Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth

Register Star 12/31/06
My View: Move over Nostradamus: Widewaters predictions
Elizabeth Nyland
Greenport

Following the public hearing on the Greenport Widewaters project last night, I have some predictions to make:

1. The Greenport Planning Board will soon declare that there will be no negative impacts from this project and give Widewaters the green light.

2. Within a matter of days, Widewaters will suddenly have tenants for the larger spaces.

3. The first tenant announced will be a Wal-Mart supercenter, soon to be followed by a Lowes/Home Depot in the second largest space. Then, maybe Staples, Dollar Tree or Fashion Bug in the third large space.

4. As development proceeds, many, if not most, of Widewaters’ remaining retail spaces will be filled by other merchants from the strip malls along Fairview. These merchants will have been persuaded by Widewaters that they have to relocate to retain their customers because all the shoppers will want to go to the new center.

5. The current strip malls will be devastated as first the stores move out and then the shoppers. Business of the remaining stores will decline due to less foot traffic while the Greenport Planning Board hustles to find new merchants for the many empty stores. This will be hard to pull off as they discover they are competing for tenants with their favorite new landowner, Widewaters, who will also be trying to fill their remaining spaces.

6. The ladies who are so eager to be able to shop locally and not have to go to Albany and Kingston will discover that they still have to go to Albany and Kingston because they still can’t find the merchandise they want need in Greenport.

7. Even though business is way off along Fairview, the direct route to the Widewaters center will be Joslen Blvd. With no stop lights along that road vs. the many on Fairview, who could resist? And, it does come out right at the entrance to the shopping center.

8. Hudson residents, merchants, and shoppers will be relieved to discover that while traffic is no better in the city, it is no worse, because the new shopping center, being filled with mostly old Greenport merchants, is not actually drawing more shoppers to the area. After all, not only will Widewaters have much the same mix of stores already in Greenport, it will be one mile further up Fairview, making a trip across the bridge to Catskill more appealing than all the traffic lights in Hudson and on Fairview. So, many shoppers from Hudson and the southern part of the county will choose Catskill over Greenport when they want to go to a Wal-Mart, Lowes, etc.

9. While the lack of additional traffic is good for the residents of Hudson and parts of Greenport, it isn’t good for Greenport taxpayers, who find that their taxes are rising faster than those the residents in other towns in the county because all that extra sales tax they thought they would get has not materialized, even while the costs to subsidize the Widewaters center continue to rise.

10. Within a few years of the opening of Widewaters, and the emptying of other shopping centers, new developers will materialize to fill the empty strip malls with more big box stores, and the Greenport Planning Board will be so happy to have them there to help them get the town moving again, that once again they will fall into their laps and give them pretty much whatever they want.

And so on and so on and so on.

I hope I am wrong. This can be avoided if the Greenport Planning Board does a full scale SEQRA examination and learns about the possible ramifications of this project before permitting it. And, it wouldn’t hurt if the Town finally came to realize that we need a comprehensive plan and some zoning.

Register Star 12/30/06
My View: The economics of Widewaters
Charles Hallenbeck
Greenport

This is an open letter to the town of Greenport Planning Board on several economic matters that need to be considered in their deliberations on the Widewater proposal.

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.

Mega-mall draws fans, foes
by Chris Simonds

Greenport-- Based on an unscientific assessment of applause, supporters of the proposed Widewaters plaza on Route 9 slightly outnumbered opponents at the Planning Board's public hearing on the project site plan.

After listening to about 40 of the 142 people who crowded into the Moose Lodge, the board closed the public hearing. It will accept written comment through January 5.

The hearing began at 7:45, well before the advertised time of "at or near 8:15 p.m." No one was denied the opportunity to speak, though, and Chairman Don Alger was flexible in allowing more than the announced maximum of two minutes per person.

Many who supported the plan by The Widewaters Group to place 560,000 square feet of retail space on 128 acres just south of the Stockport town line said the project would increase the town's tax base, resulting in lower property taxes. They also foresaw a significant boost in sales tax revenue.

"I see people who are scared to death of losing their homes," said town Tax Collector Sharon Zempko. "We have to increase our tax base."

Opponents countered that the project will require more municipal services, the cost of which will outweigh any increase in the town's assessed value. Hudson resident Arlene Boehm, who said she came to this area because it's "a beautiful place with rolling farms," said she opposes "draining the infrastructure of the community."

Several who favored the project saw it bringing back Greenport's happier days.

"It was such a prosperous town," said Veronica Kenneally, a resident since she was four years old. "It saddens me to see how much industry we've lost. I'd like to shop in my home town." Many others echoed that sentiment, complaining about having to drive to Albany or Kingston for the things they need.

Said Ben Hall, who runs a business across Route 9 from the plaza site: "Most of the people I grew up with-they're not here anymore." Why? "There's nothing here."

"To keep young people here, we have to give them a reason to be here," said Ghent resident and Taconic Hills teacher Mark Clark.

"I remember when we could shop for everything in this area," said Town Supervisor John Rutkey. Pointing to a recent announcement of a retail center to be built near New Baltimore, he said, "That's more sales tax that will leave Columbia County and go to Greene County."

To opponents who predicted that the plaza will drive out existing businesses, John Mokszycki, who lives in Stockport and runs Greenport's Water and Sewer Department, said: "Those are the same fears people had when Wal-Mart came in."

For many, traffic was the big issue. Critics have already faulted Widewaters' traffic study, which covered Route 9 from Atlantic Avenue in Stockport south to the Wal-Mart plaza, as inadequate.

Lori Selden said she commutes from Stuyvesant to her restaurant, Mexican Radio, on Warren Street in Hudson, and traffic on Route 9 through Greenport is already heavy. She urged the Planning Board to "take a much bigger look at the traffic study."

City resident Ed Weir agreed, remarking that a fuller study would be in Widewaters' best interest because "traffic has got to be addressed if their project is to be successful."

"I don't understand why we have to have a study to tell us what we already know," said longtime emergency services volunteer Paul D'Onofrio. "It's time to reactivate DOT's Route 9 expansion that was shelved eight years ago."

Plaza supporter Albert Wassenhove, from Ghent, said the traffic component needs to be better engineered. Other than that, he said, "A tweak-tweak here and a tweak-tweak there, and you've got a good project."

"Traffic is always the Number One issue with a project like this, no matter what the community," said Widewaters representative Marco Marzocchi after the hearing. "We're not going to run away from that issue."

Some speakers said they could not take a position on the project because, as one put it, "We don't know enough." Each demanded that the Planning Board issue a positive declaration of environmental impact, triggering a full review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

Attorney Marc Gerstman, saying he represented a group called Greenport Neighbors, lectured the Planning Board on the importance of the SEQRA process.

Mr. Alger said the morning after the hearing that he could not predict when the board will decide whether to issue a positive or negative declaration on the environmental aspects of the project.

Mr. Marzocchi said that while there may not be a SEQRA Environmental Impact Statement per se, "the Planning Board is doing a full, thorough, SEQRA-level review, and we are reviewing voluntarily all of the potential issues that would be addressed " in an environmental impact statement.

The Planning Board's next meeting is Tuesday, January 23, at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Hall.

To reach reporter Chris Simonds e-mail csimonds@IndeNews.com.

Times Union
Plaza plans divide Greenport
Critics speak out, and the developer pledges to keep community concerns in mind
By ALAN WECHSLER, Business writer
First published: Friday, December 29, 2006

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.

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.

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."

Alan Wechsler can be reached at 454-5469 or by e-mail at awechsler@timesunion.com.

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.
-- Plants and berms should be built on perimeter to break up visual impact. -- Use more attractive materials than concrete block for the buildings' exteriors. Facades should match local architecture.
-- Ensure traffic needs are met with appropriately formatted entrances and exits.
-- Create appropriate setbacks for sidewalks, and include sidewalks inside parking lot.

Times Union 12/28/06
Unpublished per se but included within "Chamber feedback," above

To the Editor:

The Columbia County Chamber of Commerce is a business advocacy organization of over 850 business members. The Chamber believes that progressive development measures are in the best interest of the businesses and residents of Columbia County. The Chamber has requested that Widewaters implement the following recommendations for the proposed retail facility on Fairview Avenue in Greenport:

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.

Sincerely,

John Maiuri, 2007 Chairman
David B. Colby, President & CEO

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To the Editor:

I can’t even imagine what Rt. 9/Fairview Avenue would be like after the proposed Widewaters project. Greenport Planners have done such a horrific job there already.

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.

Andrew DeGiacomo
Stuyvesant

Greenport
Crowd: Widewaters must do SEQRA review
by Stephen Bendt
Register-Star, Wednesday, December 27, 2006

It was a standing room only crowd at the Moose Hall on Town Hall Drive Tuesday night as the Greenport Planning Board held a public hearing to discuss the proposed Widewaters shopping center for Fairview Avenue. Although very few people spoke out against the project, most said the public and the board need more information before it could be approved.

Approximately 100 members of the public signed up to speak at the hearing. Most expressed similar concerns.

Chiefly at issue was how the project will affect traffic on Fairview Avenue, an area that already deals with bottlenecks and jams during high traffic times of the day.

"I don't understand why we need a traffic study to tell us what we already know. traffic is heavy," said Paul D'Onofrio, Greenport's second assistant fire chief.

Many agreed with D'Onofrio, and said the traffic on Route 9 is already unbearable and should this new shopping enter come to town, it will only get worse. As a result, some suggested the road by widened to accommodate increased traffic. Since Route 9 is a state-controlled highway, that change would have to come through state DOT.

"Get on the phone and call DOT [and] call your state representatives," local resident Lee Stone said. "Tell them you voted them in and you want a new Route 9."

Stone had heard it would not be possible to widen Fairview Avenue because some of the structures are too close to the highway, but he had an answer for that too.

"How are they going to widen it?" he asked before suggesting an answer. "They can do anything with a bulldozer."

A landscape designer said he often avoids Fairview Avenue, in part because he finds it to be aesthetically unpleasant, but mostly because he cannot stand the traffic.

Kristen Craig, who lives directly across from the proposed location, said she has already seen an increase in traffic around the holiday shopping season--turning Fairview Avenue into a parking lot.

Another popular theme discussed by those who took the microphone was taxes. Some said the new stores would increase the tax base, ultimately reducing taxes for the residents of Greenport, but others said the resources required to sustain the massive development would cause taxes to rise.

Greenport Tax Collector Sharon Zempko said she has seen numerous residents put for sale signs on their houses because they cannot afford the taxes any longer. She contends the support from the large development would alleviate that problem.

James Sheldon of Galatin disagreed, and said big businesses would force local establishments into bankruptcy. According to Sheldon, the consumer gets a very attractive offer from big box stores, but it comes at the expense of the local businesspeople, taxpayers and neighbors in the community.

Most in attendance were curious. Several speakers demanded Widewaters reveal which businesses would be coming into the 128-acre complex. Others pleaded with the board to not simply pass the project along without first undertaking full State Environmental Quality Review.

"I don't know enough about the project yet and with all due respect to the board, neither do you," Sheldon said.

Alan Coon, co-owner of the Spotty Dog in Hudson, stood at the back of the room and shouted when it was his turn to speak before being called up to use the microphone. He asked the board to do a full SEQRA review. Then, before he surrendered the microphone, said to the crowd, "Everyone here please support local businesses, they're dying."

Before calling the hearing to a close, Planning Board Chairperson Don Alger said the board will be accepting further comment only in written form and only for the next seven days. Correspondence may be mailed to 600 Town Hall Drive, Hudson, 12534.

The next meeting of the Planning Board will be at Town Hall on Jan. 23.

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.

Register Star 12/26/06
My View: We deserve better than Widewaters
By Edward P Nabozny
Greenport

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 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.

Register-Star 12/27/06

GRAND UNION CLOSING RELATES TO WIDEWATERS GREENPORT

To the Editor:
Grocery store competition in the Town of Kinderhook will be ending soon, with the Grand Union
closing in January. Supporters of the Widewaters development including a Hannaford supermarket were
excited about having competition for the Grand Union. For just six months we had that competition, but
the end is in sight. Now, who will compete with Hannaford? There have been rumors that Price Chopper
would be coming to Valatie, but a Price Chopper spokeswoman has denied such plans. Given the
size of the market and the strength of Hannaford, competition appears to be unlikely.
The closing of the Grand Union will be unfortunate not only for the Valatie residents who have
walked there to shop, but also for the many other customers, particularly Seniors, who have chosen to
continue to shop there.
Grand Union Manager George Palmatier and many of his staff have served the community well for a long
time. I hope many of their customers will make a point of thanking them for their years of service
and wish them well in whatever many lie ahead for them. Hail and farewell!

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?

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.

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."

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.

December 20, 2006
To the Greenport Planning Board:

I write as a person familiar with the application process, as I recently had a proposal for a dance & music facility, PS/21 (extremely modest by Widewaters standards), before the Chatham ZBA for five years. At the outset we were issued a Positive Declaration, as the Board was understandably concerned about protecting itself from later accusations of making a decision based on incomplete or inaccurate information. With the exception of a small group of detractors who hired their own lawyer, most local citizens were in favor of our project, but going through the entire process gave us all piece of mind. All related expenses (which were considerable) were assumed by the applicant; the Town spent nothing (except the time required to understand the complexities of the issues).

As the applicant, much as I would have liked to save time and money, I admit I was glad that we were required to go through the SEQR process. This assured us that, when our application was approved, we would not be subject to harassment or complaints from the community.

My project was not large, with relatively minor environmental impact, yet Widewaters proposes huge changes to the Greenport/Hudson environment. It is in your interest to hold them to the highest standards of review. In that way, no matter what your individual opinions of the project might be, you will hopefully protect yourselves from subsequent legal action. I am confident that you'll issue a Positive Declaration to Widewaters.

Sincerely,
Judith B. Grunberg
Chatham Center

Greenport
County: Mall traffic needs more study
by John Mason
Register-Star, Wednesday, December 20, 2006

The Columbia County Planning Board sent the Widewaters Group's site plan review for a 565,000-square-foot outdoor shopping mall back to the Greenport Planning Board Tuesday with a long list of recommendations.

No tenants have been named for the mall. Widewaters representative Marco Marzocchi brushed aside a reference in the application to Wal-Mart moving across the street to take up residence in one of Widewaters' three magisterial big boxes, as just a worst-case-traffic scenario.

The Greenport planners will conduct a public hearing on the proposal Dec. 26, and could decide the same day whether the proposal should undergo the thorough State Environmental Quality Review, or be given a negative declaration, meaning public input would be over. But the count Planning Board and Planning Department recommended the public hearing be kept open to a date after the holidays.

The Greenport Planning Board does not have to accept the recommendations of the county board. But not to do so, it would need a supermajority vote and would need to inform the county board of its reasoning.

The mall would be located on 128 acres of land on the eastern side of Fairview Avenue at the northern border of the town.

Traffic patterns continued to be the number one concern. Board members noted that Fairview is already frequently bumper-to-bumper.

The county Planning Department prepared the six-page response to the application, including recommendations, that was adopted and sent on by the county Planning Board.

The department recommended a more thorough traffic study than Widewaters has provided to date. Since half the project shoppers are expected to come from the south, traffic will be increased on certain feeder roads. Those specified were Joslen Boulevard, which connects to Harry Howard in Hudson; Livingston Parkway, which connects to Joslen; and Atlantic Avenue/County Route 20 in Stottville.

"All of these routes pass through established residential neighborhoods," says the report, recommending an expanded traffic impact study, the intent of which might be "to determine the condition of these roads as they relate to the projected increases in traffic, [and] in particular, the projected increase of traffic through the city of Hudson."

The planners also recommended that the traffic study include three future residential developments, the 100-plus Holmes Estates, on route 9 north of Atlantic Avenue; the senior housing complex to be located off Joslen Boulevard; and the 24-unit apartment complex under construction on county Route 20.

Finally, the planners recommended that the feasibility of alternative access options be explored, such as connecting the site to Route 66 either directly or via an extension of Humane Society Road or similar route; or using the abandoned trolley line to connect the new mall to Columbia Town Center.

Board member Art Koweek took this up later on. County Route 20, which is the shortest way between 9 and 9H, is a "terrible, dangerous" road, he said. "Would you contribute to building a road from 66 to your property?"

Widewaters representative Marco Marzocchi said he "would look at it."

Members Tim Stalker and Jonathan Walters agreed that connecting roads between the malls would make sense in cutting down Fairview traffic.

"We had a mechanism that worked [at the Hannaford plaza] in Kinderhook," Marzocchi said, suggesting that if it could be accomplished using the same mechanism it was a possibility in Greenport as well.

The Planning Board also addressed a number of other issues.

As to land use compatibility, the department said the adjacent lands in Stockport are within residential or hamlet districts "in which shopping centers are a prohibited use," and advised the Greenport board to explore whether a vegetative buffer along the northern property line would be helpful. It was also suggested that screening be explored to protect residential property owners on the west side of Route 9.

The department also suggested that it be ascertained whether the site allows safe and efficient access of emergency vehicles, and whether law enforcement agencies will have the capacity to protect the development.

Facades and designs in keeping with "the vernacular architecture of Columbia County" were recommended, to take advantage of an opportunity "to create a distinctive site design that would serve as a gateway to the community."

Also recommended was a performance bond "for future removal of these structures and parking lots" should the mall go belly-up. "This may prevent a scenario like the existing steel superstructure currently on site."

The department suggested that more data be collected on lighting and particularly its impacts on Greenport and Stottville residential areas.

Access to the mall by means other than cars was also a concern. Since Columbia County's population is aging, with 22 percent projected to be 65 or older by 2015 and 28 percent by 2030, the report suggests public transportation from surrounding municipalities and residential developments with large senior populations be contracted with or provided.

And for those who choose to walk, the report recommends setbacks be adequate for sidewalks, which may at some point be required by the state Department of Transportation.

The plan for the mall came under some criticism from new board member Jonathan Walters.

"The design of the development seems to me as straight out of the 1970s," he said. "Are you guys up on the current thinking of suburban design--hiding parking, putting buildings out front, [not so much about] accommodating a sea of cars in a sea of asphalt?"

Site engineer Steve Boisvert, of Bergmann Associates, said they attend conferences on the new urbanism, and are aware of trends, but have to weigh them with the desires of their tenants.

Board member Leah Wilcox noted that, in its traffic study, the application proposes a scenario in which Wal-Mart leaves its present site and moves into the Widewaters center. Marzocchi said it was just a "worst-case scenario."

"How could you design three buildings without a tenant in mind?" Koweek asked.

"We don't have tenants," Marzocchi said. "We have made some assumptions. We're negotiating with a number of users. Some are competitors with each other; some will fall by the wayside."

He would not reveal what kind of market research the firm did in deciding to locate in Greenport, but he said it showed there was support for a mall.

Register Star 12/19/06
Widewaters woes

To the editor:

Anyone who lives in the Hudson area and shops along Fairview Ave. (Route 9) knows the ever increasing traffic all along the Greenport shopping strip. Traffic is a mess all along the route – from 23B all the way to the Wal-Mart/Staples intersection. We all know this.

So, I wanted to know how the Widewaters complex, a mile north of the Wal-Mart/Staples light on Fairview, was expected to impact the heavy traffic we already have all along the route. I had heard that traffic would double, but also that Widewaters said it would have almost no impact. What???

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.

Boy, was I disappointed!

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?

If the complex is built I, and a lot of others, will often find Fairview Ave. impossible to deal with. How will I handle that?

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.

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.

NY State law allows the people who have to host these developments to do independent studies of potential problem impact areas, at the cost of the applicant, in this case Widewaters.

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.

Elizabeth Nyland
Greenport

from www.newrules.org
The Hometown Advantage: Reviving Locally Owned Business

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.

"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
Urges citizens to attend Dec. 26 hearing
by John Mason
Register-Star, Sunday, December 17, 2006

Dec. 26 is shaping up to be as important a day for Greenport as the day before. It's the day that the Planning Board will hear the views of interested persons on the Widewaters shopping center proposed for Fairview Avenue at Joslen Boulevard. More importantly, the board may also vote on whether the project will have significant environmental impacts.

If the board decides the proposed 565,000-square-foot shopping center, reportedly the largest development ever proposed in Columbia County, will not have such impacts, it will be a big present for the Widewaters developers, indicating probable clear sailing to approval.

However, it would probably also trigger a lawsuit from concerned citizens.

If the board decides the project will have significant environmental impacts, it will put a big holiday smile on the faces of a number of those concerned county residents, many of whom turned out for a talk on the issue by financial analyst James Sheldon Saturday morning at the Multiplex 8 Cinema in Columbia Center Plaza. A positive declaration by the board would trigger the state Environmental Quality Review Act process.

Under SEQRA, an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared, describing the action, describing the action and the environmental setting, analyzing all environmental impacts related to the action as well as reasonable alternatives to the action, and identifying ways to reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. This is a time-consuming and expensive process, but under state law the costs are borne by the developer, not the municipality.

What kinds of projects usually necessitate a SEQRA review? Know as Type I actions, they are those that "meet or exceed thresholds listed in the statewide or agency SEQR regulations," according to a brochure from the state Department of Environmental Conservation. One of two examples cited in the brochure is "nonresidential projects physically altering 10 or more acres of land."

The Widewaters shopping center would be situated on 85 acres of land.

But Sheldon said the town has final authority. "Just because the DEC gives guidance, doesn't mean it will be followed," he said.

Although Planning Board members have expressed the opinion that the development will help the town's tax base, "they don't have any evidence to justify that conclusion," Sheldon said. "Studies seem to suggest a large commercial development tends to have significant negative consequences for taxpayers and the local economy."

The 565,000 square feet of selling space would be as much as Greenport now has in its existing four plazas, Sheldon said. It would consume 5,600 [editor's note: should read 56,000] gallons of water a day and add 840,000 pounds of solid waste per year to the county landfill.

If successful, the mall would generate about $200 million in sales annually, compared to $500 million generated in all of Columbia County last year.

"But who's buying?" Sheldon asked. "Those sales will come at the expense of existing sales." Similarly for the work force, he said. In a county with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the U.S., many of the 400 full-time and 400 part-time employees would come from existing businesses, he said.

Although the development would pay substantial sales tax to the town, it would also receive a substantial tax break of $400,000 a year, Sheldon said.

The costs to the town of water, sewer, police and fire protection, and roadwork would likely be much higher than the tax benefits to the town, he said. Greenport presently has one of the county's highest tax rates, at $600 a person, compared to a regional average of $360.

The reason for this is that 40 percent of the town's taxes are going to finance the repair of its water and sewer systems: The town is on the verge of a $7 million expansion and improvement of its sewage facilities that will add 370,000 gallons of additional daily usage. Widewaters alone would take 15 percent of that, but would it pay for it?

No, said Sheldon. The development's fees and taxes would be "nowhere near what would match its usage."

A Cape Cod study has shown, Sheldon said, that the costs per 1,000 feet of a large development "far outstrip its revenues."

The development would also have a negative effect on local private enterprise, Sheldon predicted. First, nearby businesses in the same line as the big box stores that move in will be hurt.

Second: When $100 is spent at a large retailer, $14 comes back to the local economy, in the form of employee salaries, reliance on local suppliers and professionals, and the like. But, he said, if $100 is spent at a locally-owned business, $45 comes back to the local economy.

Why would a developer want to come into a county where the population and disposable income don't justify 565,000 square feet? Sheldon asked.

The chains have learned that by flooding localities with an excess of capital, it's easier to capsize local businesses, he said. Their only objective is to increase foot traffic.

"Once a large chain comes in, they have at their disposal a lot of money and influence to exert on local political officials," he said. "If they're in here with that much square footage, they'll do whatever it takes to increase growth. This is how sprawl begins."

Sheldon urged citizens to attend the Dec. 26 Greenport Planning Board hearing or contact board members and urge them to pass a positive declaration on the Widewaters SEQRA.

Board Chairman Don Alger was in the audience.

"Whether or not this is built, the town is saddled with [sewer costs]," he said. "The assessment [at the site] is probably $2 million; if it's built up, $30 million. Wal-Mart is assessed in the neighborhood of $7 million." If you include Price Chopper and the other shops, that goes up to $14 million, he said. As for traffic, go to Kingston or Albany and you'll find traffic, "there's no way to avoid that."

Sheldon said Widewaters would be using up a good portion of the town's state-mandated expansion of the sewer system, and that they should be required to contribute to the expansion costs.

"What troubles me," he said, "is that the town Water Department says the town can meet the 56,000 gallons [required for the Widewaters development daily] but the state mandate to expand doesn't jibe with that [statement]."

Elizabeth Nyland of Greenport said to Alger, "You're talking about traffic, but every single shopping center in Albany [Kingston, and others] has four lanes."

Alger said the state Department of Transportation wanted to widen Fairview 10 years ago, but for some reason they ran sort of money. "I don't know, in the future it may be improved."

Nyland said it seemed to her that Greenport has the largest collection of retailers in the county, with the cost borne by less that 2,000 tax bills to its residents. "Any extra cost the town bears in just us," she said.

"One fourth of the assessed property in the town is commercial," Sheldon said. "That's a huge factor. Are property taxes per person so much higher than average because it has a high proportion of commercial?"

"If business is so good in Greenport, what's causing the high tax rates?" asked Linda Mussman.

"One explanation could be because the cost of providing public services is so much higher than what's coming into the town coffers," Sheldon said.

"So the only solution is to build more houses," said Mussman, bringing the discussion back to the problem of sprawl.

My View
Register Star 12/16/06
Widewaters, by the numbers
Charles and Mary Hallenbeck
Hudson/Greenport

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.

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.

With their backs to the crowd, the public was denied visual access to the submitted plans. Much of the discussion took place in subdued, barely audible tones. We were later told that the plans would be available for public viewing sometime the next day at Greenport Town Hall.

Upon completion of the Widewaters presentation, the Board decided that the plans were ready for the next step - submission to the County. They then began discussing when to schedule the only public hearing to date on the Widewaters development. The date discussed was Tuesday, December 26th.

At this point some members of the audience began to express their concerns that Boxing Day was not a fair time to ask the public to comment on this Widewaters development. They asked the Board if they would reconsider the date of the public hearing because many people will be away for the holidays, etc.

The Greenport Planning Board responded in no uncertain terms that the 4th Tuesday of the month is their "standard meeting time", and although they have the power to have a "special meeting" on another date, they were not going against protocol for this project. The Board then unanimously voted in December 26th as the confirmed date for the public hearing about the largest retail development ever to come into Columbia County.

"If you're interested, you'll show up," is what was said to the public in attendance Tuesday night.

The impact of this 565,000 sq ft development is extreme and it was quite clear tonight that the demands being put on the Widewaters Group are at best, minimal. This entire project has received very little press, and therefore very little public attention.

The Board was obviously displeased to have to deal with the polite, attentive group in attendance and we all left quite shocked at how quickly public input had been summarily dismissed in this matter.

The public has a lot of concerns: environmental, traffic impact, safety issues, economic development and more.

Please don't let this enormous structure slide into our County without us having a fair public reviewing period.

Lori Selden
Stuyvesant

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.

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

To the Editor:

To demonstrate a simple point, I am enclosing my first letter about Widewaters. You published it in August. Sadly, I could write the same letter, today, except that I now have confirmation (through an independent source which the Greenport Planning Board is reluctant to even speak with) that this plan also has possibly dire economic implications for our town, and then some. Read on:

August 2, 2006

To the Editor:

Does Greenport need another shopping center? If so, does it need – or want -- 565,000 sq. ft. (that’s 12 football fields) of additional retail?

Beats me. But I’ve examined the site plans, and they bring all kinds of questions to mind.

Is there a concept for this megamall that makes it make sense for this community, or will it be just another cookie-cutter behemoth with the usual big box retailers, chain restaurants and dollar stores and some trees to soften the view?

What becomes of existing malls, to say nothing of the area’s locally-owned businesses? Are they to be subsumed by the retail giants we can expect to occupy the 100+ acre site on route 9? Just who is going to fill those 3000 parking spaces, and who (and how) will those big boxes be staffed?

It’s been said that residents must travel out of the vicinity to do their shopping. Which residents, and for what? Have any focus groups been held? Do we have the customer base to support a Guido’s or a Gap, for instance, or whatever your or my heart desires?

The site plan includes (along with three other huge spaces and about 7 smaller ones) a nearly 200,000 sq. retail store. Are we talking Home Depot, Lowe’s, a Walmart Supercenter? Reference is made to Walmart in the documentation accompanying the site plans. We have a Walmart; what becomes of the existing space? Surely the planning has not come this far without some commitment from those who would occupy these spaces.

Should there be a park? Recreational facilities and things for young people to do besides shop? And just how dependable are the traffic studies? Route 9 is already a nightmare. What will be the true impact on water and air quality? What are the actual economic and tax implications? What do (or, did) we love about this county and how does a project of this scale and description reflect it?

I’ve heard it suggested that "anything would be better than what’s at the site, now." Really?

It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to learn as much as we can about the Widewaters development, right now. You can start by visiting the Greenport Town Hall, the Hudson Area Library or CGCC to view the site plans.

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.

There’s an opportunity here. Let’s make the best of it for the community, as a community.

Enough said.

Columbia County: Residents, officials find Widewaters traffic plan inadequate
by John Mason
Register-Star, Thursday, December 14, 2006

Ask Greenport Planning Board members, and the proposed 565,000-square-foot mega strip-mall proposed for Fairview Avenue at Joslen Boulevard will be a big boon to the town's tax base. But ask financial consultant and columnist James Sheldon of Gallatin, and the town's taxpayers will be the "big losers."

Columbia County residents got a chance to sound off on what one called the "largest single development ever proposed in Columbia County" Wednesday during an information session before the county Planning Board. Forty persons crowded into the third-floor classroom at 401 State St., 25 to raise serious concerns or outright oppose the plan. No one, except Greenport Chairman Dan Alger and Widewaters representatives, spoke in favor of it, and county board members also raised concerns.

Sheldon will speak about the economic issues of the plan 10 a.m. Saturday at the Multiplex Theater in Columbia Center Plaza.

The county Planning Board was getting its first look at the plans Wednesday, and will consider more fully at its regular monthly meeting 7 p.m. Dec. 19. The board is allowed to ask for a 30-day extension before it makes its recommendation to the Greenport Planning Board.

The Greenport board will hold a public hearing on the matter Dec. 26, after which it may decide whether the project deserves a "negative declaration," allowing it to bypass the time-consuming requirements of the state Environmental Quality Review Act.

Site engineer Steve Boisvert, of Bergmann Associates in Albany, said the shopping center would be situated on 85 acres of a 128-acre parcel. In the back of the parcel, there would be three large single-tenant stores, towards the front a series of buildings housing smaller tenants, and along Route 9, a line of banks, restaurants, gas stations and