For my one hundredth blog post, I decided to branch out of Woodstock. Last Wednesday morning, while looking over RUPCO's website filled with false research, I got a call from a resident from Rosendale, which is about half an hour south of Woodstock, and in the same county (Ulster). This guy wanted a legal referral since he was planning to challenge his town, which is supposedly planning affordable housing down there, also built by RUPCO. Since I sued without an attorney, I was unable to oblige him, but I asked him what was up and he told me that that night, there would be a public hearing on the proposed project. I told him I'd be there to lend support. I called the Rosendale town clerk to confirm the time and so forth, and was told that it was not really an official public hearing, but rather a regular town board meeting with this housing project on the agenda.
It was only after I arrived at the meeting that night that I found out that there are two housing builders applying to build the affordable housing, RUPCO and and another developer. And, I learned that this was the evening during which the public could ask questions or, it's true, make comments about either of these two companies.
Sometimes timing is too perfect.
I raised my hand and told this town, which is five years behind Woodstock in the RUPCO affordable housing nightmare, what RUPCO has done in Woodstock, and directed the town board to this blog. I went into just a couple of details, including the geothermal well drilling noise omission and the drilling duration omission from the construction schedule. Stuff like that. I also spoke about the false information on the RUPCO website, since I had been writing about that just that morning.
I hope I did a service to the town of Rosendale. I hope they do their homework and avoid working with RUPCO at all.
The man who phoned me that morning was concerned that there is dioxin contaminating the site on which the town wishes to place affordable housing. This, of course, is the number one concern, and unfortunately one in which I have no expertise to lend. I hope Rosendale does the right thing and throws out the EPA tests and conducts their own.
Good luck, Rosendale.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
99- RUPCO PRODUCES MORE FALSE CLAIMS
I was on the RUPCO website just now, looking at RUPCO's claims of tax revenue expected from Woodstock Commons. First of all, the project is supposed to have 53 units, not 63 units. The contact person for questions and comments on this information is Brad Will, so I guess Brad, the ARCHITECT, can be excused for not knowing that the project was reduced from 63 to 53 units YEARS ago since he is JUST the guy who DREW THE PLANS.
But that's the least of the problems with this table:
After looking at this table, I of course called up the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and was immediately connected with a very nice lady who told me that the NAHB uses economic models to derive tax revenues from multi-unit housing projects. She said that there is one model for market-rate housing and one model for affordable housing. She said the models are based on projects of 100 units. She also said she would email me the model.
I have received nothing yet, but I have found an 18-page paper by NAHB about the economic model used to project tax income from affordable housing projects, based on 100 unit projects. If you are interested in looking at it, here it is:
http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentTypeID=3&contentID=35601&subContentID=119693
The study used housing projects from six states, including New York. The study used a single method of estimating the taxable income from the projects, which is based on the market value of the properties. As I have pointed out before, in New York State, under Real Property Law 581-A, the market value of the property has nothing whatsoever to do with the tax rate on affordable housing projects. This has been the case since 2006. The study was produced in 2007, which means that the data probably was collected in 2006, and since the study uses states from across the country, it is understandable that the New York data is older than the RPTL 581-A implementation date, and disregards the law entirely.
The bottom line is that Brad Will, the architect, and RUPCO, the builder, is using absolutely false numbers, under the current law governing tax generation from affordable housing.
But that's the least of the problems with this table:
I have received nothing yet, but I have found an 18-page paper by NAHB about the economic model used to project tax income from affordable housing projects, based on 100 unit projects. If you are interested in looking at it, here it is:
http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentTypeID=3&contentID=35601&subContentID=119693
The study used housing projects from six states, including New York. The study used a single method of estimating the taxable income from the projects, which is based on the market value of the properties. As I have pointed out before, in New York State, under Real Property Law 581-A, the market value of the property has nothing whatsoever to do with the tax rate on affordable housing projects. This has been the case since 2006. The study was produced in 2007, which means that the data probably was collected in 2006, and since the study uses states from across the country, it is understandable that the New York data is older than the RPTL 581-A implementation date, and disregards the law entirely.
The bottom line is that Brad Will, the architect, and RUPCO, the builder, is using absolutely false numbers, under the current law governing tax generation from affordable housing.
98- under Pressure-
Last night at the Woodstock Town Board meeting, which was sparsely attended by both town residents and board members, Denis Larios of the town's engineering firm, Brinier and Larios, presented some information about Woodstock's current water "emergency." He used the word emergency, and the word draught, although it seems that the emergency is caused not primarily by a shortfall of water, but rather by a plugging up of passageways down in the town's most productive well, which is called "Number Two." Basically, Woodstock's well is constipated, and no amount of fluids from the sky seems to be enough to rectify (sorry) the situation.
So, unconstipate the wells, and everything will be fine, right? Well, not so fast. Jeff Moran, town supervisor, asked Larios whether the town has enough capacity to supply the Woodstock Commons project with water from our now month long restricted town wells. Larios started to chip away at the estimated water consumption, arguing that affordable housing residents use less water than people living in market rate housing. He did not say it like that, but that is what it came down to. He tried to characterize Woodstock Commons as "senior" housing, comparing it to other "senior housing," and both Terrie Rosenblum and I called him on that. I did suggest that the water demand estimates used for Woodstock Commons actually be the ones in the FEIS, that were approved already by the teams of experts RUPCO employed and the planning board nodded forward without understanding what they were approving. Larios agreed. So, the only thing to do now is fix the wells and then measure whether the capacity is actually there for Woodstock Commons, given the ONE THIRD of the capacity that currently is being lost to leaks or somewhere else, all of a sudden after years of only losing ten percent to leaks. That is roughly one bathtub full of water every 90 seconds, ever day, all year long. That is treated water we are talking about.
But on to the question of pressure. Not the pressure Dennis Larios was under to avoid saying that Woodstock Commons would be a burden on the water district. I'm talking about the water pressure itself. Among the handful of attendees at last night's meeting was none other than Paul Shultis, Jr., chair of the planning board. He volunteered a response to my concern about water pressure, even though this subject is one contained in my current lawsuit against him and the planning board and the town board and Jeff Moran.
I stated, last night, that under the Ten States Standards, water pressure in a residence should be between 60 and 80 PSI, but that the absolute minimum is 35 PSI, and that I had personally measured the water pressure at my house, and the first time I did so it was 37 PSI. I brought up the question of whether Woodstock Commons would decrease the water pressure in my neighborhood to a substandard level. Shultis' response revealed a total lack of understanding of how water pressure in a system works. He claimed that he saw a map, on paper, with a pressure of 65 PSI at the entrance to the proposed Woodstock Commons site. To him, apparently, this means that water pressure at that point will always and forever be 65 PSI under all conditions and that that will never change, when in reality, water pressure in a system changes with various conditions including demand.
Shultis also said that water entering my house at 70 PSI would break my appliances. This is wrong. Water pressure over 100 PSI is dangerous, but the normal, ideal range is 60 - 80 PSI. Somebody sold Paul Shultis, Jr. a bill of goods, why I don't know. But he is now on record as having as good as no understanding of water pressure, and is the person ultimately in charge of approving the probable tripling of water demand on my extension of the town water main.
I also brought up the fact that there was no simulation of water demand done for the potential expansion of the water district to Woodstock Commons, but instead the 1996 expansion down Route 375 was included instead. However, there was simulation data about firefighting pressure, so there must have been some research done, and I asked the town to try to dig up whatever research had been done. Of course the data came from RUPCO.
Anyway, more about this later. For now, I'd like to say that I believe that everybody, including me, and perhaps especially me, appreciates that Paul is trying to do the right thing. Thanks for speaking up, Paul.
So, unconstipate the wells, and everything will be fine, right? Well, not so fast. Jeff Moran, town supervisor, asked Larios whether the town has enough capacity to supply the Woodstock Commons project with water from our now month long restricted town wells. Larios started to chip away at the estimated water consumption, arguing that affordable housing residents use less water than people living in market rate housing. He did not say it like that, but that is what it came down to. He tried to characterize Woodstock Commons as "senior" housing, comparing it to other "senior housing," and both Terrie Rosenblum and I called him on that. I did suggest that the water demand estimates used for Woodstock Commons actually be the ones in the FEIS, that were approved already by the teams of experts RUPCO employed and the planning board nodded forward without understanding what they were approving. Larios agreed. So, the only thing to do now is fix the wells and then measure whether the capacity is actually there for Woodstock Commons, given the ONE THIRD of the capacity that currently is being lost to leaks or somewhere else, all of a sudden after years of only losing ten percent to leaks. That is roughly one bathtub full of water every 90 seconds, ever day, all year long. That is treated water we are talking about.
But on to the question of pressure. Not the pressure Dennis Larios was under to avoid saying that Woodstock Commons would be a burden on the water district. I'm talking about the water pressure itself. Among the handful of attendees at last night's meeting was none other than Paul Shultis, Jr., chair of the planning board. He volunteered a response to my concern about water pressure, even though this subject is one contained in my current lawsuit against him and the planning board and the town board and Jeff Moran.
I stated, last night, that under the Ten States Standards, water pressure in a residence should be between 60 and 80 PSI, but that the absolute minimum is 35 PSI, and that I had personally measured the water pressure at my house, and the first time I did so it was 37 PSI. I brought up the question of whether Woodstock Commons would decrease the water pressure in my neighborhood to a substandard level. Shultis' response revealed a total lack of understanding of how water pressure in a system works. He claimed that he saw a map, on paper, with a pressure of 65 PSI at the entrance to the proposed Woodstock Commons site. To him, apparently, this means that water pressure at that point will always and forever be 65 PSI under all conditions and that that will never change, when in reality, water pressure in a system changes with various conditions including demand.
Shultis also said that water entering my house at 70 PSI would break my appliances. This is wrong. Water pressure over 100 PSI is dangerous, but the normal, ideal range is 60 - 80 PSI. Somebody sold Paul Shultis, Jr. a bill of goods, why I don't know. But he is now on record as having as good as no understanding of water pressure, and is the person ultimately in charge of approving the probable tripling of water demand on my extension of the town water main.
I also brought up the fact that there was no simulation of water demand done for the potential expansion of the water district to Woodstock Commons, but instead the 1996 expansion down Route 375 was included instead. However, there was simulation data about firefighting pressure, so there must have been some research done, and I asked the town to try to dig up whatever research had been done. Of course the data came from RUPCO.
Anyway, more about this later. For now, I'd like to say that I believe that everybody, including me, and perhaps especially me, appreciates that Paul is trying to do the right thing. Thanks for speaking up, Paul.
Monday, August 2, 2010
97- my leisure suit
In my leisure time, I have designed and sewn together and filed in New York Supreme Court a petition seeking to set aside the Woodstock Planning Board's July 1 adoption of the Findings Statement "written by" the Woodstock Planning Board. (First draft was written by RUPCO and Woodstock Planning Board, meaning Dara Trahan, Woodstock's professional planner, made slight alterations to the document.)
An article in Kingston's Daily Freeman, page 3 today, August 2, 2010, describes some of what is in the petition:
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/08/02/news/doc4c561f400e595660104558.txt
I would love to comment, but my team of legal advisers suggests that I refrain.
The petition is filed with Ulster County Clerk, under index number 10-3890.
An article in Kingston's Daily Freeman, page 3 today, August 2, 2010, describes some of what is in the petition:
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/08/02/news/doc4c561f400e595660104558.txt
I would love to comment, but my team of legal advisers suggests that I refrain.
The petition is filed with Ulster County Clerk, under index number 10-3890.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
