78- Woodstock Times, April 22, 2010

I submitted 22 comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board, but also to the Woodstock Times. I was invited to adapt my comments, which are included in this blog (post #72), to a "Point of View" article of about 1250 words. The newspaper printed the article, and here it is:

What You Deserve to Know about Woodstock Commons

The terms affordable housing, Woodstock Commons, and RUPCO have become highly charged in Woodstock. Let us take a step back and answer some basic questions about Woodstock’s effort to develop affordable housing.

Question: What is Woodstock Commons and who is involved?

Answer: Woodstock Commons is a proposed housing project for Woodstock. Rural Ulster Preservation Company (RUPCO) is the developer proposing this project. Woodstock Planning Board currently is evaluating RUPCO’s proposal.

Q: What is the goal of Woodstock Commons?

A: Woodstock Commons is allegedly designed to meet Woodstock’s affordable housing need. Another goal of Woodstock Commons is profit. Woodstock Commons is a for profit project.

Q: Whose idea was it to bring RUPCO to Woodstock?

A: Woodstock appointed an Affordable Housing Committee about eight years ago. That committee invited RUPCO to Woodstock.

Q: Will Woodstock Commons meet Woodstock’s affordable housing need?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Woodstock is a very popular and expensive place to live. Creating subsidized housing will draw people here in massive numbers.

Q: But isn’t this project for Woodstock residents?

A: Not really. By law, eligibility for Woodstock Commons will be statewide. Qualifying applicants will enter a statewide lottery- no preference is given to Woodstock residents.

Q: But how will anybody outside Woodstock find out about Woodstock Commons?

A: RUPCO has been advertising Woodstock Commons for years, and has a long waiting list of non-Woodstockers for its other housing projects. And, once the New York City artists and senior communities find out they can live in Woodstock without a car, and get to and from NYC by bus, applications will flood into RUPCO’s office. Current Woodstockers’ applications will represent only a tiny percentage of the total.

Q: Won’t that deprive Woodstockers who are in need of affordable housing?

A: Yes, it will, however RUPCO’s two interests are filling the units with any eligible applicants, and taking in tax credits to reward their investors.

Q: How can the Planning Board not understand that Woodstock Commons will help from zero to at most a couple of Woodstockers?

A: RUPCO tells the Planning Board that affordable housing traditionally is filled by area residents, not by people from afar. The Planning Board does not appreciate just how exceptional Woodstock is, how famous, how desirable, and how many people will travel a great distance to relocate here.

Q: What can Woodstock do to ensure that Woodstock Commons is populated mostly by current Woodstockers?

A: Nothing.

Q: Are you saying that Woodstock Commons will fail in its mandate to meet Woodstock’s affordable housing need?

A: Yes, that is what I am saying.

Q: Well, other than failing in its only mandate, (other than making money for investors,) what else should I know about Woodstock Commons?

A: For starters, Woodstock Commons will raise town, county, and Onteora school district taxes- according to RUPCO.

Q: Huh? Locals are going to subsidize housing for newcomers?

A: Yes.

Q: How much will taxes increase?

A: RUPCO projects an increase of about 1.5% of property taxes, which comes to about $250,000 per year.

Q: Is that a lot?

A: It is, but it will be even worse than that. A few years ago, New York State passed Real Property Tax Law 581-a, which requires that taxes on affordable housing be assessed using net operating income, not market value. In its application to the Division of Housing, RUPCO’s operating costs, which dictate its tax payments, indicate that RUPCO will pay less tax than it claims.

Q: How much will this project cost Woodstock taxpayers?

A: There is no way to know whether RUPCO will pay any taxes at all on this housing.

Q: So, Woodstockers in need of affordable housing will not benefit, and the taxpayers will pay up to 100% of the local tab. Dare I ask what else is wrong with this project?

A: Since you asked, yes, there are a few other problem areas, such as the disputed width of Playhouse Lane.

Q: Why does that matter?

A: Well, although measuring the width of a road seems straightforward, RUPCO reports two very different widths in its application. When pressed by the Planning Board to state the width of Playhouse Lane, RUPCO representatives would not answer.

Q: I don’t understand why RUPCO would not answer the question.

A: RUPCO evaded the question because Playhouse Lane currently is not wide enough to legally accommodate traffic generated by Woodstock Commons. To compound this problem, RUPCO falsely reported federal road design standards and the volume of traffic Woodstock Commons will generate.

Q: Can’t RUPCO just widen Playhouse Lane a couple of feet and proceed?

A: Nope. RUPCO has no right to alter Playhouse Lane. Any widening would have to be undertaken by Woodstock, which will cost taxpayers even more money.

Q: So why won’t the town just widen the road and then RUPCO can go ahead?

A: The town is not allowed to spend big money to widen a road that currently does not need to be widened; not without allowing the town to hold a referendum on the expenditure.

Q: Are you saying that if the Planning Board learns that Playhouse Lane is not legally wide enough, the town has to widen it to accommodate the project, which means the voters can say no to the road widening and block the whole project?

A: Yup.

Q: Then why don’t you tell the Planning Board that Playhouse Lane is not legally wide enough?

A: I did.

Q: What did they say? What did they do?

A: They asked RUPCO: “How wide is Playhouse Lane?” RUPCO didn’t answer. Then the Planning Board voted unanimously to accept the part of RUPCO’s application that deals with this issue. I have to conclude that the Planning Board simply doesn’t care about the legal width of Playhouse Lane.

Q: Wow. Anything else I should know?

A: Certainly. Last month, RUPCO broke the news to the Planning Board that the parking lot at Playhouse Plaza is in the State’s right of way.

Q: Is that a big deal?

A: Yes. The Planning Board wants to keep this quiet, otherwise the merchants might turn against the project.

Q: Why would they turn against it?

A: It is likely that Woodstock Commons’ added traffic will cause more traffic accidents at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane. In the interest of safety, the parking lot would be closed down. But merchants signed leases expecting parking spaces in front of their stores. Losing those spaces would hurt their business. Not adding more cars to the intersection by not building Woodstock Commons might be the only way to keep the parking lot open.

Q: Wow. Say, I heard that Woodstock Commons will feature geothermal power. Isn’t that an innovative and green heating technology?

A: Yes. Installation will require drilling 53 wells, each 300 feet deep, which is over three miles of drilling. Curiously, RUPCO did not factor this enormous endeavor into its construction timeline. Nor is the noise of the drills estimated in the list of construction noises, and well drills are louder than any of the machines that do appear on the list.

Q: What does all that mean?

A: If the town allows RUPCO to build Woodstock Commons, expect it to be late, noisy, unsafe, expensive for taxpayers, profitable for investors, and virtually worthless to Woodstockers in need of affordable housing.

Thanks to Woodstock Times for asking me to share my comments. For comments on more aspects of Woodstock Commons, and for further details on the above information, see: http://thetroublewithrupco.blogspot.com