Eve of The IDA Vote

To readers: This piece goes deep into the weeds, and tonight I cannot explain all the references, which will be clear only to those who have followed this process from the beginning. Soon I will redo the site (I hope) and spell out every detail. Thank you for understanding.

January 19, 2021

Rose Woodworth
CEO, Ulster County IDA

Hi, Rose.

Would you kindly consider these questions, and pass them on to the board members for their consideration before the vote tomorrow morning to grant tax “relief” to the developers of the Kingstonian?

Kingston Board of Ed Trustee James Michael has noted that the Sept. 3 application by the Kingstonian developers for their gigantic PILOT is unsigned. As of this evening, it still is.

Could the following have anything to do with that?

Question No. 1: Census Tracts

The developers filled out information for Census Tract 9520, with poverty at 22.5% and an unemployment rate of 13.9%, higher than the statewide rate of 9.375%.

Those figures simply aren’t true. They may have been at one point, but horse and buggies were the means of getting around at one point also.

The latest figures measure poverty rates for a five-year average ending in 2019, and that rate was 19.9%, with a margin of error of 10% in either direction. With housing prices in Kingston rising faster than anywhere else in the nation, the likely rate is below the low end of the margin of error.

And what about unemployment? The latest figures from the BLS are from November 2020, and it puts the City of Kingston unemployment rate at 5.0%, compared with 8.4% in New York State as a whole.

We know that you know that what the developers filled in is untrue, because you changed the census tract to the correct number, which is 9524.

The 2020 Census will likely provide an even more upbeat picture of the Stockade District’s economic profile, but you want to pull an Amy Coney Barrett and ram this through before those figures are released, right?

At first, the developers said the garage would be paid for by the rents. Then, they changed their story and claimed the PILOT was for the garage. But arguing that the Kingstonian’s garage will prevent further economic deterioration is like arguing for draining reservoirs to prevent thirst, and then charging us for bottled water. (Note the application still says that but for the IDA’s assistance, “this precarious funding structure would collapse under the weight of the parking garage.”)

Then, the developers abandoned that argument, perhaps because the optics don’t look good if you’re giving a $27 million PILOT for a garage where you may hire one or two employees and where the number of spots available to the public may well be reduced. So they changed their tune to say they need a PILOT for the entire project, and that the real point is to bring in roughly 300 new tenants who’ll be supporting businesses Uptown. This might explain the resolution designating the project as commercial, which perhaps makes the PILOT more lawsuit-resistant. How inconvenient, the number of times the developers have stated publicly that if it weren’t for the garage there would already be apartments and CRE on Jordan’s property.

The truth is the developers will say anything to get a free $27 million.

My question to the board is, Why will you listen to anything in order to justify giving them $27 million?

Now that we know that the PILOT may or may not be for a garage; now that we know the area has no economic deterioration, and in fact quite the contrary, and that the “distressed” label hangs by the slender thread of its designation as an Empire development zone, let’s go on to other questions.

Question No. 2: Why no impartial economist?

Yes, you did look at three economic impact statements, but you could look at 100 such statements produced by firms whose only business is to promote economic development, and they will all be so bullish and biased as to render them meaningless. Why was there no study by an impartial economist who works for, say, a neutral university?

Question No. 3: Luxury Housing

Did you use those words to open the door to more such developments? Are you not going outside the law, in fact trying to write the law, by opening the door to future luxury housing projects? Do you think a judge will find that rational?

Question No. 4: SEQRA

Tell me, Rose, would you please ask the Board why it felt compelled to state that it had seen no information to indicate the Planning Board was incorrect in issuing a neg dec?

• Of course, you have seen no information, because Mayor Noble set the stage for SEQRA’s violation when he equated it with an impediment to housing.
• Of course, because Dennis Larios posted on Facebook that the developers would pull the project if they were forced to produce an environmental review, and that wouldn’t do now, would it.
• Of course, because Suzanne Cahill thwarted attempts by the Landmarks Commission to put it on the agenda, and then when they managed to vote for a pos dec despite Cahill and Dan Gartenstein’s maneuvers, Cahill refused to let it be read at a PB meeting.
• Of course, because Steve Noble fired two members on the Landmarks Commission and replaced them with yes men who dutifully recommended a neg dec. The only reason the public knew of that pos dec was because Leslie Melvin read it at the SEQRA hearing. And then, whoever was in charge of documenting public comment tried to get away with not uploading the second page calling for a pos dec.
• Of course you have seen no information, because the process was shut down in a pre-meditated violation of the law.

My question of why the board felt compelled to post this resolution is rhetorical. The people of Kingston already know the likely answer, which is that you published this resolution because you know full well the process was corrupt. Then the question that remains is, Does this CYA resolution imply that somewhere there is legal liability, and you wish to shield yourselves? Does the fact that you produced this resolution indicate that the issue is still within its legal sell-by date and subject to litigation? I don’t know the answers, but your lawyer does, which is why you have produced this very unusual resolution.

Question No. 5: Jobs

You turned down Kiefer Lane, which promised 18 jobs that the owner himself would have guaranteed with salaries starting at $75,000, for at least $1.23 million a year in local salaries, and the project was asking for only $874,000 in sales tax exemption. Compare that with the jobs this project offers, with total salaries unlikely to exceed $700,000, while the project asks for $27 million in the PILOT. Tom Auringer is hardly a model of civic responsibility, but he was willing to promise those jobs on his dime, whereas the developers told you on Sept. 9 they will guarantee only 14 jobs, of which 13 will pay a livable wage for one person, i.e. around $15 an hour. In other words, Auringer’s employees – but not Brad Jordan’s — could afford to live in the Kingstonian.

Tell me, does that comport with your obligation to look at the extent of permanent, private sector jobs?  And of the 40 jobs Camoin projects will be created, how will you react when those jobs migrate from down the hill to up the hill, such as a new Uptown Diner, or perhaps your very own Savona Pizzeria?

Question No. 6. Parking spots

I have seen board members scold applicants for starting work before the PILOT is approved. Why then, do you look the other way when Brad Jordan has been creating new parking spots in his mall? Why do you look the other way when those new spots are proof that the garage will reduce parking availability for the real Kingstonians, you know, the ones who already live here, not to mention raise the annual cost from $100 to $720.

Question No. 7: Housing policy

There’s no need to ask why you changed back your housing policy. We know why.  It’s not a good look, and you won’t be winning any prizes at a beauty contest for integrity.

Question No. 8: Our children

Even according to your wildly optimistic internal analysis, benefits flowing into private hands over 25 years will total about $74 million, whereas benefits for the public are a paltry $1.7 million.

According to my calculations, the PILOTs you’ve granted deprive the school district each year of almost $3.75 million every year, and if you approve the Kingstonian’s, that will rise to above $4.3 million. For each student, that’s a loss of $585 per person, rising to $679 if the Kingstonian PILOT is approved.

If you defund the School District this way, how do you expect to educate children so they can successfully compete for jobs and support themselves in today’s world? China and Russia educate their children to hack the Pentagon, but you prefer to spend tax dollars on luxury housing built by the long-time friend and landlord of an IDA board member? Kingston’s children have a graduation rate below the median for New York State, and given the quadrupling in PILOTs over the past five years, that number is sure to deteriorate further. Given your reckless negligence in the matter of our children’s future, my last question is,

How will you sleep tonight?

-0-