88- Safety is Important, but only for kickers.

Last night at the Planning Board meeting, during a public hearing, I asked a question that was, apparently, not within the purview of the Planning Board. Shultis held up the planning board handbook and told me that I should know that my question was not within the board's purview because it said so in this book.

Hmm. Dara Trahan reeled him in. An audience member told him he was obnoxious.

There are three public hearings on the Comeau parking lot expansion. How am I supposed to know which questions are appropriate for which public hearings? How can the public be encouraged to participate when we are met with this kind of attitude on the boards? When I attended the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing on this parking lot expansion, Howard Harris singled me out twice. Why? All I did was ask a question of two. My questions were innocent.

The issue is the parking lot expansion- why is it happening? I did not live in the town when the previous town board decided this was necessary, probably when there was more money to spend. I was granted the knowledge that the parking lot was going to be expanded for safety reasons. This means that the parents of soccer kids who run around the parking lot need more ordered in and out lanes to avoid accidents.

How many accidents have occurred in the upper Comeau parking lot, I asked.

Zero.

Well, I was told, it would be awful if one happened before the parking lot expansion.

I brought up the fact that the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212 has experienced SIX accidents in the last year and a half, and the town is entirely idle with regard to parking lot safety at Playhouse Plaza.

Shultis interrupted me to tell me that this comment was off topic. I tried to say that this comment was exactly ON topic, because by comparison, the money on the upper Comeau parking lot is being spent wrongly. It should rightly go to a place where there HAVE been accidents.

Because I was shut down, I was not able to add the relevant fact that Playhouse Plaza is within a quarter mile of Woodstock Elementary School, which operates five days a week, about 9-10 months per year, versus the soccer league for kids which operates maybe 20 Saturdays and about as many weekday afternoons for practice.

It is clear to me that safety for the soccer kids, many of whom do not even live in Woodstock, is more important than safety for the elementary school children who walk to school, or who would walk to school if the route was safer.

Bad decision, town of Woodstock.

RUPCO is the entity that pointed out that the Playhouse Plaza parking lot is within the State's right of way. Thanks RUPCO! It's all about safety, safety is number one. So, actually, it would probably not even cost the town a cent to make that parking lot safer. The State probably would handle it. So, why no phone call to the State DOT? I think that the town has been thinking that this parking lot is private property with no right of way controlled by the state, and is afraid to limit its use for fear of a lawsuit.

Don't worry, town, you have immunity when you make decisions over things like this. Your liability is limited to ministerial acts, such as, oh, fixing potholes, or, um, maintaining the minimum standard of water pressure to your water district.

87- Give Our Volunteers a Hand...Book

With Jim Dougherty saying so long to the Ethics Board, I got to wondering what the town actually tells its potential volunteers when they are thinking of volunteering in the first place. So, I consulted the Woodstock Volunteers Handbook today and this paragraph caught my eye:

There are some requirements for appointment by the Woodstock Town Board to any of the committees listed in this handbook. A candidate must be a qualified elector of the Town of Woodstock. This means that the candidate must be at least 18 years of age, must present proof of residency, and must not maintain an address outside of the Town of Woodstock for voting purposes.

Pretty basic.

So, that's all.

Just pointing it out.

Really, no big deal.

Go back to what you were doing.

86- Kevin O'Connor Keeps on Lying

Kevin O'Connor signed his name to a Point of View article in the Woodstock Times yesterday. As usual, his facts are wrong, his claims contradict previous claims. Let us look at some of them.

"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.

85- In This Morning's Mail

I love those premium incentive companies that customize pens and send samples out to new businesses:

RUPCO didn't get the pen 'cause RUPCO didn't create the company.

84- Affordable Housing Forever? NO!

OK everybody, there was a lot of excitement recently surrounding Jim Charles/Chuckles/Dougherty of Bearsville Post Office Box/Shady Street Address (see... he never REALLY lied) as he was pinned down and flushed out of circulation, at least as anybody with any moral authority whatsoever. So, what has been happening in the meantime?

I'm glad you asked, because this little video from last week's Planning Board meeting is pretty magnificent. In it, Dara Trahan, town planning specialist, puts a question to RUPCO attorney Michael Moriello, who looked up from his Quickbooks tutorial (not really) to answer: NO.

The question? Dara asked if the town of Woodstock, represented by the Planning Board, could have the authority to limit the use of the Woodstock Commons housing project to affordable housing. What other use is there, you ask. The other use is of course non-affordable housing. It is market rate housing, owned by RUPCO, or perhaps RUPCO will sell to somebody else, which is well within their right, and then the housing could be sold, for profit, and the housing could be chopped up and sold, for profit.

Watch the video. Everybody is very uncomfortable. Dara starts to discuss case law on special use permits. What she is trying to say when she discussing restaurants with drive-thru windows is that sometimes courts allow the business to run the window because it is a business, but sometimes courts restrict the use of the window because it interferes with the neighborhood quality of life. Her point, I think, is that the courts are split on who gets to limit the use of the land that has a special use permit. The courts are not supposed to regulate "the business" through land use regulation. Watch as Moriello says "business," because RUPCO is the business we are talking about. RUPCO is not a housing authority here. RUPCO is not answerable to Woodstock. RUPCO is going to take possession of the ball, start running, and won't look back, and we will be here with more housing stock, not affordable housing, and the need for affordable housing will remain.

Folks, if RUPCO wanted to provide Woodstock and Ulster County with affordable housing, why oh why would RUPCO say NO to making Woodstock Commons affordable for a long period of time, such as fifty years, or even twenty years, like the other affordable housing in town.

Oh yeah, that other "successful" affordable housing project, Woodstock Meadows, has almost timed out.

The devil is in the details, and this video shows a very very big detail. Just look at Moriello's body language. He can't even look up, he's so embarrassed.

83- Woodstock Times Does Good; secret message

Thank you, Woodstock Times, for stepping up and doing the right thing by pursuing Jim Charles and exposing him for the twisted, unethical fake that he, Jim Charles Dougherty, really is. Here is a link to yesterday's editorial by Brian Hollander:

http://www.ulsterpublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=518238

Brian also printed my letter, submitted Tuesday, which I insert below. Now, the letter was printed in one big paragraph in a uniform font, but for your viewing pleasure, I have played with format and font to highlight the secret message:

Don’t you think Jim Charles’ letter in last week’s paper was unfair, since he didn’t exactly accuse me of economic or racial bigotry, but only apparent economic or racial bigotry?

One way to avoid the responsibility of name-calling is by inserting the modifier “apparent,” just like Jim Charles is apparently a Woodstocker, despite not being listed, paying property taxes, or voting in this town.

Unless, of course, the more effective method of avoiding responsibility is used, and that way is of course hiding behind a fake name.

Good news: eventually, if we look long and hard enough, faux Jims get caught.

He who claims to be most ethical, but cannot resist the temptation to descend from the lofty throne of impartiality, often entraps himself in his own dangerous game.

Every man and every woman must stand up and take responsibility for his or her words and actions.

Responsibility was shirked at this paper too, which, despite an ironclad letters policy that requires writers to verify their identities with addresses or phone numbers, shamefully cannot identify this “Jim Charles.”

The one called “an apparent bigot” was me, (and by the way I deny it, see my blog thetroublewithrupco.blogspot.com) and I want to know who wrote that, under a pseudonym, for publication.

Yes, he is a Woodstocker, obviously, but I deserve to know his name, to know, when I look into his face on the street, that behind the fake smile is an angry, arrogant, desperate manipulator, a cheater, a coward.

Did I know for sure it was Dougherty? No. But there are not all that many people in Woodstock who are that twisted, or who hate me that much. In fact, he might be the only one.

82- Unethical Jim Charles

Have yous heard? Yesterday the Woodstock Times, only after considerable urging on the part of me and others, I might add, dug sufficiently and found the true identity of Jim Charles.

Hours later, Jim Dougherty resigned from the Ethics Committee, on which he had been the chair.

Jim Dougherty's middle name is Charles.

Shame on you, Jim Charles Dougherty.

And as for the Woodstock Times, who did not, in the first place, verify the identity of a letter writer who called me a bigot - - - we'll deal with you later.

81- Appointed Expert

The mysterious Jim Charles accused me of being a self-appointed expert on the subject of RUPCO. This is another false accusation. I never claimed to be an expert. When asked for my qualifications, I gave them. I have read and listened, thought and written. I have a blog. George Pattison of the Woodstock Times read my blog and contacted me. I did not contact him. He interviewed me and wrote a page one story on my blog and the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212. The newspaper elevated my blog to something more than my personal expression on the internet- I did not.

When the Planning Board approved RUPCO's Final Environmental Impact Statement, there was an open comment period. I submitted 22 comments, which came out to 5000 words. That's just what it took to express my ideas. I sent a copy of my comments to the Woodstock Times. Why? Because, my comments were based in fact, and in my mind, relevant and of interest to Woodstockers. All I did was send in the comments. The Woodstock Times then ASKED ME to write a Point of View article. I did not request that honor.

As for my letters that have been published in the paper, it is the right of anybody, I believe to submit letters and have them appear in print.

Lastly, when I rented the community center to speak about RUPCO's project, I did so because I had something to say. I never claimed to be any more of an expert than anybody else. All I did was feel strongly enough about the project to pay money to have a place to offer people a time and place to come and learn what I had learned, to hear the facts.

80- Mystery Jim

Who is Jim Charles? Well, for one, he is the guy who called me an (apparent) bigot (either racial or economic, or both.) Hey Jim, thanks for not really calling me a bigot, but only suggesting that I appear to be a bigot.

Why am I a bigot? Is it because I told the town board that if and when RUPCO is ready to lease homes to the public, I would like to bring busloads of city people up to apply? I really would, and I really will, if the town lets RUPCO build Woodstock Commons, but it's not because I am trying to punish the town or scare the planning board into denying the project.

It was the town itself that wanted to house current Woodstockers in need of affordable housing. That was a need that was supposed to be met by Woodstock Commons, and it won't be. Instead, absent my participation, loads of people in Kingston will gladly move up here and commute to work down there, or take the UCAT bus to Kingston Plaza to shop for groceries.

All I'm doing is suggesting that we bring real artists and others who will appreciate being here, rather than people from Kingston and Saugerties who have ties to their neighboring communities already, who will live off our tax dollars and give back nothing in return.

And as for being a racial bigot, excuse me, but I'm just not. I have lived, not by necessity but by choice, in several predominantly non-white neighborhoods, including South-Central Los Angeles and West Philadelphia. My current profession is authoring and publishing books for children in large cities, about large cities, which celebrate diversity and the creative sharing of space that is a large city with a diverse racial makeup. I have spent just about my entire life living in large cities with diverse populations, and I would say that each and every one of them exhibited greater openness of thinking than the faction of city-hating Woodstockers.

And who is Jim Charles? Well, for one, the Woodstock Times, which asks me for my address and/or phone number each and every time I submit a letter, even though editor Brian Hollander lives TWO HOUSES AWAY from me and we see each other and chat frequently, apparently is not aware of who Jim Charles is, or isn't. Editor Hollander emailed me that he had thought he knew Jim Charles, but maybe not...

Look Woodstock Times, that is not a consistent letter policy. The Woodstock Times has allowed a person with an unverified identity to accuse me of bigotry. I will not let that go.

Jim Charles is not in the phone book. Jim Charles, at least by that or a similar name, does not vote in Woodstock. I can't find title to property in Bearsville linked to his name. Nobody seems to know Jim Charles, but Jim Charles seems to be intimately aware of everybody in town.

Even David Boyle, that angry, red, infection on the complexion of Woodstock, read the Jim Charles letter. It's getting around. Somebody will answer for this letter. If Jim Charles' identity is not clarified in the next couple of days, the Woodstock Times will have to answer for him- their letter policy, their responsibility.

And speaking of Boyle, he has "reported" numerous falsehoods about me on his show. I was considering suing him for slander, but alas, one of the requirements for winning such a suit is to prove that he damaged me, and as far as I can tell, nobody takes him seriously, so his words really have no value. They do have a reverse value, however. Ironically, since his words about me are negative, they have a positive value: I have been welcomed into various circles by strangers, on the street in Woodstock, Bearsville, and even in a parking lot in Kingston. It seems that being trashed by David Boyle on his Rabid Dog Bite Review is a badge of honor. So thanks, David, for placing me in the elite circle of people who think and speak sensibly about life here in town.

And while I'm reviewing my nonexistent and existent detractors, thanks also to Gordon Wemp, who, upon reading my Q&A in the Woodstock Times, could do no more than critique the literary format I chose, rather than anything of substance. He made fun of me for posing a debate between me and myself, which is not at all what I did. Q&A, real or posed, can be purely informational; it's not necessarily a hostile form of conversation. That Gordon thinks it is just shows that he sees hostility everywhere, even where there is none.

79- I hate It When I Lose Track of $800,000.

RUPCO's Woodstock Commons attorney, Michael Moriello, along with his law partner, did not notice, apparently for EIGHT YEARS, that their bookkeeper was embezzling from them. How much did she get? Yes, $800,000.

In light of his current distraction, it is no wonder that Moriello can't differentiate an LLC from an LP, and a whole lot more.

I'm glad he is not MY attorney.

Great judge of character as well.

Moriello has been fighting madly to let RUPCO build Woodstock Commons, thereby making money for banks who invest. Concurrently, he is suing the bank his money was in when he ignored unauthorized withdrawals for EIGHT YEARS because he was working to make money for the other banks, or maybe the same banks. Ironic.

Banks! Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100402/NEWS/4020331/-1/COMM0323