VIDEO: Kingston Planning Board Sets Public Hearing on April 10th for Kingstonian Project.

Last evening, the Kingston Planning Board announced that it would not be making a determination at this time for the proposed Kingstonian Project, accepted its role as lead agency of the review process and, set a public hearing for the project to be held on Wednesday, April 10th at 6:00pm.

The public can attend to share any of their concerns (that will be placed on record) for consideration of a determination by the planning board as lead agency for the Kingstonian Project.

Video made by Clark Richters of the Kingston News. Brought to you by


(click on image to view video)

2:00 – 4:55
Geddy Sveikauskas

“The project is sited on the steep slope connecting two quite different successful neighborhoods, Kingston Plaza and the Stockade district. Connecting these two signature parts of the city while retaining the character of each has been a community goal for at least the last 361 years. Given the site’s location and it’s important to examine the site very thoughtfully with extensive community input  …the present design (of the Kingstonian) presentation has been disappointing and unpersuasive. More of a marketing effort designed to mislead than a site plan to provide an honest sense of the environmental, economic and social impacts of this $40 million + project.”

5:00 – 11:44
Rebecca Martin

“The spirit of SEQR is to provide the opportunity for the public to identify and understand what the impacts of a project like this are – so that they can be properly mitigated through a collaborative and inclusive process. At this critical juncture, it would be helpful for the planning board as lead agency to communicate in advance the timeline of SEQR as it pertains to this project so that the public will know what and when they can contribute in a meaningful way.”

11:50 – 14:15
Peter Orr

“Although certain people supporting a positive SEQR declaration have said they only wish to have a process that maximizes the benefits to Kingston residents, the reality is this project will not happen if a positive declaration for SEQR occurs…”

14:17 – 16:29
Karen Clark-Adin

“One aspect of the Kingstonian is important to bear in mind. This is not an out of town billionaire developer. This is the Jordan family. They have been in the city of Kingston for over 80 years…I highly doubt that the upstanding members of the Jordan family would do a shabby job in the Kingstonian development…being a contributing citizen in a community is incredibly important and should be recognized and acknowledged. The Jordan family has that in spades. It’s very important for you to look at the residents of the city of Kingston who has been here for years supporting the city.”

16:33 – 18:19
James Shaughnessy

“I suggest that a positive SEQR declaration for the Kingstonian project be made. The proposal is the largest uptown development project in recent history. It is on the boundary of the Stockade – a historical district. The footprint and scale will be larger than any in the surrounding neighborhood…Millions of public dollars are earmarked…what other subsidies have been promised or asked for? This is not an unabashed benign project. Positive and negative impacts will be irrevocable once it’s built. Kingston deserves more than a ‘no problems’ declaration.”


18:26 – 25:29
Testimony on the West Chestnut Boarding House


(click on image to view video)

Kingston Planning Board declares Lead Agency and announces April 10th at 6:00pm in the Kingston Common Council , special meeting to open a public hearing for the Kingstonian Project.

Items #9 and #10 are tabled at this time.


For more information, please REVIEW the Kingstonian Project Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)

INVOLVED AGENCIES (those who have a discretionary decision to make for the Kingstonian Project) include:
1. City of Kingston Planning Board (site approval, special use permit approval, SEQRA approval, Lot Line Revision).
2. City of Kingston Common Council (Closing of a City Street, Sale of Land or Easement Conveyance, Deviated PILOT Review)
3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (SPEDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge)
4. City of Kingston Department of Public Works (Curb Cut Permit, Sewer Tap)
5. City of Kingston Zoning Board of Appeals (Area Variances for Floor Area Ratio and Height)
6. City of Kingston Historic Landmarks Commission (Notice of Preservation of Action)
7. Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (Deviated PILOT Agreement)
8. City of Kingston Water Department (Water tap)
9. City of Kingston Consolidated School District (Deviated PILOT Review)
10. Empire State Development Corporation (Approval of Grants: Restore New York, Consolidated Funding Application and Downtown Revitalization Initiative)

WHAT TO EXPECT. March 18th Kingston Planning Board Meeting and the Kingstonian Project



City of Kingston Planning Board Meeting

City of Kingston City Hall
Council Chambers (Top Floor)

420 Broadway
Kingston, NY

After general announcements and introductions, the first order of “regular business” includes public speaking for any planning related topic. Please plan to keep your comments to 2 minutes or less to accommodate more speakers.

In the meantime, if you are a Kingston resident or business owner, please sign the PETITION to request a Pos Dec and 90-day scoping period.


By Rebecca Martin

On Monday, March 18th beginning at 6:00pm, the Kingston Planning Board is anticipated to accept their role as Lead Agency for the proposed Kingstonian Project, a Type 1 action in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). As Lead Agency, they will make a Positive (Pos) or Negative (Neg) Declaration (Dec) determination for the project.

This is a critical moment in determining what the public review process will be for this project going forward. A transparent and inclusive SEQR process is the public’s rightful opportunity to address important concerns in a comprehensive manner. It also establishes a strong framework for communication among government agencies, project sponsors, and the general public.  This is NOT a campaign to stop a development. This is about ensuring that whatever gets built benefits the Kingston community to the greatest extent possible and that adverse impacts are avoided or mitigated.

Read more…

Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) Identifies Potential Significant Environmental Impacts of the Kingstonian Project.

By Rebecca Martin

At last evening’s meeting of the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC), the Commission as an involved agency in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) for the proposed Kingstonian Project put forward a motion to amend the agenda to include a discussion of the Kingstonian Project and its “potential significant environmental impacts” pertaining to historic preservation. With the clock ticking on a 20-day window for the Planning Board, as lead agency, to make a Positive or Negative Declaration in SEQR (the deadline being March 20th), the HLPC’s March meeting would have effectively been their last opportunity to discuss their concerns as a collective body. Apparently it was the desire of the entire Commission to have this discussion placed on its March agenda beforehand, but their request was not honored by the Commission’s administrative staff in the Planning Department.

VIDEO ONE:  4:00 – 20:00 found it deeply troubling that the City of Kingston’s Planning Director — who is both affiliated with the Planning Board as Lead Agency (meant to be an impartial body responsible for administering the environmental review process) and as staff of the executive branch that wrote the successful Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) application to secure the $10 million dollar grant to be used in part to fund the Kingstonian Project — spent nearly 15 minutes trying to dissuade the Commission from amending their agenda to include a discussion of the project and its potential impacts as it pertained to the historical, archeological and community character of the project.   The Commissioners had also requested that the item be placed on the agenda, but Suzanne Cahill, who now is responsible for the HLPC’s administrative duties, would not agree to do so.

The HLPC is one of 10 involved agencies that will have a discretionary decision to make for the Kingstonian Project. Although anyone can point out potential significant environmental impacts, it is required in the SEQR regulations for the Commission in their capacity to “state their concerns (of the)…potential (environmental) impacts of the overall action”.

In the SEQR Handbook, Page 66, “How is the lead agency chosen?” it says about all Involved Agencies:

“The agency undertaking a direct action or the first agency to receive a request for funding or approval should circulate a letter, Part I of the EAF, and a copy of the application, including a site map, to other potentially involved agencies. That agency may choose to indicate its desire to serve as lead or may point out that its jurisdiction may be minimal compared to other agencies. If it has indicated a desire to become lead agency, it may also note its intended determination of significance. The letter should request all other involved agencies to state their interests and concerns regarding selection of lead agency and potential impacts of the overall action. The letter should also note that an agency’s failure to respond within 30 days of the date of the letter will be interpreted as having no interest in the choice of lead agency and having no comments on the action at this time.”

“Dan,” said Kingston Planning Director Suzanne Cahill, as a seemingly last resort for support of her efforts to squash the item from the agenda. “I’m with you,” replied Dan Gartenstein, the City of Kingston’s Assistant Corporation Counsel, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. “I don’t think this item should be discussed if it was not on a publicly distributed agenda…based on open meetings law.” However, there is no reference to agendas in the NYS Open Meetings Law.

  1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given or electronically transmitted to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting.
  2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given or electronically transmitted, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto.
  3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice.
  4. If video conferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that video conferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.
  5. If a meeting will be streamed live over the internet, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public of the internet address of the website streaming such meeting.
  6. When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of this section shall also be conspicuously posted on the public body’s internet website. is all for good policy, but the City of Kingston’s elected and appointed officials have a responsibility to not mislead the public or its citizen volunteer commissioners at any time. In the case of the Kingstonian Project, the meeting filmed last night raises the question of whether it is even possible for any municipal body to be lead agency and remain impartial in SEQR given what it stands to gain in a public/private partnership. Maybe, but the perceived errors in the actions of city staff last night ought to be enough to inspire the Planning Board to follow the rules to the letter to insure a transparent process.


VIDEO TWO: 5:34 – 18:08


The HLPC discusses the potential significant environmental impacts as it pertains to historic preservation for the proposed Kingstonian Project.

  • The project site has the potential to yield information important in history or prehistory, such as evidence of the former presence of the stockade which crossed on or near to this site and/or other previously unknown archaeological resources. Such evidence was unearthed nearby on Clinton Avenue in 1970. This site has been identified as archaeologically sensitive by the NY State Historic Preservation Office.
  • This project involves the demolition of an existing architectural resource in the Stockade Historic District and may seek to replicate this resource, which has the potential to create a false historical record.
  • This project involves new construction in the Stockade Historic District. Potential impacts include those that are construction-related, such as falling objects, vibration (from blasting or pile-driving), dewatering, flooding, subsidence, or collapse. The project’s close proximity to two architectural resources—the Senate House and grounds and the John Tremper House at 1 North Front Street—may negatively impact them if adequate precautions are not taken.
  • New construction may impact the visual context of the district, including the architectural components of the district’s buildings in this area (e.g. height, scale, proportion, massing, fenestration, ground-floor configuration, style), streetscapes, skyline, landforms, and openness to the sky. The project may also impact the visual context of the Senate House, a significant state landmark.
  • This project proposes changes to a significant historic landscape feature of this historic district: the bluff, an important element to interpreting the district’s history. The National Register nomination for the Stockade Historic District recognizes the following:

“To this day, the boundary lines of this stockade are formed by Green Street, Main Street, Clinton Avenue, and North Front Street and are still intact. Also, amazingly enough, almost the entire bluff promontory forming the perimeter of this area, elevated above the lowland, is still comparatively intact. Therefore, of the three first settlements in New York State—Albany (Fort Orange, New York (New Amsterdam), and Kingston—it is only Kingston that the authentic elements of an original fortification remain. Documents indicate that this log palisade was in existence until the early eighteenth century, having been kept in repair as protection against later Indian raids. While this area at present is surrounded by commercial development, aerial photography has recently indicated the existence of outlines suggesting that the angle itself may as yet be relatively undisturbed. This area forms a sharp bluff and this may account for its preservation.”


Positive Declaration Required for the Kingstonian Project. submitted a letter to the Kingston Planning Board as Lead Agency (and most Involved and Interested Agencies) in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) with support from 194 tax paying residents and business owners in the City of Kingston requesting a Positive Declaration in SEQR.

VIEW the petition
We are still collecting signature to present during public comment of the Kingston Planning Board meeting on 3/18 so keep signing and sharing. 

The Kingstonian is a project planned for Uptown Kingston’s historic district. It “involves the redevelopment of the City of Kingston parking garages property, the Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. warehouse property and the Uptown Grill property (also owned by Herzog’s Supply Co., Inc). The proposed project includes the following elements:  420 car parking garage, 120 apartment units, 32 room hotel, 8950 square feet of retail space, a pedestrian plaza area, and an elevated pedestrian link to connect to Kingston Plaza.”

The Kingstonian Proposal in Uptown, Kingston

DRI Grant Application (Public/Private project with $3.8m in grant funds and $48m in private funds).

In our letter, we state that  “Upon reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) as a record before the Planning Board, we have identified a number of significant potential impacts. Therefore, as required by New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) 617.7(a), the Board should issue a Positive Declaration and the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for this project.”

“We also request a public comment period of 90 days on the Draft Scope for the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and to hold a public scoping meeting to allow for greater public participation. By doing so, this will ensure that no potentially significant adverse impacts are left out of the DEIS and all environmental concerns are adequately addressed as required by SEQRA.”

The letter outlines potential significant environmental impacts taken from the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)submitted by the both applicants Kingstonian Development LLC and JM Development Group, LLC.

“We expect that the Planning Board will recognize these impacts and issue a Positive Declaration, and outline plans for a public scoping process at its next meeting on March 18th. As this project has already elicited strong reactions from the community, a transparent and inclusive SEQR process is an opportunity to address important concerns in a comprehensive manner. Such thoroughness will ensure that this project benefits the Kingston community to the greatest extent possible.”

The Kingston Planning Board meets next on March 18th at 6:00pm where it is expected that the Planning Board as Lead Agency will issue a positive declaration and outline its scoping plans.  They may also choose to issue a negative declaration, however – the burden will then be on them to prove that there are no impacts rather than the citizens to prove that there are.

Residents are encouraged to attend the upcoming meeting to support a Positive Declaration for the Kingstonian Project during public comment.

READ:  What to Expect:  March 18th Kingston Planning Board Meeting and the Kingstonian project. 


Read more…

PETITION: Kingstonian Project and SEQR – Positive Declaration and Scoping



SIGN the Petition
“We Support a Pos DEC in SEQR for the Kingstonian Project”

Kingston Residents can request a Positive Declaration in SEQR that would allow more input and studies on the proposed Kingstonian Project.


With the Lead Agency for the Kingstonian Project underway (READ: Kingstonian Project and SEQR: Lead Agency), we anticipate the Kingston Planning Board will secure that role for the Kingstonian Project SEQR process.  With a 30-day window for confirmation that began on January 29th, we expect confirmation by February 28th.

Once Lead Agency is determined, the next significant milestone in SEQR will be a 20-day window for Lead Agency to make a “Positive” or “Negative” declaration for the Kingstonian Project. 

With a project this large and significant, we are advocating for a “Positive Declaration” (Pos Dec) in SEQR and are currently putting together a coalition of partners to make that same request.  To assure that the public is involved in this request, we have also created a petition that we will submit with our coalition letter in a couple of weeks.

Please join us by signing our PETITION by Friday, March 1st.


Why is this significant? 

A Positive Declaration is “a determination by the lead agency that an action may result in at least one potential significant environmental impact and so will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the Lead Agency decisions may be made regarding the action. The positive declaration starts the EIS process.”  

With the recent changes in SEQR Regulations, a “pos dec” immediately triggers a public scoping process which would be a great opportunity for our community to work on this together.


The Scoping Process in SEQR.

As of January 1, 2019, when there is a “Pos Dec” determination, scoping is automatically triggered. This is in the public’s best interest, as prior Jan 1 this year, an additional request  would have had to have been made.

A “draft scope” would be created and submitted to the Lead Agency by the applicant at some point in time that would then be released to the public (as my mentor, Kate Hudson, used to say, “Think of a draft scope document as a ‘table of contents’ for the project”).

Once it is received by the Lead Agency, approved and released – there is a 30-day window that occurs for the public to review the document and to make additional comments for study.  In our petition and coalition letter, we are requesting 90-days as well as a public meeting.  

The comments/questions of concern are ultimately sent to the Lead Agency to vet – and once approved,  a ‘final scoping’ document is created and sent to the applicant who is then required to answer each questions in what will become a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).  More on that later on. We need to achieve a pos dec first.


The Input of Citizens and Advocates is Critical for a Good SEQR Process and Outcome. 

There is no one better to do this work than the citizens who will be directly impacted (both negatively and/or positively) to a project like this with the support of advocates who have dedicated their life’s work on the range of issues that may arise.   We hope you’ll join us as we take our first step in preparing to ask the Lead Agency to issue a “Pos Dec” on the proposed Kingstonian Project.  If you live in the City of Kingston, please sign our petition to be delivered by or about 3/1/19.


REVIEW: The SEQR Cookbook

Kingstonian Project and SEQR: Determining Lead Agency

By Rebecca Martin

With the recent positive changes to the Lincoln Park Grid Support Center project, we can turn our attention to the Kingstonian Project and its SEQR process (State Environmental Quality Review) which is just getting underway. is in the midst of organizing a new coalition of partners for this effort.  Our goal is to follow SEQR step by step and support the public and our elected and appointed officials to assure a clear, efficient and transparent process.

A Brief Description of the Kingstonian Project.

In the applicant’s (Kingstonian Development LLC and JM Development Group LLC) Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), it states that the Kingstonian Project “involves the redevelopment of the City of Kingston parking garages property, the Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. warehouse property and the Uptown Grill property (also owned by Herzog’s Supply Co., Inc). The proposed project includes the following elements:  420 car parking garage, 120 apartment units, 32 room hotel, 8950 square feet of retail space, a pedestrian plaza area, and an elevated pedestrian link to connect to Kingston Plaza.”

The parcels of land include “City Parking Garage (1.43 acres), Herzog’s Warehouse (0.49 acres), and Uptown Grill (0.49 acres) along with portions of Fair Street Extension and a small pocket park owned by the City of Kingston.  The project further includes consolidation of several tax parcels (subdivision-lot line deletions)”

The City of Kingston Planning Board as Lead Agency.

On January 22nd, the City of Kingston’s Planning Board passed a resolution confirming the Kingstonian Project being a Type 1 Action in SEQR with a Coordinated Review and asking to be Lead Agency for the project.  The resolution was acknowledged by the Clerk’s office on 1/24 that starts the 30-day clock for all Involved Agencies to approve the request (more on that below).

Read more…

Coalition Partners Respond to Change in GlidePath Proposal from Fossil to Renewable.

READ: Town of Ulster’s Press Release “GlidePath to Submit Battery-Only Proposal for Lincoln Park Grid Support Storage Center in Ulster.”

READ: GlidePath’s Letter to the Town of Ulster with their new plans.

A controversial proposed power plant in the Town of Ulster will be re-sited and re-born as a renewable energy project, thanks to a partnership among many community groups and local governments.  Led by they include, Scenic Hudson, Citizens For Local Power, CAPP-NY, Catskill Mountainkeeper, Food and Water Watch, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Kingston Land Trust, Riverkeeper, Sierra Club of the Mid-Hudson Valley, Sustainable Hudson Valley and the Woodstock Land Conservancy.  The coalition helped to guide the public through each step of the State Environmental Review Process (SEQR) throughout Glidepath’s Lincoln Park gas-fired power plant proposed in the Town of Ulster. Today, the partners respond to and celebrate the good news announced by the Town of Ulster: 


“I couldn’t be more grateful to our group of dedicated coalition partners for their collaborative efforts to transform a fossil fuel project into a renewable one. They worked tirelessly to provide support to not only the public but also our elected and appointed officials for the past 16 months. The innovative and forward thinking approach advocated by our elected officials – and especially our County Executive Mike Hein – will benefit the Town of Ulster and County for years to come and, more broadly, communities across New York State who can implement similar localized collaborative efforts.”

Rebecca Martin
Director and Lead Organizer


“The announcement by GlidePath to withdraw its original plan and replace it with a battery storage facility is welcome news to our town’s citizens, this fracked-gas and diesel power plant would have doubled the Town of Ulster’s carbon footprint if the plant became operational, but their new proposal for a storage-only facility is a way to keep our local environment clean and preserve generated power which would otherwise be lost to the grid. GlidePath has considerable experience with battery-storage plants, but they had no experience with burning gas and diesel for electricity.  This project is more in line with the values of Ulster County’s commitment to renewable initiatives. participated in the SEQR process for over a year and suggested a battery-storage facility in another part of town as a viable alternative to the fossil-fuel plant. Understanding all the details of this battery storage facility, we fully support GlidePath’s revised project proposal.”

Laura Hartmann and Regis Obijiski


“Today’s announcement that Glidepath will be withdrawing its plans for a gas-fired power plant and instead focusing on clean, renewable power generation is great news for Ulster and the entire Hudson Valley. Moving away from polluting fossil fuel plants that contribute to climate change and investing in renewable energy is a win-win proposition. This victory is a testament to the power of citizen engagement–informed and determined community members led the charge in fighting this project, and won. We look forward to reviewing the details of GlidePath’s new proposal.”

Hayley Carlock
Director of Environmental Advocacy
Scenic Hudson


“We welcome GlidePath’s decision to withdraw its proposal for a gas-and diesel-fired ‘grid support system’ in the town of Ulster and to propose, in its place, an all-renewables project. The move is in keeping with GlidePath’s history, since in the past the company has built only projects that combine battery storage with renewables – a potentially game-changing development that makes it possible to use the stored electricity to even out the variation in renewable electricity generation and to decrease the need for expensive build-outs of the electrical grid. The decision is a good one for the Mid-Hudson Valley, thanks to the vigilance and vision of local citizen groups, environmentalists, and elected officials, and to the wisdom of the company in withdrawing a bad proposal and returning to its roots.”

Susan H. Gillespie
President of the Board
Citizens for Local Power


“This new proposal shows the power of engaged citizens to change the shape of a conversation, an environmental review, a proposed project, and indeed, our future. Every community should be seeking desirable projects from companies capable of providing renewable energy generation and storage, and every community should mount opposition to fossil fuel projects that pose unacceptable risks to our air and water. We look forward to reviewing this new proposal from GlidePath, which starts out on a much better foot and offers potential benefits to our local towns and region, while potentially strengthening our entire energy system.”

Dr. Kathleen Nolan
Senior Research Director
Catskill Mountainkeeper


“CAPPNY sees this as a great day for people who are committed to moving away from dependence on fossil fuel.  The change in GlidePath’s plans shows the power of ordinary people and what can be accomplished by the determination and collective action of  people standing up and working for a safe and just community. This is an important step toward complete reliance on renewable energy.”

Sue Rosenberg and William Barr


“This is a critical victory not just for the guardians of air and water, health and safety in the Town of Ulster and Hudson Valley, but for climate defenders and water protectors across our state and region. This exercise of people power is a signal pointing to the Green New Deal to come. No new fossil fuel infrastructure, period!”

Iris Marie Bloom
Executive Director
Protecting Our Waters


“Thanks to the work of dedicated community members, community groups, and environmental organizations GlidePath understands that Ulster County, and New York State need a renewable energy future now. Riverkeeper is encouraged that Glide Path is withdrawing its fossil fuel project, in favor of a renewable energy and battery storage proposal. We look forward to seeing the details and ensuring that any new project does not exacerbate climate change, or threaten public health or the Hudson River.”

Jessica Roff
Director, Advocacy and Engagement


“Democracy works, and technology is changing so fast that it makes sense for all parties to be taking a fresh look at the kind of project that is cost-effective today.  We applaud the progress, and the validation that renewable power is a cost-effective investment today.”

Melissa Everett, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Sustainable Hudson Valley


“Members of impacted communities came out to participate in deciding the future of our energy infrastructure, and GlidePath listened. Clearwater is grateful to GlidePath for rethinking their project and shifting away from our long-standing dependence on fossil fuel to using renewable energy with storage and efficiency.  Given the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report calling for ‘rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society’ to avoid disastrous levels of global warming — we must achieve 100% renewable energy generation by 2030.’ This is a huge step in the right direction.”

Greg Williams
Executive Director
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.


“The Kingston Land Trust, as one of the coalition partners, has been a proponent of a more environmentally responsible operation as well as more conscientious sitting. We are so pleased to see this project moving in that direction, thanks to the work of dedicated citizens as well as a responsive company. We believe in the power of civic engagement to protect land and communities and we will continue to be active in this process as long as there is a need.”

Julia Farr
Executive Director
The Kingston Land Trust


“The Woodstock Land Conservancy commends GlidePath for listening to community concerns and stating their intention to withdraw their “Lincoln Park Grid Support Facility” application, in favor of a first in NYS-facility providing direct battery back-up, storage and grid support. We hope that the new proposal is a demonstration of Ulster County and New York State’s environmental and renewable energy and climate change leadership.  We owe great thanks to our coalition partners for their committed advocacy, and to County Executive Mike Hein for pursuing a thorough examination of the impacts of GlidePath’s initial proposal and pushing for a non-fossil fuel based alternative that does not contribute more greenhouse gas emissions, nor negatively impact the neighborhoods which surround it. And we additionally express our gratitude for the responsiveness of Supervisor Quigley and the Town of Ulster, for their work in facilitating this.”

Maxanne Resnick
Executive Director
Woodstock Land Conservancy


“The community has struck a blow against climate change by blocking GlidePath’s proposed fracked gas power plant.  New York needs to move off fossil fuels and rapidly shift to 100 percent renewable energy, and the company’s decision points us in the right direction. Governor Cuomo should take heed of this smart move and use his own authority to stop all new fossil fuel projects.”

Eric Weltman
Senior Organizer
Food & Water Watch


Uptown Pike Plan: Should it Stay or Should it Go Now?

An image from a 2010 petition where 90% of the building owners on Wall and North Front Streets in Uptown, Kingston were in favor of removing the Pike Plan.

By Rebecca Martin

For those who were not around during the most recent renovation of the Pike Plan (2008 – 2011 -ish), I recall the following article written by Steve Hopkins who at the time was the current (or outgoing) editor of the Kingston Times.   He did a great job capturing the essence of the feeling then.

With the Pike Plan being discussed by the council and, a recent Kingston Times poll, it seems like a good time to share some of the information we have from back then to provide some historical context.


“As deputy director of planning for the county at that time,” says Jennifer Schwartz Berky, a Kingston city resident, “the building owners came to me to get advice about the canopies before Norman Mintz came to consult for RUPCO. They were concerned about the costs (they pay a special assessment), the leaks caused by the junctions with their buildings, and the lack of visibility for their businesses because of the canopy. I contacted the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and their experts told me — in no uncertain terms — that they consider these 60s and 70s canopies across the country to be, by and large, detrimental to the functioning of commercial districts. What began as a response to competition from malls ended up as blight, and they expressed surprise that we hadn’t taken ours down yet, citing numerous examples of business districts that revitalized in part BECAUSE they took theirs down. Norman Mintz understood this, and we still see one another occasionally as professional planning and urban design conferences. He was disappointed that his advice wasn’t taken. In the late 19th century, the design of the 20-and 25-foot span of storefront, with large plate glass windows, often with recessed entrances to add more surface area, was a costly innovation that brought light into the spaces and allowed for the maximum merchandising display. The canopies obscure this feature of the Victorian commercial districts in terms of a very significant aspect of their design. Look around at any vibrant commercial district: their storefronts and facades are critical to their character and identity. They are easier to remember, brand themselves, and can be found by visitors. It is a shame that we have to rehash this debate.”

Given what it would cost to fix the rehabbed Pike Plan – only a decade old and in many places already falling apart- and the costs of removing the canopies for the buildings and streetscapes to be restored to their original glory – I personally hope that the city will find its way to the latter.

Thanks to Steve Hopkins for allowing us to repost his article here.


Kingston biz owners conspire to derail $1.8 million canopy restoration

By Steve Hopkins
(This article is a repost that was originally in the Hudson Valley Chronic, Vol. 2, No.3, April-May 2009)

Read more…

VIDEO: “Kingstonian” Application Appears Before Kingston Planning Board.

By Rebecca Martin

At the recent City of Kingston’s Planning Board meeting, the proposed Kingstonian project gave its formal presentation and presented its application for the first time, starting what will be a very long process.

All of the documents and the presentation will be made available at the planning office.  Citizens are encouraged to schedule a time to review the materials by calling: (845) 334-3955. We’re asking that they be placed online, too, under the Planning Departments “Planning Project” page.  

Following the presentation, the board voted unanimously on the following;

  • The Kingstonian Project is a Type 1 Action in SEQR and a coordinated review must be taken. A full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) will be required to determine any environmental impacts.
  • The City of Kingston Planning Board requests that it be Lead Agency of the project.  Their request will be circulated to all Involved agencies who will have 30 days to respond to either approve or deny their request.   (List of Involved agencies forthcoming).
  • In 30 days, the the Planning Board will ‘entertain’ the project at a regular board meeting and schedule a public hearing (more on this in the coming weeks). 

Please review video from last night’s planning board meeting. Brought to you by and filmed by The Kingston News.


Leo Schupp
Special Permit 106 W. Chestnut Street
4:20 – 6:15

Bernie Redman
Special Permit 106 W. Chestnut Street
6:26 – 6:52

Alex Panagiotopoulos
Kingstonian Application
6:54 – 8:14

Abigail Frank
Special Permit 106 W. Chestnut Street
8:20 – 10:25

David Gordan
Special Permit 106 W. Chestnut Street
10:36 – 16:30

Rashida Tyler
Kingstonian Application
16:52 – 18:15

Callie Jayne
Kingstonian Application
18:22 – 19:30

Linda Seekamp
Special Permit 106 W. Chestnut Street
19:36 – 20:44

Barbara Stedge
Special Permit 106 W. Chestnut Street
19:45 – 21:05

Owen Harvey
ICC Application
21:06 – 22:10

Juanita Velazquez-Amador
Kingstonian Application
22:20 – 24:26

Betsy Krat
Kingstonian Application
24:30 – 25:01

Tanya Garment
Comp Plan Zoning Task Force and Kingstonian application
25:08 – 28:55

Public Hearing (Tabled)

Item #3: #270 Fair Street SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL for a 12 room hotel with 978 business rental space. SBL# 48.331-4-20. SEQR Determination. Zone O-2, Stockade Overlay, HAC, MUOD. Ward 2. Hudson Valley Kingston Development/applicant; Charles Blaichman/owner.

Old Business – Kingstonian Project 

Item #4: #9-17 & 21 North Front Street and 51 Schwenk Drive and a portion of Fair Street Extension LOT LINE DELETION of the Lands of Herzog’s Supply Company and the City of Kingston. SBL 48.80-1-25, 26 & 24.120. SEQR Determination. Zone C-2, Mixed Use Overlay District, Stockade Historic District. Kingstonian Development, LLC/ applicant; Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. & City of Kingston/owner.

Item #5: #9-17 & 21 North Front Street and 51 Schwenk Drive and a portion of Fair Street Extension SITE PLAN/SPECIAL PERMIT to construct a Mixed Use building with a 420 car garage, 129 apartments, 32 hotel rooms, and 8000sf of retail space. SBL 48.80-1-25, 26 & 24.120. SEQR Determination. Zone C-2, Mixed Use Overlay District, Stockade Historic District. Kingstonian Development, LLC/ applicant; Herzog’s Supply Co. Inc. & City of Kingston/owner.

Item #6: #106 West Chestnut Street SPECIAL PERMIT to operate a Boarding House. SBL 56.34-11-22. SEQR Determination. Zone R-1. Ward 9. Chestnut Hill NY Inc.; applicant/owner.


Town of Lloyd Moratorium on Fossil Fuel Power Plants Passes Unanimously.

The Town of Lloyd passed a proposed moratorium on fossil fuel power plants (Local Law A) unanimously last evening, allowing the community the time to take the next critical step to address its zoning law.

“This local law…enact (s) a moratorium to temporarily suspend the review and approval of applications for fossil fuel power plants. We believe that given the projected increase in relatively small fast-ramping “peaker” gas power plants, which are not subject to Article 10 State review, the Town is wise to be proactive in amending its zoning to regulate these facilities. Without such regulation air quality, treasured views, adjacent properties and residents’ quality of life could be at risk. Importantly, it’s critical to ensure that protective zoning is in place before an application is submitted for a peaker plant.” said Scenic Hudson’s Director of Land Use Advocacy Jeffrey Anzevino (and Town of Lloyd resident) in a statement he read last night. “For a variety of reasons, peaker plants are coming to the Hudson Valley and Lloyd is not alone. We believe that the Town Board’s action on this issue will serve as a model that will encourage other communities to adopt protective zoning before applications are submitted.”

The recommendation of a moratorium for zoning consideration on 25mw (or smaller) fossil fuel plants was made by Scenic Hudson, Citizens for Local Power and last summer, where local communities – and not the state – have authority.  The concept is appropriate for all communities in the six counties residing in the “G” Zone (see materials below for more information), and was inspired by Lincoln Park Grid Support Center, a 20mw gas-fired peak energy power plant being proposed in the Town of Ulster.

The Town of Lloyd’s ECC and Town Board were the first to pursue the recommendation.

“Lloyd is vulnerable.” says the letter to the Town Board of Lloyd from their ECC. “According to the Southern Ulster times article, zoning codes in the county, including Lloyd, do not address utility needs. Lloyd Planning Board Chairperson Peter Brooks indicated in the article that the lack of clear zoning guiding the review process of a proposed peaker plant would leave the town in a vulnerable position. He was quoted as saying that if such a proposal were to come before the Planning board, “we’re kind of bare-naked.”  Because of their small size, peaker plants like the 20-megawatt facility proposed in the Town of Ulster are not subject to New York State guidance regarding the siting, construction, and operation of major electric generating facilities.2 Municipalities have the primary jurisdiction for electric generating facilities under 25 megawatts. But like Lloyd, most communities are unequipped to provide an informed review of these facilities….The ECC strongly recommends that the Town Board enact a temporary moratorium on fossil fuel-powered peaker plants to protect our vulnerable community. During the proposed moratorium, we advise the Town Board to write regulations into the Town Code that allow the Town to decide if and how such plants should be sited, where they should go, and under what conditions.”

New York’s highest court has held that a municipality may exclude an industrial use if doing so is a reasonable exercise of its police powers to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents and to promote the interests of the community as a whole.

“The ECC does not believe that fossil- fueled power plants are consistent with Lloyd’s community character. Therefore, we recommend that the Town Code be amended to prohibit them.”

The Town of Lloyd is now a model community for all of us potentially impacted by these types of projects.  We hope to see more communities in the ‘G’ Zone follow suit.



VIEW  the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center Project Fact Sheet

WATCH our recent Webinar “Living in the “G” Zone: Peak Energy Plants and Zoning”

LEARN  how to update your zoning language to prepare for a possible fossil fuel power plant proposal in your community.

Town of Lloyd Schedules Public Hearing For Moratorium “On approvals for the construction, installation or use of, Fossil Fuel Power Plants within the Town.”

By Rebecca Martin

The Town of Lloyd Town Board (in Ulster County and “G” Zone) has scheduled a public hearing (Wednesday at 7pm) on a moratorium “on approvals for the construction, installation or use of, Fossil Fuel Power Plants within the Town.”

Here is the proposed local law enacting the moratorium VIEW

The moratorium in the Town of Lloyd, if adopted, would be the first community in the ‘G’ Zone to take such an action – and is a direct result of our webinar and hard efforts and teamwork of our wonderful coalition of partners. Thank you Town of Lloyd!  Let their example provide a model for all other potentially impacted communities to follow suit.

The proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center Project Fact Sheet

Our recent Webinar “Living in the “G” Zone: Peak Energy Plants and Zoning”

How to update your zoning language to prepare for a possible fossil fuel power plant proposal in your community.

on this:

The proposed Glidepath Lincoln Park gas-fired power plant has revealed that the Mid-Hudson region is a target for new peaker plants. A complex of state regulations makes our region particularly attractive for power plant developers. Although we don’t need additional peak capacity here, the New Capacity Zone created by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2014 means that plants built in our region can be paid for providing backup capacity as if they were located downstate where the capacity is needed. At the same time, the hurdles to getting the necessary state air permits are lower here than they would be in downstate areas that are in “nonattainment” of federal air standards. Combine that with much lower land prices here than downstate, and our region has a bullseye on it. The Lincoln Park plant, if built, could be just the first of many across the region to take advantage of this perverse combination of regulations. We know that Glidepath has already contacted other communities, so it is urgent that communities prepare from a proposal like this.

Power plants smaller than 25 MW in size are regulated by local land use law, rather than at the state level, but most communities do not have specific zoning in place for power plants. They often have language permitting “utility” structures, which Glidepath and other power plant companies may try to use to suggest that their plants are permitted uses, although this usage is usually intended to apply to distribution lines and other essential public infrastructure, not privately-owned power plants.

Don’t let your community get caught unprepared for a peaker plant proposal! Communities can get out in front by examining and updating their zoning to be sure it specifies where and how power plants may be located. Communities may also choose to place a moratorium on fossil-fuel burning power plants while they develop zoning that specifically addresses power plants.”

We recommend the following steps:

1. Review your existing code:  Does it address power plants at all? Is it vague? Could a power plant potentially fit in to a “catch-all” permitted use?

2. Consider issuing a temporary moratorium while you develop zoning specific to power plants.  Moratoria should always: have a valid public purpose, have a reasonable time frame, specify the time when the moratorium will expire, and strictly adhere to the procedure for adoption laid down by the enabling acts.

3. Decide if fossil fuel power plants should be allowed at all in your town. You may decide to exclude power plants entirely from your municipality. They have very different impacts than other kinds of facilities. Localities can ban industrial uses as long as prohibiting a use is a reasonable exercise of its police powers to prevent damage to the rights of others and to promote the interests of the community as a whole.

4. Develop new zoning code provisions with specific definitions and clear conditions for fossil fuel power plants, if you decide to permit them.


Recommendations for zoning include:

➢  A robust “purpose and intent” section with description of potential impacts of power plants on health, safety and welfare of residents of town.

➢  A clear definition of “fossil fuel electric generating facility”: A facility whose primary purpose is for the generation of electric power (in excess of [one megawatt]) powered by fossil fuel for offsite use.➢  A clear statement of applicability to siting and construction of fossil fuel electric generating facilities within the municipality

➢  Acknowledge primacy of state law for power plants 25MW or greater

IF your municipality decides to allow fossil fuel electric generating facilities:

➢  Limit to only heavy industrial zones

➢  Require a special use permit and site plan approval, with appropriate conditions.

➢  Set criteria to address and mitigate potential impacts (i.e., screening requirements, stack height limits).

➢  Establish lot size and coverage limits, appropriate setbacks and building height limitations.

➢  Require all applicable additional permits and approvals.

➢  Require an enforceable plan and financial surety for decommissioning.


Sample Code Language for Issuance of Special Use Permit

The Town may not grant a special use permit for the construction or operation of a fossil fuel power generating facility, unless it shall first find and determine:

  • The nature of the probable environmental impact, including a specification of the predictable adverse effect on the environment, public health and safety, aesthetics, scenic, historic and recreational value, forest and parks, air and water quality, fish and other marine wildlife.
  • That the facility:
    • Represents the minimum adverse environmental impact;
    • Is compatible with the public health and safety;
    • Will not discharge any effluent that will be in contravention of the standards adopted by the Department of Environmental Conservation;
    • That the proposed facility is in compliance with criteria and requirements of this [section/chapter];
    • That a harmonious relationship exists between the use of such facility and uses located in adjacent districts as reflected in the comprehensive plan; and
    • That the proposed facility conforms to and is in compliance with, all zoning laws,ordinances, rules and regulations of the Town.


(Logo Design: Susanna Ronner)

For well over a decade, the activist, organizer and singer-songwriter Rebecca Martin has been an essential, galvanizing force of positive civic change. In her adopted hometown of Kingston, N.Y., and throughout neighboring cities and towns, she’s helmed inspired new programming with a mission of conservation and outreach.  But most important, Martin has sought to empower local citizens to participate in their governments and communities., a new 501c3 nonprofit serving Ulster County that will launch in May of 2019 –  in time for Martin’s 50th Birthday – is Martin’s most significant step yet in her pursuit to help folks connect to each other and to their representatives. With a talented, diverse staff of professionals and volunteers as well as an innovative web tool and app, will provide invaluable resources for a vast range of civic engagement, from public-works projects to protecting vital natural resources—especially the Hudson River.

Martin’s path to advocacy has been an unlikely one. She moved to Kingston with her husband, Larry Grenadier, in 2002, choosing it primarily on its strengths as a commuter hub. After years in New York City they were in search of space and quietude, and Kingston delivered both; it was also close enough to the city and the major airports that they could sustain their thriving music careers. Among the finest bass players of his generation, Grenadier has been a trusted collaborator to some of the most important figures in jazz history; to give but one example, he’s anchored pianist Brad Mehldau’s generation-defining trio for a quarter-century.

Photo credit: The Wall Street Journal

Martin not only witnessed Grenadier’s historic peer group come of age in jazz; she was in many ways immersed in it herself. In 1995, after having been employed as a producer for MTV Networks and deciding to focus on her performing career, she made her major-label debut in the duo Once Blue, alongside the Grammy-winning singer-songwriter Jesse Harris. With its cultivated union of folk and pop, and its sharp use of jazz-rooted harmony and personnel, Once Blue outlined a hybrid creative space that Martin would explore in the ensuing decades. Through her artistically liberating work with the great jazz drummer Paul Motian, a wide range of solo albums, and collaborations like the jazz-folk vocal group Tillery, she’s consistently garnered fans and impressed critics, even as they’ve struggled to define her music. “If comparisons must be made,” wrote the magazine JazzTimes, “let’s give Martin proper due and credit her as the logical successor to Joni Mitchell.”

A couple of years after settling into Kingston, Martin and Grenadier became pregnant with their son, Charlie, and suddenly found themselves looking at their city with a new kind of scrutiny. In 2006, Martin noted a flagrant red flag in the form of weapon-caliber knives being sold in a Citgo station, located just down the street from her home and bookended by a middle school and a high school. Martin confronted the station owner about his wares, and he argued that they were souvenirs that could only be purchased by legal adults.

Martin felt she couldn’t ignore what was an obvious threat to her neighborhood, but what to do? She had done plenty of organizing over the years, but it was usually with the mission of strengthening the music community and providing performance opportunities for rising artists. A new friend (Jennifer Schwartz Berky, who would become one of Martin’s key collaborators) who worked as a county planner introduced Martin to the concept of an alderman, an important governmental role that includes both representing local constituents and making decisions about larger city policy. But when she reached out to her representative—repeatedly—she received no response.

“I don’t know what possessed me, but I decided that I was going to raise awareness about this issue. I was certain that at least half of the knives in the case were illegal weapons,” Martin recalls. She papered the streets and brought the knives to the attention of her neighbors, many of whom were as dismayed as she was. The local media, not used to this style of citizens’ engagement at that time, seized on the story. Martin decided to host a public forum on the issue, and nearly 100 citizens turned up, including Kingston’s mayor and chief of police. The discussion turned into a rallying cry—the knives needed to go—and following a police raid, they were in fact discovered to be illegal and confiscated. The shop owner, not realizing he purchased illegal goods from a Texas-based company, was able to get his money back, and Martin had experienced the revelation of working for the public good. “It was thrilling,” she remembers. “It was an important experience, for someone becoming newly civically involved, to find that with just a little bit of elbow grease and work, an average citizen can make profound changes in their community.”

Martin, by then a young mother, began hosting monthly citizens’ meetings to address the various concerns within her ward and hometown. Over the next two years, the meetings featured insightful dialogue on a wide range of issues, from zoning to garbage collection to sex offenders and comprehensive planning. Subject experts would be invited to provide information, and high-ranking city officials would hear out their constituents. “We made some big things happen,” Martin says, “and it was a little group—just one ward.” The Ward 9 Community Group evolved into an in-person and online platform where concerns were addressed in a public setting that held representatives accountable to the people. The website and, later, its companion blog, became an educational resource for Kingston folks to learn about how their government works, and about how they could use it to improve their wards and city.

The progress that has transpired over the past decade has been nothing short of profound. was able to secure respect and comfort for Chiz’s Heart Street, a group home for the mentally ill that was unjustly seen as a blight by its neighbors. A buying club became a thriving food co-op. A proposed gun store and shooting range was prevented from setting up shop in the heart of midtown, across the street from a high school.

For two years Martin homed in on fresh opportunities as the Executive Director of the Kingston Land Trust, a new not-for-profit initiated by citizens who were part of the city’s Ward 9 Community Group. (One of those citizens is Kingston’s current mayor, Steve Noble.) Martin’s leadership resulted in inspired new programming for the organization. Urban farms and youth-farming programs were established. A Rail Trail Committee created unprecedented hiking and biking opportunities. An African-American slave and freed-slave cemetery in Kingston was protected. With its dedication to community programming that promotes conservation, the urban Land Trust became an innovative model touted by the Land Trust Alliance.

Around the time that Martin became deeply involved with the Kingston Land Trust, she stepped away from; to helm both organizations at once, she says, would’ve been a conflict of interest and her limited time. Martin left KingstonCitizens.orgs’ website and social-media pages up—there was no sense in doing away with four years’ worth of invaluable resources in civics and legislation—but her focus had shifted. Soon enough, however, would become engaged in the fight of its life.

In August of 2014, Martin spotted a small news item that detailed how a bottled-water supplier was exploring a possible move into Kingston’s sister town of Ulster. It was a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it notice, but it gave Martin cause for alarm. After all, she’d come up in Maine, where Nestlé hid behind the homegrown Poland Spring brand, exploiting the lack of water laws in economically depressed towns while giving little back to the community; today, the corporation has a disturbing amount of influence on the state government. There was also a bedrock of common sense underlying Martin’s trepidation. As she told the New Yorker in an article about the cause: “What’s more important than drinking water? Nothing.”

Stealthily, that previously undisclosed bottled-water company, Niagara Bottling, began to dig in. A month later Martin noticed another bit of news, of a much less hypothetical nature. Niagara had already gained approval from the planning board in Ulster. Even more troubling, the company had obtained a will-serve letter from Kingston, in which the city preliminarily agreed to provide the water requirements that would make the Ulster facility possible.

It wasn’t difficult to see what attracted Niagara to the area. Ulster already had plenty of water-related infrastructure in place, most of it built to satisfy the demands of what is today known as TechCity, a business park that fostered more than 7,000 IBM employees during its ’80s heyday. The city had struck a deal to use up to a million gallons of water per day from Kingston’s reservoir, though it rarely if ever did; in general, the agreement resulted in light use. The Niagara plans looked very, very different—1.75 million gallons per day, a figure the corporation would certainly strive to meet—and would have had an environmentally devastating impact on three communities: Kingston, Ulster and Woodstock, where Kingston’s reservoir is located. Quickly, Martin reactivated, began raising awareness and formed a coalition of partners that included environmental organizations, citizens and allies within the local government.

She found she had not only the people on her side, but the law as well. New York, it turned out, harbors a rare but useful piece of legislation called the State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQR. Essentially, this stipulation requires state and local governments to consider potential environmental impacts before cutting deals with outfits like Niagara; further, it puts the breaks on the swift, calculated takeover that such corporations have perfected—especially in communities that are willing to forgo the scant local water legislation they may or may not be aware of. Furthermore, any public funds that a corporation wants to obtain cannot be released until a SEQR review process is complete. In the Niagara fight, one of Martin and her cohorts’ most potent weapons was their ability to eliminate the company’s grant-funding and tax-incentive prospects.

More than 400 people turned out for an early meeting to discuss the water-bottling proposal, and that number of concerned citizens continued to grow. “[The Niagara battle] really blew the doors off the work. It changed it,” Martin says. “What I was doing became part of a regional issue or regional effort, and our organization was ground zero for information on the proposal.”

Within five short months, in February of 2015, the 300-million-dollar company decided that the citizen-led opposition was too mighty and withdrew its efforts. “It was unbelievable,” Martin says. “It was such a thrill.” But the work wasn’t done. In collaboration with her mentor, environmental lawyer Kate Hudson, Martin started on the path to legislation that would protect Kingston’s water supply from future profiteering. Within two months a new wave of activism was rolling, and after many local law passages and the unanimous approval of the city council, a referendum appeared on the ballot the following fall. Through a simple four-word change to “water powers” in the City of Kingston’s charter, any water sales occurring outside Kingston’s corporate boundaries would require the go-ahead from the Kingston Common Council. It passed, by a landslide. “It was a mayoral year,” Martin recalls, “and we had more people show up for that vote in the fall than voted in the race for mayor.” Finally, with the inclusion of the Common Council, water sales had oversight.

Through the process of battling Niagara, also found its place among an expanding network of dedicated nonprofits. Martin and her colleagues didn’t let Niagara off the hook, either. When the company cropped up in Bloomfield, Connecticut, Martin and her cohorts went into action, warning the local government and citizens and educating them on how to navigate the civic process. Connecticut’s existing water laws allowed Niagara to gain a foothold, but’s coaching led to incredible self-empowerment in Bloomfield; folks there formed their own citizens’ group, the sister organization, whose members ended up all running for office and succeeding by filling every seat (including Mayor).

A similar sea change occurred more recently in the Town of Ulster. There, a new platform,, was modeled after Its goal is to prevent the addition of a 20-megawatt fracked gas peaker power plant only 600 feet from a residential neighborhood. The group, already in its first year, is taking on a host of other important community issues, including the town budget, and is encouraging newly active residents to run for office.

These days Martin is also engrossed in her duties in the Water Quality Program at Riverkeeper, the clean-water advocacy group dedicated to protecting the Hudson River. (Among the recent Riverkeeper projects of which Martin is most proud is an inter-municipal council agreement of the seven communities who drink from the river, known as the Hudson 7.)

Now, with the launch of the nonprofit, Martin wants to help the people of Ulster County improve, protect and enjoy their communities like never before—with more efficiency, transparency and experience. Seasoned staff members with backgrounds in areas like environmental and municipal law and planning will be on hand to provide invaluable input for new programming initiatives; they’ll also be there to give generous guidance and support when the next water-bottling corporation or power plant decides to swoop in. In addition to these on-the-ground resources, a web tool and app are currently being developed by Martin and graduate students from the School of Visual Arts Design for Social Innovation in New York City. Through technology, citizens will be able to quickly and directly identify and contact their representatives and organize their fellow constituents.  

The hard-earned lessons Martin employed as an artist continue to bolster her work in activism. “The way I organize and the way I make music are very similar,” she explains. “To make art or to imagine civic strategies requires time and space, though being on the bandstand and in the field also requires collaboration and teamwork that is nimble, quick and flexible. You get to know the projects cold and then you have to make decisions in the moment, taking so much into consideration to shape them and to make it all work.

– Evan Haga, January 2019


JOIN OUR TEAM AND PROVIDE INVALUABLE INSIGHT AS WE WORK TO IMPROVE LOCAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN ULSTER COUNTY! and is proud to team up with social designers from the School of Visual Arts to build a digital tool that will help to improve local civic engagement in Ulster County. We are looking for citizens of any age, ethnicity, education level and background to give us feedback with 3-4 sessions. Participants will be invited to join us in New York City on May 7th for the School of Visual Arts Showcase to unveil the new digital tool – and the launch of!

To become a volunteer, sign-up at:



Mayor Steve Noble’s State of the City Address 2019

(This video brought to you by The Kingston News)

Good evening everyone and thank you for coming tonight. I want to thank President Noble and my colleagues of the Common Council for giving me the opportunity to share the State of the City. I also want to recognize our elected officials with us tonight. 

In addition, I want to acknowledge the members of our local media reporting here tonight. You have always had a tough job, but now, more than ever, we need journalists. 

About Growth 

Our city is growing. And growth can sound scary sometimes. It might seem easier to remain still, to keep things the way they’ve always been. It may feel more comfortable to ignore new ideas and to be surrounded by people who look and think alike. But that’s how cities crumble. We have far too much at stake to be lulled into complacency. Not when we’ve come this far. I believe wholeheartedly that we can continue to move forward while still holding on to all that makes Kingston special. Our city has strong roots- we were made to grow. 

Smart growth is possible, especially in a city as capable and committed as Kingston. We have a diverse, creative and engaged community, eager to build a successful city where everyone can prosper. We’re building new sidewalks, fixing underground utilities, improving our public transportation, creating socially responsible and progressive policies, preserving our historic assets, protecting our natural resources, and making the city’s largest investment into quality housing in decades. 

There is no doubt- the state of our city is strong. 

Read more…

Public Comment Procedure and the Kingston City School Board of Education Meetings


Kingston City Board of Education
Regular Board Meeting

Cioni Administration Building
61 Crown Street
First Floor Conference Room
Uptown, Kingston

Wednesday, January 9th
6:45pm: Sign-up to speak (outside door during Executive Session)
7:00pm:  Public Comment

There are always two public comment periods during the BOE’s regular meetings: one at around 7:00pm (after the executive session) and one at the end of the meeting.  Parents and/or citizens who wish to speak can sign-up outside the BOE meeting room while the board is in executive session.  We recommend arriving at around 6:45pm to do so.

It’s important to make it a habit to keep track of the Board of Education agendas and minutes and to address the board whenever there are questions, comments or concerns.
This month’s meeting will be important as parents and concerned citizens will be questioning procedure as it pertains the recent BB gun incident at C. Clifford Miller Middle School (and apparent other incidents throughout the school year).


By Rebecca Martin

In a recent article in the Kingston Times, it was reported that, “Concerned parents and community members are seeking answers from the Kingston City School District following a mid-December incident at M. Clifford Miller Middle School where a student shot a BB gun in a boys’ bathroom. School officials said the student involved in the incident has been suspended in accordance with district rules, but some are accusing the district of not taking it seriously enough.”  

On Wednesday, January 9th the City of Kingston Board of Education (BOE) has their regular board meeting at the Cioni Administration Building conference room located on the first floor of 61 Crown Street in Kingston.   Their AGENDA is available for review to give the public a sense of the flow of the evening. We expect tomorrow’s meeting to host concerned parents and citizens regarding the recent BB gun incident at C. Clifford Miller Middle School (and apparent other similar incidents that might have occurred throughout the school year).

There are two public comment periods, one at approximately 7:00pm (after the executive session which can sometimes go later depending on whether or not there is a lot to discuss) and one at the end of the meeting.  Parents who wish to speak can sign-up outside the BOE meeting room while the board is in executive session. If you are not able to arrive in time to sign-up, the board typically asks if there is anyone else who would like to speak after all the people on the list have spoken.  There is no sign-up for the second public comment period. A call for public comment will be made at that time, and attendees – whether having spoken already or not – will be invited to make any additional (or new) comments/questions.

Each speaker is limited to 2 minutes, though according to BOE trustee Robin Jacobowitz,  “…we generally don’t put a time limit on the public comment session. The 30 minute limit cited in the policy allows us to limit…but when there are issues that bring people out to meetings we want to hear what people have to say and try to be sensitive that not everyone can stick around for the second public comment period.”

Public comment during a BOE regular meeting is an opportunity for the public to speak and share their concerns.  It is not a time for dialog with the Board, as they do not respond during meetings – similar to public comment during Kingston Common Council meetings. Their role during the public comment segment is to listen.

If you wish to have a response to a concern, parents/citizens are asked to present it in writing after their public speaking with their contact information to the BOE clerk at the meeting.  This does not have to be a formal letter, as attendees often submit notes or talking points that they used for public comment with their contact info included.

Read more…

Kingston Common Council Letter to NYSDEC Environmental Justice Director Requesting Enchanced Participation Plan for Power Plant Proposal.

“On Tuesday, December 4, 2018, the City of Kingston’s Common Council unanimously passed a resolution to amplify Mayor Steve Noble’s request for the DEC to send a written notice to the applicant requesting that it immediately commence compliance with the requirements of the Department’s Environmental Justice Policy as specified in the Department’s March 20, 2018 comments on the Draft Scope. The City of Kingston, in which the PEJA area is located. specifically requests that the Department direct the Applicant to prepare and submit an enhanced participation plan for review and approval so that it can be implemented before the public comment on the DEIS is opened. In this way, the intent of the Commissioner’s Policy is honored, and Kingston’s identified environmental justice community will be provided with sufficient time, tools and the opportunity to clearly voice. and have their comments be considered, on the proposed Lincoln Park Grid Support Center.”