118- 1030 is greater than 999

I have been looking over RUPCO's application materials for the funding they have been bragging about, that Housing Trust Fund money (about $2.5 million.)  There are some pretty interesting nuggets in the application.  As a happy new year salute, I'd like to point out first that the "1,030 feet of new sanitary force main," (meaning new sewer pipe,) which is specified in Section 3.9 of RUPCO's Draft Environmental Impact Statement,  is GREATER THAN the 999 feet of new sewer pipe allowed for RUPCO to justifiably claim that their project is within "Proximity to Existing Development."

First, let me break this down.
Second, let me expand on it.

The Housing Trust Fund has several categories of funding.  One category is called the Green Building Initiative.  One section, called LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC contains seven categories.  RUPCO needs four of the seven to qualify for the Green Building Initiative funding. One of those categories is: "Smart Site Location: Proximity to Existing Development: Locate on a site with access to existing roads, water, sewers and other infrastructure within or contiguous to existing development."

OK, so first of all, the water might not be available at all, but RUPCO thought it would be when they applied, so they are forgiven for getting that one wrong.  However, in the handbook that defines what it means to be in close proximity, it is clearly stated that LESS THAN one thousand feet of new sewer pipe qualifies the project as close enough to existing infrastructure to qualify the project for funding. Big F for RUPCO on that scetion.

RUPCO has claimed to check off five of seven sections in the affirmative, in The Location and Neighborhood Section, which is one more than they need.  The two they do not claim are the presence of passive solar heating/cooling and compact development.   Let's see how many of the five sections RUPCO has lied about!!

(1) Proximity to Existing Development, and we already know this is an incorrect affirmative claim (the sewer pipe length disqualifies it.)

(2) "Protecting Environmental Resources."  In this section, RUPCO claims that no part of the project, including parking lots and roads, is within one hundred feet of wetlands. Well, actually, the access road to the housing is planned to barrel THROUGH wetlands, so this is a false claim. Whether or not RUPCO has a mitigation plan in place, this is a yes or no question.  There is no "Yes, but...." checkbox.

So there we go, RUPCO has at most three of seven boxes checked, and should  be disqualified from receiving funding under the Green Building Initiative.

But wait, I'm not quite done with the other sections.  Of the three remaining five sections, we have (3) Proximity to Services.  RUPCO claims that their housing will be "close" to at least four of these services: convenience store, public school, laundry, library, bank, grocery store, medical office, usable park space, post office, licensed child care facility, and there may be a couple more on the list.   What does "close" mean?  Well, for family housing, "close" is half a mile, which is 2640 feet.  For senior housing, which Woodstock Commons is planned to be, "close" is a quarter mile, which is 1320 feet.

Now, according to a mapping website, it is 0.23 miles AS THE CROW FLIES from where the RUPCO housing is planned to be, to the center of the Bradley Meadows shopping area.  This covers grocery store, pharmacy, and bank, as the crow flies.  Unfortunately, senior residents are not crows, nor do they fly.  Nor will they walk through a right of way that has not been negotiated yet, in a wetlands, full of ticks, with no lighting, and nobody to shovel snow from it, even if it was perfectly straight and less than a quarter mile.  It is only reasonable to assume that the Housing Trust Fund means the distances to correspond to sidewalks, or in the absence of sidewalks, existing roads, not rights of way through wetlands where no boardwalks exist, that deliver people to the back of grocery stores where there are huge dumpsters of garbage, generators, trucks delivering produce, and no pathway of any kind for pedestrians.

Just for the sake of completion in this analysis of RUPCO's interpretation of distance, the distance from the intersection of Whites Lane and Playhouse Lane, (which is still far enough from the housing complex but at the border of the property where people will actually walk out in all-weather conditions,) it is 0.34 miles down to Route 212.  It is 0.4 miles to Bank of America, the pharmacy, and the grocery store, and the doctor's office.

In the summary of the application for funding, RUPCO claims that Woodstock Commons "site" will be the following distances from services.  Remember that a quarter mile is 1320 feet.

Capital Project - Exhibit 8 - Site and Building Information

Project Name: Woodstock Commons 2010

8B2. Building Space Breakdown

8A. Site Information
Service Distance
Grocery Stores Within 500 feet
Other Retail Stores Within 500 feet
Schools Within 1000 feet
Bus/Subway Lines Within 500 feet
Municipal Services Within 2500 feet
Libraries Within 2500 feet
Pharmacies Within 1000 feet
Health Facilities Within 1000 feet


It is clear that RUPCO is measuring the distance to these services from the corner of the property, not the buildings.  So, if a property is a mile wide, for example, and the buildings are put at one end, is it fair to measure the distance from the undeveloped end? I would say no, if the purpose of measuring is to inform how far PEOPLE, COMING FROM THE BUILDINGS, need to travel ON FOOT, to the services in question.

Either way, the Woodstock library is just about one mile from the site, not half a mile.  Also, Woodstock Elementary School is 0.43 miles AS THE CROW FLIES to the buildings site of Woodstock Commons.  Are your elementary school age children crows?  Do they fly?  From Whites and Playhouse Lanes to the elementary school, along actual roads, my mapping website measures 0.52 miles, which is 2746 feet.  That's a lot more than 1000 feet.

All in all, I would say that RUPCO has misled the Housing Trust Fund in claiming that this development is sited "in close proximity to community and retail facilities."  Another failing grade for the boys from Kingston.

Hang in there, there are only two more sections.

The next section RUPCO claims, (4) which is absolutely wrong, is "Walkable Neighborhoods: Sidewalks and Pathways: Connect project to the pedestrian grid."  Of course RUPCO checked this in the affirmative.  The definition of "connect" is to connect to existing sidewalks.  That definition is in the manual for filling out this application, not MY definition.  The sidewalks in Woodstock run along Route 212.  Neither Playhouse Lane nor Elwyn Lane have sidewalks, nor are either of them lit at night.  Perhaps RUPCO considers the wooded right of way through which a path will be cut, also not a sidewalk, not lit at night, full of deer (ticks) and muddy soil, dumping walkers into the back of the grocery store dumpster colony, to be a connection to the pedestrian grid.  Well, I do not buy it, and neither should the Housing Trust Fund.

The last of the five affirmative sections claimed by RUPCO in the Location and Neighborhood Fabric Division of Green Building Criteria is (5) "Transportation Choices: Locate project in close proximity to public transit services."  Once again, "close proximity" is a quarter mile for senior housing, which Woodstock Commons is planning to include.  Once again, a quarter mile is much less than the distance from any point of the site that a PERSON ON FOOT would need to travel to get public transit."  The only exception is if the UCAT bus travels up Playhouse Lane, to the entrance of the project site, or onto the project site.  However, even if this happens, and there is no guarantee that it will materialize, will the bus service be frequent enough for the residents?  The traffic studies for Woodstock Commons do not include very many "new" public transportation trips up Playhouse Lane, so I suppose there will not be that many.  What with the distance problem, and the murky prognosis of bus frequency, it is absolutely unfair to claim that Woodstock Commons will be reliably  "close" to anything resembling regular public transit services.

Just an FYI about existing UCAT service through Woodstock: There are seven trips per weekday to Kingston. On weekends, there are two buses to Kingston and one bus from Kingston, for a single possible round trip each weekend day.  So, if a resident wants to go to Kingston on a Saturday, say to go shopping at Hannaford Kingston Plaza (we'll discuss THAT soon in another post,) they must leave in the morning, stay in Kingston 3.5 hours, and return on the only return bus.  On a weekday, the frequency of service is still very sparse, sometimes 3 hours between buses, and no service at all after 7:30 PM.

I have a personal story about UCAT, which was my only attempt to use this service.  One day last year, I tried to go to Manhattan on the bus.  The bus through Woodstock was understandably late, and I missed my connection in Kingston. It was the end of a storm, but 87 looked treacherous and backed up.  So, I decided to go back to Woodstock and take the trip another day.  Well, the next bus to Woodstock was in a couple of hours, so I walked through the snow to Kingston Plaza to see if I could catch a UCAT bus up to Woodstock.  I was informed by a UCAT driver that no buses were driving to Woodstock all day, even though the snow had stopped falling, it was sunny, and the roads were clear.  So much for reliability.  I called my friend Frank, who put his grandson in his truck, and they picked me up at Deisings Bakery, (shout out: http://www.deisings.com/ ) where, while waiting, I ate a superior cinnamon roll that cost only 95 cents.  Anyway, I think RUPCO misleads the Housing Trust Fund once again by claiming that Woodstock Commons will have public transportation service of any reliability and frequency.

Thus concludes this rather lengthy analysis of the "Location and Neighborhood Fabric" Section of the Green Building Criteria Checklist.  And the total number of categories that Woodstock Commons qualifies for is..... zero out of seven.

So, I guess all this commotion about the site being suboptimal is right on the money, and these criteria are objective, selected by the Housing Trust Fund, not the neighborhood opponents.

Shame on you, RUPCO.  Shame shame shame.  (By the way, this section of the application was signed by Brad Will, the architect, and Charles Snyder, the real estate guy for RUPCO.)

And for everybody else, happy new year, there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of application materials still to go look over, to analyze, the results of which are going straight to the Housing Trust Fund people.  I'd be boiling mad if somebody lied to me the way RUPCO has lied to the Housing Trust Fund.