The first thing that needs to be said with regards to Cobleskill’s evolving engagement with the issue of consolidation is that all bold and innovative ideas should be welcomed and explored enthusiastically. Maybe that even goes without saying. However, to anyone who has observed the process over the past several years this clearly has not been the case.
There has been talk and even some action on sharing services for a long time, but the process was given a major boost about three years ago when Mayor Sellers and Deputy Mayor Sandy MacKay applied for a grant to produce a study of the costs and benefits associated with various consolidation plans. The village won that grant and the product was a study by a Rochester-based group called the Center for Governmental Research. The CGR study outlined the various possibilities from outright dissolution to joining with the Town of Cobleskill and incorporating as a city. Despite the wide variety of possibilities outlined in this report, many of which offered benefits worthy of further consideration, a few members of the Board of Trustees, namely Mark Galasso, Mayor Sellers and now Robert LaPietra (strange political bedfellows to be sure) have been pushing relentlessly to dissolve the village while virtually ignoring all other possibilities.
It is tempting to offer cynical explanations as to why the Board is so singularly committed to dissolution. For much of the past five years the Town of Cobleskill has been eager to see commercial development along the village’s eastern boundary. In many cases, access to village infrastructure (water and sewer) has been crucial to making those projects happen.
Not surprisingly, the village has been hesitant to hand over access to its water and sewer services for projects that would divert shoppers away from Downtown Cobleskill and help to further erode the village’s tax base. The unintended result of this was that the village Board of Trustees had an unofficial veto power over suburban sprawl development in the town, a card they should very much want to play for a variety of good reasons. In 2008, Lowe’s backed out of its plans to build a store in the Town after a long and protracted effort to convince the village to extend services, an effort that arguably included open bribery of village officials.
Now that the membership of the Board of Trustees has changed to include a multi-millionaire developer, a slumlord who owns multiple local properties, and Mayor Sellers who is almost religiously committed to the idea of consolidation for consolidation’s sake, it makes sense that the pro-growth forces of Cobleskill would seize this opportunity to see the village, the last remaining check on rampant sprawl development, dissolved. Dissolution would have numerous implications but none as glaringly obvious as the fact that it would hand over control of the Village’s water and sewer infrastructure to the Cobleskill Town Board, a move that would open up the Route 7 and Mineral Springs corridors to intense commercial and residential development.
The real travesty in all of this is not that these forces have hi-jacked the process in an effort to grab the village’s resources, but that this has prevented a real conversation about the benefits of alternative plans for consolidation. Another village trustee, Sandy MacKay, has consistently raised the question of jointly incorporating with the town to form a city. Granted this is not a perfect option, as it would still mean that the village (notice use of lower case) would relinquish its control over water and sewer services. However, it would allow Cobleskill to take advantage of a variety of prerogatives that cities in New York state benefit from, including state-financed courts and an ability to both preempt up to 50% of county-levied sales taxes generated within its corporate boundaries and levy a separate sales tax, which could generate significant revenues without affecting county revenue streams.
It would also be possibly easier to devise a governance structure that limited the amount of power that residents of the village would give up in the process of consolidating with the town. For example, a ward system could be used to maintain the voices of village residents and insure that they are not drowned out by town voters in an at-large system.
I am not mentioning this option because I’m endorsing it, I just want to illustrate that there are alternatives to the dissolution scheme being offered up by Sellers, Galasso and LaPietra and that those alternatives deserve to be considered every bit as much as dissolution.
Mayor Sellers defended this scheme during the public comment section of a recent board meeting, claiming that it was not being “rammed through”. Clearly that was not the impression of a majority of those who spoke out at that meeting, nor is it the impression of this observer either. While I do not endorse any specific plan for consolidation, I encourage concerned village residents to attend more meetings and speak out against what they rightly perceive as a quick and dirty effort to place the question of dissolution on the ballot.
I also sincerely encourage concerned residents to watch this group of trustees very carefully, Mark Galasso and Bob LaPietra in particular. In large part, it is apathy that has led us to this point, especially with regard to LaPietra’s election last November.
However, that so many spoke out against their plans for consolidation bodes well for this coming election. I won’t get into endorsing specific candidates here, but it is obviously time for a change, and for voters to redeem themselves after last year’s fiasco in which they elected a man who is a confessed perjurer, a slumlord and a non-village resident to the Board of Trustees. I don’t know; it may be time to raise the bar, just a little.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Worst Laid Plans
A recent resolution passed by the Cobleskill Village Board of Trustees endorsing the proposed CVS Pharmacy development was, make no mistake, an utterly shameless and inappropriate attempt to preempt the Planning Board’s final evaluation of that project. Yet this is only a hint of what’s to come should Mark Galasso and Bob LaPietra continue to dominate the Board of Trustees. Be prepared for more of the same depressing vision for Cobleskill and, most likely, more naked attempts to bully those involved in making land use decisions.
The resolution was spearheaded by trustees Mark Galasso and Bob LaPietra (and, sadly, supported by Mayor Sellers). Galasso attempted to justify the resolution with the absurd claim that the planning board was out to deliberately sabotage the project. I call this absurd because there is no evidence that any planning board member was attempting to exceed their statutory responsibilities in reviewing the proposal and because, in fact, the planning board has every responsibility to heavily scrutinize a project of this magnitude. Instead, by injecting itself into and politicizing the village’s land use review process, Galasso, LaPietra and Sellers have in effect sabotaged and enfeebled the planning board, which was arguably what they set out to do from the get-go.
This latest episode, like the previous attempt by LaPietra and Galasso to remove Nelli Mooney and gut the village Planning, Environment and Codes Department, is best understood as part of a broader long-term strategy to reduce the public’s role in the village’s land use planning process and to marginalize those individuals who work and volunteer in that capacity. It’s no surprise then that consolidating the village into the town (a move which would have the same effect) is also strongly supported by Trustees Bob LaPietra and Mark Galasso.
Given this recent history, it is difficult not to see this latest attack on the planning board as fitting into a larger picture: a growth model driven entirely by land developers that gives short shrift to preserving the historic character of the village and the economic well-being of Cobleskill’s downtown business district.
Having said that, the pertinent issue here is not whether or not Cobleskill needs another pharmacy, although this is an eminently important question. The issue is whether or not Cobleskill’s village residents will be able to exercise their rights to review major land use decisions in their community.
It is not so much about questioning the wisdom of razing one of Downtown Cobleskill’s largest and most impressive Victorian mansions to make way for yet another pharmacy, when one already exists across the street, as much as it is about the public’s right and responsibility to do so and to have a process in place for insuring that developers don’t run roughshod over the community. The planning process that is lead by our community’s volunteer planning boards and zoning boards is meant to be a space not just for debate about the merits of such projects to the community, but a process (with teeth) that insures a community’s own vision for its future is upheld.
Unfortunately right now that vision is not one single vision, as might be represented in the comprehensive plan, but a series of competing visions being put forth and defended by a diverse group of stakeholders. Right now the village’s land use planning process exists solely as an extension of the political arena and as such is being driven by whatever forces happen to be able to manipulate it for their own purposes.
To be sure, the Village currently has a comprehensive plan in effect; however, bulldozing historic homes so that medium-box retail can be built is not really included in its vision statement. The plan is over ten years old, and perhaps it is time for a revision that reflects the need to balance protecting the village’s historic character with the need for economic development that increases tax revenue and jobs. It is perhaps also necessary to view these goals as competing in a kind of zero-sum game and to recognize that pursuing one over the other will eventually lead to diminishing returns.
Otherwise, local officials and developers will continue to proceed in an opportunistic fashion disregarding the former objective for the latter. This might not be so easy if village planners and planning board members had some vision in place as to how they should balance these two necessary but often-times conflicting imperatives. More importantly, it is perhaps time to replace our existing boards with people who will have the public interest (not their own) in mind.
Currently, the Board of Trustees’ efforts to quash debate have been successful, and this is lamentable. An open and vigorous debate would have weighed the potential jobs and tax revenues created by the project against the potentiality of Rite-Aid (which would be just across the street) being forced to close down, as well as the additional traffic generated by the project and the costly road improvements it will necessitate.
It could also have weighed the economic benefits against the less tangible costs of losing one of the village’s largest and prettiest Victorian mansions, not to mention the diminished pedestrian access and lost human scale of the block. Of course, a vigorous debate can lead to more than a yes or no vote, it could have led to amendments to the design of the project that really did serve to increase its chances of adding to the community rather than simply just being there, or worse yet, detracting from the community.
Yet these debates will not and can not occur when town and village boards are comprised of developers, real estate professionals and absentee property owners whose financial interests and economic instincts run counter to the goals of long-term comprehensive planning and community development. It is arguably worse when these developers populate the planning and zoning boards themselves, which they do in many places in Schoharie County.
Only the voters can insure that the planning process remains under the control of ordinary citizens and they can do this by not sitting home while a minority of their neighbors thoughtlessly elects land developers to their village boards who then unsurprisingly proceed to shamelessly push their own agendas.
As these officials attempt to shove consolidation and unneeded sprawl development down our throats voters should reflect on their plans for this upcoming Election Day. Will the deepest pockets in the town and village (i.e. the Galasso’s and Nadeau’s) continue running the show? I’ve heard it said, and sometimes agree, that people get the government they deserve.
The resolution was spearheaded by trustees Mark Galasso and Bob LaPietra (and, sadly, supported by Mayor Sellers). Galasso attempted to justify the resolution with the absurd claim that the planning board was out to deliberately sabotage the project. I call this absurd because there is no evidence that any planning board member was attempting to exceed their statutory responsibilities in reviewing the proposal and because, in fact, the planning board has every responsibility to heavily scrutinize a project of this magnitude. Instead, by injecting itself into and politicizing the village’s land use review process, Galasso, LaPietra and Sellers have in effect sabotaged and enfeebled the planning board, which was arguably what they set out to do from the get-go.
This latest episode, like the previous attempt by LaPietra and Galasso to remove Nelli Mooney and gut the village Planning, Environment and Codes Department, is best understood as part of a broader long-term strategy to reduce the public’s role in the village’s land use planning process and to marginalize those individuals who work and volunteer in that capacity. It’s no surprise then that consolidating the village into the town (a move which would have the same effect) is also strongly supported by Trustees Bob LaPietra and Mark Galasso.
Given this recent history, it is difficult not to see this latest attack on the planning board as fitting into a larger picture: a growth model driven entirely by land developers that gives short shrift to preserving the historic character of the village and the economic well-being of Cobleskill’s downtown business district.
Having said that, the pertinent issue here is not whether or not Cobleskill needs another pharmacy, although this is an eminently important question. The issue is whether or not Cobleskill’s village residents will be able to exercise their rights to review major land use decisions in their community.
It is not so much about questioning the wisdom of razing one of Downtown Cobleskill’s largest and most impressive Victorian mansions to make way for yet another pharmacy, when one already exists across the street, as much as it is about the public’s right and responsibility to do so and to have a process in place for insuring that developers don’t run roughshod over the community. The planning process that is lead by our community’s volunteer planning boards and zoning boards is meant to be a space not just for debate about the merits of such projects to the community, but a process (with teeth) that insures a community’s own vision for its future is upheld.
Unfortunately right now that vision is not one single vision, as might be represented in the comprehensive plan, but a series of competing visions being put forth and defended by a diverse group of stakeholders. Right now the village’s land use planning process exists solely as an extension of the political arena and as such is being driven by whatever forces happen to be able to manipulate it for their own purposes.
To be sure, the Village currently has a comprehensive plan in effect; however, bulldozing historic homes so that medium-box retail can be built is not really included in its vision statement. The plan is over ten years old, and perhaps it is time for a revision that reflects the need to balance protecting the village’s historic character with the need for economic development that increases tax revenue and jobs. It is perhaps also necessary to view these goals as competing in a kind of zero-sum game and to recognize that pursuing one over the other will eventually lead to diminishing returns.
Otherwise, local officials and developers will continue to proceed in an opportunistic fashion disregarding the former objective for the latter. This might not be so easy if village planners and planning board members had some vision in place as to how they should balance these two necessary but often-times conflicting imperatives. More importantly, it is perhaps time to replace our existing boards with people who will have the public interest (not their own) in mind.
Currently, the Board of Trustees’ efforts to quash debate have been successful, and this is lamentable. An open and vigorous debate would have weighed the potential jobs and tax revenues created by the project against the potentiality of Rite-Aid (which would be just across the street) being forced to close down, as well as the additional traffic generated by the project and the costly road improvements it will necessitate.
It could also have weighed the economic benefits against the less tangible costs of losing one of the village’s largest and prettiest Victorian mansions, not to mention the diminished pedestrian access and lost human scale of the block. Of course, a vigorous debate can lead to more than a yes or no vote, it could have led to amendments to the design of the project that really did serve to increase its chances of adding to the community rather than simply just being there, or worse yet, detracting from the community.
Yet these debates will not and can not occur when town and village boards are comprised of developers, real estate professionals and absentee property owners whose financial interests and economic instincts run counter to the goals of long-term comprehensive planning and community development. It is arguably worse when these developers populate the planning and zoning boards themselves, which they do in many places in Schoharie County.
Only the voters can insure that the planning process remains under the control of ordinary citizens and they can do this by not sitting home while a minority of their neighbors thoughtlessly elects land developers to their village boards who then unsurprisingly proceed to shamelessly push their own agendas.
As these officials attempt to shove consolidation and unneeded sprawl development down our throats voters should reflect on their plans for this upcoming Election Day. Will the deepest pockets in the town and village (i.e. the Galasso’s and Nadeau’s) continue running the show? I’ve heard it said, and sometimes agree, that people get the government they deserve.
Is it time for a ‘community plaza’ in Newberry Square?
Now that the Town of Cobleskill has backed out of its plans to relocate its offices downtown, other agencies and municipalities would do well to step up to the plate and take up where the town left off. Though the town’s decision not to move, as well as it’s refusal to seriously consider moving into the Newberry Square building is lamentable, they ought to get credit for at least making the effort. Most importantly, the Town’s recent interest underscores the Village’s own long-term inaction on this issue. For the past ten years there has been talk but little serious movement on bringing the Village offices back into Downtown Cobleskill.
Why not? The current location makes absolutely no sense. It deprives village residents of a user-friendly civic center that they could walk or bike to while also depriving the village’s downtown business district of a stable, long-term anchor tenant that would generate plenty of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The original move to Mineral Springs Road was dumb and the apparent unwillingness to move back is even dumber.
Not to mention the fact that Cobleskill’s Main Street is in desperate need of an upstanding tenant for the Newberry Square building, whose boarded up windows are currently pulling down everything around it. It’s one thing for a community to lack vision when it comes to sustainable long-term growth and development strategies, but it’s quite another when it can’t see the obvious benefits of a simple plan staring it square in the face.
But the village isn’t the only possible agency in a position to help revitalize Downtown Cobleskill by moving there. Virtually right next door to the village offices are the headquarters of Schoharie County’s Department of Planning and Development, Department of Economic Development and the Schoharie County Rural Preservation Corporation which handles Section 8 housing all located at 349 Mineral Springs Road. Imagine this; the folks from planning and economic development themselves helping to develop and revitalize a distressed building which could then serve as a community civic center or ‘community plaza’ drastically raising the stock of Cobleskill’s Main Street!
Even better, how about the village and county (and perhaps the town) go in on it together? I know, I know…obvious benefits…simple plan. Silly me, I guess.
Why not? The current location makes absolutely no sense. It deprives village residents of a user-friendly civic center that they could walk or bike to while also depriving the village’s downtown business district of a stable, long-term anchor tenant that would generate plenty of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The original move to Mineral Springs Road was dumb and the apparent unwillingness to move back is even dumber.
Not to mention the fact that Cobleskill’s Main Street is in desperate need of an upstanding tenant for the Newberry Square building, whose boarded up windows are currently pulling down everything around it. It’s one thing for a community to lack vision when it comes to sustainable long-term growth and development strategies, but it’s quite another when it can’t see the obvious benefits of a simple plan staring it square in the face.
But the village isn’t the only possible agency in a position to help revitalize Downtown Cobleskill by moving there. Virtually right next door to the village offices are the headquarters of Schoharie County’s Department of Planning and Development, Department of Economic Development and the Schoharie County Rural Preservation Corporation which handles Section 8 housing all located at 349 Mineral Springs Road. Imagine this; the folks from planning and economic development themselves helping to develop and revitalize a distressed building which could then serve as a community civic center or ‘community plaza’ drastically raising the stock of Cobleskill’s Main Street!
Even better, how about the village and county (and perhaps the town) go in on it together? I know, I know…obvious benefits…simple plan. Silly me, I guess.
Yay for Main Street!
I know I usually tend to do a lot of criticizing on this blog but occasionally it behooves me to give credit where credit is due. Over the past few months Cobleskill’s Main Street has come a long way, and this is a really positive example of the power of grassroots coalitions of small business owners and citizens working together to build on their shared assets.
Beginning a few months ago, Cobleskill Partnership, Inc. committed $15,000 to a matching grant program targeted at downtown business owners for lighting, signage and façade improvements. Slowly but surely I began noticing the changes throughout the summer. Some of the more sorely needed improvements include the replacement of that awful corrugated steel paneling above Pizza Shack as well as the plain grey facade on the building at the north-west corner of Main and Union with faux-brickwork.
The long under-utilized space at the western corner of Main and Division will also be undergoing changes as the result of a joint effort between the property owner and SUNY Cobleskill. What once was just a strip of planted trees will now be a small commons area with benches and chessboard tables.
To the shopkeepers who have driven these improvements this summer, way to go! It is now time for village officials to step up and support these efforts by going after additional grant monies for more improvements, to attract new businesses and to implement long-needed streetscape improvements, not to mention bringing Village Hall back downtown.
Beginning a few months ago, Cobleskill Partnership, Inc. committed $15,000 to a matching grant program targeted at downtown business owners for lighting, signage and façade improvements. Slowly but surely I began noticing the changes throughout the summer. Some of the more sorely needed improvements include the replacement of that awful corrugated steel paneling above Pizza Shack as well as the plain grey facade on the building at the north-west corner of Main and Union with faux-brickwork.
The long under-utilized space at the western corner of Main and Division will also be undergoing changes as the result of a joint effort between the property owner and SUNY Cobleskill. What once was just a strip of planted trees will now be a small commons area with benches and chessboard tables.
To the shopkeepers who have driven these improvements this summer, way to go! It is now time for village officials to step up and support these efforts by going after additional grant monies for more improvements, to attract new businesses and to implement long-needed streetscape improvements, not to mention bringing Village Hall back downtown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)