Affordable Housing

GUEST ARTICLE: No place like home

by

Penn Court Apartments, fall 2024  (photo credit:  Rokosz Most)

 

Kingston Housing Authority tenants at Penn Court face two-years-long relocation, destination uncertain

By Rokosz Most

Plans to demolish the 32 units that make up Penn Court, a low-income housing development owned by the Kingston Housing Authority (KHA) in the city of Kingston, in order to build up a new four story senior housing building in its place, have affordable housing advocates on edge. Worried for current residents who will have to move during the two-years long project and questioning the veracity of the ever-shifting relocation plans communicated so far. 

The demolition and redevelopment is to be undertaken by Mountco Construction.

Spokespersons for both the KHA and Mountco, the KHA’s private partner in development, have insisted that no residents will be displaced.

Speaking to the planning board on October 22, Executive Director of the KHA, Harolda Wilcox, asserted that all tenants displaced by the demolition would be relocated to the Rondout Gardens Apartments, another KHA-owned property within the city limits.

“We have units at Rondout,” Wilcox said, “that they will be relocated to, but they still have the first right to return, so once the completion of the construction is done they will still get first opportunity to move back to those [newly constructed] units.”

Along with the 131 units of the Rondout Gardens, the KHA currently manages 350 other rental units over four other properties spread across the city of Kingston- Colonial Gardens, Wiltwyck Gardens, Leonard & Vera Van Dyke Apartment- formerly known as the Stuyvesant Charter Apartments and Brigham senior housing, owned by Jobco Inc out of Lake Success, NY. 

Skeptical with Wilcox’s explanation, City of Kingston Common Council alderwoman Michele Hirsch wants more details.

“To say that during a housing crisis, 32 households can be permanently relocated to [another KHA property],” Hirsch said, “I don’t see how that’s possible unless they’re warehousing apartments that we don’t know about.” 

Assemblymember Sarahana Shrestha, likewise interested to see the actual plan as it was written, had her office reach out to the agency responsible for administering housing and community development programs in New York State, the HCR.

According to the HCR, as of November 15, no relocation plans spelling out the address where the tenants will be moved have been submitted. However the agency did note that the KHA may need to begin relocating residents prior to their official application.

“They’re announcing publicly there’s a plan,” says Hirsch, “and there’s no plan that’s been submitted.”

Since October 10, the tenants of Penn Court have been receiving 90-day notices of their impending ‘permanent relocation’- the official terminology of their move spelled out in the KHA letter- which specifies the duration of the project as 24 months. 

Expressing apprehension at how the KHA might react if they were identified in print, all tenants of the Penn Court apartments interviewed for this article requested that their real names not be used.

Mr. Moran, a tenant of Penn Court for years says he received his letter, but says the letter doesn’t specify where he’ll be relocated to.

“I don’t know if it’s Rondout or down below [Colonial Gardens]. I haven’t been notified as to where at.”

Grateful to have options for housing with the KHA, he doesn’t hold any illusions about being able to make it out in Kingston’s private rental housing market.

“I’ve seen the prices, man,” says Moran. “It’s crazy. Especially when you’re on a fixed income, you know. SSI (Supplemental Security Income).”

Across the way, Miss Millie says her letter doesn’t tell her where she is going to be moved either. A relative newcomer to Penn Court, she admits the imminent move and the proposed duration of the project inconveniences her but that she would even endure living in a hotel if it meant she could return to a KHA building. Her main concern is that she stays in the city. 

“If I was allowed the freedoms I have, within reason, then I wouldn’t mind as long as it was still local and I could get to work. I definitely wouldn’t want to go to a DSS (Department of Social Services) hotel and have to deal with DSS and rules and stuff.” 

She’s held the same job for five and a half years and relies on public transportation to get there. She points out that she has a son buried in St. Mary’s cemetery, across Flatbush Ave, one hundred yards away from her front door. 

“So, yeah, I plan on dying here.”

Miss Millie says that the KHA letter instructs that letter recipients will be relocated between January 15th and April 15th, 2025. 

“We’ll be permanently relocated with a right to return to the new building… We’d know where we’d be moving 30 days in advance. And that’s if we’re in good standing.”

Back across the courtyard, speaking from the door of his apartment, Mr. Seamus, fears the upcoming move. 

 “All I know is I can’t afford O’Neil street,” says the sixty-year-old, who uses O’Neil as his shorthand for the private rental market in Kingston. Born here in the city, lived his whole life here, Mr. Seamus wants to stay near his sister. “I can’t move far away. I’ve got health problems.”

As anyone who has looked to find housing within the KHA universe knows, vacancies are typically few and far in between.  A waiting list opens only sporadically, never failing to attract hundreds of new applicants. 

Over the course of three days in 2023, (August 15 through August 17), the KHA received approximately 1,500 applications. This year, after accepting applications for just the Van Dyke apartments, the KHA reported approximately 200 applicants on the waitlist for one-bedroom apartments and approximately 150 on the list for two bedroom apartments. Portfolio-wide, as of October, the KHA reported approximately 1,000 people on its waiting list.

Over the course of 2022-2023, typical amounts of vacancies were four to five units per building. Due in part to redevelopment efforts among its properties, currently the KHA reports approximately 39 units vacant across its entire portfolio. 

Back in May, vice president for Mountco, John Madeo, told the KHA board of commissioners that instead of units at the Rondout gardens, the residents of Penn Court would be moved to vacant apartments at the Leonard and Vera Van Dyke complex. 

Then back in July, at a time when Mountco and the KHA had been looking at demolishing three completely different buildings, this time in the Rondout Gardens, Madeo shared still a third version of where vacancies could appear in the KHA portfolio.

Speaking at a meeting with affected residents, Madeo was more expansive as he gamed out what the plans to relocate residents might actually look like in practice.

“The first thing we’re going to do is look at, are there any vacancies here at Rondout. If not here, we’ll look at other housing authority developments, whether it’s Van Dyke, whether it’s Wiltwyck, whether it’s Colonial Gardens. If we still don’t have any vacancies, we’re going to look outside [the KHA properties] in Kingston.”

When push comes to shove, if enough units aren’t available across all KHA properties, the expectation that any rental housing affordable to low-income tenants in Kingston’s private real estate market will be available is a longshot.

Included as part of the City of Kingston’s Comprehensive plan for 2024, a housing market analysis noted that “there is insufficient housing for households earning 0-30% AMI and 30-50% AMI in the City of Kingston with a 1,060 rental unit gap between the 1,455 renters earning 0-30% and the 395 units considered affordable to this population and a 145 rental unit gap for the 1,145 renters earning 30-50% AMI”.

Even if Madeo has not been made aware of the dearth of housing which exists in Kingston’s private market, and Mountco has been in partnership with the KHA since 2019, the KHA certainly knows. 

The public authority administers the City’s Section 8 Housing Voucher (HVC) Program, through which it provides up to 180 vouchers. Again, from the city of Kingston’s comprehensive plan:

“Due to the extremely limited housing stock available within the City, oftentimes the vouchers end up needing to be returned after an already extended 6-month period to try to locate housing.”

In the same report, a needs assessment also notes “at any given time 100 housing choice voucher holders do not have access to housing in the City due to lack of inventory. With no other options available, 100 voucher holders in 2023 had to seek assistance from homeless shelters.”

Speaking to Madeo at the meeting in July of 2023, an unidentified tenant from one of the Rondout Gardens buildings slated for demolition perhaps said it best.

“I’m sure you realize it. It was in [Cosmopolitan magazine] that Kingston is the place to be. We all know that no one’s going to be looking for another place in Kingston, because it’s going to be impossible to find.”

“If we can’t find anyplace else,” Madeo said at that meeting, “then we’re going to have to take care of you and put you in a hotel while we renovate your unit.”

According to Hirsch, a hotel would not be a viable option for a permanent relocation as it’s not comparable housing, which is a standard raised by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Act of 1970, (URA) the federal law which governs the displacement or temporary relocation of tenants receiving federal subsidies. The same law also raises questions about the 90 day notice the KHA has been mailing to the Penn Court residents.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that the notice may not be issued unless a comparable replacement dwelling is available and the displaced person is informed of its location. Received by tenants, the notice does refer to relocation within other KHA owned housing units without specifying the location.

Not clearly understood by those tenants facing relocation are the motivations behind the KHA’s push for conversion of various properties in its portfolio of Section 9 housing over to Section 8, and the financial opportunities which become available once a public authority partners with a private developer. 

Rennie Scott-Childress, majority leader of the City of Kingston Common Council, and chair this year of the KHA, explains the commission’s partnership with Mountco like this. 

“The issue is the board recognizes that A, we need to renovate a lot of our properties. They haven’t been renovated in 20, 30, 40, 50 years. So the question is, how do we get renovations done? So you put out a request for proposals and it could be a not-for-profit, it could be a for-profit. From the replies, we look and see which one is going to give us the best deal from our perspective. A company like Mountco, their money doesn’t come from rental profits. They don’t make a profit, per se, from selling their interests back to us. Their money comes from being able to use tax credits. But in order to qualify, they have to be at least part-owner. These are all state rules. And so that means we’re in league with a private company, but we are not becoming a private company. Keep in mind, we are a state authority and we have certain requirements by the state of what we have to do, so we can’t become a private entity. The main thing is that Mountco is looking for those tax credits.”

When the Division of Homeland and Community Renewal wouldn’t sign off last September on the previous redevelopment plans Mountco had pursued to demolish and redevelop the three buildings in the Rondout Gardens, Mountco switched to the demolition and redevelopment of Penn Court instead.

“The State has their own priorities,” Madeo explained during a September KHA meeting. “They pushed back on Rondout Gardens and want the state sites prioritized.”

Phase two of a of three-part renovation plan was reconfigured to lead with the renovation of Colonial Gardens and Wiltwyck Gardens as well as the demolition and redevelopment of Penn court, all state subsidized properties which would realize 223 units of rehab and new construction with 60 units; 50 of them at Penn Court.

During the process of large scale, multi-unit renovations, developers find it handy to have a few vacancies to fall back on. Madeo calls them ‘swing units’.

“And then I circulate those units going forward, when that unit becomes vacant again, the other tenant goes back there. In the industry, it’s called checkerboarding. You move this person here, you move that person there…”

This complicated logistical puzzle may lend insight to multiple occasions in which members of the KHA or employees of Mountco have been heard to muse openly about whether some tenants might not prefer to move out of the county – or even out of the state – if they could.

Any of the tenants renting units at the Rondout Gardens affected by the ‘Streamlined Voluntary Conversion’(SVC) which the HCR signed off on last September will be able to take HUD funding with them in search of affordable rents in the private market, no matter how far flung, wherever they can find them.

Scott-Childress explained during an interview in July. “They’re both Section 8. It’s all under the same rubric. Some of those vouchers go with a person. So if you got the personal one, here in Kingston. You could say, oh, you know what? I have to move to San Diego. You could take it with you to San Diego.”

Mr. Moran for one, would be game for a big move. “If they moved me to Florida, I would love to go,” he says. “I miss the beach.”

But he’s an outlier. The majority of the Penn Court tenants interviewed want to stay right here in the City of Kingston. So if it’s to be a permanent relocation to Rondout Gardens, like Director Wilcox said, that’ll work, they say. Wherever it will be, as long as it’s in the KHA portfolio, there’s no place like home.

Addendum:

With legal counsel listening in (Jeff Sculley, Catania, Mahon & Rider), Executive Director of the KHA Harolda Wilcox and Vice President of Mountco John Madeo answered questions from reporters outside a City of Kingston Planning Board meeting on Nov 18.

Rokosz Most: When are you guys going to submit an application to HCR that specifies where the tenants are going to be moved to?

John Madeo: We’ve already submitted a preliminary, what’s called a technical application submission. We’re waiting for the state to respond. Once they give us their comments, then we’ll submit the application. We’re hoping that’s going to happen within the next 30 days, before the end of the year, let’s say.

RM: Do you think you jumped the gun sending the 90-day letters to the tenants before the planning board has agreed to grant you waivers?

Harolda Wilcox: No. Legally, we had to. Even if we don’t get a closing, which we’re hopeful of, we have to have the 90-days out prior. It’s HUD rules.

RM:  At the last planning board meeting, you indicated that all 32 households would be moved to Rondout Gardens. I don’t know if that’s plausible.

Madeo: I don’t know if that’s what we said.

RM: That’s what [Wilcox] said.

Wilcox: We’re working on it. We have units held for them.

RM: But 32 vacancies at Rondout Gardens. It’s probably going to be more likely spread around the KHA portfolio, I would think.

Wilcox: Most of them are going to be at Rondout Gardens.

Madeo: But if we have to move somebody someplace else, we will.

RM: And you all don’t see anybody ending up in hotels?

Madeo: I don’t think so, no. I mean, that’s a last resort. And it’s our obligation to relocate people. But that’s not where we’d like to put people. 

RM: They’re permanently relocated, but with an option to return.

Wilcox: Yes. That’s the idea. 

Madeo: That’s a fair way to put it. But it’s not 32 [vacancies]

RM: No?

Madeo: There are 32 units, but they’re not all occupied. 

RM: How many are vacant? 

Wilcox: Off the top of my head, I can’t tell you. I’ll let you know. 

The project to demolish Penn Court and redevelop the property requires waivers because at the size and scope that Mountco intends is currently at odds with the newly adopted form-based code which requires any new buildings conform with the context and character of a surrounding neighborhood.

Board member Robert Jacobsen explained the board’s hesitation so far to grant the waivers.

“If we Grant these major waivers then how does that affect other projects that come before us? Because we’re basically ignoring what the code is. I am in favor of the housing. I am in favor of the building. I think it’s a great building but it’s a building that’s really meant for our Midtown District that has an overlay district,” said Jacobsen. “It has height requirements that allow for that type of height, or even higher. It just doesn’t feel like it’s the right place. It’s a very densely populated residential two story complex through all of colonial gardens, Stuyvesant Apartment and the whole code that was formulated around the existing structures wants to keep it that way. and yet, with this building, you’re just packing so much in and that that’s what I’m struggling with.” 

Rokosz Most is a freelance journalist.  You can follow his work at Autoeroticgentrification on substack

Development and Environment go Hand-in-Hand

by

Local marketing and public relations consultant Raleigh Green’s recent commentary “Housing vs. Environmentalists” (August 21, 2024) starts with several wrongheaded assumptions that demand correction. In contrast to Green’s conjecture, development and environmental protection aren’t incompatible; Ulster County and New York State do provide explicit guidelines for developers; and the affordable housing crunch isn’t a result of environmental policies.                                                                             

For starters, Green relies upon a tired old dichotomy that pits development against the environment. Few in politics believe that sustainable development is equivalent to being anti-development. As a consultant for developers, Mr. Green should know well established zoning and planning trends have produced longstanding guidelines with incentives for Smart Growth. The most successful and responsible developers apply this approach. 

Green falsely asserts that no one knows where building is supposed to happen in Ulster County despite the fact that the Ulster County Open Space Plan has been readily available to the public since 2007.  Moreover, all successive policy adoptions have tracked this plan in identifying priority and growth conservation areas.  In fact, following the guidance from the Open Space Plan, municipalities have had the opportunity to change their zoning to limit development in outlying areas and strategically promote it where infrastructure already exists. The Open Space plan makes clear to planners and policy makers where development should occur. In short, municipalities have changed zoning plans to encourage this mindful approach.

Nor is Ulster County’s lack of affordable housing a result of a purported tension between development and the environment. Instead, the lack of affordable housing is a consequence of a complex set of factors including a failed political will to implement plans for over two decades. In 2005, the Ulster County Housing Strategies Plan clearly mandated the development of affordable and mid-income housing. Without committed political support, affordable housing projects stalled. Increasingly, the community and policymakers have recognized a need for decisive action, making a renewed and concerted effort to plan and implement affordable housing. For instance, the Ulster County planning office has developed a Housing Smart Communities initiative that encourages communities to change their zoning codes to support  Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The governor has generated financial support for homeowners who are willing to build ADUs in communities that have adopted this zoning strategy. Zoning changes that accommodate ADU’s relieve short-term housing pressure. 

Green falsely states that town zoning effectively bans any form of building. The zoning law emerges directly from a community’s comprehensive plan.  Those laws help to organize how land is developed within a municipality, providing rules and principles for land use. The very essence of zoning is not to ban building but to guide it and protect investments by assuring that developers comply with the law. 

The City of Kingston just revamped its zoning code in significant ways to redress the housing crisis and provide clarity about development. The new Kingston code allows for more types of housing within a walkable distance while incorporating standards that encourage diversity. 

Green further contends that Ulster County is unclear about protected lands.  Yet local and state laws explicitly provide guidelines and standards for protecting wetlands, water resources, historic sites, and endangered species and their habitats, as part of “critical environmental areas.” Any capable development team can utilize The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), to save time and money by an initial site assessment, which is required prior to a full submission to planning boards. Furthermore, these environmental laws are not unique to Ulster County: They are universal in New York State. 

Ulster County has plenty of space for development that fulfills housing needs, protects the environment, and enables Mr. Green’s clients to make profits. The county’s open space plan plainly identified “priority growth areas” that could accommodate a significant amount of housing, while also reducing the carbon footprint that sprawls into open spaces with no infrastructure. The consonant goal is to protect land rich in natural resources while creating more complete and equitable communities. The most successful developments harmoniously achieve both goals. 

Economic data tells us that new luxury housing development in our rural open spaces does not bring revenue to local governments. Instead, tax rolls are actually highly burdened by sprawl.  Housing, developed away from community centers, adds substantial fiscal burdens to municipal budgets, including public infrastructure, road maintenance, and emergency services costs. Those expenses far outstrip the taxes residents in developments pay. These municipal losses don’t include the tax breaks often given to developers to encourage their projects. On the other hand, development in areas with existing infrastructure is both fiscally responsible, more environmentally sustainable, and profitable.

When communities develop in priority growth areas, they efficiently utilize the infrastructure already paid for by the public. With transportation networks in place, workers and families find affordable housing with easier access to work and schools and seniors are able to age in place with greater services available to them. This is not social engineering – it’s democracy. When communities rather than private developers decide for themselves how to address citizens’ needs in a way that reflects their values, they exercise self-government. By working within the policy guidelines of documents like the Open Space Plan and the county’s housing initiatives, municipalities can engage with developers in ways that harness the public good for development. The path to cooperation and coordination is one that requires developers and their paid consultants to be transparent, cultivate trust, and develop a consensus rather than to dictate plans and to pursue backroom deals. No one advocates a hardline against development; rather, citizens want Smart Growth. 

Mr. Green may ask where his clients may find and build housing with existing infrastructure? Only a failure of imagination can lead to such a question. In Kingston, we have existing infrastructure in need of development in Midtown and the Rondout. In the Town of Ulster, the Hudson Valley Mall awaits development from someone with vision. These are just a few examples. 

Mr. Green criticized the Woodstock Land Conservancy (WLC), implying that the organization was obstructionist to developers and to those advocating for affordable housing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Green is no neutral observer who simply seeks answers from WLC. The Kingston Wire neglects to mention that Mr. Green is a paid consultant for developers.  As an ethical matter, both Kingston Wire and Mr. Green should be open about his affiliation with developers. Transparency would bolster the journalistic integrity of the Kingston Wire and provide readers with a better context in which to evaluate Mr. Green’s argument. The WLC plays a valuable role in our community and has consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with citizens against projects that threatened our municipal drinking water source (Niagara Bottling’s effort to bottle and sell Kingston’s municipal water source) and air quality (Glidepath’s peaker plant project 600 hundred feet from a residential area in the Town of Ulster). WLC has also championed affordable housing. 

Like so many other actors on the political landscape, Mr. Green creates division by perpetuating an outdated narrative about the tensions between the environment and development. The two are not opposed – they’re congruous. Now more than ever we need developers, consultants, elected officials and policymakers who understand that we need effective investments that promote equitable economic and sustainable growth. Development is not an either/or proposition when it comes to sustainability, inclusion, and investment. Developers and consultants can make a good living while respecting the community’s zoning and environmental regulations. Contrary to what Mr. Green believes, we all know that communities need developers to achieve affordable housing goals. But, no one advocates for rudimental, undifferentiated development. Instead, smart development helps everyone.

KingstonCitizens.org
Rebecca Martin, Lynn Eckert, Sarah Wenk, Marissa Marvelli, Tanya Garment, Giovanna Righini

TownOfUlsterCitizens.org
Laura Hartmann

City of Kingston Form-Based-Code and the real barrier to creating affordable housing

by

By Rebecca Martin

At the recent Kingston Common Council Laws and Rules Committee meeting on April 19, Director of Housing Initiatives  Bartek Starodaj provided an update on Kingston Forward and Kingston’s Form-Based-Code environmental review process, announcing that the zoning code would be in front of the common council (the lead agency of the review process) soon for a vote. There was alot presented that included Parking Standards, SD Waterfront, Density, Short Term Rentals in Accessory Dwelling Units, Minimum Parking Amendments and Inclusionary Zoning Provisions.

The Kingston common council will be presented with a final Common Council Zoning Discussion #3: Implementation and Enforcement “deep dive” on Monday, April 24 at 6:30pm.  The meeting is open to the public.


HUD vs. ACS for Kingston AMIs

The Inclusionary Zoning Provision segment outlined that for seven (7) or more apartment units, the Area Median Income (AMI) is being proposed at 80% for affordable and 120% for workhouse housing units (the percentage for workhouse in the 2.0 version increased by 20% in the 3.0 version).  

120% AMI is considered market rate housing. 

According to Starodaj, the AMI was set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) where both the City of Kingston and Ulster County AMI numbers were the same. But Ward 9 Council Member Michelle Hirsch pointed out that the American Community Survey (ACS) data, which is an ongoing survey that provides data each year about the social, economic, housing and demographic characteristics of communities, shows that the City of Kingston’s AMI is nearly $30,000 less than Ulster County’s.  For a household of four people, 80% AMI in Kingston was $47,072 while Ulster County was $76,800.  Hirsch also shared concern that those who rely on Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), a program that enables the lowest income households in NYS to rent decent, safe housing in the private housing market by providing rental assistance, would unlikely be able to find or afford an apartment in the City of Kingston.  

Meanwhile, Bartek expressed concern that by “deepening” these percentages for those living in Kingston under 80% AMI could lead to chasing away developers from building in Kingston.

A new housing study for Kingston?

The City of Kingston has changed dramatically since it adopted its most recent comprehensive plan on April 5, 2016 and Kingston, like most communities around the US, got hammered during and following the pandemic.  Council member Hirsch asked if the City of Kingston had a housing study that would look at all the AMIs and current housing stock in the community to provide the city with a plan to help make good decisions about setting housing standards now.  “The whole point of Form-Based-Code is to provide housing for people that need housing and can’t afford it.  The incomes in Kingston don’t line up with what is being proposed here.”  she said.

PILOAH and Affordable Housing Fund

“The fear is that if the developer can’t find a way to cover affordable units in it’s development they will walk away.” – Bartek Starodaj 

Recently, KingstonCitizens.org wrote about the city proposing a policy that would allow developers to be able to opt-out of 10% Affordable Units with a Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing. It included an Affordable Housing Fund as a placeholder without any clarity on policy and procedure that turned up in recent version (3.0) of the Kingston Form-Based-Code.  Later, we stumbled across a request for proposal (RFP) from December of 2022 with a timeline for the city to hire a consultant for guidance on creating the fund by April even though a PILOAH hadn’t yet been adopted.

We followed up with Bartek in an email to ask what had become of the RFP where we copied local housing advocates and members of our common council. He confirmed that the city had established an RFP committee for this project, which included a representative from the Common Council (when we asked Council President Andrea Shaut, who would typically assign a council member to serve in this manner, she told us that she wasn’t aware of the committee or who from the council participated) and after reviewing the submission (s?) earlier this year ultimately declined to hire a consultant.  We asked for minutes and to learn who served on that committee, what consultants responded and why the city chose not to proceed.  After several attempts, we were told to submit a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in order to receive that information.  

During the Laws and Rules committee meeting, Barbara Graves-Poller, the City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel, said that she would provide the council with information about the PILOAH and the Affordable Housing Fund in the coming days. Hopefully during tomorrow’s public “deep dive” that information can be shared publicly. 


Parking requirements are one of the real barriers to creating affordable housing in Kingston

Michael Kodransky, a new resident in the City of Kingston and an urban planner, waited hours that evening in order to provide the council with his COMMENTS on what the city needed to do in order to remove barriers for the creation of more affordable housing.  

‘’What stirred my desire to share comments, is being alarmed around parking requirements of the Kingston and Ulster County planning board recommendation around the minimum parking requirements. I have been working with around 10 other people (residents) in Kingston who are equally alarmed. They include parking similar to euclidean zoning and that is not what form-based-code is. If you haven’t been following the news lately (Harpers Magazine: Lots to Lose), parking is in the news quite a lot, and the reason is is because housing crisis in Kingston is a national crisis, there’s a shortage of housing all across the nation and it’s forcing municipalities to reevaluate their parking regulations if they exist. And those municipalities like Buffalo, Hartford, that are abandoning their parking regulations are seeing new development.”

“At this juncture in Kingston to consider putting in parking requirements when there is a housing shortage, when we know according to the 2030 climate action plan that 40% of climate emissions come from driving trips, studies increasingly show that the inclusion of parking undermines multi-model policies. We don’t have any travel demand management ordinance in the city or any understanding of existing private parking that currently exists. It seems like the planning board at the city and county did a copy and paste job from guide books that are being abandoned all over the county. It’s like they haven’t been paying attention to what’s been happening over the last 20 years in the urban planning space. Every week, a new municipality around the country is abandoning their parking requirements…to see the planning board in Kingston and Ulster County recommend to put them in does not make any sense.”

“I encourage the common council to seriously look into this issue, because it increases the cost of construction, and it doesn’t seem as though the planning board on either the city or county level has spoken to any small or medium scale developers to see how this impacts their financial feasibility or banks or insurance to understand what the underwriting for small scale developments would be with these types of requirements. Essentially, these councils and boards are making market intervention recommendations without actually understanding the market implications and the implications on the production of housing. The costs of these types of requirements trickle down to everything else. Services, too.”

“That is correct.” said Ward 3 council member Rennie Scott Childress.  “We agree with you.”  said Ward 4 Rita Worthington

“I encourage you to accept the code that the consultant proposed with no parking requirements. There’s a reason they did that. They listened to what people were saying and what the policy outcomes were that we asked for which is affordable housing. A place that’s connected and affordable. This is an irrational burden for developers and the community. Listen to what the consultants proposed, there is a reason. The public was asking for these outcomes that were reflected in the consultant’s recommendations.”

Are we on our way to privatizing public housing in the City of Kingston?

by

By Rebecca Martin

There are around 481 apartments managed by the Kingston Housing Authority that some say accounts for approximately 10% of the City of Kingston’s population. It is a critical source of deeply affordable and stable housing for very low and extremely low-income individuals, and particularly for people of color, single mothers, people with disabilities and seniors. 

Over the last 20 years, budgets have been dramatically slashed for annual funding for repairs and everyday operations. These cuts have impacted both the availability and the habitability of housing. It has forced residents to live with heating system and plumbing failures, water leaks, pest infestations, peeling lead paint, and harmful mold. Years of deferred maintenance has caused the cost of repairing these homes to skyrocket. Steadily, public housing in municipalities are being taken over by private investors to manage and maintain these properties.

What is the Kingston Public Housing Authority? 

According to its website, “The Kingston Housing Authority (KHA) provides homes for low-income City of Kingston Families and is an organization with a proud history and enviable reputation. In 1948 its dream of quality, affordable housing for area citizens was formalized. In 1953, it was put into action with the opening of Colonial Gardens. Over the years, hundreds of apartments were constructed and have provided the foundations for family and elderly communities around Kingston.”

The Authority is governed by a seven-member board, five commissioners that are appointed by the City’s Mayor with two elected members by the tenants

Today the Housing Authority manages six different communities that include:

  • Colonial Gardens
  • Colonial Gardens Addition
  • Wiltwyck Gardens
  • Rondout Gardens
  • Stuyvesant Charter
  • Brigham Senior Housing

The KHA’s properties serve residents with Area Median Income (AMI) that, according to HUD, include Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) and Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI). 

In a recent post, we reported on Kingston’s Form-Based-Code including in its most recent draft a Pilot-in-lieu of Affordable Housing (PILOAH) that would lead to an Affordable Housing Fund. Last week, we learned that the city staff had already hired a consultant to provide guidance on creating a fund even though a PILOAH hasn’t yet been approved. Although the verdict is still out as to whether or not that’s a good idea, if it does come into play, then this is the population that that fund should serve. 

In a 2021 report by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, DiNapoli found that the Kingston Housing Authority “did not provide adequate oversight of Authority operations. As a result: Budgets were not entered into the financial system and financial transactions were not properly captured; Adequate oversight of disbursements, bank transfers and bank reconciliations were not achieved; $6.51 million in disbursements and bank transfers were made without review or approval; $1,035 in management fees were incorrectly billed; Financial system access was not properly administered.”  

When important programs fail, it’s generally due, at least in part, to poor management.  Privatizing our public housing complexes in Kingston as a preferred solution to deferred maintenance is a bad outcome that is not well understood by the community. 

Privatizing public housing in the City of Kingston: Mountco awarded bids on Stuyvesant Charter in addition to four other public housing complexes.

At last month’s Kingston Common Council caucus, Ward 9 council member Michelle Hirsch provided an update on Kingston Housing Authority developments, including the most recent Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued by the Kingston Housing Authority in October of 2021 of a redevelopment and new development proposal for four of Kingston’s public housing complexes that include Colonial Gardens, Colonial Gardens Addition, Wiltwyck Gardens (all state funded complexes) and Rondout Gardens (the sole federally funded complex).  

As an aside, can the KHA mix federal and state housing complexes together for an RFQ?

The RFQ request was seeking developer applications to be submitted by January of 2022 for a developer selection to be made by February, 2022.   Because the Kingston Housing Authority hasn’t any minutes or documents listed on their website, we don’t know how many applications were submitted or how the projects were rated before Mountco Construction and Development (Mountco) was awarded the bid. According to sources, they are already walking through the Colonial Gardens Addition and Rondout Gardens. If that’s true, then we presume those will be the first on their list for improvements. 

Four years ago, the Kingston Housing Authority issued an RFQ for the Stuyvesant Charter Apartments, which was also awarded to Mountco.  They are currently making renovations and moving residents into “pods” while making these improvements.  According to Hirsch’s update, a ribbon cutting is slated for May where folks from Albany are expected to attend. 

Who is Mountco, what are their goals and is our community comfortable that they are a key player in Kingston’s public housing? 

The City of Kingston looks to be well underway in privatizing its public housing complexes. According to the NYS Public Housing Law article 58, it says that the “Sale of dwelling units by authorities” of any state or federal public housing project requires the “local legislative body in the case of a municipal project” to have a say in the sale of public housing units.  Did the Kingston Common Council weigh in and if not, should they have?  What about the general public? How can we engage on what happens to public housing in Kingston in order to provide input to protect our most vulnerable residents?

If you have concerns about public housing in Kingston, you can contact your council member. Ward 3 council member Rennie Scott Childress also serves on the KHA board. You can reach out to him, too, independently to learn more.

Upcoming Public Hearing on Kingston Forward Citywide Form-Based Code DGEIS on March 23

by

By Rebecca Martin

On Thursday, March 23 at 6:30pm, a public hearing on the Forward Citywide Form-Based Code draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. (“DGEIS”) will occur at Kingston City Hall. Currently, the hearing is scheduled to occur in the Common Council’s conference Room 1 indicating that the city is not anticipating many residents to attend.  

UPDATE: The meeting will be moved to council chambers

KingstonCitizens.org has requested that it be moved to council chambers in order to accommodate more members of the public. Community members can make the same request by calling or writing Bartek Starodaj, Director of Housing Initiatives at (845) 334-3928 or bstarodaj@kingston-ny.gov 

“Resolution 50 of 2023, that passed on March 7, 2023 when the Common Council, the lead agency for the Form-Based Code State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”), voted to accept the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“DGEIS”) as complete in scope and content. The Common Council also voted to schedule a public hearing on Thursday, March 23th with an open public comment period that will continue through April 10th. ” 

An important moment for the public and housing in the City of Kingston

Although we are nearing the end of the citywide Form-Based Code process, the Kingston Common Council as Lead Agency of the State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”) as a type 1 action has an obligation to hear from and respond to the public in its determination of whether or not the DGEIS is either adequate or deficient.  

We continue to fully support a Form-Based Code for Kingston as well as the city and the council in its work to create a unique code for the Kingston community.  To do that, we have identified some questions and concerns out ahead of Thursday’s public hearing. It’s important that the public is confident that the council is guided by Kingston-centric data that takes into account pandemic conditions so that the code, once passed, is inclusive to make housing affordable for all.

Affordable Housing vs. Low Income Housing

In the City of Kingston, we have often heard people speak about Affordable Housing and Low Income housing interchangeably when they are not the same.

Affordable housing defines properties that take up less than 30% of a renter’s income. Low Income housing describes residences designed to support renters struggling to keep up with rising rental costs. These distinctions are important for our new code so that Low Income families are not left behind.

According to HUD’s Median Family Income Calculation Methodology and Income limit definitions, Low Income ranges from 51% – 80% Annual Median Income (“AMI”). If the city sets Affordable Housing at 80% AMI, then according to these figures, we are at the high end of AMI for Low Income housing and may not be attainable in this climate for our Low Income families in Kingston. Furthermore, if the city plans to privatize its public housing authority units as it is currently doing, what will happen to the Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) and Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) families living here now?  We need more definitions, requirements and incentives for other categories in order to address the housing crisis in the City of Kingston.

Ulster County vs. City of Kingston Median Income 

In the DGEIS, Ulster County rather than City of Kingston median incomes are guiding affordable.  At a glance, according to the US Census (2021), the City of Kingston median income is $58,840 while in Ulster County for the same period is $71,010. That sample alone proves that there are tangible differences between the two.

So why is the code using Ulster County rather than City of Kingston data for the city’s unique zoning code?  In the public comments of the Kingston Community Review (Draft 2.0, line 105), staff wrote that the Ulster County Area Median Income figure is referenced “because HUD does not publish AMI levels specific to Kingston,” and that, “the current draft is simplified to reference the applicable HUD definition.”  

Is the council confident that HUD does not publish AMI levels for Kingston, and is it in our community’s best interest to “simplify” during a housing crisis to turn Ulster County’s AMI into law?  What is the Ulster County AMI doing or not doing to provide opportunities and access for more people who live in the City of Kingston now?

Developers may be able to opt-out of 10% Affordable Units with Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing

A Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing (“PILOAH”) is included in the Kingston Form Based Code 3.0, page 114 , where the criteria is not clearly defined, as criteria would be set and adopted by the Kingston Common Council at some later date.  Here, the developer is provided an option to make a Payment-in-Lieu of Affordable Housing instead of providing on-site affordable or workforce housing units into an Affordable Housing Fund.

On March 16, Bartok Starodaj provided the council with a presentation on the housing changes to the Form-Based-Code and at that time, was not able to go into any detail about the municipalities where a PILOAH is successfully implemented or provide examples of policy of how an Affordable Housing Fund is used. 

Since an Executive Order was issued in December 2020, all applicants requesting site plan approval with the City of Kingston’s Planning board building more than 5 units of housing anywhere in the City are required to have at least 10% of its units affordable without any loopholes.

Where did the PILOAH come from and is it wise for the council turn it into law in the code before policies are clearly defined? What should be considered is continuing to require 10% affordable units for all housing projects as well as to include more income ranges than is currently required now as affordable.

Council sets a special meeting to approve the Stony Run Apartments deal ahead of the Form Based Code public hearing as well as the code for housing criteria becoming law.  

As the City of Kingston works on defining housing for development in its code, the council has set-up a special meeting on March 22nd to consider approving a deal with Aker Cos that would allow the developer to raise rents in vacant units unilaterally to the maximum amount allowed by the agreement or 120% AMI. An approval for 120% AMI in any capacity would preempt both the public hearing on March 23 and the Form-Based-Code process before it concludes.

Next steps

1. Attend the upcoming public hearing on the Forward Citywide Form-Based Code draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) on Thursday, March 23 at 6:30pm at Kingston City Hall. If you cannot attend in person, written comments may be emailed to Bartek Starodaj, Director of Housing Initiatives, via bstarodaj@kingston-ny.gov or dropped off at the City Clerk’s Office. Consider the following items on housing:

  • Affordable housing and low income housing are not interchangeable. The code should include more definitions, requirements and incentives for all categories of housing in order to accommodate the housing crisis in the City of Kingston;
  • Kingston’s code should be informed by the most up-to-date data for the City of Kingston median income and not Ulster County; 
  • A Payment-in-Lieu of Affordable Housing and Affordable Housing Fund needs policies before being included in the code as law. Otherwise it should be removed.

2. Attend the Special Common Council meeting on March 22nd at 7:30pm at Kingston City Hall.

  • Request that the council table the Aker deal until it has had the opportunity to respond to all additional questions during the Form-Based-Code SEQR process and adopts Kingston’s new code into law.

The road paved by a $30.6 million dollar Kingstonian PILOT (in exchange for a parking garage): A timeline and next steps in October 2020

by

By Rebecca Martin

Community members who have been following the Kingstonian project’s payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) request have asked for more detailed financial information to understand the potential impacts (including developer’s “trade secrets” which are fair game for a public/private partnership). Others are up in arms that a wealthy developer who wants to create high-end housing and a luxury boutique hotel in Uptown Kingston would have the audacity to request a 25-year, 100% tax exempt PILOT agreement worth $30.6 million dollars. Nearly seven months after the SEQR process concluded (where the full value of public subsidies were not and should have been revealed), the developers publically revealed their PILOT request to the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (UCIDA) threatening the board that without their approval of the PILOT, they would not secure the financing that they need and that the City of Kingston was at risk for the project (and the Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) grant) to go away.

According to Rose Woodworth, the CEO of the UCIDA, the ground rules for a deviated PILOT (meaning that it’s not a standard PILOT under the unified tax exemption policy) include the consent of the involved local jurisdictions and in this case, the Kingston Common Council, Ulster County Legislature, and the Kingston City School District’s Board of Education.  She also noted that the UCIDA “…could, if it so determined, to move forward without the consents of the local jurisdictions.”  The process that Woodworth nonchalantly describes reminds us of the worst part of top down culture. It is not meant to be fair or inclusive, but only to provide the illusion of participation. Those “in charge” may override a decision if it runs counter to their desired and in many cases predetermined outcome. 

There are still steps remaining in the process for the Kingstonian PILOT, one of which is an independent, third party cost benefit analysis of the Kingstonians’ financials requested and paid for by Ulster County.  The National Development Council (NDC) was hired only last week as an unbiased third party. The report, that the City of Kingston should have requested last year, should be available any day now. If released to the public (and it should as a taxpayer funded study for a public/private partnership) we will be able to learn its legitimacy based on the materials the NDC has solicited from the developer.

Earlier in October, when Ulster County Executive Pat Ryan announced plans for this study, the Board of Education tabled its discussion on the Kingstonian PILOT until they could review the report. The Ulster County Legislature’s (UCL) Economic Development, Tourism, Housing, Planning & Transit Committee chaired by Legislator Brian Cahill on the other hand went on to pass the Kingstonian PILOT resolution to “…be fair to the developers.” The PILOT resolution appeared next at the Legislature’s Ways and Means Committee chaired by Legislator Lynn Archer, where they wisely chose to table the discussion for the same reasons as the Board of Education.

The next bit may move very fast, with the Ways and Means committee meeting for a second time this month on Tuesday October 20 at 5:00pm. If the Kingstonian PILOT is on their agenda and it is passed out of committee, it goes to the Democratic caucus at 5:45pm and most likely to the floor for a full legislative vote at 7:00pm.

We’ve laid out a timeline of all of the events that have led us to this moment that you can review below. We conclude with “what’s next” for the remaining meetings regarding the Kingstonian PILOT in October.  

Pages: 1 2

Missed the Kingstonian PILOT press conference event? Here’s a recap and next steps

by

WATCH:
“Say NO to the Kingstonian PILOT: A History of the project” and Press Conference

LIKE
Our Facebook Event and get up to date information on the October Ulster County Legislature Meeting

On September 15th at 5:30pm, KingstonCitizens.org, Kingston Tenants Union, Mid-Hudson Valley Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), TownOfUlsterCitizens.org and the Kingston News hosted a press conference event in advance of that evening’s Ulster County Legislative meeting. It was our goal to raise awareness about a $30.6 million dollar tax incentive for a development project which proposes to build high-end housing and a luxury boutique hotel in exchange for a parking garage in the City of Kingston’s historic Stockade District.   

READ:  The Ten Things we Know about the Kingstonian PILOT

To start, the Kingston Tenants Union debuted their short film “Say NO to the Kingstonian PILOT: A History of the Project“ in an effort to help the public connect the dots in a four year saga. “This is a case study of steamrolled gentrification and suppression of marginalized voices in the process.” said Village of New Paltz Deputy Mayor KT Tobin after watching the film.

Speaker testimonies followed the film from the Village of New Paltz Mayor Tim Rogers, former City of Kingston councilwoman and Legislator Dr. Lynn Eckert, Kingston Tenants Union Juanita Velazquez-Amador, City of Kingston resident Larissa Shaughnessy and local comedian Duval Culpepper, all of whom encouraged the Ulster County Legislature and Board of Education to say NO to the Kingstonian deviated Payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT).

In scheduling the press conference on this date, it was our goal to help coordinate as many members of the public to speak during open public comment to the full 23 member Ulster County Legislative body during their remote meeting that evening.

What happened to public comment during the Ulster County Legislature on Wednesday?

Public comment during an open meeting provides community members the opportunity to exercise their First Amendment rights. The vitality of government is measured by the level of public interest and involvement, and community members are empowered when they make their views known. 

Prior to COVID-19, the public would arrive at the legislative chambers and sign up to speak on any item, whether it was on the agenda or not. On contentious issues you could predict an overflow of the public spilling out into the hallway in order to have their two minute opportunity to speak to their elected officials in a public setting. 

Since COVID-19, the Ulster County Legislature has been meeting remotely.  To our surprise on Tuesday evening, with nearly 62 people waiting in a queue to speak on the PILOT for the Kingstonian, the clerk reminded the legislature of their new policy initiated in April which limits public comment to agenda items. The decision to enforce the public speaking rule was made by Chairman David Donaldson (D/District 6, City of Kingston) who is known to be in favor of the Kingstonian PILOT. 

Unfortunately, the new public comment policy has not been clearly or consistently communicated to Ulster County residents. Although it is within the Legislature’s purview to set those speaking parameters (unless the public challenges it), we don’t recall the clerk making an announcement of the new policy at the start of past meetings, nor are we able to locate where they amended their presentation slide regarding the call-in number or, describing their procedure on the website legislative calendar where the public could intuitively find information about public meetings.

Even one of the legislators at the meeting spoke out about the Chair’s decision to reinforce the April rule change on the very night when community members had carved out time to speak on a contentious topic before the legislature. “I feel obligated to state on the record that we have many times heard people speak on items not on the agenda…” said Legislator Abe Uchitelle (D/District 5, City of Kingston).

The challenges in following the Kingstonian PILOT process. 

Like the number of public parking spaces the Kingstonian project has offered, the rules and governing procedures around the Kingstonian process are constantly changing to accommodate the developers interests. Rarely has any level of government – the city or the county – provided good lead time or clear instructions that would allow the public time for speaking preparation.  In fact, several weeks back, we received information that the Ulster County Legislature’s Chairman Donaldson accepted a late communication on the Kingstonian PILOT (that came in after the August 21st deadline).  In an effort to enable the legislation contained in the late communication to be considered at the September legislative meeting, long-standing rules would have had to be somehow interpreted or altered for an accommodation to be made.  That plan never came to fruition yet it demonstrates the unfair terrain on which those opposed to the Kingstonian PILOT must operate. 

During the September legislative meeting, the clerk announced to the public that they anticipate the Kingstonian PILOT resolution to come in front of the legislature in October. Yet the public will only be able to confirm that following the Laws and Rules Committee, which occurs the evening prior to the full legislative meeting. The agenda will only be made available the morning of October 20. If the Kingstonian PILOT resolution is listed as an agenda item, then the big night would be Tuesday, October 20 at 7:00pm.  If so, we hope that not only will the public come out in force like they did this month, but the Ulster County Legislature will continue with remote meetings in order to accommodate every single voice.  If Chairman Donaldson decides to make October the month that the legislature returns to legislative chambers, the result would limit the number of residents who are able to attend due to current Covid-19 restrictions on public gatherings.

TAKE ACTION

WATCH the film and recorded testimonies to learn about the history of the Kingstonian project and listen to a range of opinions from people who courageously spoke during the press conference.

READ “The Ten things that we know about the Kingstonian PILOT” and spend some time asking more questions in order to prepare your testimony for the next public comment session at the Ulster County Legislature.

CLICK HERE TO SEND A LETTER  to all of the representatives in the Ulster County Legislature and ask them to assure that their October 20 meeting (or whenever they are scheduled to discuss and to vote on the Kingstonian PILOT), remain remote to accommodate all Ulster County residents during COVID-19’s restrictions on public gatherings and, to vote NO on the Kingstonian PILOT.

A public hearing on promising affordable housing project on Golden Hill site

by

A public hearing will be held at 6:20pm tonight (Tuesday, August 11, 2020) regarding a promising proposal called the Golden Hill Housing Development. Dial (646) 558-8656, Meeting ID: 982 8635 1219

“In Resolution No. 179 of May 19, 2020, the County Legislature requested the County Executive to inventory existing County-owned lands that no longer serve a county purpose to ascertain if they are suitable to meet the County’s housing goals. Responsive to that request, the Executive identified the site of the former county jail on Golden Hill as a suitable site and released a request for qualifications to solicit and gauge interest from developers and concept plans for development of housing on the site. This memo reviews the project goals, timeline, and process for discussion with the County Legislature.”

A SUMMARY is available for public review. For more information or if you have any questions, contact Ulster County Deputy County Executive Evelyn Wright at ewri@co.ulster.ny.us or call 845/340-3633.

The Kingstonain tax-free deal for luxury apartments would pay no school tax

by

Editorial Board

This week, the Kingston Common Council unanimously approved general terms for a $30.6 million dollar deviated payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for the Kingstonian project. Although the Kingston Common Council may believe that the tax-free deal for luxury apartments is a good deal for Kingston, it is only one of the three involved agencies that will need to approve the PILOT before it can be implemented by the Ulster County Industrial Development Corporation (UCIDA).  The agencies include the Ulster County Legislature (UCL) and the Board of Education (BOE) for the Kingston City School District (KCSD). We anticipate the two remaining agencies will hold public discussions and a vote sometime in September and October. Write and call your representatives and ask when the PILOT is scheduled to be on their agenda and to explain in advance (and in writing) the impacts of a tax-free deal for luxury housing will have on your school taxes.

A wealthy developer will pay no school tax for 25 years?

What didn’t get a whole lot of traction during the Kingston council debate was the fact that the Kingstonian developer will pay nearly no school tax to the KCSD, and that impact will be felt by every municipality that pays into the school tax base.

In their PILOT application, the developers say that they anticipate minimal impact on the Kingston City School District because a similar project of theirs’ in Poughkeepsie has produced no school-aged residents. To further woo decision-makers, the developers are offering a $5,000 per year (for ten years) scholarship fund through the Community Foundation for the KCSD to use at their discretion. This translates into $50,000 over the course of 10 years in exchange for no school taxes for 25 years.  Another pittance in comparison to their school tax without a PILOT is a $40,000 payment that will be apportioned to the city, county and school district. If 60% of the total tax burden – or approximately $24,000 a year – would be paid to the school district, all it would take is 1 1/2 new students to wipe that out.

What will it cost us?

So far, the developers characterize their financial information as “trade secrets” and have aggressively sought to shield that financial information from the public. Without this important information, the public does not know what portion of the $57,885,000 project is taxable and therefore, has no ability to calculate cost or potential benefits to taxpayers over 25 years. 

Though at a recent special Kingston Common Council Finance and Audit Committee meeting, City of Kingston Assessor Dan Baker said that if the Kingstonian project were built today, the full property assessed value would be $19,000,000.  Based on the 2019-2020 non-homestead tax rate, the school tax calculation of $30.10 per $1000, the school tax bill alone would be approximately $571,900 per year.  Assuming the assessed value fluctuates and increases based on inflation and cost of living from year to year, the uncollected school taxes could end up being a staggering $18 million dollars over the life of the 25 year PILOT. 

A tax-free deal for luxury apartments in Kingston will be felt beyond the Kingston city boundary. PILOTs result in less taxable value which requires everyone else to make up the difference. Municipalities that pay Kingston City School taxes include the Towns of Esopus, Hurley, Marbletown, New Paltz, Kingston, Rosendale, Saugerties, Ulster and Woodstock.  

Read more…

Next Steps: Kingstonian PILOT and the City of Kingston Common Council

by

By Rebecca Martin

Last night, the Kingstonian deviated PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement passed through the Kingston Common Council Finance and Audit committee by a 3-1 vote.

Yes: Tony Davis (Ward 6); Rennie Scott-Childress (Ward 3) and Doug Koop (Ward 2). 

No: Michelle Hirsch (Ward 9)

Recused: Steve Schabott (Ward 8). A recusal is an automatic ‘no’ vote.

There’s been some chatter about whether or not a recusal (not to be confused with an abstention) equals a “no” vote, and indeed it does. Here’s an example: During the proposed shooting range project vote in 2016, an alderman had to recuse himself because of a conflict resulting in a “no” vote. “James Noble said a recusal by Davis would be recorded as a “no” vote.” The same will be true next week when Alderman Schabot recuses himself from voting on the Kingstonian PILOT.

READ: “Kingston council president will ask Laws and Rules Committee to discuss proposed shooting range”

READ: “Recusal and Abstention from Voting: Guiding Principles”

Thanks to both Alderwoman Hirsch and Council President Shaut for asking the only real substantive questions during the meeting. The Oscar goes to Ward 6 Alderman Tony Davis for his riveting performances.

Although the parking garage is the centerpiece of the PILOT agreement, it succeeded to move through committee even without a clear number and explanation of parking spaces that would be made available to the public (the developer stated that he couldn’t give the parking space variance numbers ‘exactly’ before making an apples / oranges comparison between the Uptown Kingston proposal and a project of theirs in Poughkeepsie).

Next Steps

The Kingstonian PILOT will now go to the Kingston Common Council caucus meeting on Monday, August 3 at 7:00pm where the full council will discuss the PILOT and what happens next. The public can call their council representative and request that during caucus, the PILOT be sent back to committee in order for all of critical questions that have been raised to be answered and put in writing. Without it, we won’t have a clear understanding of what the community is being asked to provide and what we can expect in return.

If the council decides not to send the PILOT back to committee that evening, then it will go on to the floor for a full council vote at the Kingston Common Council meeting on Tuesday, August 4 at 7:30pm.

Counting Votes

TAKE ACTION: We encourage the Kingston community to reach out to the following council members before August 3 to request that the Kingstonian PILOT either be sent back to committee or denied until all of the critical QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED are not only answered but put in writing so that there is a clear understanding of what the community is being asked to provide and what we can expect to receive in return.

In counting votes, the PILOT has four solid ‘yes’ votes that include: Ward 2 Alderman Doug Koop, Ward 3 Alderman Rennie Scott-Childress, Ward 5 Alderman Don Tallerman and Ward 6 Alderman Tony Davis.

At this time, there is only one publicly known ‘no’ vote for next week’s council meeting: Ward 8 Alderman Steve Schabot (who has recused himself as he works for one of the developers. A recusal is an automatic ‘no’ vote as described above).

The passage or denial of the Kingstonian PILOT agreement therefore hangs in the balance of the following council members:

Ward 1 Alderman Jeffrey Ventura-Morell
ward1@kingston-ny.gov

Ward 4 Alderwoman Rita Worthington
ward4@kingston-ny.gov

Ward 7 Alderman Patrick O’Reilly
ward7@kingston-ny.gov

Ward 9 Alderwoman Michelle Hirsch
ward9@kingston-ny.gov

Other Involved Agencies

As a deviated PILOT, keep in mind that the Kingston City School District Board of Education and the Ulster County Legislature both need to approve the conditions of the Kingstonian PILOT request before the developer can move forward with the UCIDA. The timing of this is anyone’s guess.

What we do know, is that the next Ulster County Industrial Corporation Agency (UCIDA) meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 12 at 9:00am.

Outstanding Lawsuits

So far, the Kingston common council, in their discussion about the Kingstonian PILOT, have not referenced the litigation that is pending on the Kingstonian Negative Declaration SEQR decision by the Kingston Planning Board.

However, in a recent letter (submitted on July 17) from the Law Offices of Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLP by Victoria L. Polidoro, who represents several property owners in Uptown, Kingston, the UCIDA was reminded of the following:

The IDA Should Not Consider the Application Until the Pending Article 78 is Resolved

“The IDA should refrain from acting on the application until the pending SEQRA litigation is resolved, as any decision it makes may thereafter be invalidated.“

The IDA is Not Authorized to Grant the Application

“As a threshold matter the IDA does not have authority to consider or grant the Application for the Project which includes residential housing units. The IDA’s Housing Projects Policy, which was reaffirmed on January 8, 2020, only allows IDA financing it limited circumstances. It provides that:

A. The Agency will only consider the granting of any “financial assistance” (asdefined under the Act) for following projects that provide housing:

  1. A project that satisfies the definition of a continuing care retirement community project under Section 859-b of the Act; or
  2. A project by an industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, commercial,research and recreation facility (as defined in the Act) that provides workforce housing for its employees.“

Last but not least, the conflicts of interest

On January 8, 2020 in our letter to the Kingston Common Council Laws and Rules committee, we requested that Ward 5 Alderman Don Tallerman recuse himself from any decision-making pertaining to the Kingstonian project. Not only did he appear in a promotional video on the developer’s website (which they have since taken down) he has also delivered public testimony in favor of the zoning change (while opposing the call for affordable housing for the project and supporting the PILOT its parking garage). His testimonies occurred months after he had already declared his candidacy for the council (Daily Freeman 2/20/19: Kingston Democrats Choose Slate of Candidates for November Election). Because he operates an event venue, the Senate Garage, that is directly across from the project site, he stands to significantly benefit directly financially from the development which represents a conflict of interest.

An image taken from the video of support of Don Tallerman (prior to his run for office) that was featured on the Kingstonian project’s website. It was taken down almost immediately after the city received our letter on January 8 letter pointing out the conflicts of interest.

PROMISES WITH NO DATA: The Mayor of Kingston Comments on the Kingstonian PILOT

by

Photo credit: Paul Kirby, The Daily Freeman

By Editorial Board

The Mayor of Kingston sent out a press release today, one day before the Kingston Common Council’s Finance and Audit Committee is set to review the Kingstonian PILOT request of 25 years at 100% tax exempt in exchange for an air conditioned / heated parking garage that will primarily serve luxury housing tenants and boutique hotel guests.  This is certainly not the first attempt by the Mayor to try to influence the legislative branch in their decision-making at a time when they should have autonomy.  

Below is a breakdown of the Mayor’s communication, paragraph by paragraph, that includes some of what was omitted, misleading or missing from his statement.  

“The Kingstonian project is of great importance to our City – not only will it bring desperately needed housing stock to our community, along with much-needed parking, the hotel and retail spaces will bring visitors and tax revenue. The developers have committed to paying a living wage for all new jobs created to operate the apartments, hotel and garage complex, and the public plaza will be a welcomed addition to Uptown. A PILOT for this project will have no negative tax implications, only positive!”
–  Mayor Noble

The Kingstonian luxury housing project offers apartments where the rents would be market rate (+) and unattainable to most of the Kingston community.  In the PILOT application, the Kingstonian applicant is only asked to provide a living wage for a single adult. They state that 84% of their jobs would pay $20.73 per hour, which is not nearly enough for that single person if they were raising a child in the community.   Such a worker will not earn enough to live in the Kingstonian luxury apartments and will most certainly have a hard time finding an apartment at an affordable monthly rent with a $20.73 per hour wage. It may end up being a second job for that single person who might end up living outside of the Kingston community due to the lack of affordable rentals in a county that has nearly a 0% vacancy rate.  

Read more…

Kingstonian PILOT: “Serious deficiencies in the application currently pending before the IDA”

by

Last evening, the City of Kingston and Ulster County Industrial Development Agency received a letter from Victoria L. Polidoro, Law Offices of Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLP. Polidoro represents several property owners in Uptown, Kingston.

Some of the highlights:

The IDA is Not Authorized to Grant the Application

“As a threshold matter the IDA does not have authority to consider or grant the Application for the Project which includes residential housing units. The IDA’s Housing Projects Policy, which was reaffirmed on January 8, 2020, only allows IDA financing it limited circumstances. It provides that:

A. The Agency will only consider the granting of any “financial assistance” (asdefined under the Act) for following projects that provide housing:

  1. (1)  a project that satisfies the definition of a continuing care retirement community project under Section 859-b of the Act; or
  2. (2)  a project by an industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, commercial,research and recreation facility (as defined in the Act) that provides workforce housing for its employees.“

The Project will Result in a Loss of Public Parking Spaces

“Using a very conservative estimate, the minimum number of spaces needed to serve the Kingstonian is 313. The proposed parking garage with 420 parking spaces is not sufficient to replace the existing 144 public parking spaces and provide for the additional 313 parking spaces needed by the Project.1 The Project will therefore result in net loss of publicly available parking spaces.”

The Applicants’ Financial Analysis Is Insufficient

“Even if the IDA had authority to approve the Application and the Applicant could demonstrate that additional parking spaces would be created, the Application lacks sufficient information on the Project’s finances. The Applicant alleges that the costs of constructing the parking garage total approximately $16.8 million, which, after financing, would purportedly result in annual costs of $1,067,000 over 25 years. However, it is not at all clear if these cost estimates are accurate. The data supporting the Applicant’s calculation has not been publicly posted. We request that the IDA release all data provided and engage an independent consultant to audit the Applicant’s estimated costs to determine their validity.“

The IDA Should Not Consider the Application Until the Pending Article 78 is Resolved

“The IDA should refrain from acting on the application until the pending SEQRA litigation is resolved, as any decision it makes may thereafter be invalidated.“

An IDA Member May Have a Conflict of Interest

“However, even if this does not rise to the level of a formal conflict of interest under Article 4 of the New York State Public Officers Law, it at the very least creates the appearance of impropriety and weakens the public’s confidence in its government. Therefore, we request that this member of the IDA recuse himself from consideration of the present application.“

Affordable Housing and the Kingstonian Project PILOT

by

CLICK TO WRITE  (be sure to add your name and municipality at the end and any other message that you wish to include):  Request that the Kingston Common Council and in particular, the Council’s Finance Committee demand that the Kingstonian developers provide affordable housing guarantees in their PILOT agreement. 

By Rebecca Martin

In our recent post about the Kingstonian PILOT, we reported on the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency’s (UCIDA) consideration of a $30.6 million tax subsidy to real estate developers in exchange for parking spaces. We shared our concerns that a subsidy of this size to the Kingstonian for parking spaces means significantly less money to invest in City schools, streets, public housing, and infrastructure. “It increases the likelihood that already overburdened taxpayers will be forced to cover any fiscal gap with increased school and property taxes.”  We demanded that a true value be placed on the developer’s PILOT before a public hearing is held so that the residents of Kingston are fully aware of the role they are being asked to play.   READ “The Kingstonian Project: There is more at stake than just parking”

The Kingstonian PILOT: Where the public good is a parking garage

It isn’t clear how to affix a value on what will become a privatized parking garage funded by public through subsidies. We’ve got nothing but questions.

  • How many municipal spots will there realistically be for the City of Kingston?
  • What will the fee structure look like?
  • What will community members be asked to pay?
  • Is the parking garage being built for the average Kingston community member or for those with the means to afford luxury apartments?
  • What would the fiscal benefits be if the PILOT was disallowed?
  • Would the revenue stream remain the same?
  • Could the City of Kingston conceivably be better off building its own parking garage for $30.6 million dollars? 

Affordable housing for now, but for how long and at what cost?

Part of what has been portrayed as a public good for the Kingstonian are the 14 affordable housing units that were included last fall after much outcry from the community. Even though the Area Median Income (AMI) is high (presumably determined by the Kingston-Poughkeepsie MSA or some other measurement beyond Ulster County), it’s good to have an affordable component added to the project.  

Typically, not-for-profits (NFP) who are working on affordable housing projects receive state tax credits and in return are bound by rules.  In some cases, those units can remain affordable for up to 50 years. As a private developer, the Kingstonian isn’t relying on the state and therefore, can use the “affordable housing” language without being bound by the same rules.

The PILOT agreement at this point is perhaps the only avenue to provide guarantees that prevent the affordable units from escalating in value. It could outline the units’ starting rent, their size and annual escalator rate.  Without that outlined somewhere, the Kingstonians “affordable housing” could become market rate at any given time. 

In a recent PILOT analysis completed for the City of Hudson by Joshua Simons of the Benjamin Center, the report highlights key variables and standards in the region. Although the project in Hudson is all affordable housing created by a foundation (apples to oranges here), we presume that if the Kingstonian project were to do the same kind of study for its PILOT it would prove to be an anomaly. 

As the terms of the Kingstonian PILOT are not yet fixed, now is the time that our decision-makers and the public can request a full disclosure of the true value of the PILOT (in order to avoid the developer inflating the public benefits) as well as a clawback provision and affordable housing guidelines.

Beyond that, what revenues do the Kingstonian developers stand to gain on luxury apartments over 25 years? Even thought he PILOT process is well underway, we don’t know as the information is deemed ‘trade secrets’ as are the sources of financing which the developer refuses to reveal. 

It’s impossible to understand why decision makers are not insisting on making all of the developer’s information public given the expectation of tens of millions in subsidies. Without it, we can’t be sure that the Kingstonian project would require a PILOT at all. 

RESOURCES

* New York State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (SLIHC)    NYS tax credits for affordable housing

* The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Federal program for tax credits for affordable housing administered by the state

Image above provided by The Kingston News “Kingstonian: Listen to the Community” rally

The Kingstonian PILOT: There is more at stake than just parking

by

Editorial

CLICK, SIGN AND SEND!  Demand that the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (UCIDA) require the Kingstonian applicant release financial data for independent assessment and to place a value on their PILOT request prior to any scheduled public hearing:   CLICK ON THIS LINK, SIGN AND SEND TO ALL DECISION MAKERS.  Please include your name, where you live and any additional message you’d like to include. 


What the Kingston community needs to know up front

The Ulster County Industrial Development Agency (UCIDA) this week considered a $30.6 million tax subsidy to real estate developers in exchange for 277 parking spaces. In the midst of a financial crisis, the substantial loss of $30.6 million in tax receipts will have a profound effect on the community. A subsidy to the Kingstonian real estate developers for parking spaces means less money to invest in City schools, streets, public housing, and infrastructure. It increases the likelihood that already overburdened taxpayers will cover any fiscal gap with increased school and property taxes. 

What happened at the July 8th Ulster County IDA Meeting Regarding the $57.8 million Kingstonian Project?

The specific agenda item on the Ulster County IDA docket involved the question of a deviated payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) request for the Kingstonian proposal, a $57.8 million dollar luxury apartment project in Uptown, Kingston. If granted, the Kingstonian investors pay for the value of what’s already there and not what they improve for the next 25 years. The estimated amount of the PILOT subsidy under consideration for a portion of a parking garage is roughly $30.6 million in addition to $6.8 million in tax-payer funded grants.  We have not seen a parking assessment (an estimate of how many parking spaces the project will actually need) nor do we know the true value of the PILOT request.

After the developer’s joint presentation with the Mayor of Kingston, the IDA expressed significant concerns, and sent the proposal back to the pre screening process.  The deviation and the delay will allow the developers to go back and discuss the PILOT agreement with the involved agencies (City of Kingston, Ulster County Legislature and Board of Education) to confirm their commitment before returning to the IDA board in August. If the IDA is satisfied with the progress at that point, they will schedule a public hearing.  In the meantime, without the release of vital financial information, the public is unable to assess the true value of the PILOT.  To date, neither the developers, the IDA nor the City of Kingston has agreed to release that financial information.

What’s the IDA and a deviated PILOT? How does it affect the Kingston Community?

Read more…

Kingstonian Zoning Petition Back at Ulster County Planning Board

by

By Rebecca Martin

“When you read the negative declaration by the planning board (for the Kingstonian Project), they almost don’t seem to get the gist of that letter from the Office of Parks Recreation & Historic Preservation (OPRHP) relative to why there is an impact on the stockade district.”
– Dennis Doyle, UCPB

On February 5, the Ulster County Planning Board reviewed the Kingstonian Group Development LLC zoning map amendment for a second time. According to Ulster County Planning Director Dennis Doyle, the letter was referred back because the city’s request had been submitted to the county during the project’s State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). With a determination made, the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) would take another look including at the new affordable housing provision.

The following is video from the meeting filmed by The Kingston News and brought to you by KingstonCitizenes.org. The blog image captures the required modifications and UCPB advisory comments.

RESOURCES

VIEW: Adverse Impact Letter from Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
VIEW: City of Kingston Comprehensive Plan (CP)

2:26 (loosely transcribed) Kingston’s Comprehensive Plan and its affordable housing requirement is for any new or expanding building or development. It wants to abandon the Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD) in favor of a citywide standard. The UCPB recommends it should be simplified and “a standard set of rules regarding the provision for all multifamily residential applications in the city should be promulgated regardless of location.

5:54 (loosely transcribed) Kingston’s City Zoning Enforcement Officer (CZO) rendered a ruling about whether or not the MUOD permitted new construction and if so, required affordable housing. The statutory language of adaptive reuse would require 20%. ZEO determined that it doesn’t apply. That if new construction is permitted, it does not require affordable housing. Really the city can’t rely on MUOD to provide affordable housing anywhere in the city because of that ruling. That’s a real problematic way to move forward if we are going to let the MUOD continue. The applicant has involuntary offered affordable housing in the project and if you do the math, it’s about 10% of the project.

7:41 (loosely transcribed) County recommendations. Overarching recommendations rest on the City of Kingston’s own planning documents. We find the map amendment to be inconsistent with the purposes of the MUOD and the CP. and therefore, it should not be implemented without clarification of the ability of the District to be used to issue special permits for new construction. Additionally, if such new construction is allowed by special permit, a provision of affordable housing shall also apply.

8:35 (loosely transcribed) Doyle outlines the county’s original recommendations: Option 1, To follow the recommendations of the CP and abandon the MUOD in favor of establishing City-wide affordable housing regulations for all multi-family development, etc. Option 2, To modify the existing MUOD by specifically allowing new construction under the special use section and add the applicability of the affordable housing provision to this use. This is more of a band-aid approach to achieving the goals of the CP for the more limited area of the MUOD. If you are going to amend the map, then you must amend the language in the statute.

9:53 (loosely transcribed) The negative declaration issued by the Kingston Planning Board addresses the issues of whether or not there is a material conflict with adopted plans or goals. The Kingston Planning Board said that they found no conflict. But they do specifically note the 14 affordable housing units is a welcome inclusion. The lead agency determination regarding the zoning petition and its lack of conflict with community plans and goals as officially approved is the critical question before the Common Council and before the County Planning Board. The Common Council is somewhat bound by the lead agency’s determination. But that bounding is in response to the voluntary inclusion of affordable housing as part of the project.

11:15 (loosely transcribed) The neg dec addresses something called community character and historic resources. OPRHP has issued an adverse effect for the project. “The lead agency determination regarding Community Character the zoning petition and its lack of conflict with community plans and goals as officially approved is the critical question before the common council.” When you read the negative declaration by the planning board, they almost don’t seem to get the gist of the letter from the OPRHP relative to why there is an impact on the stockade district….but they never succintinly address the tie in between moving the project elements down slope or cross slope to tie into the schwenk drive commercial area as compared with the traditional ending of that at the Montgomery Ward building or at the top of the hill.

13:16 (loosely transcribed) Required modifications: the place where we are as pertains to affordable housing. ZEO provision says affordable housing is not needed with new construction yet the applicant voluntarily provides it. If that’s the case, then the voluntary provision by the applicant should be enshrined in the city’s planning approvals – as it could be voluntary today and during planning approvals, disappear tomorrow. The UCPB all agreed.

16:47 (loosely transcribed) Advisory comments. As stated previously, the UCPB’s overarching goal was to provide for inclusion of affordable housing. The voluntary provision offered by the developer is offset by the ruling of the ZEO that none is needed. While the board will not require a specific change, the required modification is to ensure that the affordable housing element as offered is not voluntary and is enshrined in the City’s planning approvals in a manner that defines affordability. The UCPB’s advisory comments are to strongly urge the city to abandon the MUOD district and adopt a city-wide solution to affordable housing and its design; Address more fully the adverse effects letter from OPRHP regarding their concerns about district impacts associated with the project tying the historic stockade area to the commercial area along Schwenk Drive as part of any map amendment; Note the need to clarify or include lower Fair Street in the rezoning depending on its ownership/interpretation; Note: the inclusion of a deviated PILOT by the Ulster County IDA in a Neg Dec. No discussion of a PILOT appears in the economic data released to date; Appreciation for the referral by the city to the amendment and inclusion of the affordable housing.

The UCPB said that the rezoning offers the city a clearer recommendation or response to the adverse effect letter. As part of the re-zoning they should look at this, understand and reexamine and clarify the negative declaration in terms of why it’s not an adverse effect in regards to zoning….there are state monies involved here. The state monies will require that they clear up that adverse effect letter otherwise, they’ll run into issues with the state funding. Discussion regarding Fair Street ensued. SHPO calls Fair street historic in some instances.

24:33 (loosely transcribed) On the project being a public/private partnership. We’ve seen a lot of positive economic data put out by the applicant. The negative declaration indicates a deviated PILOT by the UCIDA, meaning that it’s not a standard PILOT under the unified tax exemption policy and we don’t know what it will be. No discussion of the PILOT appears as the economic data released to date. We want transparency here – what the applicant is asking the public to participate in as the project goes forward. The IDA has a matrix, and they are going to propose that the IDA goes outside of the Matrix. In a public/private partnership, you should put everything on the table to fund your garage. The board agreed that it should be included in their comments as it’s in the Neg Dec determination and therefore a part of the SEQR process after discussion.

30:54 (loosely transcribed) Why was this matter sent back to us? Because they completed the SEQR process and we asked that they do so once the SEQR process was done. We asked to resubmit with the affordable housing provision. One of the UCPB members felt the language needed to be stronger. Dennis was concerned about changing the language from before. Public/Private partnerships should be much more up front about what they are asking the public to participate in. So far, we have seen no indication of what the public is being asked to participate in. It’s like traffic or anything else. There should be more transparency as a recommendation.

The UCPB approved the items.