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

77- No Conflict?

When a new member of the Planning Board encounters a project before the board, it would seem only fair that that member call attention to any conflict of interest between his or her personal or professional interests, and the matter before the Board.

In past blog posts, I called attention to two current Planning Board members who, in my opinion, have conflicts of interest regarding RUPCO's proposal, before the board now, for Woodstock Commons.

Today I will present additional evidence that Jim Huben, the newest member of the Planning Board, has a clear conflict of interest, and should have recused himself from this particular project, Woodstock Commons, although not from other matters before the Planning Board.

The 2005 application by RUPCO to the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal contains numerous letters of support from interested agencies in New York State. One of these agencies is Jim Huben's employer. The agency assists people with developmental disabilities. Woodstock Commons has reserved two units for, it seems, up to four individuals with developmental disabilities. The letter, captured below in a photograph, contains all the details.

I will just mention that Jim Huben has the responsibility to know whether or not his employer has a vested interest in this housing project, and the answer is yes, it does.

Not only is the agency for the developmentally disabled of New York State in favor of Woodstock Commons, in part I would imagine because it has spaces for the developmentally disabled, but the letter also says that the office of the agency that wrote this particular letter has four specific individuals in mind for occupancy in the housing. So the interest is a lot more than passing or general; the agency's mandate will be satisfied by a yes vote on Woodstock Commons, and Jim Huben, one of the agency's employees, has a vote.

If this does not define "conflict of interest," I don't know what does.

Let me just say that I do not think that the agency in question did anything wrong, necessarily. It was Huben's and the Planning Board's duty to take note of and certainly to avoid this conflict. Their individual and collective failures to do so will be raised before the Woodstock Ethics Board, for starters.

76- logo proposal

It has been mentioned to me that Helter Skelter sounds murderous. I admit that this is, unfortunately, true, even though the meaning of the expression is akin to "pell mell" or basically chaotic. I do not want to suggest any type of crime or violence in any way, so I'll go back to the drawing board on a logo for Woodstock Commons allegedly affordable housing project.

75- Lottery

Woodstock Commons- A Housing Lottery.

On Feb. 5, 2009, Kevin O'Connor said there would not be a state lottery for Woodstock Commons. Hmmm. As far as I know, there will be a lottery, and it will be open to every person in the state who qualifies. How is that NOT a state lottery?

Please use the comments section to help me out.

Looking for statistics on housing lotteries, I found this one from 2007, Brooklyn:

Dunn Development Corporation, a private developer, and the Northeast Brooklyn Housing Development Corporation, a non-profit community-based organization. There was a lottery process for potential renters.

"The lottery lasted for about eight weeks. In this case we saw 6,000 applications for 33 units of housing," said NEBHD Corp. CEO Jeffery Dunston.

Let's do the math: there was one unit for every 182 applications.

Of course, things won't necessarily be that bad back at ole Woodstock Commons; they could be worse. Kevin O'Connor wrote a letter to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal back in 2005, offering to refer hundreds or possibly over a thousand wait listed people to Woodstock Commons.

Add to those referrals all the wannabe artists who'd kill to live in "the colony of the arts." Mmm, all that fresh air, four buses per day to NYC, plenty of intellectual stimulation. Hey, maybe I will leave the city and go live in Woodstock. Wait a minute, I already did.

Know what? I would love to have more city people for neighbors. Well, I'm in luck because this lottery that Kevin O'Connor does not want you to think is a state lottery really IS a state lottery. So what's to stop me from inviting all my artsy and senior friends up for the day to apply? They could get lucky and so could I, and I could get some of my neighbors back.

And for that matter, what's to stop every person in and around Woodstock from inviting five people up for a day or overnight to apply for Woodstock Commons?

Somebody could make a video about Woodstock Commons with application information, on youtube.

Today a friend told me that somebody could post an ad for Woodstock Commons on craigslist. Well, why not?

How many applicants do you think there will be?

Please share with me your method of calculating your estimate. Please use the comments area.

I know! Let's make this a contest: The person who submits the best estimate (including method of calculation) will "win." Please note that the "best" estimate is the one I like the best, not the one closest to the real number, since there is a non-zero probability that the number will be zero.

Please note that my contest is a contest, not a lottery, and that it is open to everybody on earth, except employees of RUPCO.

74- RUPCO's Marketing Plan Is Illegal

On February 5th, 2009, Kevin O'Connor stood before a packed community center in Woodstock, NY and told the crowd how RUPCO would market Woodstock Commons.

RUPCO is required to follow certain rules in marketing its housing projects. The rules are the same for all affordable housing capital projects in New York. The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) wrote the rules. If you would like to read the rules for yourself, you are already one step ahead of Mister O'Connor. Here they are:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jcpjpLA-bSkJ:www.dhcr.state.ny.us/Forms/FairHousing/FHEOMarketPlan.pdf+site:dhcr.state.ny.us+dhcr+selection+lottery&hl=en&gl=us

And here is Kevin O'Connor's version:

If you are not in the mood, and would prefer me to summarize and compare: the law vs. Kevin O'Connor's version, you are in luck. Here we go!

Section 4 of the marketing plan guidelines used by the New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, which is taken from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, includes three elements:

a.
Identify the primary market area in which the project is located. The primary market area
should encompass a population of between 5,000 to 50,000. Identify the racial/ethnic characteristics of the primary market area population using relevant 2000 US Census data.

Kevin got this part right when he said that Woodstock, Olive, Shandaken and Hurley are 20,000 people. He did not speak about identifying the racial/ethnic characteristics of this population using 2000 Census data.

b.
Specify the racial/ethnic group(s) identified in the Census data as least likely to
apply (LLA) for the primary market area. (Groups comprising less than 1% need
not be considered.)

Kevin didn't touch this part...

c.
Identify the secondary market area which, when taken together, will
encompass a minimum population of between 75,000 to 100,000 people. The
secondary market area will be the area and population range used for outreach to
LLA populations, community contacts and general advertising for the project.

Kevin ignored this part also. And, here is where the 75,000 people come in. Apparently Kevin was answering the accusation of the keenly observant Iris York. He claimed that he did not know where this number came from (apart from coming from Iris.)

This, part c, is very important. 75,000 is over half of Ulster County. If RUPCO markets to the above-mentioned four towns, plus Saugerties, plus Kingston, that still does not make 75,000 people.

What Kevin O'Connor was peddling to the people of Woodstock that night was pure fantasy. He said the market for the project was the smaller area. In fact, he named four towns and said "That's who the project is going to." But, the larger area, which is the secondary market, is the area in which the developer must market the project. So, if RUPCO has to market to the larger area, and anybody in the state can apply, how can RUPCO know who the project is going to? Kevin is a con.

Is he going to get away with it? I dunno. Depends on whether the people at the Division of Housing and Community Renewal take any interest in this guy thumbing his nose at their rules.

I will let you know how things turn out.

And finally, if the LEGAL marketing plan is not enough to convince you that Woodstock will not be served by Woodstock Commons, how about this statewide search engine for New York State. Plus, there is a toll-free number with live operator help, in case you do not have internet service.

"Hello, I heard there was subsidized housing in Woodstock! How can I apply?

ACCESSIBILITY/ADAPTABILITY OF UNITS:

NOTE: No later than 90 days prior to engaging in marketing activities, you must register your project with www.NYHousingSearch.gov,

a FREE service provided by New York State to

advertise and search for affordable and accessible housing. The service is also available through a

toll-free, bilingual call center at 1-877-428-8844. Representatives are available to assist with listings and searches.

In another day or two, I'll post the other part of Kevin's presentation, when he explains how there will not be a lottery, but then there will, but only so that people don't have accidents rushing to apply for Woodstock Commons.

73- Woodstock Commons Tax Credits

One of this blog's "anonymous" - oh sorry, "Anonymous" commenters asked me to explain the tax credits in Woodstock Commons. This person's questions can be found at the end of several comments below post #68.

Here is part of the quote that this commenter wants explained:

A tax credit, or equity, syndicator connects private investors seeking a strong return on investments with developers seeking cash for a qualified LIHTC project. Enterprise Community Partners and LISC are the largest of these syndicators. As mentioned above, the credit is used to generate private equity, often prior to, or during, the construction of the project. Developers typically "sell" the credits by entering into limited partnerships (or limited liability companies) with an investor, with 99.99% of the profits, losses, depreciation, and tax credits being allocated to the investor as a partner in the partnership. The developer serves as the general partner/managing member, and receives a majority of the cash flow (either through the payment of fees, or through distributions). The funds generated through the syndication vary from market to market and year-to-year.

All this means that investors want to invest in affordable housing because they make a good return on investment. This makes the housing, Woodstock Commons, a for profit project. RUPCO is the applicant, and its for profit subsidiary makes 0.01% of the profit, but is the general partner in the partnership, and makes the private investment possible. There is a non-profit organization working with RUPCO, that exists solely to take investment and act as the limited investment partner in this kind of project. That "partner" makes 99.99% of the profit.

See http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/products_and_services/lihtc.asp