For residents of the remote corner of the Capital District that includes the communities of Duanesburg, Central Bridge, Esperance and southeastern Montgomery County, the proposed Hannaford Grocery store may come as exciting news. Less exciting however is the possibility that one of the few remaining undeveloped areas in the Capital District is about to be paved over to make way for more strip mall banality.
Long neglected by grocery chains due to its low population density, this area has never before had to contend with the effects of big-box commercial development on its communities. But this current proposal is a sign that things are changing and residents really ought to begin thinking about what they want their communities to look like after all this is said and done.
The proposed 35,000 square foot store and accompanying shopping center will be located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 20 and State Route 30, just outside the Village of Esperance. There is currently a Stewarts Shop gas station and a tavern at the intersection. If the Hannaford’s is built, more commercial development near this intersection would be a safe bet.
Unfortunately, since this area is so eager for a local grocery store, you can bet that the Duanesburg Planning Board won’t hold out for a more tasteful site plan or higher architectural standards which might complement the historic Village of Esperance and add more to the area than just another big ugly box.
Instead this will likely be an early sign of what is to come: poorly planned exurban Capital District sprawl. Let me say that I sympathize with area residents who must drive 20 minutes to buy a roll of toilet paper. But how long will it be until Highway 20 in Duanesburg looks like Highway 20 in Guilderland?
Showing posts with label Sprawl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sprawl. Show all posts
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Thursday, June 12, 2008
How Lowe’s Bought Cobleskill
Three years ago, a newly elected Village Board found itself in the position of having to deal with a plainly irresponsible deal entered into by the previous administration to sell Village water and sewer service to a proposed Lowe’s just past the Village line. After reconsidering the deal, the new Board, led by Mayor Sellers and Deputy Mayor MacKay voted to effectively turn off the tap before it was even hooked up. Citing concerns over fairness to Village taxpayers as well as the fiscal and economic health of the Village, the Board from then on maintained a policy of requiring annexation for a project to receive Village water and sewer services.Yet last month, the Village Board made a dramatic about-face on the issue and agreed to extend water and sewer lines out to the Town so Lowe’s could tap into them. Given the Village Board’s steadfast refusal to do exactly this over the past several years, one wonders, why the sudden change of heart?
Call me cynical, but I’m thinking the decision has something to do with Lowe’s offer to take the $200,000 it would have spent building an on-site water and sewer system and give it to the Town and Village instead. The Times-Journal essentially interpreted this move as a good will gesture (June 4 2008, “Cobleskill Finally Gets Water Deal”). I, however, interpret it as a pay-off.
According to the Times-Journal, Lowe’s developer Rob Jess made the announcement of his decision after the Town and Village came together and made this deal. However, Jess must have insinuated or just came and told Town and Village officials that they would get the 200K if Lowe’s got the water.
It’s interesting that Lowe’s chose to take the position that it did not need village water and sewer; though it obviously wanted it. Given the developer’s eagerness to obtain Village services, I have to believe that building their own water and sewer systems would have presented complications and potential costs far exceeding the $200,000 to be given to the Town and Village. Let’s not forget that with water and sewer hook-ups, the site becomes more valuable as it can be marketed to more potential businesses such as restaurants.
For three years the Village Board has maintained a wise policy of requiring annexation for projects interested in receiving Village services. This reversal makes a mockery of local government and democracy and indicts the character of all the local officials who signed on to the deal. This clearly demonstrates that our local community is for sale. What a disappointment.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
A Lowe Blow for Schoharie County’s Downtowns
At a time when gas prices are rising drastically, it is more important than ever that our community leaders take the steps necessary to plan for compact, sustainable communities where people can live, work and shop within reasonable distances. On the surface, it seems like a Lowe’s in Cobleskill will help cut down on fuel consumption by saving people from having to make trips to Oneonta or Amsterdam. However, the net effect of the Lowe’s development will be to drive local hardware retailers out of business while negatively impacting other locally-owned businesses as well, giving people less choices, especially ones that don’t involve driving.
Instead of abetting further sprawl development on its periphery, the Village of Cobleskill might better expend its energies seeking ways to revitalize the residential apartments on its Main Street. But it seems like the Village Board doesn’t even have the temerity to insist on annual apartment inspections for fear of angering slumlords. Despite this, there are things happening in Schoharie County’s downtowns. In Cobleskill, SUNY has decided to open a branch of its bookstore on Main Street. Plus, the Village just spent over $30,000 for a study on how to revitalize Downtown. I don’t think that that study calls for helping the Town build another big box development outside of the Village!
More needs to be done! Why hasn’t the Village government taken steps to move its offices back downtown? This is a very simple step and it should have been taken years ago. The next step: a facelift for downtown. Storefront facades could use some paint and new designs and there’s plenty of grant money available to do it. Main Street’s sidewalks need to be replaced; how about some simple brick inlays and traffic calming devices? These are all very simple steps that would go along way to setting the tone for a revitalization of Downtown Cobleskill. I fear that if the current administration won’t move on this, then no one will.
Instead, this current administration slaps in the face the Village taxpayers who receive water and sewer service as part of the “whole package” of Village services. They don’t get to cherry pick which services they will pay for and which ones they won’t. Instead this current administration chooses to subsidize development in other municipalities essentially agreeing to a parasitic relationship where Town sprawl latches on to the Village infrastructure and essentially sucks all the life out. Developable land in the Town, that now has access to Village water & sewer becomes more valuable than Village land. Developers get the services without the taxes! As more and more commercial developments pop up in the Town, Town taxes will go down, thanks to the Village’s generosity. Meanwhile, the Village will foot the bill, as not only will it be providing water and sewer services but police protection as well.
As an ex officio member of the County Board of Supervisors, Cobleskill Town Supervisor Roger Cohn knows that a Lowe’s development will bring in sales tax revenue for the county to divvy up. Meanwhile, water and sewer lines get extended outward toward the next big project. So local growth supporters, i.e. county officials, developers, the chamberpot of commerce, and the Times-Journal all have been attacking the Village Board for the past three years for “holding up progress” in order to shove this deal down Village taxpayers’ throats once again. Instead, this current administration finally backed down and endorsed this distorted notion of ‘progress’. A Lowe blow indeed.
Instead of abetting further sprawl development on its periphery, the Village of Cobleskill might better expend its energies seeking ways to revitalize the residential apartments on its Main Street. But it seems like the Village Board doesn’t even have the temerity to insist on annual apartment inspections for fear of angering slumlords. Despite this, there are things happening in Schoharie County’s downtowns. In Cobleskill, SUNY has decided to open a branch of its bookstore on Main Street. Plus, the Village just spent over $30,000 for a study on how to revitalize Downtown. I don’t think that that study calls for helping the Town build another big box development outside of the Village!
More needs to be done! Why hasn’t the Village government taken steps to move its offices back downtown? This is a very simple step and it should have been taken years ago. The next step: a facelift for downtown. Storefront facades could use some paint and new designs and there’s plenty of grant money available to do it. Main Street’s sidewalks need to be replaced; how about some simple brick inlays and traffic calming devices? These are all very simple steps that would go along way to setting the tone for a revitalization of Downtown Cobleskill. I fear that if the current administration won’t move on this, then no one will.
Instead, this current administration slaps in the face the Village taxpayers who receive water and sewer service as part of the “whole package” of Village services. They don’t get to cherry pick which services they will pay for and which ones they won’t. Instead this current administration chooses to subsidize development in other municipalities essentially agreeing to a parasitic relationship where Town sprawl latches on to the Village infrastructure and essentially sucks all the life out. Developable land in the Town, that now has access to Village water & sewer becomes more valuable than Village land. Developers get the services without the taxes! As more and more commercial developments pop up in the Town, Town taxes will go down, thanks to the Village’s generosity. Meanwhile, the Village will foot the bill, as not only will it be providing water and sewer services but police protection as well.
As an ex officio member of the County Board of Supervisors, Cobleskill Town Supervisor Roger Cohn knows that a Lowe’s development will bring in sales tax revenue for the county to divvy up. Meanwhile, water and sewer lines get extended outward toward the next big project. So local growth supporters, i.e. county officials, developers, the chamberpot of commerce, and the Times-Journal all have been attacking the Village Board for the past three years for “holding up progress” in order to shove this deal down Village taxpayers’ throats once again. Instead, this current administration finally backed down and endorsed this distorted notion of ‘progress’. A Lowe blow indeed.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Adam Werbach and the Sierra Club: Environmentalism In Search of a More Convenient Truth
The Sierra Club’s Adam Werbach came to Cobleskill this week, and despite heralding the ‘death of environmentalism’ a few years ago, he rode into town as part of a breathless campaign of speaking engagements, consulting, networking with non-profits and multinational corporations (like Wal-Mart!) and otherwise doing the work of a good post-environmentalism environmentalist. Werbach came to the fore at a time when the conventional wisdom had written off the environmentalist movement. 23 at the time he became Sierra Club president, Werbach brough a youthfulness and energy that had long been missing.By this point, the radical movement cultures of the 60s and 70s had all but completey given way to the amorphous soup of post-modernism. Adam Werbach stands at the pinnacle of this process as it relates to the environmentalist movement. Werbach's critique of environmentalism is very much couched in the language of the post-modernists who are always declaring an end to one thing or another.
Werbach tells us that the environmentalist movement needs to broaden its appeal and become consumer friendly. He would have the movement packaged so as to promise Americans that they can have their cake and it too. He would have us believe that self-sacrifice and hard policy choices are unnecessary. True, many of the things Americans value are not mutually exclusive with environmentalism. However, Werbach’s feel-good analysis is so superficial that it doesn’t even matter.
Broadening the environmentalist movement conceptually is one thing, but watering it down to the point of meaninglessness is quite another. Doing this allows a disastrous side-step of the necessary dramatic shift in policy and consciousness that will keep us from ruining our ecosystems. To me, broadening means connecting the dots so that working people see the connection between the exploitation of their labor AND the exploitation of the environment. It means a New Deal-esque marshaling of federal and state resources to retrofit homes and buildings, invest in alternative transportation and seriously reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, foreign or otherwise. It means empowering people to take on the big corporations like Wal-Mart who trash workers rights around the world and recklessly fuel what is possibly the biggest environmental threat in the coming decades: China. Adam Werbach should be teaching people how to lead attacks against multinational companies, not how to be co-opted by them.
Environmentalism shouldn’t be a stand alone issue, it needs to be nested in other parts of our civil society. But cozying up to the multinationals is not the way to go. This only serves the status quo and allows them to blur the deeper connections between the destruction of ecosystems and the perpetuation of poverty and exploitation. It allows these connections to be replaced with a big yellow smiley face. Instead, an empowered progressive or social democratic movement needs to take up the banner and bring the cause back to the streets and out of the board rooms.
A lot has happened since Werbach became Sierra Club president (An Inconvenient Truth, Hurricane Katrina, $100 dollar a barrel oil). Yet as environmentalism is replaced with everybody’s new favorite word, sustainability, it runs the risk of becoming some thoughtless catch-all panacea for the general psychic unrest of the current zeitgeist. I get worried when everybody starts saying they want to be more sustainable. Everybody can not possibly know or agree upon what sustainability means. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are not going to prevent the next Katrina. Cars running on discarded fry fat aren’t going to bring down the price of gas or reduce dependence on oil. But as long as we nod our heads and applaud in approval at these things, we’re only going to keep on kidding ourselves.
We can’t shake ourselves of this pesky little global warming thing unless we start ripping up highways and replacing them with light rail, rapid rail and high-speed rail transit systems that will cost us BILLIONS of dollars, or without moving back into cities with corner grocery stores so we don’t have to drive two or three miles for a gallon of milk and pop-tarts.
And I know Schoharie County folks aren’t going to like this one, but we can’t do it without making real commitments to alternative energy, like wind power (as ONE example). Americans are going to have to learn to live with the inconvenience of windmill blades swooshing all the night.
Our current landscape: sprawled out, automobile-dependent and increasingly alienated is NOT sustainable, no matter how much we wish it so by applauding the use of the word sustainability. Our current landscape is not just ecologically unsustainable, it is economically and socially unsustainable as well. Proactive steps are not really needed; these problems will begin to force our hand as gas hits 5 dollars a gallon and people go broke driving to the supermarket to buy food at its inflated prices (due to fuel costs). Feedback loops will resound through our entire society, much louder than the swooshing of wind turbine blades, I’m afraid.
And what would Wal-Mart say? How about: Take those rebate checks (paid for with deficit money borrowed from China) and gas up the SUV and (with whatever you have left) pack it tight with useless junk from…Wal-Mart (useless junk manufactured in China!). Don’t think about how much extra you’re paying to ship your consumer goods all over the damn planet or to gas up a massive hunk of metal to drive all over the place or how much more sensible it would be just to live, work, and shop in the same small walkable community that we manufacture our crap in and grow our food in. That would be too utopian and it might scare people away from becoming good consumer-environmentalists. And we don't want that.
I don’t know, maybe Adam Werbach is right. Maybe if I buy some more fluorescent light bulbs I’ll feel better.
Water’s Edge
In 2005/2006 the newly elected Cobleskill Village Board (consisting of new members Mark Galasso, Sandy MacKay and Mayor Sellers) voted to rescind a deal to extend water and sewer lines to a Lowe’s development just outside the Village boundary. Since then, the question of how to extend to water and sewer services to developments outside the Village’s borders is one that has persistently troubled the community. Town of Cobleskill officials feel entitled to the services and take the Village’s stand as an intentional slap. County-wide, economic development proponents accuse the Village of hindering potential progress.
Yet the Village has maintained, largely at the insistence of Mayor Mike Sellers and Deputy Mayor Sandy MacKay, that developers wanting Village water and sewer services must be annexed by the Village in order to get Village services.
This is a quite sound policy for a number of reasons. First of all, the Village’s water and sewer system does not exist to subsidize development in other municipalities. Allowing developers in the Town to tap into these services will only hurt the Village in the long run. Providing these services makes it economically attractive to build outside the Village, depriving it of tax revenues. This hurts the Village by helping to drive business away from Downtown and by undermining its fiscal stability.
Therefore, the Village has said to developers: if you want Village services, become part of the Village. So far, two developments on Mineral Springs eager to tap into the Village’s water and sewer lines have gone for this. Annexation talks and procedures are more or less underway for both projects.
But now, the recent mystery company’s arrival and its demand for water and sewer hook-ups puts extra pressure on the Village’s policy. The company is interested in a 100-acre site in Shad Point, an area in the Town of Cobleskill near Crossroads Barn and the east end of Mineral Springs Rd. This area is almost two miles from the Village boundary. Who would be expected to pay for the installation of these water and sewer lines for this distance? I don’t think it will be the mystery company.
But the best part (at least for some) is that extending these lines out to Shad Point would mean bringing potential water and sewer services to all of the parcels along Route 7 and Mineral Springs Rd., the area most likely to see increased development pressure. Naturally, this would solve Lowe’s water problem. How many other developers would be waiting in the wings to start building up other parcels with strip malls and big boxes?
I wouldn’t want the Village to rule out selling water and service to this mystery company. However, I think its existing policy of requiring annexation should be upheld. Let this company apply for annexation to the Village. Then, any other property owner wishing to hook into the water and sewer lines will have that option (of annexation) as well.
Better yet, this provides the community with the ability to hold this company’s feet to the fire. Legally, the Town is not able to condition approvals and such on meeting certain ‘social requirements’ like paying a livable wage and maintaining a commitment to keep the amount of jobs promised for a fixed period of time. However, the Village could make these part of a “community benefits agreement” as a condition for extending Village water and sewer services. As the company is requesting an extra service that it is not in anyway legally entitled to, such an arrangement would be completely voluntary, a form of contract zoning.
Hopefully, the Village doesn’t bend to the temptation to throw money and favors at a company that promises jobs but offers no proof or other means of validating its intentions. The public has the right to demand fair treatment from this company and any others seeking to do business here. What is required is a Village Board with the audacity to stand up for this right. So far they have demonstrated a willingness to move in this direction. In order to keep the Village Board on track, those concerned about economic justice and fairness should continuously remind Village officials of their obligations to the community.
Yet the Village has maintained, largely at the insistence of Mayor Mike Sellers and Deputy Mayor Sandy MacKay, that developers wanting Village water and sewer services must be annexed by the Village in order to get Village services.
This is a quite sound policy for a number of reasons. First of all, the Village’s water and sewer system does not exist to subsidize development in other municipalities. Allowing developers in the Town to tap into these services will only hurt the Village in the long run. Providing these services makes it economically attractive to build outside the Village, depriving it of tax revenues. This hurts the Village by helping to drive business away from Downtown and by undermining its fiscal stability.
Therefore, the Village has said to developers: if you want Village services, become part of the Village. So far, two developments on Mineral Springs eager to tap into the Village’s water and sewer lines have gone for this. Annexation talks and procedures are more or less underway for both projects.
But now, the recent mystery company’s arrival and its demand for water and sewer hook-ups puts extra pressure on the Village’s policy. The company is interested in a 100-acre site in Shad Point, an area in the Town of Cobleskill near Crossroads Barn and the east end of Mineral Springs Rd. This area is almost two miles from the Village boundary. Who would be expected to pay for the installation of these water and sewer lines for this distance? I don’t think it will be the mystery company.
But the best part (at least for some) is that extending these lines out to Shad Point would mean bringing potential water and sewer services to all of the parcels along Route 7 and Mineral Springs Rd., the area most likely to see increased development pressure. Naturally, this would solve Lowe’s water problem. How many other developers would be waiting in the wings to start building up other parcels with strip malls and big boxes?
I wouldn’t want the Village to rule out selling water and service to this mystery company. However, I think its existing policy of requiring annexation should be upheld. Let this company apply for annexation to the Village. Then, any other property owner wishing to hook into the water and sewer lines will have that option (of annexation) as well.
Better yet, this provides the community with the ability to hold this company’s feet to the fire. Legally, the Town is not able to condition approvals and such on meeting certain ‘social requirements’ like paying a livable wage and maintaining a commitment to keep the amount of jobs promised for a fixed period of time. However, the Village could make these part of a “community benefits agreement” as a condition for extending Village water and sewer services. As the company is requesting an extra service that it is not in anyway legally entitled to, such an arrangement would be completely voluntary, a form of contract zoning.
Hopefully, the Village doesn’t bend to the temptation to throw money and favors at a company that promises jobs but offers no proof or other means of validating its intentions. The public has the right to demand fair treatment from this company and any others seeking to do business here. What is required is a Village Board with the audacity to stand up for this right. So far they have demonstrated a willingness to move in this direction. In order to keep the Village Board on track, those concerned about economic justice and fairness should continuously remind Village officials of their obligations to the community.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Galasso Would Give Breaks to Fellow Developer
Proving why it is important to have ordinary citizens as opposed to millionaires in Village government, Trustee Mark Galasso recently questioned the need for sidewalks, lighting and open space requirements as part of the sprawling condo project being constructed along Mineral Springs Road. The project will include nearly 60 condominium units and will be among the largest developments in the Village. To the Village’s credit, they did require the property to be annexed by the Village before receiving water and sewer services.But that seems to be where the accountability ends. Village Trustee Mark Galasso, President of Lancaster Development, a major highway contractor based in Richmondville, has questioned the need to enforce requirements for sidewalks, lighting and open space. The developer of the project, Nadeau, originally balked at putting in sidewalks but has agreed to do so. As for the streetlights, Galasso argues that it would cause the Village’s electric bill to increase. Really? Is this about saving money for the Village or for Nadeau? Then there’s Galasso’s rant against mandating open space in planned unit districts. Galasso objected, calling the practice “wrong on so many levels”.
However, if anything is wrong with the Village’s zoning ordinance, it is that it is not strong enough on developers. The sidewalks, streetlights and open space are all something to build on. However, there needs to be design guidelines as well to ensure that the project is aesthetically appropriate, pedestrian-oriented and not out of character with the rest of the Village. Compactness, density, walkability, minimum setbacks, building at the lot line, requiring tree plantings; these are all things that could make the Donats Brow project more integrated with the Village. It would make the difference between having an asset to the Village and having an eyesore.
Don’t expect Galasso to hold the developers’ feet to the fire, he’s a developer himself. This is something Village residents should think about when they consider their own levels of political and civic engagement and when they vote for Village officials. Who should be leading development in Schoharie County: citizens with a stake in the community or developers with their own agenda?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Donats Brow Development Needs Careful Site Planning
The Village of Cobleskill is in possession of a very critical piece of infrastructure (water and sewer lines) and a lot of developers want to tap into it. In my view, this gives the Village an incredible amount of bargaining power. But they don’t seem to be using it.
The Donats Brow development, consisting of a proposed 14 apartment buildings on Mineral Springs Road (across from the fmr. Guilford Mills plant) will be the largest residential project in the Village’s history. But the only reason the project is going to go ahead is because the Village and Town are (most likely) going to agree to the Village’s annexation of the land in question. The annexation means that the properties will be taxed by the Village AND that the developer gets water and sewer for the projects.
Now, I’m glad that the Village has insisted upon annexation in order to extend water and sewer lines to the development. However, the developer in this case, seems to be getting more than the Village out of the deal.
My biggest concerns have to do with the planning and zoning of this development. Have village officials taken any steps to ensure that this development is integrated with the rest of the Village? Has there been any concern for the long-term potential for development in that area?
There are two reasons to worry about this: first, what will be the negative unintended consequences of rapid development in this part of the community? Secondly, what opportunities are we missing out on by not planning this better?
To put this in perspective, let’s consider that this project calls for roughly 14 apartment buildings! This is essentially going to be a “village within a village”. What kind of open space will the project offer? Will the buildings be aesthetically well-conceived or the typical “build and run” model of apartment complexes? Why not go with a more grid-based “new Urbanist” design developing on the lot line and incorporating some commercial uses in the project? How will South Grand Street handle the increased traffic? Will their be sidewalks and bikeways connecting the project with the Village and the fairgrounds? These questions do not even take into account the potential for future growth in the area once water and sewer lines are set up. Remember as well, that this will be what travelers on I-88 see of Cobleskill.
How these questions are answered by developers depends to a large extent on how much they want access to Village infrastructure AND the degree to which Village officials are willing to hold developers’ feet to the fire.
Does Cobleskill have the capacity to both envision these changes and make them a reality? I think Mayor Sellers and Trustee MacKay have the Villages’ best interests at heart, but I don’t know if this community currently has the capacity to hold developers accountable to a deeper democratic agenda of participatory planning and sustainable development.
I think Mike Sellers, Rebecca Burgos-Thillet and co. need to begin building the “Community Matters” ballot line into a more substantial organization uniting activists in the county. Then and only then can you begin to mobilize people on issues ranging from increased apartment inspections, smart growth, downtown redevelopment and youth issues.
Until then, turn off the tap.
The Donats Brow development, consisting of a proposed 14 apartment buildings on Mineral Springs Road (across from the fmr. Guilford Mills plant) will be the largest residential project in the Village’s history. But the only reason the project is going to go ahead is because the Village and Town are (most likely) going to agree to the Village’s annexation of the land in question. The annexation means that the properties will be taxed by the Village AND that the developer gets water and sewer for the projects.
Now, I’m glad that the Village has insisted upon annexation in order to extend water and sewer lines to the development. However, the developer in this case, seems to be getting more than the Village out of the deal.
My biggest concerns have to do with the planning and zoning of this development. Have village officials taken any steps to ensure that this development is integrated with the rest of the Village? Has there been any concern for the long-term potential for development in that area?
There are two reasons to worry about this: first, what will be the negative unintended consequences of rapid development in this part of the community? Secondly, what opportunities are we missing out on by not planning this better?
To put this in perspective, let’s consider that this project calls for roughly 14 apartment buildings! This is essentially going to be a “village within a village”. What kind of open space will the project offer? Will the buildings be aesthetically well-conceived or the typical “build and run” model of apartment complexes? Why not go with a more grid-based “new Urbanist” design developing on the lot line and incorporating some commercial uses in the project? How will South Grand Street handle the increased traffic? Will their be sidewalks and bikeways connecting the project with the Village and the fairgrounds? These questions do not even take into account the potential for future growth in the area once water and sewer lines are set up. Remember as well, that this will be what travelers on I-88 see of Cobleskill.
How these questions are answered by developers depends to a large extent on how much they want access to Village infrastructure AND the degree to which Village officials are willing to hold developers’ feet to the fire.
Does Cobleskill have the capacity to both envision these changes and make them a reality? I think Mayor Sellers and Trustee MacKay have the Villages’ best interests at heart, but I don’t know if this community currently has the capacity to hold developers accountable to a deeper democratic agenda of participatory planning and sustainable development.
I think Mike Sellers, Rebecca Burgos-Thillet and co. need to begin building the “Community Matters” ballot line into a more substantial organization uniting activists in the county. Then and only then can you begin to mobilize people on issues ranging from increased apartment inspections, smart growth, downtown redevelopment and youth issues.
Until then, turn off the tap.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Roundabouts: Moving us Ahead or Just Around in Circles?
Recently, State DOT officials met with local leaders at SUNY Cobleskill to discuss future plans for Route 7 stemming from the bridge replacement at the western gateway to the Village. All kinds of bold new ideas were proposed for the Route 7 corridor from the Hess Station to the bridge. However, nothing is quite as exciting as the proposed roundabout on Route 7 at the intersection near the Hess Station. Honestly, I can’t remember being this excited about DOT repairs since…well ever!
A roundabout is similar in nature to a traffic circle, but not quite the same thing. The main difference being that roundabouts force incoming traffic to yield to traffic already in the roundabout. Traffic circles typically give incoming motorists the right of way.
Though the roundabout has the potential to improve the overall efficiency of intersections, they are not without their disadvantages. Cobleskill should do a lot more research on roundabouts before building one on Route 7.
As a traffic-calming device, roundabouts are all the rage, particularly in fast-growing suburban areas where residents want to slow down traffic. In this regard, a roundabout on Route 7 would force eastbound drivers to slow down as they enter the SUNY Cobleskill area.
There are numerous other benefits as well. Roundabouts have been found to be safer for motorists, as repeated research has found a lower number of accidents at roundabout intersections than at traditional intersections. They also eliminate the need for traffic signals which can range up to $50,000 a year to operate. They also reduce unnecessary vehicle idling which decreases pollution. They also allow motorists more options. If someone misses a destination, they don’t need to turn around backing in and out of traffic; they can simply drive all the way around the roundabout.
However, a major drawback is that roundabouts have been found to be unsafe for pedestrians, particularly bicyclists. They also present problems for the visually impaired as well. These concerns should not prevent roundabouts from being used, but they should be used to weigh the concerns of the community before a roundabout is built.
If prior local issues are any indication, the community-wide debate over the roundabout should be exciting, to say the least.
Aside from the proposed roundabout, local officials and DOT representatives discussed other traffic-calming devices for Route 7 near the SUNY campus, including center medians and landscaping measures.
A major theme discussed by SUNY officials, Dr. Anne Myers in particular, was the idea of developing the area specifically as a Village gateway. Some specific ideas, such as how to design the next bridge for example, were put out there. But there’s a lot more to discuss.
For example, what can be done to make the area more student-friendly? The loss of the P&C supermarket several years ago marked the loss of a major asset for SUNY students.
What are the possibilities of using college-owned land along Route 7 for a small pedestrian-oriented commercial district catering (not exclusively) but largely to college students? There could be a small grocery store, a coffee shop or a restaurant for example. It would provide a place SUNY students could walk to for convenience purchases that would also better link the Village with the college.
These and other concerns need to be brought to bear on the discussion in a forum that includes Village residents and college students in addition to a handful of college officials and local business leaders.
A roundabout is similar in nature to a traffic circle, but not quite the same thing. The main difference being that roundabouts force incoming traffic to yield to traffic already in the roundabout. Traffic circles typically give incoming motorists the right of way.
Though the roundabout has the potential to improve the overall efficiency of intersections, they are not without their disadvantages. Cobleskill should do a lot more research on roundabouts before building one on Route 7.
As a traffic-calming device, roundabouts are all the rage, particularly in fast-growing suburban areas where residents want to slow down traffic. In this regard, a roundabout on Route 7 would force eastbound drivers to slow down as they enter the SUNY Cobleskill area.
There are numerous other benefits as well. Roundabouts have been found to be safer for motorists, as repeated research has found a lower number of accidents at roundabout intersections than at traditional intersections. They also eliminate the need for traffic signals which can range up to $50,000 a year to operate. They also reduce unnecessary vehicle idling which decreases pollution. They also allow motorists more options. If someone misses a destination, they don’t need to turn around backing in and out of traffic; they can simply drive all the way around the roundabout.
However, a major drawback is that roundabouts have been found to be unsafe for pedestrians, particularly bicyclists. They also present problems for the visually impaired as well. These concerns should not prevent roundabouts from being used, but they should be used to weigh the concerns of the community before a roundabout is built.
If prior local issues are any indication, the community-wide debate over the roundabout should be exciting, to say the least.
Aside from the proposed roundabout, local officials and DOT representatives discussed other traffic-calming devices for Route 7 near the SUNY campus, including center medians and landscaping measures.
A major theme discussed by SUNY officials, Dr. Anne Myers in particular, was the idea of developing the area specifically as a Village gateway. Some specific ideas, such as how to design the next bridge for example, were put out there. But there’s a lot more to discuss.
For example, what can be done to make the area more student-friendly? The loss of the P&C supermarket several years ago marked the loss of a major asset for SUNY students.
What are the possibilities of using college-owned land along Route 7 for a small pedestrian-oriented commercial district catering (not exclusively) but largely to college students? There could be a small grocery store, a coffee shop or a restaurant for example. It would provide a place SUNY students could walk to for convenience purchases that would also better link the Village with the college.
These and other concerns need to be brought to bear on the discussion in a forum that includes Village residents and college students in addition to a handful of college officials and local business leaders.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Cobleskill Town and Village Should Go Their Separate Ways
With many small towns abuzz with talk of “consolidation” and “sharing services” it may seem counter-intuitive to propose that Cobleskill’s Town and Village move further apart, but here’s why I think it would be better that way. No, I’m not proposing that we physically pick up the Village of Cobleskill and move it up to the Town of Carlisle. What I’m proposing is that the Village officially remove itself from the Town’s political jurisdiction by incorporating itself as the City of Cobleskill.
The Town and Village simply have too many irreconcilable differences to make consolidation a wise move for the Village. The Village needs to focus on reviving its downtown business district. The Town simply wants to use Village water and sewer services to develop more sprawl. The Village has a well-developed public infrastructure that it has invested in for decades (water, sewer, etc.). To simply allow the Town of Cobleskill to have the benefit of that investment is unfair to Village taxpayers and ratepayers. What’s more, it seems like the Village has a lot more to bring to the table here: a municipal water system, a sewer system and a police department for starters. What does the Town of Cobleskill have to “share” in exchange for these services?
The Times-Journal has sought to frame the issue in terms of eliminating duplication of services. In an editorial, the Times-Journal asks: “does Cobleskill need two offices, two sets of clerks, two planning boards, two heads of government and separate Town and Village boards to get daily duties accomplished”? The Times-Journal makes it sound like we’re talking about some vast legion of entrenched overpaid bureaucrats. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Planning and Zoning Boards are staffed by volunteers and cost taxpayers nothing. Therefore, reducing the number of planning boards and ZBAs from two to one would have a taxpayers savings of ZERO dollars! The Village Mayor’s office pays an $8,000 dollar a year salary. Haven’t you ever heard the saying: two heads are better than one? For that price, we could throw in a few more! Clerks make a little more, but perform a wide variety of functions. Cobleskill’s Village clerk is much more intimately aware of the Village’s processes and operations and can be a valuable asset, why get rid of that? Eliminate the Village boards (planning, zoning and Trustees) and you are ceding an incredible amount of community control to the Town of Cobleskill. Why? So greedy developers like the Galasso’s can pick the bones of the Village?
Why is it that most of the debate seems to focus the spotlight on the Village government as unnecessary when it is the Village that has made the investments to establish and maintain the services that the Town now wants access to? I’m not saying there should be no sharing of services, but let’s look at other options before we hand over the whole Village to the Town.
In my view, incorporation as a city is the right option for the Village of Cobleskill. First off, to those of you thinking that Cobleskill is too small to be a city, let me just say, there is no minimum population required for a community to incorporate as a city. In fact, if Cobleskill became a city, it would not be the smallest is New York State. The City of Sherrill has a population of 3,109. Cities like Little Falls, Salamanca and Mechanicville all have a population of around 5,000.
Incorporating as a city, would politically and legally remove the Village from the Town. Presently, Village taxpayers pay taxes to both the Village AND the Town. If the Village became a city, residents would no longer owe taxes to the Town. A similar level of services would still have to be provided, but now the Village/City would have more control over how that money was spent and how those services were provided. This of course would eliminate any potential discrepancies over how the Town budgets and spends “Town-inside-Village” revenue. The problem in Cobleskill is not necessarily duplication of services, but the de facto obligation of Village residents to fund services that they do not use. Even aside from the above-mentioned discrepancies, the Village has to be losing some money on the taxes its residents pay to the Town. We need to know exactly how much of the Village’s share of town taxes actually benefits Village taxpayers and how much doesn’t. If the Village could use this money to cut taxes or increase spending on Downtown development, this alternative must be explored.
The best part, however, is that the very idea of the Town losing Village tax revenue will change the bargaining balance of power between the Town and Village on a whole bunch of issues (at the very least).
At the county level, the Village/City would now get its own representation on the County Board of Supervisors who could in turn be an advocate for bringing county funds back to the Village. At present, the Village is represented at the County level by the Town Supervisor. Can this person be expected to adequately represent the interests of the Village when Town-Village relations go sour? This would allow for a better opportunity to direct a more appropriate share of the Village sales taxes (which are collected by the County) back to the Village itself. A County Supervisor representing solely the village/city of Cobleskill would be able to focus all of his or her time on bringing back county resources, as they would not serve simultaneously as a Town executive.
Downtown Cobleskill needs to be focusing on rehabilitating streets and facades and finding ways to bring back businesses. We should be looking for ways to empower the community to do this, not ways to cut its legs off and serve it up to another municipality.
Downtown Cobleskill is an entirely different animal than the Town of Cobleskill and requires (at the very least) a separate municipal corporation to provide for its needs and future development. I believe we should look into reincorporation as a city, and at the very least we should rule out dissolution or consolidation with the Town.
I’ll admit, I don’t have all the answers on this subject (in fact, I haven’t been able to find anyone who does), but it certainly warrants more attention and exploration than it received at the Village’s recent public meeting on the subject of consolidation and sharing services.
The Town and Village simply have too many irreconcilable differences to make consolidation a wise move for the Village. The Village needs to focus on reviving its downtown business district. The Town simply wants to use Village water and sewer services to develop more sprawl. The Village has a well-developed public infrastructure that it has invested in for decades (water, sewer, etc.). To simply allow the Town of Cobleskill to have the benefit of that investment is unfair to Village taxpayers and ratepayers. What’s more, it seems like the Village has a lot more to bring to the table here: a municipal water system, a sewer system and a police department for starters. What does the Town of Cobleskill have to “share” in exchange for these services?
The Times-Journal has sought to frame the issue in terms of eliminating duplication of services. In an editorial, the Times-Journal asks: “does Cobleskill need two offices, two sets of clerks, two planning boards, two heads of government and separate Town and Village boards to get daily duties accomplished”? The Times-Journal makes it sound like we’re talking about some vast legion of entrenched overpaid bureaucrats. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Planning and Zoning Boards are staffed by volunteers and cost taxpayers nothing. Therefore, reducing the number of planning boards and ZBAs from two to one would have a taxpayers savings of ZERO dollars! The Village Mayor’s office pays an $8,000 dollar a year salary. Haven’t you ever heard the saying: two heads are better than one? For that price, we could throw in a few more! Clerks make a little more, but perform a wide variety of functions. Cobleskill’s Village clerk is much more intimately aware of the Village’s processes and operations and can be a valuable asset, why get rid of that? Eliminate the Village boards (planning, zoning and Trustees) and you are ceding an incredible amount of community control to the Town of Cobleskill. Why? So greedy developers like the Galasso’s can pick the bones of the Village?
Why is it that most of the debate seems to focus the spotlight on the Village government as unnecessary when it is the Village that has made the investments to establish and maintain the services that the Town now wants access to? I’m not saying there should be no sharing of services, but let’s look at other options before we hand over the whole Village to the Town.
In my view, incorporation as a city is the right option for the Village of Cobleskill. First off, to those of you thinking that Cobleskill is too small to be a city, let me just say, there is no minimum population required for a community to incorporate as a city. In fact, if Cobleskill became a city, it would not be the smallest is New York State. The City of Sherrill has a population of 3,109. Cities like Little Falls, Salamanca and Mechanicville all have a population of around 5,000.
Incorporating as a city, would politically and legally remove the Village from the Town. Presently, Village taxpayers pay taxes to both the Village AND the Town. If the Village became a city, residents would no longer owe taxes to the Town. A similar level of services would still have to be provided, but now the Village/City would have more control over how that money was spent and how those services were provided. This of course would eliminate any potential discrepancies over how the Town budgets and spends “Town-inside-Village” revenue. The problem in Cobleskill is not necessarily duplication of services, but the de facto obligation of Village residents to fund services that they do not use. Even aside from the above-mentioned discrepancies, the Village has to be losing some money on the taxes its residents pay to the Town. We need to know exactly how much of the Village’s share of town taxes actually benefits Village taxpayers and how much doesn’t. If the Village could use this money to cut taxes or increase spending on Downtown development, this alternative must be explored.
The best part, however, is that the very idea of the Town losing Village tax revenue will change the bargaining balance of power between the Town and Village on a whole bunch of issues (at the very least).
At the county level, the Village/City would now get its own representation on the County Board of Supervisors who could in turn be an advocate for bringing county funds back to the Village. At present, the Village is represented at the County level by the Town Supervisor. Can this person be expected to adequately represent the interests of the Village when Town-Village relations go sour? This would allow for a better opportunity to direct a more appropriate share of the Village sales taxes (which are collected by the County) back to the Village itself. A County Supervisor representing solely the village/city of Cobleskill would be able to focus all of his or her time on bringing back county resources, as they would not serve simultaneously as a Town executive.
Downtown Cobleskill needs to be focusing on rehabilitating streets and facades and finding ways to bring back businesses. We should be looking for ways to empower the community to do this, not ways to cut its legs off and serve it up to another municipality.
Downtown Cobleskill is an entirely different animal than the Town of Cobleskill and requires (at the very least) a separate municipal corporation to provide for its needs and future development. I believe we should look into reincorporation as a city, and at the very least we should rule out dissolution or consolidation with the Town.
I’ll admit, I don’t have all the answers on this subject (in fact, I haven’t been able to find anyone who does), but it certainly warrants more attention and exploration than it received at the Village’s recent public meeting on the subject of consolidation and sharing services.
Wal-Mart Worries about Aesthetic Impact of Lowe’s Home Improvement Center
“We chose the current Wal-Mart store location over ten years ago because of its natural beauty” say’s Wal-Mart District Manager George Deitz. But now a proposed Lowe’s Home Improvement Center in Cobleskill, NY threatens that very natural beauty. The Lowe’s store will tower over Wal-Mart on a nearby hill, dwarfing the 12-year old big-box store, bathing its newly rehabilitated concrete façade and vast parking lot in a sea of hazy yellow phosphorescent light. This “monstrosity” as Dietz calls it, threatens to darken Wal-Mart with its shadows during the day and blind the store with its lights during the night.
“This suburban sprawl has got to stop” Dietz laments. “When we chose this location, there was nothing here but farms, now there’s car dealerships, gas stations, a Dunkin’ Donuts, and now Lowe’s. It’s like Wal-Mart is being swallowed up by ugly suburban sprawl”.
The real tragedy, according to Dietz, is that Wal-Mart just finished remodeling the interior and exterior of its Cobleskill store. The Wal-Mart exterior just received a major facelift in which its familiar blue and gray was replaced by a more humble and Earthy brown and tan. But Dietz asks, “Who will enjoy looking at Wal-Mart’s exciting new façade when there’s an ugly, behemoth, big-box store looming over it”?
A long-time Wal-Mart employee recounts memories of sitting outside on breaks in the smokers’ shack looking out upon the rolling pastures of the farm just over the hill. “It was just so relaxing, it literally helped to recharge me to go back to work”. But now Wal-Mart employees will look out of their smoking shack and see a dizzying whir of traffic and blinding phosphorescent lights.
A local historic preservation group has issued a scathing critique of the impact that Lowe’s would have on Wal-Mart. They are urging the Town and Village to work together to make sure that the proposed Lowe’s does not adversely impact enjoyment of Wal-Mart’s striking concrete façade.
According to Dietz, “That’s all I’m asking for. We just spent a ton of money painting our entire building brown and tan so that it would be more of a pleasure to look at, and we don’t want to see a Lowe’s come in and spoil that view for everybody”.
“This suburban sprawl has got to stop” Dietz laments. “When we chose this location, there was nothing here but farms, now there’s car dealerships, gas stations, a Dunkin’ Donuts, and now Lowe’s. It’s like Wal-Mart is being swallowed up by ugly suburban sprawl”.
The real tragedy, according to Dietz, is that Wal-Mart just finished remodeling the interior and exterior of its Cobleskill store. The Wal-Mart exterior just received a major facelift in which its familiar blue and gray was replaced by a more humble and Earthy brown and tan. But Dietz asks, “Who will enjoy looking at Wal-Mart’s exciting new façade when there’s an ugly, behemoth, big-box store looming over it”?
A long-time Wal-Mart employee recounts memories of sitting outside on breaks in the smokers’ shack looking out upon the rolling pastures of the farm just over the hill. “It was just so relaxing, it literally helped to recharge me to go back to work”. But now Wal-Mart employees will look out of their smoking shack and see a dizzying whir of traffic and blinding phosphorescent lights.
A local historic preservation group has issued a scathing critique of the impact that Lowe’s would have on Wal-Mart. They are urging the Town and Village to work together to make sure that the proposed Lowe’s does not adversely impact enjoyment of Wal-Mart’s striking concrete façade.
According to Dietz, “That’s all I’m asking for. We just spent a ton of money painting our entire building brown and tan so that it would be more of a pleasure to look at, and we don’t want to see a Lowe’s come in and spoil that view for everybody”.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Village Must Take a More Active Role in Mineral Springs Road Development
There’s no denying it, the pressure to build along the Mineral Springs Road corridor, especially where it runs roughly parallel with the Village, is intensifying! There are already two major residential projects in the early planning stages. Last spring, the Village annexed the property for these proposed developments so that the developers would have access to Village water and sewer services.
The largest of the two projects, proposed by Maximum Equities, is a residential development which will include 130-200 units, according to village planning board member Niles Voyer-McGiver. However, according to Voyer-McGiver, the developer has yet to specify whether those units will be in the form of an apartment complex, row houses, condos or townhouses.
While Village planning board members and village officials are at odds over how best to handle the situation, the stakes for the Village could scarcely be higher. At 130 or even 200 housing units, this project will be largest in the Village’s history. Moreover, it will permanently shape the landscape that serves as the Village’s southern gateway. This being the first major development along Mineral Springs Road it will also set the tone for future development, which make no mistake, will be coming.
Village trustee Mark Galasso is foolish to insist that the Village should be “begging on a bended knee” for such developments. Yet Larry Weintraub’s (of the Department of State)
suggestion of a 6-12 month building moratorium may be excessive.
Instead, the proper course is for the Village to steer these projects in a direction that is beneficial for all involved, but mostly for the future of the Village. According to the Times-Journal, Village planners have discussed the possibility of establishing design standards. Well..what’s to discuss? Of course there should be design standards for this project. Remember, not only will this development form the southern gateway into the Village, but it will be entirely visible from I-88.
Instead of just kneeling down to every developers’ proposal, the Village of Cobleskill needs to become aware of the opportunities that exist for the development of this project. Instead of ending up with another cluster of suburban sprawl like that of the East End, Village officials must insist on a more sustainable, pedestrian-friendly design, one that is integrated with the Village’s Downtown.
First off, Village officials should take the necessary measures to create a land use zone that allows for higher densities and that prescribes a neo-traditional or “new urbanist” style of development. Apartment complexes and condos should be out of the question. Townhouses or row-houses with minimal setbacks along a grid-iron street pattern, and with plenty of trees and maybe even a small park would be best. The Village should also make it a priority to connect this development to Downtown via a pedestrian or bike trail. The Village’s main objective should be to demonstrate that this project is linked up and integrated (functionally, architecturally and aesthetically) with the Village, and not the just the first of many more poorly planned residential and commercial projects to sprawl out along Mineral Springs Road. There are lot’s of opportunities here, let’s not let them slip by.
It is especially important for the Village to take a pro-active role here, because of the fact that the developer of the project seems uncertain as to what exactly to build. As a community, let’s get up off our knees and tell the developers that we want a Cobleskill with a sustainable future and NOT more sprawl.
The largest of the two projects, proposed by Maximum Equities, is a residential development which will include 130-200 units, according to village planning board member Niles Voyer-McGiver. However, according to Voyer-McGiver, the developer has yet to specify whether those units will be in the form of an apartment complex, row houses, condos or townhouses.
While Village planning board members and village officials are at odds over how best to handle the situation, the stakes for the Village could scarcely be higher. At 130 or even 200 housing units, this project will be largest in the Village’s history. Moreover, it will permanently shape the landscape that serves as the Village’s southern gateway. This being the first major development along Mineral Springs Road it will also set the tone for future development, which make no mistake, will be coming.
Village trustee Mark Galasso is foolish to insist that the Village should be “begging on a bended knee” for such developments. Yet Larry Weintraub’s (of the Department of State)
suggestion of a 6-12 month building moratorium may be excessive.
Instead, the proper course is for the Village to steer these projects in a direction that is beneficial for all involved, but mostly for the future of the Village. According to the Times-Journal, Village planners have discussed the possibility of establishing design standards. Well..what’s to discuss? Of course there should be design standards for this project. Remember, not only will this development form the southern gateway into the Village, but it will be entirely visible from I-88.
Instead of just kneeling down to every developers’ proposal, the Village of Cobleskill needs to become aware of the opportunities that exist for the development of this project. Instead of ending up with another cluster of suburban sprawl like that of the East End, Village officials must insist on a more sustainable, pedestrian-friendly design, one that is integrated with the Village’s Downtown.
First off, Village officials should take the necessary measures to create a land use zone that allows for higher densities and that prescribes a neo-traditional or “new urbanist” style of development. Apartment complexes and condos should be out of the question. Townhouses or row-houses with minimal setbacks along a grid-iron street pattern, and with plenty of trees and maybe even a small park would be best. The Village should also make it a priority to connect this development to Downtown via a pedestrian or bike trail. The Village’s main objective should be to demonstrate that this project is linked up and integrated (functionally, architecturally and aesthetically) with the Village, and not the just the first of many more poorly planned residential and commercial projects to sprawl out along Mineral Springs Road. There are lot’s of opportunities here, let’s not let them slip by.
It is especially important for the Village to take a pro-active role here, because of the fact that the developer of the project seems uncertain as to what exactly to build. As a community, let’s get up off our knees and tell the developers that we want a Cobleskill with a sustainable future and NOT more sprawl.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Too Much Caffeine for Tea Party Activists Bob LaPietra and Mark Galasso
Local real estate speculator Bob LaPietra and Cobleskill Village Trustee Mark Galasso are both heavily active in a local Cobleskill political party they have created and dubbed the “Tea Party”. However, listening to their ranting and raving and their plans for the Village of Cobleskill, one thing is clear: the last thing they need is more caffeine.
At a luncheon held at LaPietra’s Colonial Diner last Spring, the two spoke to an enthralled audience where they laid out their vision (or lack thereof) for the Village of Cobleskill. Calling himself an “extreme conservative Republican that would make Rush Limbaugh look liberal”, Mark Galasso called Cobleskill an “automobile-centered community” that shouldn’t worry about Downtown redevelopment and urged building a road bypassing Downtown, apparently so people could drive straight to Wal-Mart and the future Lowe’s and not even have to look at our crumbling downtown. Mark Galasso is president of Lancaster Development, a highway construction company, so building useless roads and other infrastructure is his bread and butter. It’s no surprise that he would have an instinctive urge to support any project that increases the sprawl that is parasitically sucking the lifeblood out of our communities.
Meanwhile, Bob LaPietra, who ran for Mayor in 2005 levels a series of general complaints about local taxes and regulations. LaPietra owns numerous commercial properties in the greater Cobleskill area. It’s unclear if LaPietra is asking for relief from taxes or from his own bad investments.
However, the real focus of their talk and their efforts is the consolidation of the Town and Village of Cobleskill. But this is the right idea for the wrong reasons. Town officials (and village-based developers) are licking their lips at the thought of gaining access to the Village’s water and sewer systems so that they can build out the rest of State Route 7, Mineral Springs Rd. and State Route 145 to the south and east of the Village. Dissolving the Village or even making the Town and Village borders contiguous would likely mean the extension of water and sewer lines to areas where there is presently development pressure.
To LaPietra and Galasso, I say, calm down, there is no rush to turn Cobleskill into another Long Island or North Jersey. Do everybody in the county a favor and switch to decaf!
At a luncheon held at LaPietra’s Colonial Diner last Spring, the two spoke to an enthralled audience where they laid out their vision (or lack thereof) for the Village of Cobleskill. Calling himself an “extreme conservative Republican that would make Rush Limbaugh look liberal”, Mark Galasso called Cobleskill an “automobile-centered community” that shouldn’t worry about Downtown redevelopment and urged building a road bypassing Downtown, apparently so people could drive straight to Wal-Mart and the future Lowe’s and not even have to look at our crumbling downtown. Mark Galasso is president of Lancaster Development, a highway construction company, so building useless roads and other infrastructure is his bread and butter. It’s no surprise that he would have an instinctive urge to support any project that increases the sprawl that is parasitically sucking the lifeblood out of our communities.
Meanwhile, Bob LaPietra, who ran for Mayor in 2005 levels a series of general complaints about local taxes and regulations. LaPietra owns numerous commercial properties in the greater Cobleskill area. It’s unclear if LaPietra is asking for relief from taxes or from his own bad investments.
However, the real focus of their talk and their efforts is the consolidation of the Town and Village of Cobleskill. But this is the right idea for the wrong reasons. Town officials (and village-based developers) are licking their lips at the thought of gaining access to the Village’s water and sewer systems so that they can build out the rest of State Route 7, Mineral Springs Rd. and State Route 145 to the south and east of the Village. Dissolving the Village or even making the Town and Village borders contiguous would likely mean the extension of water and sewer lines to areas where there is presently development pressure.
To LaPietra and Galasso, I say, calm down, there is no rush to turn Cobleskill into another Long Island or North Jersey. Do everybody in the county a favor and switch to decaf!
Historic Homes Along Main Street Soon to be History
In late 2006 the Cobleskill Village Planning Board began hearing proposals by Diamond Development to build a Rite Aid pharmacy and a 7500 square foot office building on property between Legion Drive and Campus Drive.
If built, the new pharmacy and office building would front on Main Street, where four residential homes now stand. These homes, all in the Victorian style, are presently not protected by the local historic district, although they contain many features and elements that make them worth protecting. Not only that but they provide sorely needed residential space in Downtown Cobleskill. Yet the owners of these properties have already agreed to their sale and development.
I think we have to seriously question the wisdom of allowing this project to be built. Not only will we lose 4 historic homes that are crucial to the Village’s heritage to another ugly suburban-style box, but the building of Rite Aid may result in the closure of the Eckerd’s Pharmacy down the street, as Rite Aid recently purchased Eckerd’s.
In essence we would be trading four architectural gems for an ugly box and potentially another large empty building to sit vacant. Not only is this bad for architectural and appearance reasons, this may be bad for fiscal reasons. Does Cobleskill need another big empty store? It’s been months since Advance Auto vacated it’s location on West Main street for it’s new store on Burgin St, and it still sits empty as it probably will for the foreseeable future.
I urge all concerned residents to get involved and question this project, and demand that Village trustees explain why this project has been approved and/or why they think it’s a good idea.
If built, the new pharmacy and office building would front on Main Street, where four residential homes now stand. These homes, all in the Victorian style, are presently not protected by the local historic district, although they contain many features and elements that make them worth protecting. Not only that but they provide sorely needed residential space in Downtown Cobleskill. Yet the owners of these properties have already agreed to their sale and development.
I think we have to seriously question the wisdom of allowing this project to be built. Not only will we lose 4 historic homes that are crucial to the Village’s heritage to another ugly suburban-style box, but the building of Rite Aid may result in the closure of the Eckerd’s Pharmacy down the street, as Rite Aid recently purchased Eckerd’s.
In essence we would be trading four architectural gems for an ugly box and potentially another large empty building to sit vacant. Not only is this bad for architectural and appearance reasons, this may be bad for fiscal reasons. Does Cobleskill need another big empty store? It’s been months since Advance Auto vacated it’s location on West Main street for it’s new store on Burgin St, and it still sits empty as it probably will for the foreseeable future.
I urge all concerned residents to get involved and question this project, and demand that Village trustees explain why this project has been approved and/or why they think it’s a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)