"RUPCO has demonstrated that in all likelihood, there will be no major tax or other economic consequence for the community. While we were required to present a 'worst case scenario' for the FEIS, thee will likely be no extra tax burden or cost to the community."
Actually, what the DEIS claims is that taxes will increase 1.5%. The DEIS or FEIS does not call this a worst case scenario, and it is not a worst case scenario. In the scenario presented by RUPCO, the project will pay about $19,000 in property taxes. That would be the result of a net positive operating budget. The worst case scenario is a zero or negative net operating budget, which would produce a situation in which the project owners pay $0,000 in property taxes. If RUPCO really was REQUIRED to present a worst-case scenario, why didn't they call it that, and why did they lie about what that case would be? (Answer: because they are liars.)
Kevin claims that no new police will be required. How does he know that? Everybody knows that low income housing has higher crime rates than higher income housing. That's just a fact. And if you check the crime stats for the housing in Kingston that RUPCO manages, do not be surprised at what you find. This housing very well could, and probably will, require more police presence. In addition, the increase in town population will be about 2%, so why will there NOT be an increase in police presence by 2%? Also, this housing will house the elderly, including the frail elderly and the developmentally disabled. Kevin claims that this population will not increase the first responder workload at all, not even by 2%. How about by 4% or 5%? If you have a bunch of frail elderly living alone, don't you think that the paramedics will be visiting more frequently than to the rest of the town population as a whole? I do. Now, none of these people are bad, and none of their problems are wrong, but it is only realistic to admit that they will require additional services from the town.
The Planning Board didn't just DRINK the RUPCO cool-aid, they went out and bought it, poured the water, mixed the powder, and tried to get the rest of the town to drink it too.
"The question of who will live at the property has been raised most loudly by people who themselves are new to the community."
Aw shucks, that's me he's writing about. This argument is insane. I could live in Alaska, and my argument would still be valid. This is like David Boyle discounting any opposition from anybody who owns a house because they should just be grateful to have shelter. I guess David Boyle thinks that only those people who do not own property have valid positions. But back to O'Connor. He changes the subject by writing about discrimination based on many factors including place of origin. He also strays from his prior claim that the project will be for the 20,000 people currently residing in Woodstock, Shandaken, Olive and Hurley. Remember, last year, when he said: "That's who the project is going to." He also said that he didn't know where the number 75,000 comes from, but the fact is that this number is the low end of the market area to which RUPCO must advertise Woodstock Commons. If you have forgotten, here is the video once more:
O'Connor also writes that Woodstock Commons "will remain affordable by regulatory agreement for at least the next 50 years!" Sorry, but this is just plain bullshit. This housing can, by the agreement in place, be flipped to another owner, and cease to be affordable housing, the day it opens its doors.
Remember that the affordable housing committee's mandate was to create affordable housing for Woodstock, not increase the population of Woodstock by creating affordable housing for people to move into from elsewhere, and the current Woodstockers in need would be out of luck. That's where the town is headed, and nothing O'Connor writes in this piece of junk says otherwise.
Remember: Kevin O'Connor told this town that this project would "go to" the 20,000 people of this immediate area. Now he says the project cannot discriminate on the basis of where people "come from." he denies, on tape, knowledge of the Office of Fair Housing marketing rules, when he is before the town, but later, he massages the truth into this sales job. He tries to guilt the people of Woodstock into allowing this project by calling this town synonymous with peace and love. This is the guy who asked the town who wanted to go to heaven, and suggested that supporting this project is the way to get there. Don't believe a thing this creep tells you.
Robin: keep shinning the light of truth under rock of Rupco before it crushes Woodstock.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that bugs me the most about the RUPCO PR effort, is when they
state that this project is for local employees, artists , young people and elderly but immediately attack anyone that points out that this is not true, as somehow racially or economically bigoted. The facts are just being stated!
Why could they have not stated from the start that this housing project has nothing to do with helping Woodstock with it’s affordable housing needs but is really
a for profit real estate deal behind a cloak of affordability?
Rupco won’t help with accessory apartments or repairing run down local housing because it would not be as profitable as a full market 53 unit building in a high-end real estate market like Woodstock.
Some say if you looking for answers, follow the money. The background of some of your attackers is real estate and construction not civil rights and housing the local poor.