123- The Value of a Local Economy

Until now, I have not seriously discussed the problems with RUPCO's big box style of affordable housing, but it is time to do that now.

Although RUPCO has done great work in providing various services to people in need of affordable housing, RUPCO's model of new affordable housing, which is the model for Woodstock Commons, is the retail equivalent of Costco and the other big box stores.  RUPCO gets its funds from afar, its labor from afar, and its residents from afar.  In some cases, financing can come from anywhere in the nation, residents from anywhere in the state, and materials and contractors from probably not quite as far, but certainly not from the Town of Woodstock.

When towns decide to refurbish existing housing stock, using local labor and materials, and local investors, and house locals in need of housing in the refurbished structures, everybody works together, AND everybody wins.

This is a very simplified version of the case for local self-reliance, but a simplified version is great for illustrating a point.

Here in Woodstock, there are many industries that could be more localized than they are now, therefore benefiting all of us here in Woodstock.

In the spirit of this local driving force in our economy, and in our lives in general, The Woodstock Land Conservancy and the Woodstock Farm Festival are organizing and hosting a speaker on local farming and the local food supply chain.

On Saturday, February 19, at Woodstock Elementary School, from 10 AM to about 2:30 PM, Joel Salatin, renowned Virginia meat farmer and advocate of a local food supply, will be speaking to the first couple of hundred to buy tickets.  As of a couple of days ago, there are only about 30 tickets left, believe it or not.  Salatin has a very loyal following.  He is a superb speaker.  I offer you this youtube clip, a sampling of Salatin's  wisdom and wit:



And the effort to support a local food supply does not end with the farmer.  After lunch, which is provided at the event, attendees will be treated to a panel discussion of local farmers, food processors, and others who are trying to get all of us here in the Catskills and Hudson Valley to eat more locally produced food.

But that's not all.  After listening to talk of local produce, meat and food processing all day, you might wish to sample a dinner prepared by one of Woodstock area's talented chefs.  But Saturday February 19 will not be any normal night to eat out in Woodstock.  At four local restaurants, the main ingredients of special prix fixe menus will be sourced locally, meaning basically within fifty miles of their restaurants.  Right in the middle of February!

I will spend more time later writing about the general dissonance between RUPCO's big box housing solution and the locally inspired, locally innovative, locally involved, and locally rewarding economic engine.

I wanted to offer you a way to have a taste of the whole local concept in the most tangible way possible: listen to the farmer, ask questions, and then go out to a local restaurant and taste how good it is.

For now, here are the February 19 locally sourced prix-fixe dinner participating restaurants, and their offerings:



New World Home Cooking


Local 50 Mile Prix Fixe:
“From Apples to Apples”

4 courses $35, With Wine Pairing $55 

•Amuse Bouche
Nettle Meadows Kunik, Black Walnut and Lenny B Honey Tostada

•Soup
Apple-Potato Leek Soup  
Wine: Millbrook Chardonnay

•Choice of  Entree
Pan Roasted Local Oceans Sea Bream  (Hudson)
Slow Roasted NorthWinds Farm Pork Shoulder (Tivoli)
Sauteed Shamah’s Seitan (Kingston) with Davenports Corn Succotash (Marbletown)
Wine: Lamoreaux Landing Pinot Noir

•Dessert
Hudson Valley Cheese Plate with home grown apple butter
(Coach Farm, Sprout Creek, Nettle Meadow)
Wine: Brotherhood Riesling

1411 Rt 212
Saugerties, NY 12477
845-246-0900


Garden Café on The Green (Vegan)


Four Course $30 Prix Fixe Menu including a glass of wine or beer


•Polenta Mushroom Tart (Wild Hive Farms Polenta)
•Tofu Cacciatore
•Walnut Pesto Roasted Vegetables 
Sauteed Kale
•Apple Crumb Pie with Vanilla Cashew Ice Cream or 
Gluten Free Apple Crisp with Cashew Ice Cream      

LOCAL INGREDIENTS:
•Polenta and Bread Flour for •Foccacia from Wild Hive Farms
•Apples-Sunfrost Farms Market
•Maple Syrup-Breezy Mountain Farm
•Cashew Ice Cream-Organic Nectars
•Organic Wine and local Ommegang Beer

6 Old Forge Road
Woodstock, NY
845-679-3600


The Red Onion Restaurant & Bar


Joel Salatin Prix Fixe Dinner Available 5-10pm


$37.95


•Lenny Bee’s Locally Smoked Trout Salad


•Stone Church Farm Duck Breast, Spiced Honey Sauce, Parsnip Puree, Slow-Roasted Brussels Sprouts


•Local Fuji Apple Crisp Topped with Jane’s Vanilla Ice Cream


1654 Route 212
Saugerties NY 12477
845-679-1223


Violette


This dinner menu will feature an omelet with local eggs, local potatoes, local smoked trout, and something for dessert with local apples.  Call for details and price.


85 Mill Hill Road
Woodstock, New York 12498
845-679-5300

122- Basic Review Expanded

The other day I made some comments about water and wastewater and the local laws governing their access.  Here now is the backstory:

Back in December, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation wrote a letter to the Town of Woodstock, telling the town that several applications had to be made in order to extend town water to RUPCO's Woodstock Commons project.  This was a matter of New York State Law, not Woodstock Town Law.

First, where there are two overlapping jurisdictions such as Woodstock Town and New York State, it makes sense and is in fact the case that both jurisdictions have standing, which means that the more restrictive law is the one to worry about. In the case of RUPCO, this means that although Woodstock Town law might allow anybody in town on any property to hook up to town water, New York State Law, if it is more restrictive, (and it is,) State law defines the rules.

State Law says that if a development is on a property, and the property is split into two parts, one within and one outside of the water district, there are some applications necessary on the part of the town, to serve the part of the property outside of the water district.  This is why the DEC wrote a letter to the town.  DEC told the town to make a decision whether to make the applications, and if that decision was in the affirmative, the application process could start.  It was estimated that approval of these applications might take half a year, but that is an estimate, hearsay, but a period that seems reasonable, given all of the opinions and information I have gleaned.

So, what we have here is the Town of Woodstock, in a position to either apply or not apply to extend water access to the other end of the RUPCO project property, the end NOT in the water district.  The bottom line of that story SHOULD HAVE BEEN that the town would discuss and make a decision either way, at a town board meeting, by resolution, and then there would either be opposition or not (we do not have to wonder all that much whether or not there would be opposition.)

But of course that was not the bottom line of that story, not at all.  What happened is that Woodstock's attorney, Rod Futerfas, sent a letter to the DEC, arguing "the" law.  He "cited" town law, explaining that if a property is partially in the water district, then all of the property gets water access.

There are two problems with Futerfas' argument. First, the DEC does not care about town law.  The DEC is a state agency, and it cares about New York State law, which is more restrictive than the town law Futerfas supposedly quoted, and so the law that matters in this case.

The second problem is that even if town law mattered,  Futerfas misquoted Town Law.  Yes, that's right.  Rod Futerfas misquoted Town Law of the town for which he is town attorney.  There is no law stating that a  property partially in the water district is entitled to water access anywhere on that property.  There is such a law pertaining to wastewater service, but not to water access.

Citizen Iris York brought this up at a Town Board meeting earlier this week.  Somebody said that Futerfas was aware of and had already corrected this error.  One board member spoke up, saying that he had not seen any correction.

When a lawyer misquotes the law, it is incumbent upon that lawyer not only to correct the error on the phone in a casual conversation, let's say, but also in all correspondences in which he misquoted the law.

I am not accusing any lawyer here or anywhere of intentionally misquoting any law in his or her practice of law.  To make such an unsubstantiated accusation would be foolish of me.  What I do know for sure though, and what I will accuse Woodstock town lawyer Rod Futerfas of is extremely sloppiness.  And, I do not trust him for one single second.

More later.

121- Basic Review

I'm sorry. I apologize.  This is going to be very insulting to most of you. But one or two of you, and you know who you are, really need to read this.

This is water. It is clean.  It comes into our homes through pipes.  Some of us in Woodstock buy this water from the town of Woodstock.

This is wastewater.  It is dirty.  It leaves our homes through pipes.  Some of us pay the town to take our wastewater away.

Woodstock is a town with laws.  The laws are divided into chapters.  Chapter 245 pertains to wastewater.  Chapter 250 pertains to water. In Chapter 245, which is about wastewater, not fresh water, we find this:

§ 245-33. Properties divided by District boundary.

Those properties which are now divided by the District boundary line shall be considered to be wholly served by the District.

Notice how the number starts with "245"?  That is how we know it is part of Chapter 245, and therefore part of the wastewater law, not the water law.

If you try to find this same law in Chapter 250, meaning in the Woodstock Water Law, you will not find it, because it is not there. 

Well, I guess it's kind of confusing, and so perhaps it really IS a mistake somebody might make if there had not been years and years of attention, light, discussion, investigation, and debate in this subject. And also it is a mistake that somebody who is not a lawyer, and especially not the town's lawyer, might make.

Um...

120 - "Site Control"

RUPCO writes, in their application for money to the Housing Trust Fund, that they have enjoyed site control since December 2004. Control, that is, of the roughly 28 acres they propose to develop.  Here is a quote from attachment F9 of RUPCO's application:

"RUPCO signed the Second Amendment an (12/31/2009) to the contract of sale (dated 12/31/2007) that provides an additional 18 months of site control through 06/30/2011."

Hmmm.  I dug up this "Second Amendment to Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property" dated Dec. 31, 2009, and the first point of agreement reads as follows:

1. Purchaser Contingencies.  The Purchaser Contingencies Expiration Date under Section 7(b) of the Pruchase Agreement is hereby extended through December 31, 2010.

Now, is there some OTHER second amendment that is NOT in the Housing Trust Fund Application?  Is site control covered under some document other than the agreement for the purchase and sale of real property?

Because, it really looks to me, from here, which is my office, where I looked at every single attachment and enclosure to RUPCO's funding application, that RUPCO simply claimed an extra six months of site control so that the Housing Trust Fund would not give them a hard time about the land sale contract timing out.

(By the way, if you want to plow through the paperwork, the documents can be clicked open from here:
http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/Funding/Awards/UnifiedFunding/2010CapitalProjectAwards/Applications/retrieve_app.aspx?app=20106044)

I could be wrong, but if I am, where is all the other evidence to show what this 18 month extension is all about?

And, I sure hope RUPCO and EVK Realty, LLC (the land seller) have already coughed up, somewhere, a third amendment to the agreement for the land.  Otherwise, it might be back to the drawing board for RUPCO, in terms of site selection....

Here's to a fresh start and a cleaning out of old and outdated papers!
Happy New Year.

119- The Grocery Analysis

RUPCO claims that Woodstock Commons will be situated within 500 feet of a "grocery store."  This is important information for the Housing Trust Fund, which funded RUPCO's project to the tune of $2 million plus.

I bet you the Housing Trust Fund has no idea that Sunflower Natural Food Market is the ONLY "grocery store" in Woodstock, and the one at which RUPCO assumes Woodstock Commons residents would shop for groceries.  Sunflower is a fine store, but it should not be labeled a regular grocery store.  Sunflower carries ONLY certified organic produce.  In short, it is a very very expensive place to shop.

To illustrate the problem of sending low-income residents to shop at Sunflower (because it is close by,) I did a little price comparison study, and would like to present it to you now.

Methodology: I made a list of 18 standard grocery store items, and I found the least expensive available product in each category, at each of three "grocery stores."  I tried to compare like sizes, however some of the jars of jam and peanut butter came in non-standard sizes, so I equalized the prices by adjusting the sizes proportionally to the prices. I took prices from Hurley Ridge Market in West Hurley, Hannaford Kingston Plaza in Kingston, and Sunflower in Woodstock.  I presented each item in the left column, with corresponding prices for the item at each store, with notes to the right of some of the prices.  I put all of this in a simple spreadsheet, which appears below this text.

First column is Hurley Ridge Market.  Total bill is $49.22.  Hannaford in Kingston Plaza total bill is $40.94, which is 17% less expensive than Hurley Ridge.  Now let's look at Woodstock Commons' grocery store.  Sunflower Natural Food Market sells ONLY organic produce, and I believe only organic dairy and meat products as well.  The total bill for the same list of items, and the same quantity of each item, is $96.47.

Sunflower is 96% more expensive than Hurley Ridge, or roughly double the price, on average.  Sunflower is 136% more expensive than Hannaford Kingston Plaza, or roughly two and one third times more expensive, on average.

Woodstock Commons is being advertised, by RUPCO, as a low income housing project that is walkable to commercial services, and close to public transportation.  If a Woodstock Commons resident works regular business hours and wants to shop for groceries on Saturday, but has no car, or shares a car with somebody else, and wants to save 58% on groceries by taking the bus to Kingston to shop at Hannaford Kingston Plaza, that Woodstock Commons resident would have exactly ONE bus to take to Kingston in the morning, and ONE bus to take home, after a 3.5 hour shopping sojourn.  That's a full day project.  That's not convenient.

RUPCO misled the Housing Trust Fund in their application.

118- 1030 is greater than 999

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital Project - Exhibit 8 - Site and Building Information

Project Name: Woodstock Commons 2010

8B2. Building Space Breakdown

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


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

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

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

Hang in there, there are only two more sections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

117- Law of Utilities, Utility of Law

The RUPCO project argues that it belongs in the hamlet sewer district because of the following section of town law:

Hamlet District (§ 245-21 — § 245-36)

Properties divided by District boundary. 

Those properties which are now divided by the District boundary line shall be considered to be wholly served by the District

Fair enough on the citation, however the map appears to show that no section of the property in question is in the district. 

Either way, there is a separate town law for water.  Where exactly in the water law does it say that if a property is divided by the water district boundary, it is wholly served by the water district?

I can't find that section.  Can you?  Please help me out.

In a letter to the Department of Environmental Conservation, RUPCO's attorney, Michael Moriello argues that according to  "the plain

meaning of Town of Woodstock Local

Law #3 of 2005."

What plain meaning is that?

Here is a paragraph that says that anybody can apply to be a water customer, and the Town Board may decide yes or no:

Regulations and requirements. 

A. 

Any person or corporation located within the Town of Woodstock may make application to the Town Board for hookup to the municipal water supply. The application shall be accompanied by a bond in such sum as shall be fixed by the Town Board in consultation with the Highway Superintendent and the Water/Sewer Superintendent, with one or more sureties acceptable to the Board, on the condition that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of this chapter; shall pay to the District all fees, penalties or other charges required hereby in consequence of the work undertaken; shall restore openings made in streets, roads, lanes and other public places and pavement thereon and therein to the same standard of condition as before the work commenced; and shall keep and maintain the same in such condition for a period of one year after the work has been completed and, in case of failure so to do, shall pay to the District the cost of putting the same in such condition. The Town Board may, at its discretion, grant or deny such application. The Town Board may, at any time, revoke such permission so given.

Here is another paragraph saying that all uses must be applied for.  It is interesting to note that in RUPCO's application for Woodstock Commons, NO outdoor water use is estimated. The maintenance building water demand is only 15 gallons per day. I don't quite believe that.  Do you?

D. 

Applications for introduction of water to any premises or for the use of water shall be made upon a form furnished by the District for such purpose and shall be signed by the owner of the premises or said owner's duly authorized agent. Such application shall contain a statement of all uses for which water is desired. If usage beyond that stated in the application occurs or, in the opinion of the Town Board in consultation with the Water/Sewer Superintendent, exceeds the supply available, water service may be discontinued. Application for additional uses may be made at any time and a permit may be granted therefor subject to the best interests of the District as a whole.

The above section clearly puts the interests of the water district as a whole above the unapplied for (hence unapproved) water uses of the new customer.

More broadly, here is the water law's 

Statutory authority. 

This chapter is enacted in accordance with Articles 9 and 12 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10 of the New York Statute of Local Governments, and other legislative authority of the State of New York, which grant the Town Board of the Town of Woodstock the authority to enact local laws for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Town.

Looks like the water laws were enacted to promote the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Town.

RUPCO has forgotten that "the people of the town" do not include their buildings' residents.   Their buildings are not here yet, and neither are their people.  They have forgotten that there are a lot of people of the town right NOW who did not have enough water last summer, who probably do not have enough water pressure to fight fires now, and that it is entirely within the Town Board's authority to limit the NUMBER of "the people of the town" so that there is enough water and enough water pressure to go around. 

116- Not So Fast...

The judge threw out the town of Woodstock's motion to dismiss my Article 78 petition against the town/planning board for accepting the RUPCO/Woodstock Commons Findings Statement.  He ordered me to refile, and name two additional parties in the lawsuit, by first week of January.  The two additional parties are RUPCO and EVK Realty.

Drayton Grant, Woodstock's lawyer, caused a delay of at least four months by trying to have the petition thrown out as a result of attempting to trick me into giving her an extension.  I believe that her trickery will prove to be more ill-fated still.  We'll see.

More later.

115- On Notice, the sequel

After last week's water district user meeting, and the people interviewed in Woodstock Times about the town's duty to provide fire safety, I thought a more detailed notice of defect was called for. So I wrote a narrative of 8 pages, which is about 3000 words, then attached 52 pages of documents illustrating and explaining the problem, so that there can be no further misunderstanding or shirking of responsibility. 

While I was at it, I put Woodstock on notice for having approved an unsafe, too narrow, too winding, too flat road for the traffic that RUPCO's project seeks to and estimates that it will generate.  I included several pages of supporting documentation, for a total of 14 pages.

I filed both notices of defect with the Woodstock town clerk's office this morning.  Merry Christmas.

114- Ferguson Causeway

You know Ferguson Brook, that tiny little brook over which RUPCO wants to build a modest bridge to Woodstock Commons. I walked by there yesterday at sunset, and today after sunrise, and although the photo and video are not the best, I am sure you can appreciate that this brook is now a standing body of water in several places, and probably not a place where pedestrians would choose to walk through to get to their affordable housing further up the swampland.  I for one only have boots that rise to mid-calf. Perhaps RUPCO will offer hip boots with each new apartment rental. 

This is a photo looking across Ferguson "Brook" where the bridge is supposed to span it. 

Here is a video of the brook/swamp this morning, about 15 hours after the rain stopped.

113- Water District Member Meeting Concerning RUPCO

Last night's water district user meeting drew a solid attendance.  The evening was roughly divided into my presentation of the water pressure problem in the district, and Jerry Washington's excellent projection presentation (he used a projector, but his voice projected well also) of the water and sewer district map and physical particulars.

For now, I share with you my presentation. I stayed up late last night dividing it into segments that will fit on youtube, and now here are embedded.  Later on, I will include the latter part of the presentation. Enjoy the show.

112- On Notice

This morning I put the town of Woodstock on notice for inadequate water pressure for fighting fires, but since this is a RUPCOcentric blog, let me back up and tell you how I came to uncover this problem:

RUPCO, in its application for Woodstock Commons, cited a study by Morris Associates.  The study was from 1996.  The study said that pressure in the town water system would fall below 20 PSI, the minimum pressure for firefighting, according to New York State’s chosen standards, The Ten States Standards.  Back in 1996, the water district did not yet extend down Route 375.  The Morris Associates study sought to simulate the water district we have now, back before it was built.  For whatever reason, the town, back then, I suppose, thought it was OK to have sub-standard water pressure at the “working” fire hydrants. I can’t travel back in time to see whether the system was built as outlined in the simulation, or whether it was changed when built.  What I do know is that a more reliable measure of system pressure would be simply to measure the pressure in the system now.

So what does this have to do with RUPCO?  The RUPCO team does not appear to have simulated the water district pressure of the current system PLUS the expansion to serve their 53 new units. In other words, the study done 15 years ago, written in the future tense, was borrowed and substituted for lack of a current analysis of today’s system, written in the future tense about our current system plus RUPCO’s added demand. This is to say that RUPCO did NO analysis of water pressure in a system that would include its housing project.

This is also to say that the Planning Board just passed this study to the Town Board, who is responsible for the water and sewer system analysis.  The Town Board, all through the RUPCO application process, ignored this issue.  Now, according to the Daily Freeman article of last Friday, Jeff Moran is satisfied with the Planning Board’s analysis (which is nonexistent).

What happens when a town simply fails to maintain adequate water pressure to the fire hydrants?  Houses catch on fire, fire engines come, and no water comes out of the hose. Houses burn down. A certain town board member’s immediate family member watched this happen across the street from his home just a few towns away from here. He watched the homeowners sue the town.

Here in Woodstock, and in all towns in New York, if you know about a dangerous situation, go to the Town Clerk’s office and fill out a “Notice of Defect or Dangerous Condition.”  By law, the town must correct the defect or danger within 30 days or decide that it is not really a danger. But guess who really makes that decision: the town’s insurance carrier.  I filled out such a form, citing the old water pressure study, and the dangerously low water pressure that the Planning Board thought was OK to decrease even further by adding 53 new users to the system. While the danger is not imminent, the decision to allow it to become imminent has already been made.  Approval of Woodstock Commons was an act of negligence.

Here is the form I filled out this morning at the Town Clerk's office, Woodstock, NY.