Widewaters/Greenport: Letters to Editors

Letters to Editors and other Commentary

go to top

I am surprised that the Register Star has taken this long to comment on what has been truly bad traffic congestion on Rte 9 for several years now, particularly at weekends? Why has the Register Star not raised the question of the State widening Route 9 ages ago? Now is a little late. Widening Rte 9 is particularly crucial with the recent addition of Widewaters to the equation and the large number of cars this will add, whatever their bogus traffic study says?

Surely, one of the roles of a newspaper such as yours is to voice the concerns of your readers and expose Greenport's truly appalling lack of foresight and understanding of what will impact merchant and customer alike.

Yes, Route 9 is a mess. The main beneficiary of the current congestion, at its worst, are the stores closer to downtown, like Shop Rite which get more business, not because they are necessarily a better market, but because people dislike spending 5-10 more minutes to get to Price Chopper. That does not bode well for Walmart, Lowe's or whoever occupies either old or new space. This has been evident to many of us for a long time.

Please — more editorials like today but make them far more prescient and timely.

Diana Jelinek
Ancram

go to top

To the editor:

I disagree with part of your editorial about Route 9. The blame for the Route 9 mess is not all NYS Dept. of Transportation fault.

It appears to me and many people, in Greenport, that our town officials should have put a lot more time and thought into the agreement with Widewaters when it came to the Route 9 traffic.

In the past decade the Route 9 problems had reared its head numerous times. The Republicans on the Town Board over the past decade has brushed these problems aside many times. The Republicans had a great opportunity to do something about this, while a Republican held the governor's office for the past 12 years.

It has become very obvious that Greenport had no planning for the future. The Republican board members reacted to what ever came down the pike or should I say came down Route 9.

The blunt of their mistakes will be thrust upon the residents of the quiet and pristine neighborhoods that border Route 9. For years residents could cross the street to talk with their neighbor, walk the quiet streets, and their children could play without fear of heavy traffic. That will now come to an end this summer.

It is now apparent a sweeping change is needed in Greenport town government. Now more than ever we need people with foresight on the Town Board, people who are not afraid to look to the future and say Greenport deserve better. These new board members will be willing to involve all citizens in the planning for a better future in Greenport.

Robert Pinkowski
Greenport

go to top

To the editor:

I find in fascinating that you come out with a strong stance for the DOT to widen Route 9 in Greenport before the allotted time of the year 2016.

While I am not questioning your sound and logical reasoning for such a request I do question your timing. This was a crucial issue only a few months ago in the discussion over the future Widewaters project. The prejudiced road survey prepared for the community at that time was so deficient and one-sided in so many ways it defies reality.

Your voice at that time would have been of great benefit to this community—but you were silent.

Providing information—now months after the fact—offers us citizens absolutely nothing. Reporting and/or commenting on timely issues in a timely manner provides a service to a community desperately in need. Dysfunctional sporadic reporting or commentary is a worthless exercise in futility.

Vincent Mulford
Hudson

go to top

An open letter to the Greenport Planning and Town Boards, and to all those who:

Refused to inform themselves about the Widewaters proposal; preferred to settle old scores rather than look at the issues; were too lazy to think for themselves and allowed others to do so for them; who do not know what a business plan is and are seemingly threatened by those who do; who insist upon repeating the errors of the past, thus assuring the same outcome in the future; who are unwilling to acknowledge what they don’t know and unable to consider other viewpoints; who only think inside the "big-box"; who don’t realize we can operate from a position of strength instead of squandering our precious resources (it is, after all, the developers who need us – our shoppers, our land, our cooperation); to those who do not understand the SEQRA process and refuse to use it to the peoples’ benefit; who choose to ignore those with special expertise or just plain curiousity enough to look into matters which will affect us all for a long time to come; and especially to all those who reduced this to a matter of "us vs. them," i.e. whose who want progress vs. anti-development tree-huggers...congratulations!

Visit the new Walmart Supercenter and enjoy more of what you’ve already got. Shop at Lowe’s, and put local retailers out of business.

And to all (oldtimers and newcomers, alike) who were interested enough, concerned enough, savvy enough, open enough, generous enough and energetic enough to support the work of Greenport Neighbors Action Team in its sustained effort to get something better for the people of Greenport (which would actually improve the tax base), a hearty "thank you."

Our shopping choices may remain limited, but our minds are not.

Nina Sklansky
Greenport Neighbors Action Team

go to top

To the editor:

The Register Star on Saturday reported what many of us anticipated, that the newly approved Widewater project in Greenport will anchor a Wal-Mart Super Center, and will also boast a Lowe's home improvement center. The citizens of the area who expressed the need for more diverse shopping opportunities closer to home will be pleased to know that they will have yet another Wal-Mart to choose from, and yet another Lowe's to choose from. I am sure the folks at Dunn' Building Supply and Williams Lumber will be glad to get some relief from the crush of local business once the new outlets open next summer.

The same article, by John Mason, described the intended market area of the Walmart planners as covering, no kidding, a triangle from Castleton on the north, south along the Hudson River to Tivoli, and WEST from both villages to the Great Barrington, Massachusetts, area. If John is correct, and Wal-Mart is serious, that would involve a 30 or 35 mile strip of the planet's surface extending from our side of the Hudson westward, across the country, across a couple of oceans and several continents, to return on the Atlantic coast, and finally ending up at Great Barrington.

This is an amazing insight into the ambitions of the Wal-Mart folks. Now all they need is yet another Super Center in West Ghent to fill in the gap between Great Barrington and Hudson which was not included in their westward trip around the world.

Thanks, Greenport Planning Board, this is just what the people needed,

Charles Hallenbeck
Hudson

go to top

Register Star 4/6/07
My view: Widewaters' proposal subjected to intense scrutiny
By Marco Marzocchi
General counsel
Retail development
The Widewaters Group, Inc.

Every aspect of Widewaters' proposal for a retail center in Greenport came under detailed scrutiny by various experts and independent government agencies. As a result, the Greenport Planning Board properly based its decision to approve the Widewaters project upon highly competent professional advice from various disciplines and sources. Indeed, the Greenport Planning Board insisted that Widewaters make significant and substantial improvements to the project in light of that advice.

In its primary role as lead agency in evaluating Widewaters' proposal, the Greenport Planning Board analyzed the reviews and opinions of all the other independent agencies and experts and incorporated many of them into its requirements. These included recommendations regarding traffic safety, noise, visuals and landscaping, all of which resulted in improvements to the plan. Among these was providing access for Dawnwood Apartment residents to a signalized intersection with Route 9, thereby eliminating an existing traffic hazard.

Storm water drainage, erosion control, motor vehicle safety, and emergency vehicle access all benefited from insights offered by Greenport's engineering experts to the Planning Board. The engineers' request for noise analysis, visual impact and lighting studies led to various changes in the plan. One result was the elimination of a gasoline filling station from the proposal.

Other changes prompted by the engineers assure no light spillage and modified light levels. The lighting design also appropriately reduces light levels as stores in the buildings close at night.

In terms of visual and noise impacts, modifications asked for by the Greenport engineers led the Greenport Planning Board to require changes in the rooftop mechanicals and construction materials. The site now incorporates improvements to the water lines feeding fire suppressant systems because of the Greenport Fire Department's valued input.

Many significant changes reducing or eliminating wetlands impact resulted from the Army Corps of Engineers' review. These included reducing the overall square footage of the structures, relocating one building, restoration of a degraded wetland and the siting of buildings. Other modifications prompted by the Corps included agreement to preserve as "forever wild" more than 15 acres along Claverack Creek and plantings along a creek tributary.

The expertise of professionals within the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation also contributed to storm water design improvements. Widewaters relocated a signalized entrance to the center following the New York State Department of Transportation's review. The state's Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation brought attention to two archeologically sensitive areas. In response, the Widewaters' plan incorporates avoidance measures.

Other public servants whose independent reviews made valuable contributions included Greenport's Water and Sewer superintendent, the Greenport Highway Department, the U.S. Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service, and state, county and local law enforcement officials. Any fair-minded observer cannot help but conclude that this proposal was subject to extensive and indepth review by not only the Greenport Planning Board but also by independent experts.

With the Greenport Planning Board's finding on March 26, we are prepared to move this project forward for the benefit of area consumers and Greenport taxpayers. In the process, we welcome continued oversight by the appropriate independent public servants.

go to top

To The Editor:

This is an open letter to the Greenport Planning Board and copied to Supervisor Rutkey and the Greenport Town Board

Dear Chairman Alger and members of the Greenport Planning Board,

We write to you today with concerns regarding the Widewaters commercial application for Fairview Avenue.

We are writing today not to debate the possible negative impacts to the Town of Greenport if this project is built, nor are we looking to stop development on that site that benefits the town’s residents. Far from it.

Our only request is that a Positive Declaration be made on the State Environmental Quality Review form that is before your board at this time. As you know, a Positive Declaration says that no matter your feeling towards this project, the largest of its size in modern Greenport history save only the St. Lawrence Cement application, there is no question that there will be an impact of more of everything coming in and out of that property. That means more cars, light pollution, visual impact, environmental pollution, increased use of an antiquated town water and sewer system, and the continuation of sprawl as the project is proposed.

We also know that there is the potential of increased crime, a possible "cherry-picking" of stores leaving other Fairview Avenue sites, and possible higher, not lower, taxes for all Greenport residents.

Knowing, or not knowing, all or some of these is why SEQR was created. It allows Greenport, on behalf of its residents, and at the expense of the developer, to answer not if, but how they are going to mitigate these issues on behalf of the Greenport resident’s health, safety, and pocketbook. It is as simple as that.

Our non-profit organization, Good Growth Columbia, was created to assist towns like yours to get those questions answered. We do it by providing professionals in all areas of planning and engineering to help build a better project. We work with you and the developer to find compromise where possible and demand that Greenport residents come first when necessary. Whether you work with us or others in our field to make this project something to be proud of, we can assure you of three things:

First, the developer wants to be there. Their potential anchors need to be there. If they are serious, they are not to run away because you want to discuss parking patterns or façade styles,

Second, if you vote to give Widewaters a Negative Declaration, expressing by your actions that there is no discernible impact to the Town of Greenport and its residents, you have given up your right to make substantial changes to this project in order to protect the Town’s water and sewer systems, to lessen the environmental impact, and to increase the town’s ratables,

Lastly, if you vote to pass up this opportunity, instead of the developer paying the planners you pick to make the project better, neighbors in the area, feeling that you didn’t look out for their interests when given the chance, will file papers to sue the town costing tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer’s money. This will delay the project even further than if you had taken the time to study the project and it will not cost the developer a dime. In fact, seeing that the developer has only an option on the property, legal delays might push the potential tenants to look elsewhere followed by the developer. Then, only the attorneys win. The lawsuit is not a threat by us. You have already been told that it will happen. Why allow it to happen when you have the power to do this correctly.

We happen to enjoy Greenport a great deal. We love the people, the parks, even shopping on Fairview Avenue. The last thing we need is people taking sides when we can work together. Please declare a Positive Declaration on the Widewaters application and let that work begin.

Howard Brandston, Chairman
Patrick R. Manning, Executive Director
Good Growth Columbia

go to top

Register Star 2/22/07
My View: Widewaters: Communication breakdown
By Virginia Martin
Claverack

The Greenport Planning Board decided in June 2006 that it wanted lead-agency status regarding the SEQRA review of the immense Widewaters proposal for retail space. The board passed a resolution, as was appropriate, saying it wanted to be the lead agency and that it would notify the other affected "agencies" (such as the bordering municipalities and relevant agencies with oversight like DEC, Army Corps, etc.) that it wanted to be the lead agency, as was appropriate. This is a routine part of the SEQRA process, and it gives other parties the opportunity to consider whether or not they want to take an active role in the SEQRA process, as is the right of each of them.

Included on that list of affected agencies that Greenport would contact were the towns of Stockport and Claverack, and, of course, the DEC.

However, the actual notice that was sent out to a number of agencies indicates that neither of those towns or the DEC were appropriately notified. See www.mhcable.com/~vmartin/WW/corres/LeadAgcy_060630.PDF.

On Monday, at our Claverack Town Board meeting, I requested that the board send a letter to Greenport urging them to undertake the full, rather than an abbreviated, SEQRA review, since the project will obviously have an impact on Claverack, notably on traffic. Board members seemed less than fully aware of the project (they even asked me whether Greenport even has a planning board, since it has no zoning laws).

I asked if Claverack had been informed of Greenport’s wish to become lead agency, and the board’s response was that Claverack had not been so informed.

The town of Claverack borders the project, directly across the Claverack Creek, which in and of itself stands to be impacted (remember that just last year, the banks of the creek just upstream collapsed and created quite an emergency). The Town of Stockport borders the project, as well. Both towns will certainly see enormous increases in traffic. How could it be that they were not formally contacted?

That the Department of Environmental Conservation, under the purview of which SEQRA lies, appears never to have been notified of the lead-agency move is even more astonishing.

What is going on here?

It has not been easy to get answers to the questions, like these, that many of us have raised. Nor has it been very easy to see the documentation involved. That’s why I undertook the project of putting many of the documents that I and the Greenport Neighbors have been able to access up on the web, so that people could easily look at them. The web address is www.mhcable.com/~vmartin/WW/ and I encourage people of all inclinations toward this project to review what’s there.

Not every single document that we’ve received is posted, due to the unwieldy size of many, but a great deal of information is there. I hope people will take the time to get informed. Remember, it’s the size of 12 football fields.

And, by the developer’s own admission, it will nearly double the amount of traffic during weekday peak traffic hours, and it will more than double the amount during Saturday peak traffic hours. And, all the indications are that it will significantly increase, not decrease, Greenporters’ taxes.

It doesn’t have to be that way, though. The Town of Greenport could require the developer to make certain promises to the town (for example, that it would provide the security needed so that Greenport residents wouldn’t have to bear that costly burden).

There is hardly anyone who is actually opposed to having Widewaters develop this parcel of land into retail space. Everyone I know simply wants it to be done well, not hastily.

Is that so much to ask?

go to top

Register Star 2/4/07
Think Positive

To the Editor:

If you were buying a house, would you hire the inspector the seller recommended?

No way. You’d want an independent opinion, and no matter how nice the seller was, you’d politely decline his or her suggestion.

At this week’s Greenport planning board meeting (1/23/07) the audience once again witnessed the board relying, in effect, upon “the seller’s inspectors,” as assorted consultants hired by Widewaters addressed (albeit briefly) issues ranging from noise and light pollution to visual impacts. In a bizarre display, they presented comments excerpted from more detailed material previously submitted to the board as appendices to the Environmental Assessment Form.

The plan was neatly positioned as a “redevelopment project.” Widewaters was trying to convince the board that since there had once been a Jamesway and other retailers at the site there was no reason it shouldn’t approve Widewaters own plan. But since the site is currently vacant and has mostly returned to a vegetated state this is no redevelopment project. It is new development and deserves the careful examination any new development would.

For those who don’t know, the EAF is the preliminary step in the approval process, not to be confused with the far more exhaustive Environmental Impact Statement this hugely ambitious project obviously demands. An EIS would allow the Board to hire independent experts to verify or refute Widewaters’ claims. Instead, the board asked questions which were often vague. The answers were equally so and came from Widewaters, not the independent experts an EIS would require (and for whom the developer would be required to pay). In place of that, we had Mr. Alger urging, “Let’s move it along” throughout Widewaters’ part of the meeting. No such admonitions were given as proposals by applicants for projects with a fraction of Widewaters’ potential impact (Betty’s Bible Study, for instance, a plan for a weekly meeting of ten people in an existing space) were examined at length.

Still baffling, the board must fork over approval of the project before finding out who the tenants are, what the mall will look like, and so on. Only then will we know whether the place will provide anything more than more of what we already have. Still unasked and unanswered, crucial questions about things like economic impacts (please humor me, anyone on the board, and explain in convincing detail how our tax base will go up as existing businesses go down?). Ah, but in their eagerness to demonstrate just how carefully everyone’s examining issues like traffic, the “grilling” will continue at a special meeting on the 15th which the board agreed to with alacrity. (Note that when the public hearing on Widewaters was, over considerable public objection, scheduled for Dec. 26th, a change of date was out of the question. Mr. Alger insisted that the board meets on the 4th Tuesday of the month—even when it fell on the day after Christmas. If so, why shouldn’t the next Widewaters dog-and-pony show be scheduled for the 4th Tuesday in February, the 27th, rather than the 15th?).

Once again, the best way to get the best for our town is to make the developer do its best by us. And that means a pos dec. Unless, of course, you want the seller’s inspector deciding for you.

Nina Sklansky
Greenport

go to top

Independent 2/2/07
What's going to be there?

To the Editor:
Re: Widewaters

Any developer who requests a blanket approval for building without revealing who their tenants are should be the biggest red flag to any caring taxpayer of any town!

This is absolutely absurd!!! Talk about buying a pig in a poke—or is everyone too mesmerized by the snake oil con game to care...

Vincent Mulford
Hudson

go to top

Independent 2/2/07
That's one big building

To the Editor:

I have always had a hard time visualizing and taking in the meaning of very large numbers.

I had read numerous times that the Widewaters proposal for a new shopping center in Greenport would be 550,000-square-feet of commercial space. I knew that sounded huge, but how huge?

In James Sheldon's January 30 column, he mentions that Greenport already has four shopping centers, including a 75,000-square-foot Wal-Mart. Yikes, that gigantic space that Wal-Mart occupies is "only" 75,000 square-feet? That means we can envision 7.33 Wal-Marts in this proposed new center? That's a revolting thought.

B. Docktor
Ancram

go to top

Independent 1/30/07
Columbia County doesn't need a new mail

To the Editor:

Mary Hallenbeck makes many excellent points concerning the lack of viability of the Widewaters Commons proposal, not the least of which is, who the heck is going to shop there?

Not me. I'm one of the North Columbia folks who for years has found shopping in East Greenbush quite adequate for basic stuff, and I see no reason to change. I cannot imagine that anyone needs another Swillmart, WongFu's Vaguely Asian, HairAny Minute, Bob's Burger Shack or even Gene's Jeans and Lube Jobs. Plus of course a bank branch, drug store and dollar type outlet. We have all that already.

She's also on the mark about its usefulness to our older citizens, who don't appreciate having to walk across a windy tundra in winter and a steamy Saharan outpost in July. They'll just say no. And who says they'll save a dollar or two anyway?

As for the current Widewaters project in Kinderhook, I don't see the point of that either. I used to pick up a few things at the Grand Union when my stocks ran low, but since that's been pushed out, I can continue to do very well thank you at Price Chopper, which has more and better produce than Hannaford anyway.

If the folks at Widewaters will sit down with population statistics for our besieged county, they might sensibly do their developing elsewhere.

Wendy Gash
North Chatham

go to top

Register Star 1/26/07
Now that's selfish

To the editor:

Fondly remembering what downtown Hudson was like is what every American does about their lost downtowns. I too fondly remember Albany and Pittsfield when they were thriving commercial districts when shops were proud of their wares and appreciated their customers.

That all died when the mall concept was born—giving places like Greenport and Colonie their present fame. That is why urban renewal was created—to try to jump start the dead downtowns left by a consumer culture looking for easy shopping and a dollar cheaper product. That is why big box stores are now sweeping our landscape bringing a bland impersonal shopping experience for us all to enjoy and reminisce about the good old days. That is why Hudson was a boarded up ghost town in 1990 which allowed another form of entrepreneur to rediscover and revitalize this forgotten slum.

So yes, we do need a Colonie Center with an atrium with shopping choices but that is exactly not what Widewaters is promising. In fact their only promise is that they won't tell what businesses they are offering Greenport.

All we have to go on is what they have offered in the past.

Widewaters in Kinderhook—with all its promises has ended in emptying stores in its neighboring towns with only one new addition for the consumer—a Dollartree store.

So do nothing—let the corporations walk all over you—someday we can reminisce about the variety offered in Greenport when SuperWalmart is all that's left for your children's children to shop.

Not being involved in your community's growth and development is being selfish.

Vincent Mulford
Hudson

go to top

To the editor:

During the public hearing on the Widewaters Project for Greenport on December 26, 1 sincerely complimented the folks on Warren Street for the manner in which they have renovated and preserved the store fronts along what once offered shoppers a choice for serious shopping.

Fondly, I remember Marsh's, Richman's, Baker's and Golderman's that offered quality merchandise and service. Yes, there was great establishments like Berman's Home Furnishings and Grays that sold a type of furniture that any home could be proud of! Further recollection brings to mind that superb mens store known as Adam Kritzman. If you're not antique- or jeansminded, where in Hudson can you go today to purchase any of the goods or services I have referenced that once existed in a thriving Hudson?

Of course, at that time there was a lot more manufacturing that was a healthy part of the economy, something that does not exist today. It doesn't exist because any attempt to revitalize manufacturing is met with abrupt opposition. The SLC project is solid evidence of such a NIMBY culture!

The traffic issue in Hudson could have been dealt with a long time ago if only the powers to be had followed the example of Salisbury, Maryland. Every other block of the main business district was closed to all but pedestrian traffic. In these restricted blocks a park-like atmosphere was created with benches, flower plantings and trees that truly added to pleasurable shopping. The trucks and other service vehicles that double park along Warren Street should be using the alleys behind the current business establishments instead of creating the present bottleneck.

Likewise, visitors to Hudson that double park could be routinely ticketed by HPD and this practice would soon cease. Certainly, the city treasury could use the funds - perhaps they could restore funding to the much needed K-9 patrol!

Plain and simple, it's nothing less than selfish to obstruct the building of the project in Greenport.

We do need a mini Colonie Center with an atrium, food court and other choice features that will assure the success of such a mall for decades to come. We do not need more of the same and progressiveminded folks are certainly not attempting to take anything away from Hudson, neither should the anti-anything group in Hudson attempt to stop meaningful and much needed shopping opportunities in Greenport.

Our schools will have an excellent opportunity to offer an added course in customer service to prepare students for the hundreds of jobs that will be created by this project. This is a subject that needs critical attention. How many times have you been handed your change like it was a hot potato with no "Thanks for shopping" or "Did you find everything you were looking for?"

There was a time in marketing when it was taught [the] customer is king! Yes, there are traffic issues to be addressed, Widewaters needs to give us the best mall they ever designed, and schools have a challenge to better train students before they take the first job in any customer service environment.

Joan E. Wassenhove
Ghent

go to top

To the editor:

With Widewaters Commons in the town of Kinderhook now fully occupied, and with the Widewaters developers proposing to build the largest mall in Columbia County in Greenport, this is a good time to sum up the new retail opportunities the developer actually has given us.

There are ten businesses at Widewaters Commons. The Hannaford supermarket, shortly to be the only supermarket in town, following the closing of the Grand Union. Moving to the Commons from Valatie were the National Union Bank of Kinderhook, the King's Wok, the Eye Center, and Curves. LaBella Pizza recently moved over from Kinderhook village.

At the public hearings on the proposed mall, one supporter of the project said it would be like Stuyvesant Plaza, with stores offering clothing, shoes, and other goods not available locally. The reality is quite different. There are four new retail establishments at the Commons: a sandwich shop (one of two in town), a liquor store (one of three), a beauty parlor (one of several), and a dollar store.

Summing it all up, the dollar store is the only new kind of shopping opportunity that Widewaters brought to the town of Kinderhook.

John Pickett
Kinderhook
Frank Rhyner
Niverville

go to top

The following was submitted to the Greenport Planning Board:

I am writing to urge you to make a positive declaration regarding the Widewaters proposal so that it may undergo a full SEQRA review. To do so would not only be prudent, but a heroic demonstration of leadership on the part of the Planning Board.

Please consider the following:

It’s not about being pro-mall or anti-mall — and turning this into a question of "us vs. them" puts the emphasis on the wrong issue

The right issue is not quite so simple. To treat it as if it were is to do a great disservice to the people you serve. What’s more, to deny the enormity of this project and its impact, county-wide, is absurd — at best, un-neighborly, at worst, irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the future of our town.

Two expressions come to mind when I think about the decision you are about to make.

1.) Keep doing the same thing and you’re guaranteed the same result. Case in point: four malls have been built in Greenport, yet taxes continue to go up.

2.) Fail to plan, plan to fail — not just economically, but with results which look like Fairview Avenue, only even more congested.

Why not a real plan for our area? Planning is about more than tweaking a developer’s proposal, adding a light here and a fence around a detention pond, there. Never has there been any open discussion of what would really be good for us as a town. Invite the input of the entire community. Consider the successes and failures of other towns. I’m sure it would be enlightening.

"Build it, and they will come," someone said on Tuesday night, based upon the planning board’s assurance that the mall will be a great boon to the area…based upon the developer’s assertions of same. That’s not good stewardship.

Widen route 9? "Nothing a bulldozer can’t take care of" said another in the audience. Tell that to the young couple who just built their first home opposite the site. And by the way, their property value hasn’t zoomed skyward, as some mistakenly believe. It’s plummeted.

Instead, "seek, and ye shall find." Ask questions. Seek answers. Dig, before Widewaters starts to. From the array of concerns expressed by old-timers and newcomers alike,at the Public Hearing, I’d say that cautious approach resonates with many. You know…better safe than sorry.

If you’ve already decided it’s a go (and I’ve heard a "neg dec" referred to for months in Planning Board meetings) based on rosy reports from the developer, you’ve already abdicated your responsibility.

Why the reluctance to delve into what an expert like a James Sheldon has to say on the economic pros and cons of this proposal? Why disparage the suggestions of guests at the meeting, like those from Kinderhook who warn that – having already undergone the Wide waters "experience" — we should be careful what we wish for?

A guy called me a "tree-hugger" at the hearing. I’ve been called worse. Frankly, though, he would have been far more accurate in calling me a champion shopper. I just wish I could do more of it in Greenport. You like Wal-mart? Terrific! We’ve got one. There are also plenty more big-box stores around, and coming soon to a neighborhood near you if you’re not careful. By the way, these giants aren’t called "category killers" for nothing. They have sounded the death knell for real "downtowns."

Here’s a really radical idea for the site. Make the current owner tear down the existing mess. Then, how ‘bout a downtown Greenport? Not a strip mall. Not a megamall. Small shops and local cafes and restaurants and services owned by real people, not faceless corporations headquartered half a continent away. A town square. Gardens, trees, a pleasant place to mingle. You know…charming, walkable, inviting. Good for your health, even. And here’s a truly wacky idea: how about a shoemaker?

Why not make sure the Widewaters plan ends up being the best one for us?

What is everyone so afraid of? Let’s pool our strength. Let’s pool our smarts. The wisdom of people who’ve lived here forever…the insights of those who haven’t, and see things from a fresh perspective. Let’s recognize what we have, what we may have lost, and what we can have again, and then aim for it.

Remember, we’re all in this together.

Those of us who are asking for a full review of the Widewaters proposal are not the enemy.

In fact, given how things very well might turn out if this plan is fast-tracked, you may one day look back and see that if anything, we were trying to be the best friends the Planning Board could ever have hoped for.

go to top

Register Star 1/11/07
Scrutinize Widewaters

To the editor:

The following is a letter written to the Greenport Planning Board.

I am writing to urge the members of the Greenport Planning Board to declare that the proposed Widewaters project in Greenport has a significant inter-municipal impact, and to recommend that the Greenport Planning Board take a closer look at the effect this massive development will have on our community.

As mayor of the city of Hudson, I must draw your attention to the consequences the proposed project will have on traffic into and around the city and the surrounding area. The increased flow of traffic--passenger cars as well as tractor-trailer trucks--through Hudson has been an ongoing concern for residents and elected officials alike for quite some time. By all accounts, under the Widewaters plan these already difficult conditions will worsen, and the impact on the municipal infrastructure will be considerable.

A project of this scope will undoubtedly have a significant environmental impact; therefore, I must strongly urge the Planning Board to subject this proposal to the highest level of scrutiny. On behalf of the citizens of Hudson I urge you to conduct an extensive review of the effect this project may have in this regard and recommend that a full and complete SEQRA review be initiated.

I would respectfully request that you share this letter with the other members of the Planning Board.

Richard F. Tracy
Mayor, Hudson

go to top

In the discussions about whether to grant the Widewaters Group permission to build its mega-project on Fairview Avenue, how much thought has been given to something even more important, if somewhat harder to measure than whether it will worsen traffic congestion--whether its construction will mark the psychological tipping point when the county turns from rural to suburban?

Greenport's town mothers and fathers might want to take a trip to the village of Valatie, where the Grand Union is having a whopper going-out-of-business sale, to see the consequences of such decisions, and to ask themselves whether it's worth it.

I've been shopping at the Valatie Grand Union since the 1970s. Indeed, as a part-time Columbia County resident who spends much of the week in New York City, the supermarket has become almost as synonymous with the country as the birds at our feeders, the deer in our woods, and the surreal knowledge that you could step outside and be as safe as if I'd stayed indoors with the locks bolted.

The main reason I equate the Grand Union with rural America boils down to one man - manager George Palmatier. Whenever you'd visit the supermarket you could find George, 59, stocking the shelves, or to be more precise, stocking the shelves while shooting the breeze with shoppers. He seemed to know at least half of them by name and for good reason. George has worked at this Grand Union, and lived in Ghent with his wife and two children, since 1979 when he graduated from Siena College. He even knows some of the crooks, since he's taught Bible at the Hudson Correctional Center every Thursday night for the last 23 years.

For that reason, the Grand Union's closing has resembled something of a funeral for a loved one, with shoppers reminiscing with George and the cashiers and department managers, some of whom have worked in the store almost as long as George, about stocking up before this snowstorm or during that blackout. "It's been emotional," George confirmed on a recent afternoon as yet another shopper approached to offer his condolences. "It's such a small community and you get to know everybody."

The reason the Grand Union is going out of business, of course, is that a Hannaford Supermarket, another Widewaters project, opened down the road. Yes, they have a better meat department, and perhaps a slightly larger variety of produce. But most of the staff seems to come from somewhere else, and isn't any more knowledgeable about what aisle to find chicken stuffing than their customers. And on a recent weekday night there was only one checkout counter open - or only one manned by a human as opposed to an automatic reader - for dozens of shoppers.

Hudson isn't Valatie and few people are as committed to their customers and their communities as George Palmatier is. But before we green light a mega-project like Widewaters we need to ask ourselves - what are we getting in exchange? Is a store that sells light bulbs for a few cents less, and another artery-clogging restaurant worth endangering the rural nature of our community--even further? And how much will we save in property taxes when Widewaters runs the adjoining strip malls out of business and those stores become empty husks - the probable destiny of the Grand Union in Valatie.

And is it too much to ask that in exchange for our money these stores exhibit at least as much commitment to our community as they do to their shareholders and their CEOs golden parachutes? If not, don't let the bums in. Even corporations can have souls, as George Palmatier proves. He's been offered another Grand Union to manage when the Valatie store closes, but it won't be the same thing. "It's not home," he explained. "This is home."

go to top

To the editor:

Now that we have a governor from upstate -- hopefully Columbia County included to focus on industry and jobs by up grading our infrastructure to create a balanced economic plan for our communities, you and your deputies can arrange a meeting with the governor to look into the Widewaters proposal along with the other superiors who will be affected in providing the infrastructure to accommodate the areas' present and future needs.

The topography and land use can now be evaluated to meet present and future needs by exploring the various alternatives that a realistic review, using common sense, would reveal.

Industry, like other segments in the communities, needs water, waste disposal, interconnecting arteries, etc. To prioritize their water distribution networks, etc. to serve our interdependent diversified needs to keep up with present and future needs in serving the regional interwoven jurisdictions of our county with a realistic plan to meet those present and future needs that heretofore have been met by piecemeal solutions and mounting costs to all taxpayers and consumers.

Outsourcing our manufacturing jobs by focusing on entertainment and pleasure-related, short-term solutions by pitting the various competing interests against each other comes at a high price to be paid for in escalating costs by mandated and unfunded ploys in the system.

Having served on the Board of Supervisors and seeking to see practical solutions put in place from the mountains of studies that each department under your jurisdiction has compiled was not heeded with you and your board pressed to magically make disappear.

These posted public remarks I'm sending out to my e-mail recipients and a copy delivered to your clerk for you and your board to consider.

Thomas Koulos
Hudson

go to top

To the Editor:

Guy Spath is right to call upon Widewaters to issue a statement "that they will not seek tax abatements" for their Greenport mall.

For the record, however, he is incorrect to say that St. Lawrence Cement was committed to paying "their fair share of taxes" if their own Greenport project had been approved.

In fact, SLC proposed a property tax assessment of less than 10% of the project's value—in effect seeking a 90% reduction on their tax bill.

(Unfortunately, the Town of Greenport never objected to that number—instead illegally agreeing to withdraw from the review process in exchange for a relatively small annual payment. Facing a stiff court challenge by Greenport residents and plant opponents, the Town eventually had to void the deal.)

Similarly, when directly confronted, the company refused to promise not to seek a large tax abatement available to such projects in New York State.

Big developers should indeed be required to pay their full taxes, just like the rest of us. But SLC never intended to pay their fair share, and it's not a good idea to revise the history of past controversies to suit present needs—however pressing they may be.

Sam Pratt
Taghkanic

go to top

To the Editor:

The Columbia County Chamber of Commerce is a business advocacy organization of over 850 business members. The Chamber believes that progressive development measures are in the best interest of the businesses and residents of Columbia County. The Chamber has requested that Widewaters implement the following recommendations for the proposed retail facility on Fairview Avenue in Greenport:

Exterior lighting should be a full cut off design to eliminate light pollution.
Full cut off lighting to shine against customized store signs. This would give the facades the appearance of the Lee Outlets, as opposed to the stock illuminated signs you see at the Hannaford Plaza in Kinderhook.
Plantings /berms around the perimeter of the site and/or parking areas to break up the visual nature of a site this size.
Fiberboard/cement board siding as opposed to final or concrete block for the entire perimeter of the buildings. The dumpster receptacles should also be finished construction that matches the rest of the buildings.
Construction of facades that are in keeping with the local architecture, as opposed to simple block design.
Confirm that the project adequately meets the ingress and egress needs of the resultant traffic, minimizing the potential additional load on State Route 9.
Consider a roof design that allows the placement of mechanicals on the roof, but in a manner that screens them from public view.
Creation of sufficient setbacks from State Route 9 that allows for pedestrian friendly sidewalks, and additionally providing pedestrian friendly sidewalks within the parking lots that encourages customers to walk between businesses in a safe and efficient manner.
The proposed conservation easement in the rear of the project should have a protected right-of-way for future rear access if at some point it becomes necessary or cost efficient.

We believe these measures will help make for a better gateway to the major business area in Columbia County, and ultimately result in a better project for all parties.

Sincerely,

John Maiuri, 2007 Chairman
David B. Colby, President & CEO

go to top

Many of us have spoken to you, including the County Planning Board (PB) itself, about the importance of your issuing a Positive Declaration so that the Widewaters Group will be forced to do its due diligence regarding the various large-scale impacts its proposed mega-project will have on this county. (Large-scale, mind you, because it is the largest-scale retail development this county has ever seen.)

It has been repeated to you often enough now that I hope you have listened, and heard, how critically important your decision in this regard will be. You yourselves well know that the cost of doing nothing (a Negative Declaration) will be far more expensive, and extensive, than the cost of doing what is proper in this matter (a Positive Declaration.)

So I will move on from this basic point to something that may or may not have come to your attention thus far.

Widewaters says they plan on bringing in "a few restaurants, possibly Applebee's, Olive Garden, etc." At the same time, they maintained at the County PB meeting, that they expect the mega-mall to draw from only "20-25 miles in the immediate area."

As a long-time restaurateur and someone who has owned and operated a full-service, independent restaurant in Hudson for almost 4 years now, I can tell you from firsthand experience that no major scale, full-service restaurant can possibly survive with that limited of a customer base. As I said at the County PB meeting earlier this month, Mexican Radio draws from over a 150 mile radius, and even that can be very limiting with such minimal local population numbers.

The fact that you can count the full-service restaurants on Fairview who are still in business on less than one hand is the truest testament to how critically important this issue actually is. All types of restaurants open and close every single day.

Their national 98% failure rate speaks truckloads.

In terms of staffing, did you happen to hear the 3 restaurateurs chortle at the County PB meeting when the Widewaters representative stated that acquiring staff will be "no problem" for any incoming restaurants?

Forget extensive market research, all anyone has to do is drop in on any restaurant (or any other business for that matter), whether full-service or fast food, and ask them about their staffing issues in this county. A good day is when your turnover rate is only a few times worse than the National Restaurant Industry Average.

Finally, as Co-Chair of the new Farm-to-Chef program being developed with the CC Chamber of Commerce, and a tireless advocate for our Buy Local programs, I can tell you without hesitation that places like Olive Garden make their food "somewhere in the Midwest" before shipping it to the individual locations for "warming up." On the other hand, the owners and chefs of the local, non-chain restaurants and food service businesses here in the county are working hard to develop ongoing, networking relationships with local farmers, and are true and active believers in Shopping Columbia County First.

As the owner of Fairview Wines and Liquors correctly stated at your meeting on December 26th, it's the local restaurant and business owners who are constantly called upon to support local causes with donations of gift certificates, food, product, advertising, and much, much more.

We are the ones who buy local and support local. You won't get that from Quiznos (the "restaurant" that came into Widewaters in Kinderhook) nor any other chain that would even consider opening their doors in this county. Please keep that in mind when it seems that bringing in Big Box stores and chains is the easiest solution to consider.

Developing and supporting local business serves all of us in a way that another Wal-Mart never will.

go to top

To the editor:

For 40 years, I've lived on County Route 20 (Atlantic Avenue) in the hamlet of Stottville along the Claverack Creek.

County Route 20 has always been, and continues to be, notorious for its dangerous curves, severe grade changes and limited sight distance. Pulling onto Route 20 from the village's side streets of Park Place or Hill Street is dangerous now, at their very best.

I have written many times over the years to the Columbia County director of highways and to the supervisors of Stockport about the safety of County Route 20.

County Route 20 is less than a quarter-mile from the northern entrance proposed for the Widewaters development.

Although I don't think a development of the proposed size of Widewaters' is truly necessary, additional choices of retail stores would be a welcome addition to the county, as would any additional tax base for the town of Greenport.

The current Widewaters' proposal places the three large anchor stores at the rear of the proposed site, this would place them closer to the village of Stottville than to Route 9. This raises some concern, in the fact that the village of Stottville will have no choice but to bear the lighting effects, loading dock, on-site truck traffic, construction noises, and garbage that blows off-site.

Also, the property the proposed mall would sit on is boarded in the rear by the Claverack Creek, the run-off and/or discharge of the holding ponds they propose to build on site, will enter into the Claverack Creek, less than 1,000 feet upstream from the Stottville hamlet.

The hamlet of Stottville, along with other areas below the proposed Widewaters' site are prone to flooding. The run-off, discharge or snow melt (from very large snowbanks) could very well have enormous environmental impacts below their proposed site along the Claverack Creek. The hamlet of Stottville along with other flood-prone areas, were named last February (2006) in the State of Emergency declared during Greenport's landslide.

Although I don't expect any tidal waves, I do believe any proposed change of any run-off into the Claverack Creek above these areas, and any additional traffic on Route 20 must be looked at with extreme caution, and undergo a full review with the proper agencies, and these agencies must be made aware of the flood-prone areas below the proposed Widewaters site.

These matters are of extreme importance to the entire village of Stottville, as the entire village's wastewater pump station is located in the flood prone area of the hamlet.

David Larkin
Stottville

go to top

Register Star 1/2/07
My View: Widewaters must do SEQRA, EIS
Susan Falzon
Friends of Hudson

It was theater with standing room only. There was drama, passion, rhetoric and even light comedy at the Moose Lodge when the Greenport Planning Board heard public comments on the Widewaters proposal.

Close to 200 people came to get more information, to listen to others and to speak. As one speaker said, this was democracy in action.

Everyone who wished to speak had the opportunity. I believe that folks on all sides of the issue came away energized.

But despite the theatrical atmosphere of the evening this wasn’t theater. It is real life. This proposal represents a critical turning point for Greenport. The Board’s decision will determine the character and quality of life in Greenport for at least a generation.

There were approximately sixty-five speakers. About thirteen people who spoke didn’t clearly state whether they were in favor or opposed. Fifteen spoke in favor, no questions asked. Twenty-six people asked the Board to commit to a full SEQRA review before deciding and eleven were undecided and wanted more information. On the face of it these counts appear to reflect a divided community.

But those speakers had more in common with each other than it would appear by the count. Their concerns all center on the same issues.

The economics matter to everyone. Some believe that this project will have a positive economic impact on Greenport. Others are skeptical at best.

Increased traffic is a reality that everyone expects if the project is approved. Some are very concerned by it. Others are not.

Some worry about the increased costs for infrastructure and services. Others believe the Town can handle those.

Some expressed confidence that the Board can make the right decision without further review. Others encouraged the Board to do a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

This goes to the heart of the matter. A SEQRA review and EIS is the only way that the Board, the taxpayers and the general public will get the information needed to determine the validity of Widewaters’ claims, understand and anticipate all the potential consequences and find ways to avoid negative consequences. In the EIS process the Board can hold the developer to its promises. In other words the SEQRA review gives the Planning Board the legal tools and process to ensure that the people of Greenport get what they want if the project is built.

I was struck and deeply moved by the needs and desires expressed by Greenport residents who want to see this shopping complex built, who want their taxes to go down, who want more convenience in their daily lives and who want Greenport to be respected for its right of self-determination, for its choices and for the results of its choices.

But how will they be sure that Widewaters will deliver?

If the Board decides to approve this project without an EIS it will have done so based only on the opinion of experts chosen and paid for by Widewaters.

A SEQRA review would not necessarily put an end to the Widewaters project. In a SEQRA review the Board might approve the project but require modification, called mitigations, aimed at ensuring that the project will meet expectations. Independent experts could be hired at Widewaters’ expense to assist the Board in evaluating the project and making its decision.

James Sheldon is an expert whose work is credible and verifiable and who earns fees for his research, analysis and recommendations. He cautioned the Board that Greenporters wouldn’t see an economic boon from this project. He suggested that taxes and costs could actually increase. Yet proponent after proponent following Mr. Sheldon at the microphone expressed total confidence that the project would lower taxes, increase revenue and generally improve the economic life of Greenporters.

This was alarming to me and it should be alarming to every taxpayer in Greenport. This suggests that the speakers want the Board to make a decision on faith. Not on knowledge. Not on examination of data, but on faith.

There is room for faith in our lives. But there is no reason for blind faith in the promises of a developer whose objective is profit. We should instead apply reason and careful study. Greenport has resources that Widewaters wants. They will make money from access to those resources. Something will undoubtedly be built on that land. It should be something that provides maximum benefit to the community. Have faith in yourselves and make them pay for what they want.

In the end, whatever the Board decides, the representatives of Widewaters will be off to their next project. It is time to put aside divisive hostilities and make decisions based upon common interests and concerns shared among all your neighbors.

If an EIS is done, the resulting decision will please some and displease others. But none will be able to say that the decision was taken without due process.

Call upon the Greenport Planning Board to conduct a full EIS for Widewaters.

go to top

To the editor:

Are you kidding me?

I wanted to take a look for myself at the proposed Widewaters project area. I have mostly heard just negative tones from everyone.

After viewing the area it is a no-brainer ... would you rather keep looking at the old theater, with graffiti written all over its walls ... and then take a view of the old rusted beams of what once was a building site ?

Yes, traffic would have to be addressed ... maybe a roundabout ... something that was put in at the new Hannaford Plaza that solved all their traffic woes. But in the end, wouldn't we be better off with some future development instead of the total eyesore that exists now?

Mike Bowman
Hudson

go to top

To the editor:

Having attended the Dec. 26 meeting of the Greenport Planning Board it was gratifying to see so many local residents of both the town and county speaking out in favor of the proposed Widewaters development on Route 9.

I, too, am in favor of this project but, like many, I have some very serious concerns.

In September I retired after spending more than 40 years in the retail and retail development business. My most recent position was as development manager for Ace Hardware Corporation in New York and New England. While I never made a deal with Widewaters, I am very familiar with many of their shopping centers and can tell you first-hand most are not an asset to the communities in which they exist. They are run down and in many cases only partially occupied. It would serve the Planning Board well to visit some of their upstate properties and see for yourself what may lay ahead for Greenport.

This center will probably never have any local merchants as tenants due to the high cost of construction nowadays. I would estimate that rent, excluding the big boxes would be in the $20 to $30 per square foot area, triple net.

These are just not affordable rents for the small independent merchant. The triple net would be taxes, insurance and common area maintenance (CAM). These could run an additional $5 per square foot.

It is incumbent on the board to know ahead of time what these charges are going to be in the first year. Although each tenant pays his/her pro rata share, the developer must have a budget to insure that common area maintenance is fully funded from year one.

While I do not think that the project will ever be fully rented, let's assume it is. If each tenant is assessed $2 per square foot for common area maintenance that is I million dollars.

In my opinion this is not enough to maintain more than 500,000 square feet of shopping center and common areas.

If current estimates prevail, this center should generate somewhere in the area of $300 per square foot in sales or a total of $150,000,000 annually. This would translate to approximately $85,000,000 in cost of goods which must be delivered to this site, present design does not allow for the delivery of this much merchandise, there must be separate delivery roads within the plaza to handle this volume.

While the demographics for Columbia County probably would not support a "mixed use" or "lifestyle" center, certainly the developer could provide and the Planning Board could insist that certain portions of the common areas be set aside for outside recreational and entertainment facilities for all to enjoy.

In this month's "Retail Traffic" magazine it was stated that nationwide, excluding the Northeast, the average time for permitting a project such as the one proposed in Greenport is two years, in the Northeast the average time is three to five years with as much as seven years not being unusual.

I urge the board to take their time, the developer expects to be delayed, it is a way of life in this business. The citizens of Greenport and Columbia County want to see this project done right and by the board doing its due diligence and taking its time, it can be.

Ron Tanner
Claverack

go to top

Register Star 1/1/07
My View: Widewaters bad for business and seniors
Mary Hallenbeck
Greenport

This is an open letter I wrote to the town of Greenport Planning Board, raising some issues I feel have not received enough attention to date.

To the town of Greenport Planning Board:

I urge the members of the Planning Board to vote for a positive declaration on the matter of the Widewater proposal for a new shopping mall on Fairview Avenue in Greenport. Such a declaration would permit the board and the public to find out more about the proposal than is presently known, and it would not cost the town anything to do so.

While a large part of the discussion so far has concentrated on the unacceptable traffic complications that would result from such a project, I urge you to consider, and use your powers to find out more, about the following issues:

1. The proposal for such a large mall is not forward looking, but is a throwback to the past, when bigger was always better. The trend today is for smaller stores and shops, places better suited to a more human scale. The huge mall being proposed would double the amount of sales space presently provided by the existing four malls along Fairview Avenue, in one ill-considered move.

That is NOT what other forward looking communities are doing these days, and it will end up being a White Elephant on our town's northern doorstep, another failed project like the one that's already there, only ten times as big.

2. The only way to double the amount of sales space without damaging the existing businesses along Fairview is if local people spend twice as much money as before, or if twice as many people spend their money here.

Does anyone seriously think either of these things will happen? People living in southern Columbia county, Germantown and vicinity, do much of their shopping in Kingston stores. People in the northern part of the county are drawn to Albany stores. Others along the Massachusetts state line shop in Great Barrington, where sales tax relief is available on clothing.

All three of those groups are likely to continue their present shopping habits as before, so it will be up to people in the immediate Hudson and Greenport communities to double their spending, or else switch it away from current businesses to spend it at the new mall.

It should be clear that the new mall is very likely to damage existing businesses, and it will do so seriously, too.

3. As the population continues to age, particularly in the county, more and more potential shoppers will be senior citizens like myself and my husband.

Seniors are known to be very uncomfortable shopping at large malls, with the great distances to be covered, the vast display areas and parking sprawls, and will be the last people to be happy for the new facilities.

The lure of saving a dollar or two will not come close to making up for the discomfort of shopping at such a huge complex, so totally removed from walking access, oversized and intimidating. It simply will not work for them.

4. Large malls are increasingly the focus of higher crime incidents. Purse snatchings, stabbings, assaults, and other crimes against persons seem to multiply in the areas where large shopping complexes are found.

This will not only degrade our quality of life in Greenport, but place an additional burden on our law enforcement people, and also on us as taxpayers.

Please do not be blinded by the easy promises of tax revenues. If you allow yourself to be stampeded into a hasty approval of the Widewater project by issuing a negative declaration, you will be responsible for an out-of-date and mammoth failure, which will not have the support of local shoppers, shoppers from the perimeter of the county, nor of the increasingly important senior sector. Please vote for a positive declaration, so independent experts can give you, and give us, the kind of realistic information we are not getting from the Widewater boosters.

go to top

Following the public hearing on the Greenport Widewaters project last night, I have some predictions to make:

1. The Greenport Planning Board will soon declare that there will be no negative impacts from this project and give Widewaters the green light.

2. Within a matter of days, Widewaters will suddenly have tenants for the larger spaces.

3. The first tenant announced will be a Wal-Mart supercenter, soon to be followed by a Lowes/Home Depot in the second largest space. Then, maybe Staples, Dollar Tree or Fashion Bug in the third large space.

4. As development proceeds, many, if not most, of Widewaters’ remaining retail spaces will be filled by other merchants from the strip malls along Fairview. These merchants will have been persuaded by Widewaters that they have to relocate to retain their customers because all the shoppers will want to go to the new center.

5. The current strip malls will be devastated as first the stores move out and then the shoppers. Business of the remaining stores will decline due to less foot traffic while the Greenport Planning Board hustles to find new merchants for the many empty stores. This will be hard to pull off as they discover they are competing for tenants with their favorite new landowner, Widewaters, who will also be trying to fill their remaining spaces.

6. The ladies who are so eager to be able to shop locally and not have to go to Albany and Kingston will discover that they still have to go to Albany and Kingston because they still can’t find the merchandise they want need in Greenport.

7. Even though business is way off along Fairview, the direct route to the Widewaters center will be Joslen Blvd. With no stop lights along that road vs. the many on Fairview, who could resist? And, it does come out right at the entrance to the shopping center.

8. Hudson residents, merchants, and shoppers will be relieved to discover that while traffic is no better in the city, it is no worse, because the new shopping center, being filled with mostly old Greenport merchants, is not actually drawing more shoppers to the area. After all, not only will Widewaters have much the same mix of stores already in Greenport, it will be one mile further up Fairview, making a trip across the bridge to Catskill more appealing than all the traffic lights in Hudson and on Fairview. So, many shoppers from Hudson and the southern part of the county will choose Catskill over Greenport when they want to go to a Wal-Mart, Lowes, etc.

9. While the lack of additional traffic is good for the residents of Hudson and parts of Greenport, it isn’t good for Greenport taxpayers, who find that their taxes are rising faster than those the residents in other towns in the county because all that extra sales tax they thought they would get has not materialized, even while the costs to subsidize the Widewaters center continue to rise.

10. Within a few years of the opening of Widewaters, and the emptying of other shopping centers, new developers will materialize to fill the empty strip malls with more big box stores, and the Greenport Planning Board will be so happy to have them there to help them get the town moving again, that once again they will fall into their laps and give them pretty much whatever they want.

And so on and so on and so on.

I hope I am wrong. This can be avoided if the Greenport Planning Board does a full scale SEQRA examination and learns about the possible ramifications of this project before permitting it. And, it wouldn’t hurt if the Town finally came to realize that we need a comprehensive plan and some zoning.

go to top

Register Star 12/30/06
My View: The economics of Widewaters
Charles Hallenbeck
Greenport

This is an open letter to the town of Greenport Planning Board on several economic matters that need to be considered in their deliberations on the Widewater proposal.

To the Town of Greenport Planning Board:

As a Greenport taxpayer and resident, I urge the Planning Board to consider a number of economic factors in the Widewater proposal which, in my opinion, have not been given the attention they deserve. It is within the board's power to identify appropriate experts and get their unbiased opinion on these matters, by issuing a positive declaration in the present matter, which will trigger a full SEQR review, and obligate the developer to fund such independent investigations.

My concerns all relate to the fact that for every positive advantage suggested by the developer, there seem to be offsetting negative factors which weaken the net benefit to be expected. For instance:

1. Jobs. Widewater anticipates creating 400 new full time jobs and another 400 par time jobs, although they cannot tell us who the employers will be, and they know, or ought to know, that the available work force cannot meet that much expansion.. This "job benefit" assumes that no jobs will be lost due to the new mall, but there is ample evidence that such massive enterprises are extremely damaging to existing businesses when they move into an area. So there WILL be job losses. The NET GAIN (or NET LOSS) in jobs cannot be known until (1) the unnamed tenants of the new mall tell us their plans, not the mall developers; and (2) we know, or can estimate, the downside of the new mall in terms of anticipated business closings and jobs lost. The arithmetic is: NET GAIN OR Loss equals JOBS GAINED minus JOBS LOST.

2. Property taxes. The town will realize revenue from property taxes on the new mall, but the town will have to increase its budgetary expenditures due to the presence of the mall in the town. The expenditures will be for a long list of things from police and fire protection to road maintenance, traffic control, water and sewage demands, and so on. There is also a built-in tax abatement available to the developer, which will greatly diminish anticipated property tax revenue over a ten year period. So once again, the NET BENEFIT to the town is the tax revenue minus the increased expenditures and also minus the tax relief which the State of New York extends to developers at the town's expense.

3. Sales taxes. These are also suspect. We are told that for every million dollars in retail sales made in Greenport, the town only realizes about $800 after the county redistributes revenue to the various towns and municipalities.

There are simply too few people living in Greenport, compared to the existing population of commercial enterprises. Doubling the amount of sales space over that of the four existing Fairview Avenue malls is very unlikely to double the amount of sales. Sales made by tenants of the new mall are likely to be made at the expense of tenants of the existing malls. So once again, miniscule as it is under the best of circumstances, the NET BENEFIT of any change in sales tax has to be viewed as REVENUE CREATED minus REVENUE LOST.

4. We all hope no businesses will be crippled by the presence of the Widewater project in our midst.

If there are casualties, they are likely to be the smaller privately owned stores and services in our community, and not the larger chains which operate branches here. Those chains have deeper pockets than local private owners, and so the small proprietors are the most vulnerable.

Another disturbing fact is that when one looks at the "recirculation" of money, for every $100 spent at a chain store, only $14 is spent again in the purchase of services from other local businesses.

When that $100 is spent at privately owned local businesses, $40 is spent again purchasing such services. What this means is that if we rush to welcome big box stores and similar large enterprises into the community, the ripple effect of the damage they do will hurt us deeply, while the benefit they do will be siphoned off to Chicago, Bentonville, or Syracuse. Is this a risk we want to take?

These are serious reservations to which there may be definitive answers, if we take the time and trouble to look for them. Voting for a negative declaration will deprive the planning board and the public from getting such answers. Voting for a positive declaration will make it possible to seek the assistance of people who know how to pin down some of these issues. Please cast your vote for a positive declaration.

go to top

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to the letter from the Tamburros (12/22/06), asking why "people from other towns…feel the need to express their opinions" about the Widewaters plan.

At 565,000 sq. ft., this is not just the biggest, most ambitious development to ever hit Greenport, but the entire county. The potential impacts are far-reaching, and not yet fully understood, which is why concerned people from all over (and the County Planning Department, itself) are asking that they be addressed.

Frankly, with that much pressure upon it, you’d think it only prudent that our board would want to take all the time needed to have all the answers to which they – and the public – are entitled. All that is being asked at this crucial juncture is that the Widewaters plan undergo a full SEQRA review. If this plan doesn’t merit one, what does?

As those most directly affected, people in Greenport should indeed speak up. As Americans, each of us has that right. However, it comes with the responsibility of learning what we can in order to make good decisions, not knee-jerk ones. We might come to different conclusions, but at the very least, let’s learn the facts before doing so.

And, yes, our planning board was put there for a reason: to serve the people of Greenport. Sadly, those of us with the resilience to attend meetings have been cut out of the process, our questions not dignified with answers.

Furthermore, to blindly accept any decision by the board would be as ridiculous as blindly rejecting any possibility of development. Just plain silly, and potentially dangerous.

As for the board, why would it take as gospel what an interested party -- the developer -- offers as substantiation for this huge project, and cut short the approval process to accommodate them?

I’m truly sorry that the Tamburros won’t be at the meeting on the 26th, but I wonder if they attended the one on the 16th when James Sheldon spoke about the economic pros and cons of the Widewaters proposal.

As a taxpayer in Greenport, I am worried about the implications for me and my town. There is simply too much evidence – if one cares to look at it – that the expected "tax boon" will not materialize. We don’t even know what stores will be there. As for traffic, it’s already awful, and "they" haven’t figured it out, yet – neither the boards, developers nor the D.O.T.

So let’s just slow down and figure out the best plan for all of us. If not, there’ll be plenty of time when it's too late and we’re all sitting on route 9.

Nina Sklansky
Greenport Neighbors Action Team

go to top

Virginia Martin
Claverack

The British celebrate December 26th as Boxing Day, because according to tradition that’s when the servants received their gift boxes (and a little time off).

What a coincidence that on this Boxing Day, at or near 8:15pm at the Moose Hall in Greenport, there will be a boxing match of sorts, with contenders one might call David and Goliath. Let’s see who’s in the ring.

In this corner we have a huge corporate entity, headquartered in Syracuse, with revenue in the millions of dollars that enables them to hire expensive consultants like architects, engineers, accountants, and lawyers. Call them Goliath.

And in THIS corner (our corner) we have the civic-minded individuals who serve on the Greenport Planning Board—not for pay but simply because they know somebody has to do it. Call them David.

Backing up David are other volunteer planning board members, like those who serve on the county’s board, and the two-person county planning department. They can’t join David in the ring on Boxing Day, though, because they’ve already sparred with Goliath. The buck stops with David, and only David is on the hot seat today.

Back in Goliath’s corporate/Syracuse corner lie all the resources and expertise to put forth a complete application for a huge shopping-mall project—an application they could have developed with the guidance of the best minds working today in planning.

And in OUR corner, and just behind our corner, we have a few dozen people—volunteers and some municipal employees. They find themselves in the difficult position of having to decide what is appropriate, desirable, and beneficial for the Town of Greenport, as well as to Columbia County. And whether or not “appropriate, desirable, and beneficial” describes what Goliath is offering them.

In Goliath’s corporate/Syracuse corner we have well-paid people who stand to gain if they can convince those in our corner that we’ll all be better off—especially fiscally—with this shopping mall.

In our corner we have people who haven’t been provided any real evidence to that effect.

Who’s got the real muscle here?

Over the course of a week, or less, the County Planning Department and the County Planning Board obviously spent an enormous amount of time and effort in reviewing the documentation submitted by Widewaters. Based on their reviews, it is abundantly clear that Widewaters/Goliath has not employed the most favorable design in the Greenport mall, and that they have not given these boards all the information they’ll need before they can make the kind of intelligent decisions that are called for. Goliath won’t even tell David who the tenants will be.

Why hasn’t Goliath given David all the facts? Because it isn’t in Goliath’s interest to.

Shame on Goliath. I mean Widewaters.

go to top

To the Editor:

I can’t even imagine what Rt. 9/Fairview Avenue would be like after the proposed Widewaters project. Greenport Planners have done such a horrific job there already.

I feel so badly for those poor people who live on the residential side streets that have to make right turns when they really want to make l