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

72- The 22 Comments

I just submitted all of these comments, in one email, to the Woodstock Planning Board. I copied the comments to members of the press, the Town Board, several attorneys, and interested citizens.

Here we go...

Comments on RUPCO’s Woodstock Commons FEIS

Review Period: March 10-26, 2010

These comments are submitted by Robin Segal on behalf of:

Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership

7 Evergreen Lane, Woodstock NY 12498

Comments are numbered 1 to 22.

Comment #1:

With no notice or announcement, RUPCO changed the corporate structure of the Woodstock Commons project, and represented this change as a “simple” name change.

RUPCO has changed the corporate structure of the Woodstock Commons ownership entity. Whereas the owner of the project used to be a future limited partnership, now the owner of the project that has been substituted is a limited liability company. The owners of the substituted owner are different from the announced partners in the previously described Limited Partnership. This radical departure from the previous structure is problematic for several reasons.

First of all, the new owner, Playhouse and Elwynn Associates, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of RUPCO. Where will the investment money come from? How will the previously referred to investor limited partner participate? Will these future partners join the LLC, thereby making the LLC no longer a wholly owned subsidiary of RUPCO? Or will the LLC no longer be the sole owner of the project?

There are so many unanswered questions here, and the most striking thing is that the Planning Board simply nodded when Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe read the new paragraph in the DEIS, thereby altering the DEIS and all other documents. The Planning Board did not see fit to have its attorney present at the meeting at which this alteration of corporate structure was introduced, discussed, and then voted to accept unanimously by the Planning Board. We have to ask why the Planning Board’s attorney was not present. The Planning Board knew that the name issue was going to come up, and that it was a problem that was legal in nature, and perhaps (and we know for a certainty) beyond the ability of the members of the Planning Board to fully understand.

The significance of this corporate name switch appears to be beyond the comprehension of RUPCO’s attorney, who was present at the meeting, helped to answer questions, and did not seem the least bit interested or concerned that any of these enormous changes were occurring and being voted on right before his eyes. Perhaps he needs more sleep. Other than that explanation, we would say he is incompetent. Attorney Moriello’s letter states that the Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership name would be replaced by the new limited partnership name, however in the FEIS itself, this did not happen. The supporting document is not consistent with the paragraph in the FEIS itself.

Here are Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe’s exact words of introduction, at the March 4, 2010 meeting, and then reading the added paragraph of the FEIS:

“There was an issue that came up concerning, um, the, ah, the name of um Woodstock Commons LLC, which we have addressed, um, and, it appeared only one place in the FEIS, on page fifteen. Um, this, these documents are tabbed and you have at that tab, the language that we, um, added. Um, and so I’m going to read that to you now.

‘Upon its determination that the name Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership is no longer available, RUPCO has amended all instances whereby the Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership was referred to of record before the lead agency and all other interested involved agencies, so that the name Playhouse and Elwynn Associates LLC is substituted in its place. This amendment shall apply to but shall not be limited to the Draft EIS, the Final EIS, all applications, submittals, exhibits, addenda, appendices and all other documents of record. The lead agency notes that RUPCO has been since the September 14, 2005 Woodstock Application remains the Applicant project sponsor.’ ”

Second, when Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe was trying to explain the ownership structure of Woodstock Commons to the planning board, that is, trying to explain how RUPCO and the LLC and the LP were connected and why each was necessary, he got the explanation wrong. He told the board that the limited partnership is a subsidiary of a subsidiary. What that means is that Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe thinks that RUPCO owns the new LLC (which is true,) and that the LLC owns the new LP (which is false.) Think about it: if a partnership is wholly owned by another entity, then the partners are not really partners, but simply owned by the same owner. The LLC is, in fact, one partner in the partnership. The other partner is not owned by RUPCO at all. The other partner in the LP is, or should be, one or more investors. However, if in fact the LP has been formed and its members are all owned by RUPCO, then this is a significant departure from the description of corporate ownership given in the DEIS.

Here are Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe’s and Attorney Moriello’s exact words of “explanation”:

GUY THOMAS KEMPE: we create a limited partnership, which is a subsidiary to the subsidiary of RUPCO, and you create that because you need a taxable entity to be eligible for the tax credits that come into it. It’s just that simple and RUPCO being a not for profit, we have to create- this is, this sounds more sophisticated than it really is. It’s just what it is.

MICHAEL MORIELLO: There’s also the LLC.

GUY THOMAS KEMPE: Well the LLC is the holding company for uh, for the project. The holding company being now Playhouse and Elwynn LLC will continue forever and that will be the ownership entity for the property.

Previously, the ownership entity was supposedly the limited partnership. Now, Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe says the owner is the LLC. But he also calls it the holding company.

Comment #2:

The independent auditor’s report of RUPCO’s financial positions at the end of 2008 states that RUPCO’s total investment in partnerships is $1,767,414. Why does RUPCO have any investments in partnerships?

Comment #3:

Woodstock Planning Board member Laurie Ylvisaker colluded with RUPCO by publically advocating a desire for association with RUPCO, who appeared before the Planning Board. Ylvisaker voted on matters pertaining to this entity without recusing herself.

Comment #4:

RUPCO has paid thousands of dollars in late fees to the IRS, simply because it is a sloppy organization. RUPCO’s cost and time estimates are unreliable.

RUPCO paid $6,089 in late fees for filing their 2008 federal tax return late. That is not the only late fee they have ever paid. $6,089 a big number, particularly since the property taxes RUPCO will pay on Woodstock Commons are based on net operating income. Where sloppiness and lateness and extra fees are paid all over the place, income will be lower. So too will property taxes paid to the town.

The pattern is clear: sloppiness with regard to the law, lateness with regards to payments, and gross errors in explaining the basic structure of the project to the lead agency of the town in which it will be located. All of this points to, at the very least, a lack of competence.

Comment #5:

RUPCO has used the name Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership illegally. RUPCO continues to use the name Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership on its website, in the DEIS, which remains unaltered, despite RUPCO’s claim that the name has been amended.

The name Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership is not owned by RUPCO, nor does RUPCO have permission to use this name for any reason. However, RUPCO has the DEIS up on its website right now, and the DEIS is full of instances of the name Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership. This is simply illegal, and very definitely actionable.

Here are two emails Robin Segal sent to Kevin O’Connor, March 8 and March 10, 2010, respectively, both cease and desist letters, asking him to remove the document featuring the Limited Partnership name that RUPCO has no right to use.

First letter:

Hello Kevin. The Woodstock Commons DEIS is hosted on your website. It contains the name Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership. As you know, RUPCO has no right to that name, and never did. As you know, my partner and I have owned that name for several weeks. You know this because you hired somebody to videotape my speech announcing that fact. I am asking you to take the current document (DEIS) down immediately, today, right now, since it is an illegal use of a legal name, and it is an infringement on my rights.

Furthermore, the added paragraph to the FEIS that Guy Thomas Kempe read aloud at the March 4, 2010 Planning Board meeting clearly states that all uses of my limited partnership name in RUPCO documents have been amended in but not limited to the FEIS, DEIS, all exhibits, addenda etc etc... Clearly, that was a false statement and raises more questions about RUPCO's disregard for the truth and the law.

I will be checking up with all third parties who have received correspondence from RUPCO citing "Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership" to ensure that RUPCO has amended my name in relevant correspondences.

Have a nice day.

Robin Segal

Woodstock

Second letter:

Good morning, Kevin. It is now six days after the Woodstock Planning Board approved your Woodstock Commons FEIS and it is well past the time that you should have put the FEIS up on your website, to comply with the compulsory review period.

Also, the RUPCO website continues to host the DEIS, which features "Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership" which is a name that you do not own. This is the second and final cease and desist letter that I will send you about this violation. Take the document down, or change it, as you claimed to in the FEIS (and the Planning Board accepted that claim in the FEIS so you actually have to do it.)

Have a nice day.

Robin Segal
Woodstock

Comment #6:

The width of Playhouse Lane was reported differently in two sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and this was not corrected in the FEIS. When asked clearly and directly to tell the Woodstock Planning Board the width of Playhouse Lane, RUPCO representatives would not answer the question.

The width of Playhouse Lane is a question that would seem to be a simple one to answer around the table at a Planning Board meeting. And, if any controversy existed around the table, it would seem easy enough to take a tape measure and measure the road, both for RUPCO personnel of any station and for any member of the planning board.

Alas, this mystery of the width of Playhouse Lane has become quite a hot topic, for it seems that nobody on the planning board or on the RUPCO team wants to answer the simple question: “How wide is Playhouse Lane?” When asked about this during the March 4, 2010 Planning Board meeting, Attorney Michael Moriello answered: “I don’t know where it is in the document.” Then he gave some runaround talk about ownership of Playhouse Lane. He laughed nervously a lot. Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe helped the attorney steer away from the width question, towards the ownership question, which was irrelevant to the width question. RUPCO’s inability or unwillingness to answer the question is odd, since RUPCO paid a videographer to videotape Robin Segal present these very facts complete with page numbers and citations, on February 23, 2010.

In the DEIS, one engineer measured 23’; another engineer measured 17-20’. The difference makes all the difference in the world. RUPCO’s unwillingness to address the question makes one suspicious. Why is the width of Playhouse Lane such a secret? It must be because the true width of Playhouse Lane is not only not what RUPCO reported it was, but also because the true width of Playhouse Lane is not wide enough to accommodate the traffic that Woodstock Commons will generate.

Comment #7:

A conflict of interest exists between RUPCO, the Woodstock Planning Board, and Planning Board’s newest member, James Huben.

A conflict of interest exists between RUPCO, the Woodstock Planning Board, and Planning Board’s newest member, James Huben. Mr. Huben works for New York State’s agency that advocates for the interests of the developmentally disabled. RUPCO’s Woodstock Commons, at the time that Mr. Huben applied to be considered for membership on the Planning Board, had set aside two of fifty-three units for the developmentally disabled. Mr. Huben, while apparently qualified to serve on the Planning Board in general, has a direct conflict of interest, since he works by day for the interests of one specific group of the population that is being served by Woodstock Commons, and therefore has a conflict of interest. He should have recused himself from the RUPCO case.

Comment #8:

The Woodstock Planning Board has confused the term “intersection” with “intersection’s functional area.”

The planning board has decided that the cars entering and exiting Playhouse Plaza parking lot are allowed to not be counted in the traffic study because the parking lot is “not an intersection.” They all kept repeating this at the March 4, 2010 meeting... However, this is inaccurate. A parking lot is NEVER “an intersection.” While the entrance and exit to the parking lot does not constitute a road lane, the cars still come from and go into the three-way intersection’s “functional area.” Whether the intersection is three way or four way, the square section that is, by definition, the INTERSECTION of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane, which borders the parking lot is STILL an intersection, whether or not the cars enter or exit it from a road or from a parking lot.

Comment #9:

RUPCO is very confused about the State’s right of way at Route 212 and Playhouse Lane.

Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe attempted to explain the right of way at the Playhouse Plaza parking lot and Route 212. He told the planning board that fourteen feet from the building towards the road was private property, and the rest belonged to the state. This is at best completely backwards.

The state owns fifty feet, which is twenty-five feet in each direction from the center line. After eleven feet of traffic lane, the remainder of the right of way, measured from the white line towards the buildings, is fourteen feet.

Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe had the whole equation completely backwards, and nobody on the planning board blinked an eye.

Comment #10:

Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe has declared the parking lot at Playhouse Plaza to be the property of the state.

Community Relations Director Guy Thomas Kempe has declared the parking lot at Playhouse Plaza to be the property of the state, and that parking rights there should not exist, even if they have been granted by tradition to store leaseholders in Playhouse Plaza. It is relevant to the public that RUPCO has declared that a parking lot, which Dara Trahan told Robin Segal was privately owned, in fact is, according to RUPCO, the property of the state, and outside the control of the Planning Board or the town at all. It is also relevant to the public, and to the owner and leaseholders of Playhouse Plaza, that the Planning Board simply accepted this declaration. In no subsequent forum has the Planning Board or its attorney challenged this declaration. It is only fair for the Planning Board to make public their new understanding of the land rights in this area, since it was the firm belief of Ms. Dara Trahan, Woodstock Planning Specialist, that this parking area was private property.

Comment #11:

Playhouse Lane is not wide enough to accommodate the traffic that Woodstock Commons will generate. RUPCO has invented numbers of trips per day.

Playhouse Lane is not wide enough to accommodate the traffic that Woodstock Commons will generate. RUPCO has invented numbers of trips per day. They never measured the baseline number of trips per day on Playhouse Lane, only trips at peak hours. Therefore, they cannot estimate the total of baseline plus additional trips. RUPCO also diverted what would naturally be trips down Playhouse and across Edgewood Lane, and then down Plochmann Lane to 212; to across Whites Lane and then down Plochmann lane to 212. By following this totally counterintuitive route, RUPCO has generated a number of trips that would make Playhouse Lane a low volume road, and therefore it would not require widening. If one makes realistic trip route projections, then Playhouse Lane would be an intermediate volume road, and would need to be widened.

In addition to the width of Playhouse Lane not be sufficient, the strength of Playhouse Lane is also a matter to be considered seriously. Is Playhouse Lane strong enough to be traveled by numerous large trucks, each truck carrying several tons of building materials? Has this matter been studied? Has the cost of making Playhouse Lane strong enough been estimated?

Comment #12:

RUPCO’s corporate structure is opaque and suspicious. There could be conflicts of interest and nobody outside of RUPCO has access to the information to verify whether this is true.

Playhouse and Elwynn Limited Partnership, according to the text of the FEIS, is totally unnecessary, but has been created anyway. The general partner in the LP is Playhouse and Elwynn Associates LLC. Who is/are the other partners in this Limited Partnership? In order to avoid any conflict of interest, it is necessary to show that the other partner or partners in this partnership are not connected in any significant way to any of the project’s gatekeepers, such as Planning Board members, Town Board members, RUPCO employees, or RUPCO board members.

Comment #13:

The public cannot review the Planning Board’s activity with regard to the Woodstock Commons project with any assurance because no meeting minutes exist going back at least nine months.

The Woodstock Planning Board has not produced meeting minutes or draft minutes for meetings held in February or early March of this year. This is a violation of law. The Planning Board is aware of this law and continues to plod along, seemingly unconcerned.

In addition, all meeting minutes going back to June 2009 and possibly longer are draft minutes, unapproved by the Planning Board. This means that the public has no record to consult and rely on. The result of this situation is that the Planning Board has essentially been meeting from one meeting to the next without allowing the public any verifiable record of their activities. This deficiency may not seem important now. It is.

Comment # 14:

The Definition of “Artist” for Artist Housing in Woodstock Commons is So Vague that it is Meaningless. Anybody will be able to define him or herself as an artist for this housing.

There are set-aside units for “artist” housing in Woodstock Commons. This set-aside is made possible by the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act (H.R. 3221-231).

Section 3004, called “Other Simplification and Reform of Low-Income Housing Tax Incentives” includes:
(g) CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL PUBLIC USE REQUIREMENT.—
Subsection (g) of section 42 is amended by adding at the end of the following new paragraph:
“(9) CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL PUBLIC USE REQUIREMENT.—
A project does not fail to meet the general public use requirement solely because of occupancy restrictions or preferences that favor tenants—
“(A) with special needs,
“(B) who are members of a specified group under a Federal program or State program or policy that supports housing for such a specified group, or
“(C) who are involved in artistic or literary activities.”

What all that means is that anybody who can show that they are “involved in artistic or literary activities” can qualify as an artist. RUPCO is not authorized to redefine or narrow this definition in order to make this set-aside favor any one category over another.

Now, since Woodstock is such a famous artists’ town, don’t you think that artists from all over the place will drive to Woodstock or Kingston to apply for artists’ subsidized housing?

The laws of unintended consequences are going to make a laughing stock of our town if RUPCO opens “affordable artist housing” to a statewide lottery. Probably not more than two currently local residents secure the units set aside for artists.

Comment # 15:

RUPCO overestimated property taxes from Woodstock Commons. RUPCO has withheld figures necessary to derive their projected assessment, resulting in a serious lack of transparency in their application.

In the DEIS, RUPCO estimates their combined property tax payment for the 53 rental units at $18,853, which, at 2.06% means that the property is valued at $915,194. (Dividing this assessed value by the number of units yields an assessed value of $17,268 per unit.)

RUPCO writes that assessed values are approximately 0.87 of market values, so the market value of the total development should be figured to 915,194/0.87 = $1,051,947.

RUPCO has derived their estimated tax levy using the method described in RPTL Section 581-A, which is the tax law enabling affordable housing owners to use the net income of an affordable housing development to determine the basis of property tax payments. WE include RUPCO’s quotation of this law, which appears on p. 418 of the DEIS.

We should take a look at how this “net operating income” is derived, and project whether or not we think RUPCO’s estimates are realistic.

Multiplied out, the first year, the average unit will rent for $512. At twelve months per year and 52 rental units, the income to the project will be $320,000. But that does not mean that this is the figure used to derive the assessed value of the property. This is just the gross income.

Let us come back to this gross income of $320,000 a bit later. For now, we will focus on RUPCO’s estimated tax payment:

Using the 10% capitalization rate stated on p. 420 of the DEIS, RUPCO has multiplied the capitalized value of the project by the tax rate, to arrive at the estimated tax payment.

assessed value x tax rate = tax payment

or:

tax payment / tax rate = assessed value

We know RUPCO’s estimated tax payment is $18,853. We know that the tax rate they use in the DEIS is 2.06%.

$18,853 / 0.0206 = 915,194.

The capitalization rate RUPCO uses is 10%, which means that the net income after operating expenses, according to RUPCO, will be $91,514.

Coming back to RUPCO’s gross income of $320,000, and net income projected to be $91,514, this means that RUPCO estimates expenses, at least in the first year, to be $320,000 - $91,514 = $228,486.

Has anybody asked RUPCO for details of this $228,486 estimated expense figure? After all, it is integral to the tax payment estimate put forth by RUPCO. Is this number supported anywhere in the documentation? Has anybody really understood that the more RUPCO spends on maintaining Woodstock Commons, the less RUPCO will pay in taxes? The closest thing that we have found to any accounting of operating cost estimates is RUPCO’s “Maintenance Operations, Preventive Maintenance, Utilities and Energy Plan” which is DEIS Exhibit 27B.

This estimate of $228,486 is very low. If you take the caretaker’s salary and benefits, the water bill which will be borne entirely by RUPCO, the electricity cost of lighting the whole place every night, the cost to run and heat the community building, and the elevator, and all the communal spaces, and maintain the nature trails, and clear the private road, you are looking at much more than $228,486.

In fact, the geothermal power technology itself will be a big drain on electricity because of the way in which it works. Geothermal power is a “slow” heating technology. What that means is that when you have a thermostat set at a certain temperature, and somebody opens a door and walks out, (or a highway garage door and drives out,) the temperature falls and the auxiliary electric heat coils bring the temperature back up quickly while the geothermal power is slowly coming online. In terms of speed, geothermal power works slowly, like a battery, but instead with a heat exchanger. You can only get so much energy out of the system per minute, unlike a boiler, which cycles on and off and delivers heat quickly since combustion is a very quick way to generate energy. Since RUPCO claims that its power use will come exclusively from geothermal energy, there will be no other backup system, except for the built-in electric resistance heating in the geothermal power units. In addition, using this technology in a building’s common areas, where there will be a lot of in and out traffic, implies a very high rate of temperature variation, and thus, a high drain on the electric load.

Aside from the drain on electricity that the geothermal power will have, about which RUPCO is probably entirely unaware, there will be the usual initial things that go wrong in new construction, and those things will be fixed using the operating budget.

It is very likely that RUPCO’s Woodstock Commons will experience operating costs exceeding their revenues from rent. Due to the method by which RUPCO’s wholly owned subsidiary and its partners, who will own Woodstock Commons, are allowed to calculate property tax payments, this means that property taxes paid could be zero, or close to it. In any event, It is likely that RUPCO will end up paying the same or possibly even lower taxes on the property than are being generated now from this vacant land.

What would be ideal is for the town to compare RUPCO’s proposal to another affordable housing model. This would be an enlightening exercise for all involved.

No matter whether the Planning Board entertains any other affordable housing proposals or models, it is still important that the Planning Board be made aware of RUPCO’s lack of transparency in the way they have figured their estimated tax payments, and, at the very least, study the details of RUPCO’s estimated operating budget. The town’s income relies on it.

Comment #16:

RUPCO maintains a conflict of interest by being an official county housing advocate to Ulster County residents in need of affordable housing, and at the same time, RUPCO develops, builds, sells, and profits from affordable housing.

Comment #17:

There is no timeline for drilling the geothermal wells, and no sound estimate for the drilling. This drilling could go on five months and be the loudest noise in the project, yet there is no information on either the duration or the noise of the drilling.

There is no timeline for drilling the geothermal wells. In the phase 1 and phase 2 construction lists of tasks, there is no mention of drilling geothermal wells. The wells, all together, constitute over three miles of drilling. The time to do this is simply not factored in to the construction timeline. How many drills will operate at once? Each drill operates at upwards of 80 decibels. If more than one drill operates simultaneously, the sound will be deafening. If only one drill operates at a time, the drilling will take months. Why does nobody care about this scheduling and sound omission? The Planning Board has been alerted to this omission, but chose to ignore it the first time. Here is a second chance.

Comment #18:

It appears that historically, RUPCO has not complied with the requirement of The Wicks Law, which we understand to be a labor-contracting requirement of publically funded housing projects.

Our initial research shows a lack of diversity programs on RUPCO’s prior projects’ workforce, as well as substandard wages. At this point, this is a note of interest, however it is essential that we continue to research RUPCO’s past, present, and future contracting practices.

Comment #19:

RUPCO omitted the Limited Partnership filing receipt and included the LLC filing receipt twice in the FEIS.

The new LLC filing receipt appears twice in the appendices of the FEIS. Where the filing receipt of the LP is supposed to be, the filing receipt of the LLC appears for the second time.

Comment #20:

RUPCO or RUPCO’s consulting engineers falsely reported a commonly used highway design standard in order to make the current too-narrow Playhouse Lane appear to be wide enough to accommodate Woodstock Commons’ traffic.

The FEIS reports that the design standards of a road that will carry the amount of traffic that RUPCO estimates will be on Playhouse Lane are eighteen feet including shoulders. This is wrong. This is false. The width of such a road is eighteen feet, EXCLUDING shoulders.

Why is nobody at RUPCO or on the planning board concerned with this false statement? A letter on this topic was sent to the planning board prior to their acceptance of the FEIS, but they took no interest in it this effort to alert them to plain old false information. And now? We suggest that the planning board become interested in this error, since it is going to matter, sooner or later.

Comment #21:

Kevin O’Connor signed as Manager of RUPCO’s new LLC before this LLC had been created, thereby committing perjury.

Kevin O’Connor signed the Limited Partnership papers, as the Manager of Playhouse and Elwynn Associates, LLC, on February 25^th, 2010, “under penalty of perjury.” The “exist date” of Playhouse and Elwynn Associates, LLC, as you can see on both copies of the LLC filing receipt (included in the FEIS,) is February 26, 2010. Kevin O’Connor, therefore, committed perjury.

RUPCO’s general disregard for legal compliance is shocking. Please consider this in areas other than use of names and dates of signatures. Sloppy is sloppy- it is not confined to unimportant issues.

Comment #22:

RUPCO’s arrogant behavior toward local business is exhibited by its failure to fulfill its contractual obligation with a local small business in Ulster County, causing the business to file a $1,663.50 lien against RUPCO.