And, yes, our planning board was put there for a reason: to serve the people of Greenport. Sadly, those of us with the resilience to attend meetings have been cut out of the process, our questions not dignified with answers. Furthermore, to blindly accept any decision by the board would be as ridiculous as blindly rejecting any possibility of development. Just plain silly, and potentially dangerous. As for the board, why would it take as gospel what an interested party -- the developer -- offers as substantiation for this huge project, and cut short the approval process to accommodate them? I’m truly sorry that the Tamburros won’t be at the meeting on the 26th, but I wonder if they attended the one on the 16th when James Sheldon spoke about the economic pros and cons of the Widewaters proposal. As a taxpayer in Greenport, I am worried about the implications for me and my town. There is simply too much evidence – if one cares to look at it – that the expected "tax boon" will not materialize. We don’t even know what stores will be there. As for traffic, it’s already awful, and "they" haven’t figured it out, yet – neither the boards, developers nor the D.O.T. So let’s just slow down and figure out the best plan for all of us. If not, there’ll be plenty of time when it's too late and we’re all sitting on route 9. Nina Sklansky
Register Star, 12/27/06 Virginia Martin The British celebrate December 26th as Boxing Day, because according to tradition that’s when the servants received their gift boxes (and a little time off). What a coincidence that on this Boxing Day, at or near 8:15pm at the Moose Hall in Greenport, there will be a boxing match of sorts, with contenders one might call David and Goliath. Let’s see who’s in the ring. In this corner we have a huge corporate entity, headquartered in Syracuse, with revenue in the millions of dollars that enables them to hire expensive consultants like architects, engineers, accountants, and lawyers. Call them Goliath. And in THIS corner (our corner) we have the civic-minded individuals who serve on the Greenport Planning Board—not for pay but simply because they know somebody has to do it. Call them David. Backing up David are other volunteer planning board members, like those who serve on the county’s board, and the two-person county planning department. They can’t join David in the ring on Boxing Day, though, because they’ve already sparred with Goliath. The buck stops with David, and only David is on the hot seat today. Back in Goliath’s corporate/Syracuse corner lie all the resources and expertise to put forth a complete application for a huge shopping-mall project—an application they could have developed with the guidance of the best minds working today in planning. And in OUR corner, and just behind our corner, we have a few dozen people—volunteers and some municipal employees. They find themselves in the difficult position of having to decide what is appropriate, desirable, and beneficial for the Town of Greenport, as well as to Columbia County. And whether or not “appropriate, desirable, and beneficial” describes what Goliath is offering them. In Goliath’s corporate/Syracuse corner we have well-paid people who stand to gain if they can convince those in our corner that we’ll all be better off—especially fiscally—with this shopping mall. In our corner we have people who haven’t been provided any real evidence to that effect. Who’s got the real muscle here? Over the course of a week, or less, the County Planning Department and the County Planning Board obviously spent an enormous amount of time and effort in reviewing the documentation submitted by Widewaters. Based on their reviews, it is abundantly clear that Widewaters/Goliath has not employed the most favorable design in the Greenport mall, and that they have not given these boards all the information they’ll need before they can make the kind of intelligent decisions that are called for. Goliath won’t even tell David who the tenants will be. Why hasn’t Goliath given David all the facts? Because it isn’t in Goliath’s interest to. Shame on Goliath. I mean Widewaters.
Register Star, 12/27/06 To the Editor: I feel so badly for those poor people who live on the residential side streets that have to make right turns when they really want to make left turns, just so that they can get out of their streets! Joslen Boulevard is already heavily impacted by the “Fairview Planning Disaster.” They have that nice town park there, yet no sidewalks for people who live in the area to walk safely. Also, did you know that when you pull in to the Eckerd Drug Store you’re supposed to stay to the right and go all the way around the back of the building to park along the south side, even though the entrance is right there where you pull in? It makes no sense at all. It’s unfortunate that crony political appointees are put in these positions. They demonstrate no sense of infrastructure, public safety and responsibility. How is it possible that the Greenport Planners are capable of having any involvement in the new Widewaters “largest project ever presented to Columbia County”? The Chairman of the Greenport Planning Board was openly supporting the project at the County Planning Board mtg. Shouldn’t the Chairman still be in the “information gathering” phase instead of publicly announcing his predisposed support of the project? Given my daily experiences with Fairview Avenue, I sincerely feel that it would be appropriate for the Greenport Planners to step out of this process and “farm-out” the responsibility to people who have the aptitude of working with a project of this size. I was very impressed with the comments and suggestions of the County Planners. I feel it would
be in the best interest of everyone if the Columbia County Panning Board became
the head agency for this Widewaters project. Greenport Submitted to the Register-Star 12/26/06 To the Editor: Guy Spath is right to call upon Widewaters to issue a statement "that they will not seek tax abatements" for their Greenport mall. For the record, however, he is incorrect to say that St. Lawrence Cement was committed to paying "their fair share of taxes" if their own Greenport project had been approved. In fact, SLC proposed a property tax assessment of less than 10% of the project's value—in effect seeking a 90% reduction on their tax bill. (Unfortunately, the Town of Greenport never objected to that number—instead illegally agreeing to withdraw from the review process in exchange for a relatively small annual payment. Facing a stiff court challenge by Greenport residents and plant opponents, the Town eventually had to void the deal.) Similarly, when directly confronted, the company refused to promise not to seek a large tax abatement available to such projects in New York State. Big developers should indeed be required to pay their full taxes, just like the rest of us. But SLC never intended to pay their fair share, and it's not a good idea to revise the history of past controversies to suit present needs—however pressing they may be. Sam Pratt
Register Star 12/26/06 The "public service" advertisement that appeared in the Dec. 15 Register-Star, concerning the monstrosity (Widewaters) being slipped into Greenport was a serious invitation, encouraging people to pay attention, once again. I thank all of those who sponsored that timely spot on page 9. For approximately the last two years many of us have read about the various towns in the county that have been reviewing, updating and creating town master plans, comprehensive plans, doing town-wide surveys, having residents openly discuss how best to develop and preserve the assets of each unique township. Not a peep in Greenport. The town lives in the past, but moves towards the future one "project" at a time. We have terrible traffic situations; try to make a left-hand turn on to Route 9 south from Staples, LaBella's, or a lefthand turn north onto Route 9 from PriceChopper, on Saturdays at noon. There is no protected left-tum signal. It is a disgrace. I suppose the town blames the state. How about the back-ups on Route 9 from PriceChopper south to Stewarts? If that monster is constructed, Harry Howard Avenue and Joslen Boulevard will be "raceways." Those who live in close proximity to these streets better be aware of this lifestyle-changing development. Property values will go down and taxes will go up for everyone in the town (and city). And Stockport won't be spared any adverse effects, either. There will be increased road maintenance, and I am sure a need for increased police presence. Will the town now create a fulltime force? That is not cheap. Here's another example of progress. North of PriceChopper we have a large, ugly, box placed on the east side of Route 9. and then they were allowed to place their storage area so that it fronts Route 9, with crap protruding over the ugly fence! Why wouldn't they be told to place that area at the east side of the building, out of sight? Common sense should still have a prominent place in our society. And, let's not forget, we have those gems that sell items for $1! Of course, there will be revenue enhancement for the town, as well as the county. Why is that the driving force? Right now, Greenport gives a disproportionate amount of sales tax to the county, even though we are a center for retail commerce, and have a high price tag on infrastructure maintenance, etc. Hudson has a separate deal for sales tax distribution with the county. The residents of Greenport and Columbia County deserve better than Widewaters. The issue is not who is for or against development. The issue is: What is the plan for our future? And who controls it, under what rules? In Greenport there appears to be no plan. We have a few miles of waterfront. What's the plan? It is my understanding that our water treatment facility is still breaking environmental laws and polluting the Hudson River watershed. And we will be under increased scrutiny (and costs) in January when the regulations are more stringently enforced (according to a public notice that was in the Register-Star several weeks ago). Will the smell coming from the treatment plant increase as the waste water flows south along Route 9? And what pollutants will find their way to the Stockport Creek and ultimately into the river, as they pass through the wetlands that the monster will be built on? As far along as this process is now, why didn't the Town Board and Planning Board hold a joint public information session. They could explain the reasoning behind this project. Why are they so "low-key"? This isn't as simple as allowing a small shop to open 12 feet off of Route 9, across from McDonald's. They could tell us how they see this fitting into a plan for Greenport's and Columbia County's future. As a matter of fact, it's not too late for this to take place, is it? What's up?
Register-Star
12/27/06
GRAND UNION CLOSING RELATES TO WIDEWATERS GREENPORT
To the Editor:
John Pickett, Kinderhook
Register Star 12/26/06 To the editor: As I recall, St. Lawrence Cement stated in their proposal that they would pay their fair share of taxes. Why hasn't Widewater issued a similar statement that they will not seek tax abatement? Guy Spath
Register Star 12/22/06 To the editor: Is it just me, or have any of you been wondering why people from other towns in the county feel the need to express their opinions about a project (Widewaters) that is currently being considered for the town of Greenport. I have been reading with interest about all the meetings that have been attended by residents of Stuyvesant, Stockport, Hudson, etc. where these persons feel the need to comment,—negatively I may add—regarding a proposal that is not even in their town. Greenport residents! Do not be part of the silent majority. Speak out to your officials about what you would like to see happen with this project. Do not let people from other entities speak for you. They talk about shopping—I don't know about you, but aside from Peebles and WalMart, there is not much quality shopping to be had in the area, except the specialty stores in Hudson. We need some middle America shopping here so hat we don't have to go to Albany or Kingston area to find these stores. How about having some of these stores here? Traffic, yes, there will be traffic, but let them find solutions to this, too. A couple of new restaurants would be nice as well. I feel that the Greenport Town Board and Planning Board were put in place for a reason: To decide what is best for Greenport and its residents. Let them do their job, whatever the outcome may be, but let Greenport decide what is best for Greenport. I am only sorry that we will not be home when this meeting takes place December 26. Angelo and Karen
Tamburro
Register Star 12/22/06 To the editor: What a wonderful meeting and discussion was held on Saturday, Dec. 16 in Greenport at the Movieplex. James Sheldon, a financial analyst, raised many questions that must be answered before the Greenport Town Planning Board can act intelligently on the proposed massive Widewaters project, the impact of which will be felt by all of us. It was refreshing to see Mr. Don Alger, chair of the GTPB present at the discussion, however, I was appalled at the lack of attendance by any of our elected officials and by very few residents of Greenport. Nevertheless, the meeting was well-attended and many important issues were raised. But, as the saying goes "if you don't care where you're going, it doesn't matter what train you're on." Mary Hallenbeck
Register Star 12/22/06 To the editor: I am a resident of Hudson, and I do a lot of business in Greenport. I drive from Hudson to Greenport via Fairview Ave to get my office supplies, groceries, DVDs in the three malls along the commercial corridor of Fairview Avenue/Route 9. My shopping habits are shared by tens of thousands of area residents who shop at the same places I do. We all drive the same shopping routes on the same streets every day I've noticed that Fairview Avenue is terribly congested at peak traffic times. During morning commutes and after school rush-hours, Fairview/Route 9 is barely able to handle the ever increasing peak volume and cars are stacked literally from one traffic light to the next. I usually take side streets. As you know Fairview Avenue's only overflow street is Joslen Boulevard. But Joslen Boulevard is not designed to handle overflow from Fairview. It's a two-lane residential street just like Harry Howard Boulevard, which it intersects at the Hudson High School. In consideration of an integrated business community of Greenport/Hudson, and because of the immense scale of the proposed Widewaters development and its potential impact to traffic patterns in both Greenport and Hudson, I urge Mr. Vosburgh and Mr. Stalker and the members of the Planning Board to consider a positive declaration on this development and fully consider all its potential short-term and long-term impacts on the Greenport/Hudson residential/business area. A positive declaration would initiate a full and thorough review of all the facts related to SEQRA, especially traffic in the Greenport/Hudson commercial corridor. Charles C. Haun
December 20, 2006 Greenport
Register Star 12/19/06
So, I went to
Greenport Town Hall and got the proposal for the project and the Traffic Impact
Study that Widewaters hired Creighton Manning Engineers of Albany to do. In
these documents I expected to find information about every intersection along
Fairview Ave: current traffic counts and what estimates for what they would be
after complex is built. There is no data
at all for any Fairview intersection south of the Wal-Mart complex. For some
reason Widewaters felt it was not necessary to know current traffic counts or
estimated future counts for the intersections of Fairview Ave. at 23B, Healy
Blvd., Joslen Blvd. (near the Eckerd), or Livingston Parkway. How can Widewaters
think this is adequate? And, how can the Greenport Planning Board go along with
them? Much more frequently, I will do what I now do only occasionally. I will exit Fairview Ave at Eckerd’s and take Joslen Blvd, to Livingston Parkway if my destination is Price Chopper and/or Staples, or all the way to the end if I ever want to visit Widewaters. I pity the people who live on Joslen. Oh yes, the report has anticipated some increase in traffic exiting Joslen at the north end. They say the number of vehicles will increase by 35 on weekday peak hours and by 46 on Saturday’s peak hours. They
need to get their head out of the sand. This is a big understatement.Many
heading to the complex will use Joslen Blvd. rather than Route 9 to avoid all
the cars and all the traffic lights along the way – at least until Joslen Blvd.
is as busy as Fairview. Then, some of us will just stop going there at all. Has Greenport done this? If not, why not. It is not too late. They haven’t yet given the permit. Before they do, they should hire a reputable firm to do a thorough and good traffic study that will measure and predict the impact all along Fairview, and out beyond to other roads and intersections that are apt to see sizeable increases in traffic — places such as Routes 66 and 9H, Route 20, etc. They need to study not only the entrances to the new complex, but every intersection leading up to the complex and every road surrounding that complex. It
is the responsibility of Greenport to see that adequate and accurate information
is available before they give this complex the green light. [Distributed at James Sheldon's talk on December 16th] Sep. 1,
2003 from
www.newrules.org Developers of a massive shopping center in Leominster, Massachusetts, claim the project will create 869 new jobs and boost the city's property tax revenue by $400,000 annually. But a study by a nationally recognized land use economist has found that the development will destroy about as many jobs as it creates and provide the city with only $51,000 in additional revenue. To put that into perspective, if the new revenue were used to cut residential property taxes, each of the city's 17,000 households would save just $3 annually. The study, "The Fiscal and Economic Impact of a Proposed Shopping Center Project on the City of Leominster," was conducted by Dr. Thomas Muller, who has authored dozens of economic and fiscal impact studies of big box retail and other types of development. The study was commissioned by Leominster First, a grassroots group fighting the proposed 510,000-square-foot shopping center. The project is to include a Wal-Mart supercenter, a Lowe's, a department store such as Kohl's, and four chain restaurants. Muller concludes that, like much of the country, Leominster already has more retail than residents can support. Several big box stores were built in the late 1990s. There are ten Wal-Marts within a 25 mile radius. The new center would dramatically worsen the situation. Its projected annual sales of $185 million are equivalent to 77 percent of the local market's current sales in building materials, groceries, and general merchandise. The new restaurants would add 1,000 seats, increasing the city's dining capacity by one-third. Since neither population nor incomes are growing, according to Muller, sales at the new shopping center would come entirely at the expense of existing businesses. Competing stores within a 5-6 mile radius would lose $104 million in revenue. Those 5-6 miles further out would lose $72 million. Only 5 percent of the center's sales would come from outside the local market. Because of the development's impact on existing businesses, the 869 jobs created by the center will be offset by about the same number of job losses. "The net long-term employment impact of the proposed center will be minimal," Muller notes. "There may be a small employment net gain or net loss, depending on specific market conditions." The development's tax benefits are also overstated. Muller concludes the developer inflates the shopping center's value. He estimates property tax revenue at $312,000, not $400,000. Moreover, because the center will reduce sales at existing businesses, property values will decline in other parts of the city, reducing tax revenue by $156,000. Add the cost of providing city services to the new development, and the city can expect a net gain of just $51,000. The study mirrors dozens of other economic impact studies in recent years, which have also concluded that big box stores destroy about as many jobs and as much tax revenue as they create. Leominster First hopes the study will persuade the Planning Board to reject the project. The citizens group has been packing public meetings and organizing expert testimony against the development. [Distributed at James Sheldon's talk on December 16th]
Sep. 1, 2003 "When . . . a large development wants to be in your town, you see the tax values surrounding that. . . I think the tendency is to think this is really going to give us a solid foundation," George Fowler, mayor of Pineville, North Carolina, told the Charlotte Observer. "But you don't realize at that particular point the impact it's going to have on the services you have to provide." Pineville is one of a growing number of towns that have added large retail stores in recent years only to find that the stores do not generate enough tax revenue to cover their impact on public services, particularly police costs. Over the last decade, Pineville has attracted six million square feet of new retail, including a major shopping mall, big box stores, chain restaurants, and gas stations. Many communities aspire to have such a large commercial tax base in order to keep residential tax rates low. But Pineville, home to 3,400 people, is struggling financially. The town takes in $2.3 million in property taxes, but spends almost all of it---$2.2 million---on its police force. The police spend most of their time dealing with crimes like shoplifting, bad checks, and credit card fraud originating at the shopping centers. Commercial property accounts for 96 percent of all police calls. Desperate to control rising costs, Pineville has put the brakes on retail growth. It recently tightened its zoning rules and turned down two retail developments, including a Wal-Mart supercenter. The town concluded the store would require hiring two new police officers at a cost of $120,000 per year, but would generate just $100,000 in taxes. Pineville hopes to attract more residential growth, but the traffic congestion and retail sprawl have made the town less attractive to families. Last year Pineville raised its residential tax rates. Other towns struggling with rising public safety costs include East Lampeter, Pennsylvania, where District Justice Ronald Savage has added two days to the monthly court calendar just to deal with crimes at Wal-Mart, which account for about one-quarter of the town's non-traffic citations, criminal misdemeanors, and felony complaints. The volume of police calls in West Sadsbury, Pennsylvania, jumped 27 percent following the opening of a Wal-Mart. In Vista, California, Sheriff's Lt. Grant Burnett says shoplifters at a new Wal-Mart have been a major contributor to the 24 percent rise in the town's crime rate. Downtown business districts do not generate the same level of crime for several reasons. They are not open 24 hours a day. Criminals passing through seem to prefer the anonymity of a Wal-Mart store along the highway to the intimacy of Bob's Hardware on Main Street. Local retailers, moreover, do not call the police for every bad check or shoplifting incident, while chain stores have a policy of prosecuting every offense.
Greenport: Financial analyst says mall deserves a hard
look My View
The Widewater project currently before our Greenport town officials needs close examination. The developer has promised the town substantial revenue from property and sales taxes, as well as 400 full time and another 400 part time jobs. Evidently that's good enough for town planners. But the stakes are high, and the project seems grossly out of proportion for the community. It will entail some undesirable consequences. Town planners seem oblivious to those consequences, and of course the developers are not going to inform them. Numbers do not adequately convey the problem of proportion. The idea of 13 acres, or 563,000 square feet in the route 9 Joslen Boulevard area is hard to grasp. But in more familiar terms, it amounts to nearly 10standard size football fields (160 by 360 feet, including end zones), or more than 75 standard size city property lots in Hudson (50 by 150 feet). It will be nearly three times the size of the Walmart Super Center soon to open in Catskill, and nearly five times the size of the Lowe's soon to open there. The developers are unable or unwilling to say what businesses will occupy the new MegaMall, which ought to alert town planners that the promised revenue and new jobs might just be wishful thinking. A balanced approach is needed. The simplest and most obvious thing to do is to list the positives and the negatives and see which prevails. But where will we learn about the negatives? Not from the developers, that's for sure, and sadly not from the Greenport Planning Board either, who seem to be operating from a script provided them by Widewater, giving the impression of being advocates for the developer rather than for the public interest. Taxes: Widewater promises increased tax revenue for the town, and we clearly need it. Property taxes in Greenport are already the highest in the county, and we have a major sewer system upgrade to undertake soon. But as Widewater generates revenue from sales taxes, will existing sales tax revenues suffer? Will people simply spend money at the MegaMall instead of spending it in other local stores? If so, the revenue from Widewater is an illusion. Someone needs to ask, and answer, this important question. Jobs. It's good to have lots of new jobs, no question about that. But without knowing who will occupy the MegaMall, how can the job total possibly be known? If the anticipated business activity is simply a shift away from other local businesses, what about the loss of jobs that will result? The arithmetic should be: new jobs created minus old jobs destroyed equals "net job gain." Is anyone asking this question? Traffic. Widewater's own consultant estimates an additional 1200 trips per hour can be expected at peak traffic times, and assure our town planners that such an increase can easily be handled. They also report that peak traffic is presently 750 trips per hour. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see through this one. Peak traffic flow is presently excessive for the route 9 Fairview Avenue corridor, and Joslen Boulevard is not much better at peak hours. Will a 1200 trip increase beyond the 750 really be trivial? That's an increase from one trip every 4.8 seconds to one every 1.84 seconds. Come on! When I asked a local developer about this, he replied that route 9 and Fairview Avenue need to be widened anyway. There is a strong fraternity of developers, evidently. Those who propose to widen rout 9 probably do not include Green Street, Park Place, upper Warren Street, or Worth Avenue, all of which are part of route 9. The strongest argument my developer friend made on behalf of Widewater was that Friends Of Hudson is against it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Support services. With such a MegaMall in our midst, demand for police, fire, and safety services will dramatically increase. Widewater says the associated costs to the town will be offset by the anticipated revenue. But where are the numbers to back this claim? How can there be numbers at all, when we cannot even be told what businesses will be housed in the complex? Infrastructure. Widewater anticipates a 12% increased load on Greenport water and sewer services. Those services are already overburdened and in desperate need of repair. Again, our planners seem comfortable with the hope that with all that new revenue, upgrading and expanding the water infrastructure will not be a problem. Shouldn't the planners insist on data from independent sources on this vital question rather than relying on Widewater's estimates? Without knowing the nature of the businesses proposed for the new complex, it is not possible to identify who will want to patronize it. To the extent that the patrons will be local folks, i.e. county residents, the money they spend there will be money not spent elsewhere in the county. Little or no net gain, but lots of gain for Widewater, and lots of loss for everyone else. If the patrons come from outside the area, the resulting influx of money will help ease the impact on existing businesses, some of whom may even benefit from the spinoff. But again, we are not privy to the mix of proposed new businesses, so it's anyone's guess who will patronize it. If the MegaMall hopes to attract patrons from outside our community, they will have to offer opportunities that compete with those patrons' home communities, not merely with ours. It is not likely that big spenders will come from New York or Albany to shop at a Target's or a Lowe's, or to dine at an Olive Gardens or an Appleby's. I cannot avoid the conclusion that our town planners are being sold a bill of goods, and that no one is asking and answering the tough questions that such an important proposal implies. Our planners need to realize that there is no magic bullet, no free lunch, and Widewater is not necessarily doing Greenport and Columbia County a favor by locating such a massive shopping center here. Like any business, they are hoping to do themselves a favor. We need to ensure that it is not at our expense.
Register Star 12/16/06 To the editor: The Greenport
Planning Board was certainly not expecting the turnout they received Tuesday
night from those looking for more information about the Widewaters development
slated to break ground on Rte 9 in Spring 2007.
Independent 12/15/06 HUDSON-The reception ranged from wary to hostile Wednesday as people from around the county weighed in on the Widewaters shopping plaza proposed for 128 acres at the north end of Fairview Avenue/Route 9 in Greenport. The occasion was an information meeting of the County Planning Board, which received the site plan application from the Greenport Planning Board for its review and recommendations. After hearing a presentation by Widewaters representatives and asking their own questions, the county planners allowed time for questions from the public, giving people their first chance to share their views on the project. Greenport officials have required members of the public to follow the rules and wait to express themselves. The town Planning Board has said public comment will be received at a public hearing Tuesday, December 26, and Supervisor John Rutkey has said repeatedly that the Town Board is not the appropriate forum for discussion of the project while it is before the Planning Board. Many in the audience expressed concern over the 550,000-square foot plaza's impact on traffic on Route 9. They said the developer's traffic study is inadequate because it covers only the stretch between the Wal-Mart center to the south and the Atlantic Avenue intersection to the north. Several people pointed out that anyone coming to Widewaters from the east, south or west will have to come up Route 9 through Hudson or enter Route 9 at the Healy Boulevard intersection, causing congestion, they predicted. "I think it's unconscionable," said Greenport resident Elizabeth Nyland. "Warren Street is already jampacked," said antiques dealer Jennifer Arenskjold. Another downtown businessperson, Lori Selden of Mexican Radio, was concerned about workers being drawn away from established businesses to staff shops in the new plaza. Ms. Nyland said when she visited the Widewaters website she found the firm has "nothing else this large-your largest plaza is 220,000 square feet." And when she looked at what's in those other plazas, she said, she found businesses that are already in place in Greenport. "They're going after our local businesses," she charged. "They're gonna move them up there." A woman from Hudson bemoaned the proposal's lack of "human scale," and urged developers to push the property line back 10 feet from Route 9 to allow room for sidewalks. Calling Greenport a "rural town," Gallatin resident James Sheldon predicted substantial additional costs for fire and police protection if the plaza is built. He questioned Water and Sewer Superintendent John Mokszycki's past statements that the town has sufficient capacity to provide those services to the plaza, noting that the town is under a consent order from the state to upgrade its sewer plant and plans a $7 million bond issue to do so. County Planning Board Chairman Tim Stalker reminded the audience several times that his board does not approve or disapprove projects, but only reviews them and makes recommendations to local planning boards.
12/14/06 My hope is that
we can all come together to come up with what works for us. I hope there are
many opinions, and that those of local business owners and residents will be
seriously considered by the developer and the Greenport Planning Board. Nina Sklansky
Columbia County: Residents, officials find Widewaters traffic plan inadequate
Register Star 12/13/06 To the editor: The Widewater proposal for Route 9 in Greenport represents the largest single commercial enterprise in the history of Columbia County. Why has so little information been provided to the public? Residents who raise unanswered questions are not necessarily opposed to the project. However, the obvious questions about the impact on the environment, the economy, and the infrastructure have not been answered in the media. Also, questions at public meetings are discouraged by both the Greenport Town Board and the Planning Committee. Citizens are referred to the public hearing scheduled for December 26. However, my understanding is that public comment can be offered, but questions will not be addressed. Guy Spath
My View For the past few months I have followed discussions about the proposed Widewaters shopping center/mall in Greenport, waiting to learn about tenants before deciding if it seems a good or a bad idea. But, Widewaters has still not named a single tenant. Even so, Greenport officials seem ready to approve this project as is. How they can be in favor of such a big unknown is something I can’t comprehend, because until they know who is coming here, they can‘t accurately estimate impact on the town, its current retail businesses or its taxpayers – all of which should be considered when deciding whether to approve this or any project. The officials have told us that the benefit of this center will be in keeping sales tax now going out of the area. They must be assuming that the center will bring us new merchants who will generate more local shopping because they will offer more and better merchandise than is currently available. Because Widewaters has not been forthcoming on likely merchants, I decided to see if I could learn why and where residents shop out of the area. Knowing this could help us know what merchants would be beneficial and actually likely to do what the Town has said it will do – keep local shoppers’ buying here, bring more shoppers into the area, all to increase sales tax revenue. So, on Friday I emailed two simple questions to people I know in the area, some of whom sent it along to people they know in the county. The questions were: 1) what merchandise can’t they find here and 2) where do they go to shop for that merchandise? 43 county residents responded. Clearly this is not a scientific survey so the findings are discussed in generalities. What do they go elsewhere to buy? Clothes! Over 60% said they go out of the area to buy clothing. About a third go for books and shoes, while home furnishings/decor items, computer supplies (specifically Apple/Mac), bed and bath linens, and fabric, were all mentioned by around 20%. Other types of merchandise mentioned by 10% or so include: kitchen/cookware items, home improvement items, lingerie, electronics art and arts and crafts supplies. My question to Widewaters and Town officials is: Will Widewaters concentrate on providing a wide variety of style, quality and prices in these categories of merchandise? If not, don’t count on keeping local shoppers or bringing new shoppers to the area. Where do they shop? They shop in many different stores. But, one pattern stood out: they like to shop in small stores offering quality name brand merchandise at good prices. Many like to stay local and mention shopping in Hudson. But, many also go to outlet centers – mostly Lee’s Prime Outlets (mentioned by one third). In addition to having many brand stores and good pricing, Lee also offers the advantage of no sales tax. Other towns in the area also draw a lot of county residents to their “main street” shops – Great Barrington in particular. Target was the large multi-use store mentioned most often (by about one third). Several volunteered they had heard Target was coming and/or they would change their shopping patterns and come to Greenport. Other price oriented stores mentioned to lesser degrees include Marshall’s, TJMaxx, Cohoes, and Best Buy (mostly for electronics). K-Mart and Kohl’s are not shopped by these people. The Gap is the most popular specialty clothing store, followed by J. Crew, and Old Navy. The most popular book store was Barnes & Noble, followed by Borders. These stores are favored because they have a large selection, which means books don’t have to be ordered, and they have discount pricing. About one-quarter mentioned going out of the area to Home Depot. Fewer mentioned Lowes, maybe because Home Depot is just across the bridge and Lowes is still a further drive. Joanne’s Fabrics is the most favored fabric store, a store that has already tried Greenport unsuccessfully. Macy’s was the only department store mentioned by more than a single person, primarily for its good sales. Still, only about one-quarter mentioned going to Macy’s. Also, I was expecting to see some frequent mention of going to a larger super Wal-Mart and/or the full service Sears as in Colonie Center. That did not occur. Will the new shopping center do what the Greenport officials think it will do? That depends on what stores it will bring us. If it is has Target and a good mix of the other popular smaller stores, maybe it will generate more shopping in Greenport and increase sales tax revenue at least somewhat. However, because the list of stores the people shop in is so large, it would be impossible to hope for keeping all or maybe even most of the purchases local. And, no matter what stores are brought in, it will be hard to bring to it people who live in the northern, eastern and southern sections of the county. They are equal distance to similar malls in Albany, Kingston and MA, and can shop in those locations more easily than coming to Greenport, a shopping area many said they dislike. Planning for the Widewaters shopping center/mall should concentrate on filling the needs of the people in the immediate area not the population of the entire county. But if this mall is just more of the what is here already, it will be much less successful and probably not increase sales tax revenues significantly. Many of the respondents, local and from the outer areas of the county, volunteered that they dislike malls and big box stores, Wal-Mart in particular, and will do anything they can to avoid them. I hope Widewaters is not planning for a bigger Wal-Mart and bigger versions of other stores already here. And I hope our Town officials will start demanding Widewaters disclose what tenants they are going after and will not approve a project that is just going to be more of the same.
December 8, 2006 I am not sure if I support the Widewaters Mall but if this project is going to come to fruition I hope that the powers that be; on both the County and Local Planning Boards, make sure that the buildings live up to 21st Century Ideals. What I specifically mean are the Ideals of Sustainability, Responsibility and Clean and Green Energy Efficiency. We cannot live today like it is 1974; we need to reduce our energy consumption, clean it up and Green-it-up, reduce our carbon footprint and give serious consideration of the total and real costs of development. I believe these ideals should be required for all significant commercial development in Columbia County in the future, not just this project. The developers’ Environmental Assessment Report states that 60 acres of trees and brush will be cleared; what will be done to replace these green air cleaners? 48% of all greenhouse gases come from buildings, (27% from transportation) with the largest portion of harmful greenhouse gases being carbon dioxide - something that those trees and brush used to consume and convert to oxygen. This is a cost to all of us, it means we have still more and dirtier air to breathe, more damage to our children's lungs, more kids growing up with asthma and increased healthcare costs for all of us. This is just one of the real and unnoticed costs of development. They also state that they expect to generate 864,000 lbs of solid waste per year not including that which they expect to be recycled. And the Mall will consume 45,000 gallons of water per day or 16.4 million gallons per year, and some percentage of this becomes sewage created that will have to be treated and cleaned. Where the Assessment Report asks if there will be an increase in energy use at the site and the developer answers: “Insignificant increase in Electric, Gas and Water”. They are not required to estimate the amount of electricity but I think 45,000 gallons of water per day is significant. Then consider they will have lights needed to “daylight” 565,000 square feet of indoor retail space, and at night they will light up approximately 62 acres of combined buildings, and including roadway and parking lot. How can all this be insignificant? Unfortunately they are not required to disclose how many thousands of gallons of chemicals will be used to clean floors, displays and windows. We get to absorb these chemicals into our lungs, our skin, leaching into the land and aquifers, although most will (hopefully?) go into the water treatment system and yet some amount will inevitably end up down stream and in the Hudson River. I do not know how to quantify these hidden costs but they are very real costs to all Columbia County and Hudson River Valley residents. What if the developer made a commitment to “Green-up” his chemical usage? This would reduce this hidden cost of chemical vapor damage, leaching and disposal and not insignificantly, not consuming harsh chemicals also reduces the waste and toxic by-products made during the creation of those chemicals. There are several other steps that can be taken to make the environmental impact of this Mall minimal and maybe even positive. I would suggest (were it in my power I would require) that the new Mall be a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) “Platinum Certified” Building, and that an extra effort be made to make sure that neighbors are given a real say in the design and layout especially where noise and light pollution mitigation issues are present. I would require the developer to incorporate state of the art solar heating and solar electricity generation to offset at least 50% of carbon generating electricity it would consume. And to go further in this respect; if they are going to remove 60 acres of greenery how about incorporating a living roof – a roof system that incorporates groundcovers and other plantings so that the sunlight is not reflected back into the atmosphere increasing global warming and carbon dioxide is absorbed and converted to oxygen right there on the roof next to the solar panels. This has economic benefits to the building by being insulating and especially cooling in the summer months and it is good for the community and the planet – it is good Stewardship. Again if it were in my power I would also require the developer and all future owners to make contingency plans and funds available (maybe through the purchase of a bond) to plan for "End of Life" of the Mall whether that is 10 yrs or 50 years. I do not care for platitudes about the size of the investment; the size of deconstruction needs adequate consideration. There are plenty of eyesores scattered around the Hudson Valley; examples of Malls that never made it. Now they are little more than abandoned buildings falling down around their ears. We don't need more of that in Columbia County, we have enough buildings falling down and looking bad. One need not look far down Fairview Ave to see several examples. In other words the Mall needs to be a "good" neighbor and because it is going to pave-over 62 acres of land and make many thousands of dollars in profit for the developer and his tenants and also be the biggest neighbor in the area the Mall needs to be a steward of the water, land and air, a community leader and a solid 21st Century citizen. I hope the developer and the Planning Boards in the area take these ideals and concepts beyond serious consideration and make them a part of our future. There are responsible corporate citizens in our community - Staples Office Supply Company is a very good corporate citizen in many respects but especially with regard to clean energy and other environmental issues. They have been part of one of the largest corporate commitments to Clean Energy ever made and are setting higher goals every year. I should add that green buildings are no longer an overly expensive proposition, according to some studies the capital costs of green buildings are very close to traditional buildings and they come with tax advantages and funding advantages that also make them very viable today. And in the long run they have huge social and environmental advantages - Build this Mall this way and I will be happy to shop there and save the gas and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide I would create on the trip to Albany or Kingston. Christopher
Farrington Resources:
Independent 12/8/06 GREENPORT—Not here, not now was Supervisor John Rutkey's quick ruling when residents sought to raise the issue of the proposed Widewaters shopping plaza at Wednesday's Town Board meeting. When Town Justice Robert Brenzel asked why the Planning Board's public hearing on the site plan for the 120-acre, 565,000-square-foot retail center couldn't be moved from the day after Christmas, Mr. Rutkey said, "That's his call," pointing to Planning Board Chairman Donald Alger. Several in the audience murmured in dissatisfaction as Mr. Alger said, "That's the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting, and that's our policy." "I've said before, Widewaters is not before this board," said Mr. Rutkey, "and we're not going to discuss it in this forum."—Chris Simonds
Independent 12/1/06 To the editor:
Independent 12/1/06 To the Editor: Last night at the Greenport Planning Board meeting, board members insisted that the Widewaters public hearing take place on December 26th, and no amount of reason could sway them from that date. In fact, we weren’t even supposed to express our dismay, but prevailed. What’s more, when asked if, short of rescheduling to after New Year's, the board would be prepared to take questions until midnight if necessary, Chairman Alger asked where everyone had been until now. I know where I was – at most of those meetings, starting in June. I didn’t quite know the rules, so occasionally I would try to ask a question. The response left me feeling like a little kid who’d been told to a/shut up and b/sit down. It was announced that the site plans would be made available. When I wanted to see them at the Town Hall, my request was met with what seemed like suspicion. I ended up at the library, and I also ended up being interviewed by Channel 10 about the plan. I mention this only because, at the next Town Board meeting -- also attended by Mr. Alger -- I asked a question about Widewaters and Mr. Alger interjected, "Didn’t I just see you on tv?" and wanted to know where I got the copy of the site plan I had shown on camera. In fact, I’d duplicated it at the library, to share with others. Now I felt like a kid who’d been caught stealing. Only I wasn’t. I was doing what I am entitled to as a citizen, and obligated to as a thinking person: speak up. To suggest, as the plan is seemingly being rushed through, that no one is interested is disingenuous at best. Information is not made available. Never has it even been announced that comments should be submitted in writing, until now when, according to Mr. Alger himself, the suggestion is that it is too late. The town website never posts anything of substance. The public seems to be regarded as a nuisance, despite the fact that the respective boards work for us, not the developers. Yes, people have been urged to attend meetings…by me, and a few others. Now they’re turning up. I say, welcome. Sincerely,
Independent 12/1/06
Independent, 11/17/06 GREENPORT-The Widewaters shopping plaza proposed for Route 9 at the north end of town took another step forward Wednesday as developers presented a revised site plan to the Planning Board. At its meeting Tuesday, November 28 the board expects to forward the plan to the County Planning Board. The next step is a public hearing. Developers of the 560,000-square-foot plaza on 120 acres east of Fairview Avenue and south of Stottville Road must also win approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for the project's effects on wetlands at the site. Officials believe the plaza is the largest commercial project ever proposed in the county. The revised site plan slightly reduces the size of one of three large retail buildings and its parking area, to minimize impact on wetlands. Affected will be "maybe four acres" of wetlands, according to Widewaters Group representative Marco Marzocchi. Widewaters has also addressed concerns about fire protection and water. Greenport Fire Department Second Assistant Chief Paul D'Onofrio said Widewaters has shown that roadways in the plaza are wide enough, and curves gentle enough, to accommodate 75-footlong emergency apparatus. And town Water and Sewer Superintendent John Mokszycki said the developer's plans include water lines connecting to the town's mains at the north and south ends of the plaza, "so they make a loop and we can always supply water in there." Widewaters' engineers, Bergmann Associates, also responded to seven single-spaced pages of questions and comments from the Planning Board's engineer, Paul McCreary of Morris Associates. Earlier Widewaters made peace with the state Department of Transportation by moving the northerly entrance to its plaza to a spot directly across Route 9 from the upper end of Joslen Boulevard. A traffic signal and turning lanes will control traffic there. The plaza will have two other entrances down Route 9. Widewaters proposes to put up the county's largest shopping center on the 120-acre site east of Route 9, with 560,000 square feet of retail space in four large, three smaller multi-store, and five single-occupant buildings along Route 9, suitable for banks, restaurants or gasoline stations. To reach reporter Chris Simonds e-mail csimonds@IndeNews.com.
The
Independent, Tuesday, November 7, 2006 To the Editor: A momentous decision is to be made in Greenport in a matter of weeks, and no one seems to care. I refer to Widewaters' plan for a 100+ acre mega-mall on Route 9 and Joslen Boulevard, where the defunct movie theater and rusted skeleton of an abandoned structure still stand. Once again, let me point out that we are talking about 565,000 sq feet of retail space. That's 12 football fields, or five and a half times the size of Widewaters' development ' in Knderhook/Valatie. The retailers' leases haven't been signed yet, you see, so no names are to be revealed, but as hinted at a recent Greenport planning board meeting, there's lots of interest from the usual suspects. You know... the big box stores: Walmart, Home Depot, Lowe's; Target, if we're "lucky." What else would go into a nearly 200,000-square-foot store, among other monstrosities planned for the site? The planning board is puzzling out matters of where traffic lights will go while the larger issue looms: Is this the fight plan for Greenport, for the surrounding towns, for the county at large? I, for one, am not categorically antidevelopment. I am, however, for thoughtful planning. I hear "tax base, tax base, tax base." What about the local stores that already exist? Surely, they are contributing something to that tax base, although perhaps not for long. What about the assertion that locals are going elsewhere to shop? If all we are getting is more of the same type of stores, I know I'll still be traveling. And if it's not, details, please before the fact, not after. What of the traffic and environmental impacts with which the board is so concerned? The developer is addressing those issues, and I suspect those issues will be "resolved" as the developer and, frankly, the planning board see fit. After all, that is how Route 9 got to be the wonder that it is, is it not? I could go on, but let me just say that I am amazed that almost no one attends Greenport planning board meetings, speaks up in print or otherwise, or becomes involved as they have been invited to, many times. The developer decides what we get; the developer has what seems like the tacit agreement of the planning board; the planning board will likely rush this through without even a full SEQRA, and so on. Meanwhile, you can't get a pair of shoes repaired. But you can get a great deal on that made-inChina wrench or T-shirt available in stores we already have. Ultimately, I don't know who's more to blame, but certainly the citizenry deserves a fair measure of it. To paraphrase the Stones, "You don't always get what you need, but if you don't try, you'll get what they want." Nina Sklansky
Independent, October 27, 2006 GREENPORT--Developers of a major shopping plaza on Route 9 just south of the Stockport line have blinked. Their revised site plan, shown to the town Planning Board Tuesday, places the main entrance to the plaza directly opposite the intersection of Route 9 and the north end of Joslen Boulevard, with a traffic signal controlling vehicle movements. The proposed new access road into the plaza includes a link to the Dawnwood senior housing facility. The road accessing the mall would have one in-bound and two out-bound lanes, one for traffic turning right up Route 9 and one for traffic going straight across to Joslen or turning left onto Route 9 south. Route 9 would have turning lanes into the project for northbound and southbound traffic. Earlier plans had the main entrance well south of the intersection, across from the Pulcher Motors bus parking area. The state Department of Transportation opposed that configuration. Planning Board Chairman Donald Alger hinted strongly at that time the original plan was introduced that the developer, Dewitt-based Widewaters Group, had best resolve issues with the DOT before seeking the board's approval. With that now done, the Planning Board set a special meeting Wednesday, November 15, at 7 p.m. at the Town Hall, at which Widewaters will submit its revised site plan and respond to questions and comments from Paul McCreary of Morris Associates, the board's engineer. After Tuesday's meeting Mr. McCreary said, "We will be looking at the environmental studies and reports that the applicant has prepared." Those include noise, visual impact. archaeological and traffic studies. "They've done everything you would for a full Environmental Impact Statement." Widewaters hopes that at its regular meeting Tuesday, November 28, the Planning Board will forward the application to the Columbia County Planning Board for its review, and set a public hearing on the application for late December or early January. Widewaters proposes to put up the county's largest shopping center on the 120-acre site east of Route 9, with 560,000 square feet of retail space in four large, three small multi-store, and five single-occupant buildings. Also at the Planning Board meeting Tuesday, Rick Cummings, owner of Mulhern Gas, announced that after 60-some years on Ten Broek Avenue, the business plans to move to a site on Industrial Tract behind the former Lorbrook factory. "The neighborhood has kind of grown up around us," Mr. Cummings said. "It's become residential."
Independent, Register Star, August 2006
My hope is that
we can all come together to come up with what works for us. I hope there are
many opinions, and that those of local business owners and residents will be
seriously considered by the developer and the Greenport Planning Board. Nina Sklansky
GOOD GROWTH ISSUES NOVEMBER 2, 2006 A MESSAGE FROM JAMES SHELDON The debate over zoning, as complex as it is controversial, seems to boil down to two fundamental and closely related questions: 1.) Do land use laws deprive individual property owners of their civic rights; 2) Does more restrictive zoning, as called for by
codes now under review in most of our towns, reduce the economic
value of the affected properties?
http://www.littletownviews.com and scroll down to the latest
"For The Record" entry. JUNE 7, 2006 - The Poughkeepsie Journal
State rewards smart towns Sprawl deemed a
drain on competitiveness NOVEMBER 22, 2005 Public speaks,
board listens November 14, 2005 Paul Bray: Past offers lessons in city planning First published: Sunday, November 13, 2005, The Times Union
European settlement of the New World started on the right foot when it came to city and town planning and design.
In 1573, more than a quarter century before Henry Hudson set foot on the shoreline where Albany is now, King Phillip II of Spain prescribed the Law of the Indies to direct the development of towns in the Spanish colonies elsewhere in the New World.
The Spanish laws guided the colonists in selection of suitable sites for towns and their layout, considering social, environmental and economic factors. They called for a central plaza that remains a defining feature of many New Mexican cities. Principal streets were to have portals. Polluting sources were to be sited downwind. Provision was to be made for orderly growth.
The original Williamsburg, Va., was laid out under a detailed planning law with the intent to create a town culture in the British colonies. Later, Pierre L'Enfant's grand plan for the capital city of Washington reflected the desire for American cities to be among the best in the world.
Regrettably, American city and town planning and design have a checkered history. As former University at Albany professor John Logan points out in the book "Urban Growth Machine," use of land has been been affected primarily by land's value as a speculative commodity. Community values like protecting the environment or even simply relating one building to another or to the street take second place in land-use decisions.
That explains why Times Union writer Steve Barnes ("Simple walk can be exercise in danger," Oct. 5) had such a hard time walking across Albany Shaker Road from his office to purchase food and why the Harriman state office campus in Albany is functionally inaccessible for public transit and retail except by car.
But city and town planning is undergoing a revival in many places. Communities like Syracuse highlight their comprehensive plan on Web sites (http://www.syracusecomprehensiveplan. com). Syracuse's mayor is quoted on the city's Web site as saying that the plan "will knit together" neighborhood and downtown plans and "build consensus on a future vision" to guide policy-making and inform the public and investors.
Locally, Colonie, Guilderland, Bethlehem and Clifton Park have recently done comprehensive plans as they seek to protect farmland and other open space, meet the needs of a changing population -- including people without cars -- and give retail areas more character.
Comprehensive planning starts the discourse within a community and often identifies lofty goals. The rubber meets the road when it comes to implementing the plans. They may require funding for costly infrastructure improvements; prescriptive zoning restrictions that butt up against land owners' and developers' expectations; and advancement of potentially controversial actions like supporting efforts to develop affordable housing and regional arrangements.
Growing suburbs should avoid half measures, like zoning requirements that call for 2- or 3-acre minimum lot sizes for single-family homes or cluster zoning where houses in a subdivision are grouped in smaller lots to set aside acreage for open space. Neither approach creates large enough areas of land for farming or realizing the scenic or ecological values of preserving open space. In addition, they don't offer the mixed uses or density required for a vibrant pedestrian environment.
Hopefully this burst of planning activity will pick up on the desire for well-planned communities from our Colonial heritage and stay the course to fully realize the community building goals that have found their way into plans like the Colonie Comprehensive Plan (http:// www.colonie.org/pedd/compplan).
Paul M. Bray is president of the Albany Roundtable civic lunch forum. His e-mail address is secsunday@aol.com. June 14, 2005
Anti-sprawl bill good for
state
SUPPORT KNGG TODAY! Send A contribution to KNGG, PO Box 424, Kinderhook NY 12106 Your contribution is TAX DEDUCTIBLE as allowed by law.
June 22, 2005 Some of their questions were addressed in a packed meeting room at the Ghent Town Hall Sunday when investment guru James Sheldon and New York Times editorial board member Verlyn Klinkenborg regaled them with a feast of information and opinions on both financial and psychological impacts of development. The forum was hosted by Claverack and Ghent Democratic committees. Sheldon stuck to what he knew—namely finances. “I’m going to focus on the pocketbook,” Sheldon told the group. “What will it (development) mean to your taxes as landowners and renters?” To Sheldon, proper and careful planning is key to successful developments and avoiding damage to areas where it is being undertaken. “Without thoughtful planning,” he said, “you are being deprived of your property rights.” He also sought to debunk some common misconceptions about development that perhaps some in the development business want people to remain unaware of. Sheldon argued against the notion of needing new growth, like new housing developments, to increase the tax base and thus lower taxes. It doesn’t work like that, he told the audience. “The more growth they bring to an area, places like this, the more your taxes are going to go up.” Using the impact on school taxes a proposed 1,300-home development in Pine Plains could have as an example, Sheldon explained how taxes could go up. “The Pine Plains school district has 1,200 homes in the town and about 5,000 in the district,” he explained. “The Planning Board is reviewing a proposed new 1,300 houses. That adds 20 to 30 percent to the district. The cost of educating a student is $15,000 to $16,000 a year.” Using this figure he calculated, after state aid, that local taxpayers would be responsible for $9,000 to $10,000 of that cost. “When new homes come in, and it depends on the kind of homes, if you look at towns south of Pine Plains, each new home brought in 1.3 or 1.4 new students.” He calculated the cost to local taxpayers for each new home to be about $12,000 to $13,000 just in school taxes. Of course, the new homes would pay a portion of that, what he figured to be about $5,000. But according to Sheldon, the financial implications don’t end there. “If you have so many students coming into the district, you have to build new schools,” he said. Other cost incurred could arise from needing increased firefighting capacity, emergency medical services and highway maintenance. According to Sheldon, the homes in Pine Plains could lead to an increase in school taxes of approximately 75 percent, should they be built. On the other hand, like one woman in the audience pointed out, there is always the chance that the housing developments would draw mostly second-home buyers or retirees, thus not adding to school enrollment. But as Sheldon acknowledged—you never know. “You could easily see your taxes double, on top of inflation, if you get that kind of development,” he said, referring to the Pine Plains proposal. “This is something that developers will not talk about, and it is starting to ring bells in people’s heads.” Sheldon went on to explain the importance of leaving land undeveloped. “Open space is cheap,” he said simply. “I’m not saying put a block on all development, you can’t do that, but keep as much open space as you can.” But he also acknowledged that purchasing this land to preserve it is not cheap. Some towns, he explained, purchase it through bonds, but to do this need to raise taxes. “Some states and counties have a transfer tax on homes sold,” he also said. “In the state Legislature now, there is a bill that would allow towns to levy up to 2 percent of the value of a sale as long as that money will be used to buy or preserve open space.” Klinkenborg’s perspective on the issue of development was not based on economics. Instead, he spoke to the psychological impacts the loss of open spaces can have on members of a community. “I often get accused of trying to bring back the past or that I’m being nostalgic,” he said. “But I try to get people to think about their impression of the future. People tend to assume in places like Ghent, Claverack and Austerlitz, that it is a vacuum that needs to be filled.” Klinkenborg, whose family is well versed in old farming traditions, knows the value of land better than some. “What is so hard to keep alive is not just the financial value, but the psychological value of open land,” he said. “James Madison said humans have no right to appropriate for themselves all the resources of the land around them.” Yet, he said, people are of the mind that they do have that right. Klinkenborg added that many people feel there is no way they can control the change cropping up around them. “America’s reaction to its own past is dismissal,” he said. “I saw so many people over the last six months who felt they have lost any ability to take control of the future.” Sheldon spoke briefly about why Columbia County currently faces this situation.. “The reason we’re in this pickle today is because everyone wants to live here,” he said. “The people who suffer the most are the people who can’t afford to keep up with the rising costs.” KNGG NOTE: Not mentioned in this article is the important issue as to whether or not Columbia County Supervisors and the Columbia County Planning Board could be educated to buy in to this formula and how this could be accomplished. JUNE 16, 2005
Communities unite on new development
MAY 26, 2005 After a bruising, six-year, $60 million effort to push the proposal over 17 regulatory hurdles, the St. Lawrence Cement Company has said that it will abandon its plans. New York Secretary of State Randy Daniels ruled in April that the project, once assumed to be a done deal, failed to comply with federal and state policies aimed at protecting the coastline of the Hudson River. Both the outcome of this battle and the techniques employed by opponents of the project should give heart and guidance to others fighting to protect the character and fabric of their own communities throughout the land. The victory builds on years of fierce activism in a region credited with launching the modern environmental movement. In 1963, a band of citizens faced down Con Edison and gained legal standing to prevent the construction of a power plant on the famed Storm King Mountain in the Hudson Highlands. The resulting "Scenic Hudson Decision" is considered the cornerstone of a powerful body of environmental laws that gives the public a voice in government decisions affecting the environment. Opposition began with just 40 local residents, who challenged the claims of the company and eventually built a 4,000-member organization called Friends of Hudson. They were joined in their battle by the regional environmental and smart growth champion Scenic Hudson, which mustered a coalition of 20 other national, regional and local organizations in New York and New England. Another potent force was added to the opposition with the involvement of The Olana Partnership, the private champion of Hudson River School painter Frederic Church's spectacular home and studio. Olana is one of the state's top attractions in an economically robust and growing heritage tourism industry. The proposed cement complex would have marred the landscapes made famous by Church. These groups overcame their differences in mission and style to forge powerful legal arguments for the defeat of this blighting and health-threatening industrial project. They also employed cutting-edge organizing and communication techniques to rally thousands of citizens against the plant. Their final and most effective trump card was a compelling alternative economic vision for the region. Rather than merely articulating a negative case against the cement plant, they documented the strengths of an emerging post-industrial economy that is yielding growing prosperity in Hudson and the surrounding valley. Pointing to the revitalization of Hudson's main street, smaller-scale manufacturing, specialty contracting, and the real estate market, they put forth a positive vision of community and waterfront development. It was enough to ensure that the Hudson River would re-emerge as a public and natural resource for all to enjoy, once the cement plant was defeated. The administration of Gov. George Pataki incorporated these arguments into a precedent-setting ruling that could be considered a 21st century version of Storm King because of its clear vision for the future of a region and the landscape that defined America. The case is already sending ripples beyond the region, promising that a new wave of conservation -- based on a sustainable economic vision -- will emerge from the birthplace of the modern environmental movement. Ned Sullivan is president of Scenic Hudson. Sam Pratt is executive director of Friends of Hudson. Sara Griffen is president of The Olana Partnership. *Sam Pratt and Sara Griffen are members of the KNGG Advisory Board April 1, 2005 In the following Register-Star article, we found some clarifications that are needed. Register-Star Friday April 1, 2005 Planning Board reviews legal 'wish list' with Town Board
By Joe Prout KINDERHOOK -- The town Planning Board reviewed a number of concerns they have about the town code with members of the Town Board. The following is a quick look at the issues discussed: Conservation Subdivision Law The Planning Board wants to require any parcel with 12 acres or more to use conservation subdivision requirements when a landowner proposes dividing the land. Doing so would require at least half the parcel be preserved as open space. One house could be built on the preserved area and the remaining acreage can benefit from being divided into smaller-than-normal lot sizes. The Town Board will have to determine how it wants to treat undevelopable land for areas like ponds or ravines where houses can't easily be built. Allowing undevelopable land in the calculation potentially reduces the amount of preserved open flat space. Some version of this law will likely pass. The Planning Board members suggest that developers have been willing to use the regulations because they cluster buildings and require fewer roads to be built, which reduce costs. Often the same number of houses can be built, thanks to the smaller lot size allowance. The Town Board supported multiple requests from conservation agencies to assist with farms selling their development rights, which makes the land forever dedicated to agriculture. As it exists now, the current conservation sub division law requires the preserved land be forever wild or to have an existing agricultural use continued. Unless there’s tremendous uproar from owners of large parcels, this proposal will likely pass. Lighting The Planning Board wants (commercial) property owners to only use down-style lighting. Such lights shine directly downward, and the source of the light cannot be seen except when directly beneath the fixture. The board encountered two problems it wants the Town Board to address. Over time, landowners have added lights to their properties without amending their site plans with the Planning Board. The new lights did not match the desired style. Also, approved businesses proposed before the new town code was adopted won’t be regulated unless they come before the Planning Board with Plans for renovations. The Planning Board wants the town to have the ability to force an upgrade. The Planning Board is against light intrusion onto neighboring parcels. The members feel that lights with visible bulbs draw attention and can shine into the eyes of motorists when the fixtures are too close to the road. The Village of Kinderhook is dealing with the same issue. The Town Board is considering this proposal, and may draft language that allows for a compliance period before it forces fixture replacement. The only immediate drawback discussed was the associated replacement costs to the owners of the lights in question. It was pointed out by some Planning Board members that in many cases it would mean just turning the fixture or replacing bulbs to a lower wattage. Town Houses The Planning Board wants the Town Board to change the town code so that town houses are specifically considered multi-family dwellings. Currently, they are considered attached single-family units. Multi-family dwellings have different regulations including limitations on where they can be located in town. The Town Board wanted more information about the issue before it would say what it was looking to propose. Certificates of Occupancy The Planning Board is looking for a way to have the town Building Department issue temporary certificates of occupancy. This provides a tool that allows businesses (the tenant) to start operation while the owners (of the property) address outstanding construction issues the Planning Board wants finished. If the outstanding issue wasn't finished by the end of the temporary period, the business would lose its certificate and be forced to close. The Town Board would review a draft proposal at an up coming regular meeting. Roof pitch Town Board member Mary Kramarchyk wants to know whether a project like the Widewaters Shopping Center could have been built using the architectural guidelines in the town code. If not, Kramarchyk wants the guidelines redone. The Widewaters project, located at the intersection of Routes 9 and 9H, requested a variance from the code so the largest building could have a flat roof. The company argued that, due to its proposed building configuration, there was no way to construct a structure that would be allowable by the town code. The developer argued that matching required roof designs in the code would violate the maximum height requirement for buildings. The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals would eventually approve the flat roof proposal. (Refer to Article 78 on the KNGG web site www.KNGG.org ) Kramarchyk said she didn’t want this issue to come up again if another developer (such as Widewaters) proposes a big building. Planning Board Member Don Gaylord pointed out that the town’s Comprehensive Plan calls for architecture to match pre-existing (c. 1940), and there are other historic buildings in town with flat roofs (of that period.) However other Planning Board members pointed out that examples of buildings with pitched roofs and gabled roofs outnumbered the flat roofs. The Town Board may reduce the maximum square footage allowable (for commercial) structures, which could make the existing architectural (roof design) standards work. The current 80,000 square-foot max was designed (instituted) to allow for another grocery store to be built in town, to provide competition with an existing grocer. Since there would two grocery stores, the need for competition is reduced. It’s not clear yet how the Town Board will address this matter, but the members discussed changing a portion of the Comprehensive Plan and Town Code Actions. FOR CLARIFICATION & ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE “CURRENT ISSUES” on this KNGG web site - click on “Town Code Changes.” February 26, 2005 Times Union, Albany, New York Developer sees retail plaza near Wal-Mart Ballston weighs building moratorium By ALAN WECHSLER, Business writer
Wechsler can be reached at 454-5469 or by e-mail at Staff writer Christen Deming contributed to this story.
February 18, 2005 In early 2004, The KNGG recommendation for a moratorium was
thoroughly researched by Board Member Meg Moran who presented it to the Town
Board. Ms Moran, an attorney, served on the Comprehensive Plan Committee and
the Town Planning Board. "Supervisor McGivney and others have observed that professional guidance regarding traffic considerations would have been helpful at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the related zoning amendments." A quick look at the numbers illustrates the inevitable short-term failure of the proposed roundabout, which DOT has recommended to mitigate the traffic problems for the Widewaters project which would include a Hannaford supermarket and other stores. But the 30-year lifetime for the roundabout projected by DOT’s Howard McCulloch is based on a 2% growth factor. That number is nowhere near reality. The effect of an error in the growth rate can be significant because we are talking about compounded growth. Based on figures presented to the Planning Board with the Dunkin’ Donuts application, in all probability, US9 will fail in approximately five years and NY 9H will fail in approximately 10 years and not in 30 years as McCulloch claims having used the DOT’s 2% growth factor. KNGG president Allen Schaefer stated, "Ms. Moran’s comments make a very strong case for the Town’s need to step back and look at how future development complements our Comprehensive Plan. If a corridor study is implemented today without a moratorium, the study will be based on today and will not include new projects yet to be built. The study would be inaccurate. We must put a halt to commercial development until the study is finished. Once the study is finished and the Town determines how to move on it, development could continue under the new plan." Schaefer concluded, "We have given the Town Board more than sufficient facts needed for this moratorium to work well for Kinderhook. Now is the time for the Town Board to act, before we begin to look like Greenport." In January of 2005, the Town Board reorganized the Corridor Study Committee. Once again it was not funded. Once more KNGG requests a moratorium on commercial development until the study is complete and the Town has time to put into effect.
ZBA considers proposed 48-home development
February 8, 2005 Town officials said the measure was needed to ensure adequate review of the economic and community impacts of large-scale retail development, protect the viability of Bennington's existing commercial areas, and maintain competition by preventing a single retailer from dominating the local market. The Select Board began discussing a big-box ordinance last summer when Wal-Mart expressed interest in building a 150,000-square-foot supercenter in this town of 9,200 people in the southwest corner of the state. Bennington already has a 50,000 square foot Wal-Mart, which would have been vacated had the supercenter, slated for a site about a mile away, been approved. (A football field is roughly 50,000 square feet. The entire GU Plaza inclusive of all stores is 47,000 Sq. Ft. The Kinderhook Town Code allows up to 80,000 sq. ft. WHY?) Citizens turned out in large numbers to voice opposition to the Wal-Mart proposal at a public hearing and at a community forum sponsored by the Bennington County Regional Commission and the Vermont Smart Growth Collaborative. Soon afterwards, the Select Board enacted a temporary moratorium on construction of big-box stores, effectively blocking Wal-Mart's plans, and began working on a big-box ordinance. The new ordinance limits stores to no more than 75,000
square feet in one commercial district and 50,000 square feet in the rest of
the town. The review will weigh the number of jobs created by the
store versus jobs lost at existing businesses, the store's impact on the
cost of public services, and any tax revenue losses resulting from a decline
in the economic viability of the downtown or other established commercial
areas. Under the ordinance, city officials may approve stores only
if the review determines that they will not have an undue adverse impact on
local wages, housing costs, or the ability of the city to provide services.
Home Town Advantage Jan. 27, 2005 Bennington, Vermont, Adopts Big-Box Ordinance In late January, the Select Board in Bennington, Vermont, voted unanimously to ban stores over 75,000 square feet and to require retail development projects larger than 30,000 square feet to pass a community impact review. Town officials said the measure was needed to ensure adequate review of the economic and community impacts of large-scale retail development, protect the viability of Bennington's existing commercial areas, and maintain competition by preventing a single retailer from dominating the local market. The Select Board began discussing a big-box ordinance last summer when Wal-Mart expressed interest in building a 150,000-square-foot supercenter in this town of 9,200 people in the southwest corner of the state. Bennington already has a 50,000 square foot Wal-Mart, which would have been vacated had the supercenter, slated for a site about a mile away, been approved. (A football field is roughly 50,000 square feet. For a visual illustration of various store sizes see How Big is Too Big?) Citizens turned out in large numbers to voice opposition to the Wal-Mart proposal at a public hearing and at a community forum sponsored by the Bennington County Regional Commission and the Vermont Smart Growth Collaborative. Soon afterwards, the Select Board enacted a temporary moratorium on construction of big-box stores, effectively blocking Wal-Mart's plans, and began working on a big-box ordinance. The new ordinance limits stores to no more than 75,000 square feet in one commercial district and 50,000 square feet in the rest of the town. Proposals for stores over 30,000 square feet must submit to a community impact review conducted by an independent consultant chosen by the city. The cost of the review is to be paid by the developer. NOTE: Kinderhook Town Code allows up to 80,000 sq. ft. The review will weigh the number of jobs created by the store versus jobs lost at existing businesses, the store's impact on the cost of public services, and any tax revenue losses resulting from a decline in the economic viability of the downtown or other established commercial areas. The analysis will also estimate how much revenue generated by the project will be retained and re-directed back into the local economy. Locally owned stores are likely to fare better on this measure than national chains, because they generally devote a larger percentage of their revenue to local wages and buy more goods and services from nearby businesses. Under the ordinance, city officials may approve stores only if the review determines that they will not have an undue adverse impact on local wages, housing costs, or the ability of the city to provide services. Reprinted with permission of New Rules Project Home Town Advantage Dec. 15, 2004 California court voids approvals for two big-box projects In a ruling that could have broad implications, a California appeals court this week nullified zoning approvals given to two big-box shopping centers by the city of Bakersfield. The court held that the environmental impact reports (EIRs) prepared for the projects were insufficient and did not adequately address the potential for urban decay and associated ecological effects that could be caused by extensive new retail development. The ruling orders the city to complete new impact studies and public hearings, and reconsider the projects. In the interim, a lower court is to determine whether both shopping centers---which include two partially constructed Wal-Mart supercenters, as well as a Lowe's, a Kohl's, and several smaller stores that are already open---should halt further construction, cease store operations, or be torn down completely. Conducting EIRs and hearings is expected to take up to one year. The lawsuit against the city and the developers was filed in March 2003 by a local citizens group, the Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control (BCLC). They won a partial victory from a lower court in February. The appeals court awarded them legal fees and court costs. The court determined that the EIRs certified as complete by the city failed to consider the projects' "potential to indirectly cause urban/suburban decay by precipitating a downward spiral of store closures and long-term vacancies in existing shopping centers." The developers asserted that economic and social impacts are outside of the scope of an environmental review as mandated by California state law. But ample case law by state courts has concluded that the potential for a project to cause deterioration of a community's downtown or other existing shopping districts is an indirect environmental impact that must be analyzed. In its effort to block the two projects, BCLC commissioned an analysis by San Francisco State University economist C. Daniel Vencill. He found that four existing shopping centers and malls would be adversely impacted by the new big-box developments. This could lead to store closures, persistent vacancies, and blight. The appeals court further ruled that the reviews had not weighed the cumulative impacts of both projects. Each project was analyzed in isolation without reference to the other. The EIRs, the court wrote, "are defective because they did not treat the other shopping center as a relevant project or consider the combined environmental impacts of the two shopping centers." The court concluded that the inadequacy of the EIRs "cannot be dismissed as harmless or insignificant defects. As a result of these omissions, meaningful assessment of the true scope of numerous potentially serious adverse environmental effects was thwarted. . . These deficiencies precluded informed public participation and decision making." Once new EIRs have been completed, the city may choose not to re-approve the projects, in which case they will be torn down. It may also opt to impose mitigation measures, including requirements that some completed portions of the projects be altered or removed. The ruling will likely affect a similar case involving a Wal-Mart supercenter in the town of Lodi. The citizens group there, Lodi First, contends the city also accepted an incomplete EIR. They are represented by the same firm, Herum Crabtree Brown, that argued the Bakersfield case. Reprinted with permission of New Rules Project
Home Town Advantage Dec. 23, 2004 Homer, Alaska, Restricts Large Retail Stores After two years of consideration---including a review by a city council-appointed task force, numerous public hearings, and a voter referendum---the town of Homer, Alaska, has adopted an ordinance that limits stores to no more than 45,000 square feet and requires retail development projects larger than 15,000 square feet to undergo a community impact review. Homer has a population of about 5,000 and is located on the Kenai Peninsula. Under the size restrictions, no building housing primarily retail uses may have a footprint in excess of 66,000 square feet. This allows for larger buildings provided they are multi-story. Furthermore, individual stores within these buildings are capped at between 25,000 and 45,000 square feet, depending on the area of town in which they are located. Retail development projects larger than 15,000 square feet must undergo a community impact review and obtain a conditional use permit. "Large retail and wholesale development can result in substantial impacts to the community, such as, but not limited to, noise, traffic, community character, environment, and the local economy," the ordinance notes. "The purpose of this section is to address these impacts and provide for detailed review of such uses." In addition to traffic, site design, and architectural requirements, the impact review considers the proposed store's impact on employment and wages; the cost of municipal services; and the health of the downtown. It also weighs any change in the volume of "locally retained profits" resulting from the development and its impact on existing businesses. The cost of all independent studies and investigations required to complete the review are to be paid by the developer. The new rules were originally prompted by the supermarket chain Kroger's interest in building a 94,000-square-foot Fred Meyer superstore in Homer. Concerned that a store of that size could drive all competing grocery stores out of business, harming the local economy and leading to higher consumer prices, the city council enacted a temporary moratorium on large-scale retail stores in 2003. Kroger has now proposed a 45,000-square-foot Fred Meyer store, which would be the smallest in the chain. The proposal will be the first project subject to Homer's new community impact review process. Although the size has been reduced, many believe that the proposed store is still too large for a town the size of Homer and, if approved, will absorb a dominant share of local spending. "It is going to take a sizable part of my business," said Scott Ulmer, owner of Ulmer's Drug & Hardware. "I am fighting to retain and preserve the uniqueness of the economy of this community." -- Homer's ordinance -- How big is too big? Copyright 1999-2004 - Institute for Local Self-Reliance The New Rules Project - http://www.newrules.org/ NOTE: Kinderhook Town Code allows up to 80,000 sq. ft. Reprinted with permission of New Rules Project L.A. Suburb to Vote on Wal-Mart Building By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS April 6, 2004 A KNGG NOTE: Remember "Store Wars - When Wal-Mart comes to town." REDEFINING MAIN STREET An Article for Scenic Hudson Hudson Valley downtowns face challenges and opportunities as varied as their Main Street facades. Unfortunately, many say these traditional districts will never be the same. Squeezed by malls and big-box stores, Main Streets nonetheless are resilient, economically viable and socially enriching. It is time to take a second look at these districts, as innovative programs are being adapted from all sectors. Redefining their physical appearances, municipalities are improving streetscapes with fresh design elements. Preserving historic buildings and rehabilitating storefronts is increasingly popular, helped by organizations such as Scenic Hudson and the Preservation League of New York State. The valley is filled with success stories, each representing a different approach to the revitalization challenge. LIVING TRANSFORMATION Similarly, a once forgotten end of the Village of Irvington's Main Street has been renewed by mixed-use development. An old factory in this Westchester County community now combines public- and private-sector interests via unique apartments and a ground-floor local library. BACK IN BUSINESS CREATIVE DRAW PORT ABILITY ETHNIC STUDIES Who said Main Streets couldn't survive? The Hudson Valley is proving they can. The Union Leader What is happening now in central New Hampshire is not unlike growth pressures over the past 30 years in the southern tier of the state, according to Frost. He recommends a comprehensive local master plan as a crucial tool for any town that wants a high degree of control over commercial development. The debate is not as pronounced in places like Bow, where Interstate 93 separates the town. “It’s not natural, but it’s obviously a significant buffer between the residential areas and the areas where we are actually trying to encourage business development,” said Bill Klubben, the town’s planning director. “If you look at Warner and Henniker, one major distinction between those two towns and Bow is the fact that they have a clear, distinct village,” Klubben said. “Any time you’re talking about development as an addition to that village, the sensitivity about design is going to pretty keen there.” Court involvement Sensitivity has turned into legal trouble in some conflicts. The state Superior Court has sided with municipalities twice this year. In one case, it upheld the rejection of a site plan for a Hannaford Brothers grocery store by the Lebanon planning board. In the other case of a proposed grocery store and shopping center in Concord by The Richmond Company, the high court reversed a Merrimack Superior Court ruling that said the planning board “failed to engage in good faith dialogue to assist Richmond in meeting the requirements of site plan approval.” Henniker won a major court battle against proposed Rite Aid pharmacy five years ago, but it may seem like deja vu for some residents. Cheshire Oil wants to build a T-Bird Minimart on the same lot near the Route 114 exit of Route 202/9. At a well-attended public hearing last month, one abutter stood up to quote a Merrimack Superior Court decision in the Rite Aid case that entitled planning board members “to use their own common sense and judgment” even if it was contrary to expert opinions. “If there is intense opposition or favor for a project, it may sway a planning board, or any other type of elected board, but it needs to have a basis to make that decision on,” said Henniker planning consultant Laura Scott. The Cheshire Oil plan She gives the planning board credit for taking time to make sure Cheshire Oil completed an exhaustive site plan application. The board is in the process of considering the proposal — which would feature a gas station, convenience store, car wash and drive-up Dunkin’ Donuts on a 1.75-acre lot at the gateway of the town. “I think it’s ridiculous the way they’ve been giving us the run-around,” said property owner Alice Norton. She said she and her husband have been paying commercial property taxes on the undeveloped land for 30 years. Norton said the couple spent $25,000 on legal fees in the Rite Aid case. Opponents to the new proposal don’t like the idea of a mini-mart as an introduction to the town that takes pride in its center, which many say looks like a Currier and Ives scene. Other protests include the potential for traffic problems and the density of the proposed quick stop. Similar objections to another commercial proposal came from residents in Warner during public hearings in recent months. Rejection of a commercial site plan application by the planning board there prompted developer Raymond Wentzel to seek relief from Merrimack Superior Court. “We sued the town because it improperly denied his plans for development,” said Wentzel attorney Peter McGrath, a former federal prosecutor. A subdivision was approved in January for Wentzel’s commercial property on Route 103 near Exit 9 of Interstate 89, but when it came time in the development approval process for the site plan application in October, the rules had changed. The board wanted two proposed strip mall buildings configured on the lot so that the ends of the buildings would face the street. “Literally, four minutes before they denied him, they imposed the new rules,” McGrath said. Asking the impossible? The lawsuit claims Wentzel “had acquired a vested right to complete the project as originally designed” because he had invested in a plan based on the regulations that existed at the time. It also claims that the board’s denial was unreasonable because Wentzel showed that the land did not allow the buildings to be repositioned. “He is saying because the subdivision was granted under the old rules, that the site plan should also be under the old rules,” said Barbara Annis, chairman of the planning board in Warner. “Our position is that (Wentzel’s) proposal is consistent even with the new plans,” McGrath said, adding that some of the new regulations are subject to interpretation. Annis admits that parts of the new guidelines for commercial development in Warner are suggestions, but overall, the previous rules were more general in comparison. New rules include detailed descriptions of how driveways and buildings should be situated, limits on lighting, and landscaping requirements. “You really don’t want too much specificity,” Klubben opined about local commercial development regulations. “What you do want are criteria that applicants have to address so that they achieve the goals that you’re attempting to get to; preserving what you want to preserve but not preventing them from doing things that would be a welcome addition to the town.” The information on this site is copyrighted and cannot be reused
SPRAWL and SUBURBIA REPLACE UPSTATE’S GREEN ACRES QUALITY OF LIFE HAS BEEN ALTERED WITH LANDSCAPE, SAYS AUTHOR OF STUDY By Yancey Roy, Gannett News Service Originally printed by the Times Union, October 19, 2003 ALBANY—Sprawl is spreading across upstate New York, rapidly outpacing population growth.While population has grown at a snail’s pace, 2.6 percent between 1982-97, more than 425,000 acres of rural land have been converted to urbanized development—a 30 percent jump, according to a new study by Cornell University and the Bookings Institution, a Washington D.C. based think tank. That means there’s less crop land and fallow fields, and fewer pastures upstate. Meanwhile, more acres are devoted to housing developments, 2-acre housing lots, golf courses, landfills and water-treatment plants. Cities and villages continued to lose population to suburbs and rural areas. In fact, most upstate residents now live in suburbs, according to the study. And businesses (are) following them. Using ZIP codes, the study found that cities lost 2,200 business establishments during that 15-year period. Non-city ZIP codes gained 2,800 new businesses. "Dead" malls and vacant housing and office spaces have proliferated in the cities. It amounts to a "rapid land conversion," according to Rolf Pendall, the Cornell professor who wrote the report. "Although we’ve had suburbanization for a long time, this represents the conversion of a lot of land that had been rural," Pendalll said. And that’s made a "qualitative difference" in the way we live. "The neighborhoods we developed before were one where kids could walk or bike to meet friends or go where they had to go," Pendall said. "We’ve changed to neighborhoods where parents have to drive them around because development is so spread out. Parents have to drive them to the store, to soccer practice. It’s made a qualitative difference in the way we live. Sprawl is attributed to some social changes that occur everywhere, Pendall said. For example, rising divorce rates, aging population and rising rates of people who do not marry means the number of households has outpaced population. The decline of farming contributed, too. But public policy approaches played a role as well, Pendall said, including: Higher property tax rates in cities ($22.15
per $1000 assessed value) and villages ($20.79) than in towns ($17.47). Pendall acknowledges that spreading out has its attractions. People may want more space, fewer crowds, lower taxes and cleaner air. Americans also hold "strong cultural values" for freedom of movement and property rights. But he says sprawl carries costs: environmental degradation, pressure for development of rural lands and a loss of the village that historically was a large part of upstate’s character. Said Pendall: "Sprawl has many harmful effects." The New York Times October 21, 2003
The governor and his staff conceded in recent interviews that a divided Legislature and opposition from builders made it pointless to introduce the most far-reaching anti-sprawl laws he outlined in a fiery State of the State address in January, when he vowed to take on "those who profit from the strip malls and McMansions." Instead, Mr. McGreevey, a Democrat in his first term as governor, will focus on less controversial legislative and regulatory changes. And on Friday, the administration abandoned the BIG map, for Blueprint for Intelligent Growth, which had divided the state into areas open for more growth, some growth and no growth. Those elements will be absorbed into another plan, officials said. Controlling sprawl in New Jersey is a universally popular idea in the abstract but becomes politically fraught when it comes to telling builders where to build, towns how to zone, and residents where they can live. "Everyone's against sprawl, but the problem is they also live in it," said Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter. "It's sort of like being in traffic, where it's the guy next to me who is the problem, not me." Besides Mr. McGreevey's largely abandoned legislative agenda, the BIG map represented an effort to create a statewide development plan, with regions delineated in green, yellow and red to designate areas for growth, little growth and no growth. On the Department of Environmental Protection's anti-sprawl Web site on Monday, a message read in part, "To avoid confusion and misinterpretations, while further revisions are considered, the BIG map has been removed." The New Jersey Builders Association, the governor's strongest opponent in his growth management campaign, liked to call the abandoned BIG map the Big Red Map, after the large areas that it placed off-limits. "The D.E.P.'s inconsistency regarding the Big Red Map is symptomatic of the broader disarray that characterizes the administration's policies with respect to planning for New Jersey's future and the housing needs of its families," said Patrick J. O'Keefe, chief executive of the builders' association. But Bradley M. Campbell, the commissioner of environmental protection, defended the decision and said the governor was not retreating from his campaign to manage growth. "This is not a retreat at all," Mr. Campbell said in an interview. "In fact, it is another step forward we are taking." Mr. Campbell said the BIG map's environmental protection data on endangered species and watershed protection areas would be incorporated in the 11-year state plan, which spells out growth management objectives on a county-by-county basis. "This was our stated objective from the outset," Mr. Campbell said. "That message was simply drowned out by the builders, but we achieved what we said we were going to do all along. The builders just spent the last nine months on what really has been a red herring." The governor's legislative agenda, spelled out in January and again in March, has less of a future, at least for now, officials said. In his earlier speeches, Mr. McGreevey said he would introduce new land-use laws to let municipalities charge builders for even the cost of their construction away from the site, on school capacity and roads. Another law was to give municipalities the power to block developments that they deemed did not meet local long-term goals for traffic. Yet another widely discussed notion was to allow towns to spread out development over long periods, to reduce the impact of sudden population growth on schools, roads and services. "We're not talking about that anymore," a staff member said. All that remains of Mr. McGreevey's legislative agenda are a noncontroversial proposal to help farmers sell development rights, giving the developer who pays for them a bigger project somewhere else, and possibly one allowing towns to charge developers additional fees. These proposals will probably be introduced in January, when the Legislature returns after next month's elections for a lame-duck session, the governor said last week. Mr. McGreevey's policies have had some significant impacts. He has used his environmental regulatory powers to close 7,865 acres around reservoirs to development, and to impose buffers along 69 miles of rivers and streams. Mr. McGreevey also won legislative approval of three public referendum questions for the Nov. 4 election. One would increase state borrowing to buy open space, another would help pay to clean up polluted industrial sites for redevelopment, and a third would speed up repairs of public parks, waterways and dams. In pressing to go beyond these measures, however, the governor encountered considerable resistance. "We spent two or three months working with the stakeholders for a consensus, and we couldn't get an agreement," a McGreevey official concerned with land-use issues said on the condition of anonymity. "Second, the Legislature has no appetite for this. Zero." The Legislature's reluctance to take on far-reaching changes in land-use laws in an election year, when builders contribute heavily to campaigns, has left the governor's staff members with sour feelings toward the lawmakers. "I don't think anyone was under any illusion that the Legislature was not and is not under the thrall of the builders' lobby to a large extent," a different McGreevey official said, also on the condition of anonymity. But many legislators maintain that Mr. McGreevey oversold his anti-sprawl campaign, and particularly erred in singling out developers for public criticism in his State of the State address. The builders' association played his speech over and over on television monitors at its Atlantic City convention shortly afterward. "I think the governor probably went too far in the State of the State to demonize home builders and office park builders, as if they were somehow the cause of our problems here in New Jersey," said State Senator John H. Adler, a Cherry Hill Democrat. "I think he was trying to galvanize public support, but I think his rhetoric got a little bit ahead of him." The governor, in an interview last week, seemed to agree. "Maybe the rhetoric got a little overheated," Mr. McGreevey said, "but we had to motivate people for change." ALABAMA CITIZENS SUE TO BLOCK WAL-MART GIVEAWAYS The following article is printed from issue 17, November/December 2003, with permission from the Home Town Advantage Bulletin, a free e-mail newsletter published by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. To read back issues or join the mailing list, visit www.newrules.org/hta. Owners of a small business in Birmingham, Alabama, near the site of a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter, have filed suit against the city for giving the retailing giant a $10 million subsidy. Southeast Meats of Pelham, in operation for over two decades, contends the handout gives Wal-Mart an unfair advantage. The suit also asserts that the city improperly threatened to use eminent domain to force owners of the Wal-Mart property to sell. Meanwhile, 25 miles south in Alabaster, Alabama, a group of residents have sued to block the city from condemning their property for a massive shopping center anchored by a Wal-Mart supercenter. Developers acquired all but twelve acres of the 400-acre site. When the remaining residents refused to sell, the city declared their homes "blighted" and moved to take the property. Alabaster has also pledged $2 million in roads and sewers for the project. Cities are increasingly using their power to condemn property to facilitate chain store development. Subsidies and tax breaks are rampant as well. In October, Wheat Ridge, Colorado declared property owned by three independent businesses "blighted." The three enterprises---a multi-generation, family-owned automotive repair shop, a billiards hall, and a kitchen cabinet business---will be booted for a Walgreen’s drugstore. The city has also given the developer $500,000 in public subsidies. Meanwhile, in Denver, more than a dozen Asian-owned small businesses are slated to evicted from a shopping center that Wal-Mart is seeking to redevelop into a supercenter. The city's Urban Renewal Authority has offered Wal-Mart $10 million in tax breaks. (Readers may recall that this plan first surfaced more than a year ago, but as we reported, the small businesses successfully fought back. Now, under a new mayor, the project has resurfaced and is moving forward.) Local officials argue these big stores warrant subsidies because of the jobs and tax revenue they generate. But studies have found that big box retailers eliminate about as many jobs as much tax revenue as they create by forcing local stores to close. -- See "Denver's Asian Businesses Force
Wal-Mart Retreat" and "Small Businesses Fight Abuse of
Eminent Domain" in the August 2002 issue of this Bulletin:
|
