92- Affordable Housing Committee on Accessory Apartments

August 4, 2003: Seems like a long time ago, but between then and now, nearly seven years, and I have not heard about any affordable housing built in Woodstock. On that night, the Woodstock Affordable Housing Committee met and according to the meeting minutes, Paul Shultis Jr. "requested our approval of a tax exemption for residents who create an accessory apt. and charge an affordable housing rent. No decision reached."

Interesting. I think it is a decent idea, at least one worth looking at again. Times are tougher now, perhaps there might be more people interested in creating accessory apartments on their properties.

It seems to me that the unpopularity of this option in Woodstock is evidence of widespread NIMBYism. Those with the most land and the most money certainly do not want anybody else living close to their houses. It is preferable for the wealthy to have some centralized project somewhere, as long as that somewhere is far away from them. If enough people make accessory apartments, and affordable housing is integrated into the community, there would not be a need to construct a ghetto of affordable housing.

The word ghetto is very controversial. A ghetto is defined as a region of a city where a population is segregated based on racial or economic separation. Also, the Jews of early twentieth century Europe lived in religious ghettos. Ghettos encourage segregation, not integration.

Paul Shultis Jr. had the right idea.

91- More Affordable Housing Committee Review

Tonight we will take a look at the second of four aspects of the Woodstock Affordable Housing Committee Work: their summary of work, in a letter to the Town Board, April 19, 2004.

The letter begins by introducing the letter's contents as a summary of the past year's work of the Affordable Housing Committee of the Town of Woodstock. It continues: "This report was prepared in an effort to clarify what has been done to date and what, in our opinion, needs to be done in the future if an affordable housing project will be accomplished in the Town of Woodstock."

The letter is a decent one, and I am not here to criticize the committee's work in any way. The letter describes three different types of affordable housing that Woodstock could develop. The first is a set of "revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Local Law to more easily allow the creation of attached and detached accessory apartments on existing residential parcels." Sounds good to me. How's that going, six years later? This is a real question. How's that working out?

Most of the letter reviewed five sites for a large affordable housing project, which is the second type of affordable housing. The letter states that the St. John property, which is where RUPCO is trying to develop its current project, in in the committee's opinion, the site with the most potential. The first stated reason for this opinion, continues the letter, is that its location would allow hook-up to the town sewer system and municipal water supply.

Oops. If the property is in the hamlet sewer district, then why does that property pay taxes to a different sewer district and not to the hamlet sewer district? I don't know about you, but I conclude that the property is not in the hamlet sewer district and therefore does not have the right to connect.

But let us move on.

The third type of affordable housing "would be to identify structures around Town which might be rehabilitated and converted to affordable housing. However, this has not been done to date." Hey, great idea. Well, six years later, has this been done? Have any structures around Town that might be rehabilitated actually been rehabilitated, and made into affordable housing? Anybody?

Well, I haven't heard about it if it happened.

So there you go. The affordable housing committee recommended that older buildings be rehabilitated. Guess what: there is still time. I mentioned this option in my talk about RUPCO in February, at the community center. That aspect of my talk was not covered in the newspaper article about the presentation.

What else can I say? I suppose I can simply take note and wait to share this unacted upon advice to anybody who says that Woodstock Commons is the ONLY and LAST chance for affordable housing in Woodstock.

No problem. I'll file that away with everything else.

More affordable housing committee goodies over the weekend.

90- Affordable Housing Committee Mission Statement (a)

This is the first of four posts about the Woodstock Affordable Housing Committee's Work, 2003-2004.

Affordable Housing Committee Mission Statement:

This mission statement was produced as a result of a freedom of information law request. There is no date on it, but it can be assumed that it was produced in 2003 or 2004, since that is the time period that all of the other documents were produced, and it seems to be when the committee met.

"The purpose of the Woodstock Affordable Housing Committee is to find information and make recommendations to the Woodstock Town Board with respect to the Town's role in facilitating affordable housing in the Town of Woodstock. The committee should look to a variety of housing types to accommodate the varying needs of Woodstock residents including but not necessarily limited to seniors, starting artists and young families."

What strikes me about this mission statement is that it refers to the needs of "Woodstock residents." This means that the committee existed to serve the needs of actual residents of Woodstock. It does not mean that it was supposed to define the needs of existing residents of Woodstock, and then serve the needs of people just like them but from other towns. No, the mission was to serve the needs of people living in Woodstock. It was not to grow the town. It was not to diversify the town. It was not to attract new business such as housing developers. It was not to make a political nightmare.

The mission statement goes on to read that the committee should investigate sources of funding at all levels of government, and then presents "Areas for initial investigation" and these "areas" are comprised of a list starting with the number 1. The problem is that this list also ends with the number 1, and the number 1 is the St. John's parcel, which is where RUPCO now is proposing to build Woodstock Commons.

Hmmm. Sort of sounds like the mission statement was written after all the work to eliminate all the other sites was already completed, huh?

Plus there is no date on the mission statement.

Well, anyway, nobody is perfect. Ahem. Moving on. The committee writes in the mission statement that it is part of the mission to look at the prospects of this parcel. The "further considerations" are listed, curiously, by letter:

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

a.

b.

c.

I'm not kidding.

Anyway, the second "a." on the list reads: "Research the impact of such a development on special district (water and sewer) infrastructure, services and taxes."

OK, so was this done? Hardly. The only thing that was done was to estimate the demand for water and to figure that generally, the town's capacity to provide water was greater than the estimated demand from this project. Thing is, in a town with water flowing in a specific configuration of pipes, it actually matters WHERE you put the 53 new residences.

NO estimate of the demand in the specific neighborhood was made. No simulation was performed. In fact, in the DEIS, there was, presented so nicely, a simulation, in great detail, of a previous expansion of water service. What this shows is that the water district serves more people now than it used to. Basically, that simulation only shows that the district was expanded once, not that it can be further expanded without compromise to water pressure, in the same region.

Here is the situation in the water district: Currently, there are about 25 houses supplied with water from one six inch pipe. RUPCO wants to add 53 residences to the same six inch supply pipe.

The standards to which New York subscribes, called the Ten States Standards, requires "normal" water pressure to be between 60 and 80 psi, but in no case lower than 35. I measured my water pressure, and keep in mind that my house is right off the main, and the first time I measured it, it was 36 or 37 psi. That is dangerously close to the minimum pressure. I would bet that a simulation of Woodstock Commons water demand would show the neighborhood pressure falling well below 35 psi. That would be a problem, for the town, actually. Substandard water pressure? I don't think so.

The DEIS also does state that there will be a substandard water pressure for firefighting purposes, but that is a whole different category, not a day to day problem. We will get to that later.

Another problem with this mission statement is that it assumes that Woodstock Commons is actually eligible to hook up to the hamlet water and sewer systems. Iris York pointed out that the property currently pays taxes to a different sewer district, and so that, by definition, means that it is in a different district, and ineligible to hook up to the hamlet sewer system. This is important because it means that the project will have to dig its own septic system.

The town should have made sure that the project was eligible to hook up to the water and sewer districts prior to the future, which is when it will dawn on the town that this is not the case. I am sure that nobody will care what I say, but eventually my research will feed a legal argument. I am gathering documents, making a record, and will make it very easy to present all of this to a judge. That's where this looks like it is going, and I'm going to see it all the way through.

89- Hi, I'm Back from a Trip to the Past

Over the last couple of weeks, I have taken a break from the particulars of RUPCO in Bradley Meadows to consider the long view of affordable housing in Woodstock, which requires a study of the past. One of the things I did was go up to the Town Clerk's office, where they are always helpful and friendly, by the way, and request, and receive, all of the available documents produced by the Affordable Housing Committee that eventually invited RUPCO to town to develop the property currently under consideration for an affordable housing project.

I want to start to tell you about what the Woodstock Affordable Housing Committee did in 2003 and 2004, and what it recommended to the town, before it disbanded. I divide my report into four distinct areas:

a. mission statement

b. summary of work, letter to Town Board, April 19, 2004

c. accessory apartments effort

d. The concerned citizens of Zena

I have lots of goodies to share, but alas, today is already booked. I'll be back with succulent details later tonight or later this week.

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

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