On Monday, January 11th, Guy Kempe, RUPCO's director of community development, announced on RUPCO's facebook page, the Woodstock Planning Board's public hearing on the RUPCO proposed site plan:
Here is the web page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rural-Ulster-Preservation-Company/110906738064?ref=nf
Here is the specific post:
Rural Ulster Preservation Company PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE RE-OPENED Thursday 1/14/10 5PM on the site plan/special use permit for Woodstock Commons. Now is the time to speak up in support of Woodstock Commons, affordable housing for seniors, artists and working families. Let's expand housing choice in Woodstock!
January 11 at 7:27am
On the morning of Jan. 14, he updated his notice, since the location of the public hearing had been changed the day before:
Rural Ulster Preservation Company THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE RE-OPENED Thursday 1/14/10 5PM on the site plan/special use permit for Woodstock Commons. NOTICE- LOCATION CHANGE: THE MEETING WILL NOW BE HELD AT THE WOODSTOCK COMMUNITY CENTER, ROCK CITY ROAD, WOODSTOCK
Thu at 7:19am
There were 26 speakers at the public hearing.
23 spoke against the project.
3 spoke in favor of the project.
Were any of those three people "fans" of RUPCO on facebook? I know for a fact that one of them does not own or use a computer. Two are regulars at public hearings on many topics, and the other one, who had also spoken before, stated that he wanted to apply for housing at Woodstock Commons. I would bet my own money that these three people would have shown up and spoken with or without Guy Kempe's urging. I don't think I am going out on a limb to state that Guy Kempe's effort to bring people to the public hearing was entirely ineffective. Could it be that aside from these three expected pro- speakers, there isn't anybody around actually in favor of this housing project? Way to "develop" the community, Guy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm sorry Robin but this is a mischaracterization of the supporters who were there at the meeting. There were several people who supported the project however after the treatment (much cross talking and interruptions) of those who did support the project most of them decided not to speak. One woman left in complete disgust. She was prepared to speak and had several notes. Alas. I counted no less than 10 other people who would have spoken favorably and perhaps more were there earlier as I came late.
ReplyDeleteI believe that I was one of the people who you characterized as a person who speaks at several public hearings. This may be true, but to be fair, I was a member of the Town Board from '02 - '05 and was the one who started the Affordable Housing Committee that in part led to this project. So it can be said that I have a special interest in what transpires.
Since I have spent time on the other side of the table I also know how difficult it is to get people who support projects to come out. People will walk up to you on the street and pledge their support but hardly ever bear the slings and arrows of a public meeting. And who can really blame them?
You may recall I spoke specifically about imagined subsidizations of the project. These numbers have been so contorted and misrepresented that I had to speak up. The bottom line is that the town will realize greater revenues and a reduction of proportionate taxes. It’s very simple really.
No, Gordon, I did not mischaracterize the people at the meeting. All I said was that it was not Guy Kempe's effort that brought you and the others to the meeting. It was not HIS effort, but your own initiative and awareness of the goings on in town. I was criticizing RUPCO's Guy Kempe for failing to rally anybody to the microphone. For whatever reason the people you thought were there to support the project were actually there, I was making the point that it was not due to Guy Kempe's urging. That's a criticism of RUPCO's effort to build community, not of the opponents of the project.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of taxes, the RUPCO application states very clearly that taxes will increase by hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. THAT's the bottom line. I'm not sure what line and what bottom you are refering to, but it sure isn't anything that RUPCO has submitted. If you want to make a case that taxes will decrease instead of increase, I suggest you start with the FEIS or DEIS, and explain how the town will go from paying about a quarter million extra in taxes each year, and show how that becomes a tax surplus. I'm totally dying to know your secret.
What costs will the town incur? That is all that defines taxes. An increase in the levy. Increase in taxes is proportionate to the amount of taxpayers dividing the levy. If say the levy were to remain the same once the project is on the books, and now the amount of collectible taxes increases. (even if they are paying less per thousand then most others) how do our taxes increase? We won't hire any more police officers because of the project. We won't have to buy anymore highway trucks. I don't see any more expenses incurred by the town. So in fact our taxes in this situation would go down (for the general fund and county taxes.) True the average taxpayer may be paying more per thousand but this doesn't mean their taxes are going up. If you want we can discuss the school situation too which has many more variables and will take some space.
ReplyDeleteWhoops...should have proof read this -
ReplyDelete"and now the amount of collectible taxes increases."
Should read: if the levy is the same that the collectible taxes would NOT increase. In fact more money is coming in for the parcel (we only collect a couple of thousand dollars now) and there are more people sharing the levy.
The EIS asks questions in a specific manner but does not follow through with correct formulas for real applications. Answer my questions first to show me where the extra tax dollars are being generated.
On the issue of school taxation the formula is completely incorrect. They use a straight arithmetic formula that actually involves many more variables than the simple "36 maximum children times the cost to educate a child at Onteora; approximately $21,500." It doesn't work that way. Once again you have to factor in the actual levy including loss of students district wide and whether or not you have to increase services. There are many more factors to consider on this. It is not a straight dollars and cents issue when it comes to the school.
PS Guy did ask me to go and I did.
ReplyDeleteIf you are the only one Guy asked to go and speak who actually did, then I rest my case on that one.
ReplyDeleteAs for the tax increases, RUPCO is expert at spinning absolutely everything they do to favor their project. They have omitted important physical aspects of the project, to their advantage, accepted a misleading traffic study, to their advantage, and have suggested that the town infringe on private property rights of innocent businesses in the area, to their advantage. If there was ANY argument possible to claim that taxes would decrease, they would have made it.
As it is, they did not. In addition, the planning board commissioned and in 2007 received a financial audit of RUPCO's tax analysis that agreed with RUPCO's methodology and calculations.
If you want to have this project in Woodstock, you are basically saying that the applicant is incompetent at figuring out the finances of the project. That does not bode well for the project as a whole. If I were in favor of something this big and complicated, I would want to have FULL confidence in the ability of the applicant to calculate not only the physical parameters of the project, but also the financial aspect of the building and running of the project.
You appear to disagree completely with RUPCO's figures, meaning you think you know better than RUPCO knows how housing taxes work in Ulster County, even though this is what they do day in and day out. It is interesting that you can pick and choose from among RUPCO's arguments, and the fact that you think their increased tax claim is garbage seems to have no ill effect on your confidence in them in any other area.
Maybe you should volunteer your time at RUPCO to help them put together more favorable sounding proposals.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRUPCO's figures were input to a "worst case" scenario. They were also required by the standards of the EIS. This is not their fault that worst case numbers without accounting variables is not more prominent. I still disagree with how the formula is set up because it flies in the face of how taxation actually works. One example was the school formula. Just because it costs app. $21,500.00 per child at Onteora, you do not add 36 children at that same price. That price is a division of a set levy. Adding more children is not a straight arithmetic equation. There are more factors involved. That is why I spoke up.
ReplyDeleteTo your claim that RUPCO has not made this case, that is just untrue. Kevin has addressed this and he even wrote a lengthy letter to the editor specifically about this.
I understand that you might have little confidence in my ability to understand taxation. Let me assure you that I have spent several years of my time on issues directly concerning taxation. I was prominent in doing a Reval in Woodstock along with all the ins and outs of how this affects taxpayers. I also worked with the Large Parcel legislation that utilized an alternate taxation method for assessing large parcels and their valuations. I worked hard to understand and enact this legislation and my efforts have saved Woodstock millions of dollars to date.
As to how you find it "interesting" that by my looking to resolve one issue you surmise that somehow I support all other aspects of the project is, I believe, unwarranted. Your second to last paragraph borders on ad hominem and I feel it doesn't bode well for a continued meaningful discourse.
There is nothing ad hominem about my statements. I am addressing the facts of your arguments on their face. But in addition, I am telling you that your reasoning is selective.
ReplyDeleteI will tell you how, now, since you doubt that I am doing that. You say that this is the worst case scenario. However, the "best" case scenario would be brought about by all of the housing being rented at market rates. That is the "BEST" case scenario for our tax situation, but that also means that the people living in this housing would not qualify for lower rents, and therefore we would be back to having no affordable housing, after building this huge compound of buildings, and paying investors their healthy return on investment.
You have to choose what meaning to assign to "best case" and "worst case." You can't change that in the middle.
I do not doubt that you are aware of property valuation, or that you have saved the town money, and I think everybody appreciates your concern and effort towards bringing affordable housing to this town.
However, I am not sure you are aware that RUPCO could well pay no property tax or next to no property tax on this development, and that is a much worse case scenario than the one they put forward.
I will explain how that would happen in my next presentation of "Just the Facts." I think it might turn into a series...
You have moved off of my original points with a worst-case best-case jambalaya. By not addressing the facts, your charge of selective reasoning seems to be reflective.
ReplyDeleteYes I am aware of Pilot programs and the like if that is what you are alluding to.
You are the one who introduced the word "worst-case scenario" with regard to taxes levied. All I said was that as that scenario became better, the level of affordability of the housing in question becomes worse. That is not a jambalaya, it is a quantitative relationship between two variables: taxes and level of affordability. If it is a jambalaya to you, perhaps you are hungry and should make yourself something to eat.
ReplyDeleteI have addressed the facts. Your "facts" are that RUPCO's tax figures used faulty mathematics. By negating the validity of one methodology and not replacing it with the correct one, you make it impossible for me to address anything, except to say that the town had the methodology audited and accepted it.
Now that you have called my argument a jambalaya, and accused me of selective reasoning when all I am doing is trying to make a coherent thread out of your negative statements, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
In any event, this is a blog, not a forum, and the point is to have readership, not to debate in the comments section of an old post that I would guess nobody is looking at anymore, and that besides, we are not even commenting about anymore. This post was simply about Guy Kempe's effectiveness in building pro-RUPCO support in the town.
Why don't you prepare your comments, not only judging RUPCO's figures negatively, but replacing them with a valid, realistic calculation and submitting them to the Woodstock Times letters section.
I am always interested in learning fresh opinions that I might have not been exposed to.
I look forward to reading and thinking through what you have to offer in the way of defense of this project.
It seems to me that you are just looking to win this fight. I've seen it many times before.
ReplyDeleteIf you have nothing of substance to add , please take your disparaging comments elsewhere.
ReplyDelete