Editorial

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

The Need for Charter Reform Becomes Obvious and Urgent

by

Editorial Board

In a surprise February 3 press release, Mayor Steve Noble announced a major proposal to restructure the Departments of Public Works (DPW) and Parks & Recreation, which would greatly expand the current role of the Superintendent of DPW to oversee both departments. The Mayor’s proposal also creates a new Deputy position who would oversee several divisions, including parks maintenance, recreation programming, environmental education programs, along with sanitation. He even had a person ready to provisionally fill this new position immediately: his wife, Julie Noble, who is currently a city environmental education and sustainability coordinator.

Not surprisingly,  his proposal has not been received well. There have been cries of nepotism and ethics charges have been filed. Members of the Common Council, who had little or no warning of this proposal before it was announced to the public, have expressed unusual hesitation. However, there may be a silver lining in this mess.

READ: Kingstoncitizens.org’s “City Government is not a Mayor’s Oyster: The Restructuring of DPW, Parks & Recreation and Nepotism”

Kingston’s city charter in its current form gives the Mayor considerable power. He alone appoints all commissions and boards. He hires and fires officials, not all of whom have the credentials necessary for the particular role. The silver lining? His egregious heavy-handedness has a lot of people talking about the need for charter reform. The Mayor himself has supported charter reform in the past, and at the Common Council’s Laws & Rules Committee on February 19,  he admitted that the charter was outdated and expressed his desire to work in partnership with the Council to update it in a comprehensive manner.   

VIDEO of Laws and Rules Committee meeting on February 19, 2020. 

Why charter reform now?

According to the New York Department of State’s ‘Revising City Charters In New York State’ technical series, a city charter, “…is the basic document that defines the organization, powers, functions and essential procedures of the city government. It is comparable to the State Constitution and to the Constitution of the United States. The charter is, therefore, the most important single law of any city.”

Those who have followed KingstonCitizens.org know that for the last decade, reforming Kingston’s charter has been a major goal of ours.  That’s because in 1993, after many years of hard work by citizens with support from folks like the local Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters, there was a referendum to change Kingston’s form of government to a City Manager form.  It passed overwhelmingly. However, Kingston’s newly elected and popular Mayor, T.R. Gallo (who had also served briefly on the charter commission but stopped showing up some say in protest of the City Manager discussion) was unhappy with the new charter as it would diminish the powers of his office.  Swiftly, Gallo put together his own charter commission only a few months into the new charter’s passage. As Tom Benton describes it in his commentary “How Kingston got its ‘strong mayor’” in the Kingston Times, “As for the proposal itself, it was rather ingeniously constructed by taking the newly adopted charter and merely replacing the words “city manager” with “mayor” throughout. There were some other modifications, of course,  but that was the essence of it. And here was the effect: Under the adopted charter, the city manager was given very broad and powerful executive authority, the governmental check on that authority being control and supervision by the Common Council. Under the new proposal, an elected mayor would have the same broad authority, but would be entirely free from any such control or supervision by the council. Strong mayor, indeed!”   Kingston voters approved a “strong mayor” form of government by a narrow margin.  “…The city manager charter adopted a year earlier was consigned to history without ever having been tried and the era of the strong mayor was ushered in.”      This is the reason why—by design and by accident—Kingston’s executive branch has the power that it has without sufficient checks and balances.  

Charter reform introduced by Kingston Common Council in 2019.

As recently as  June 2019, Ward 9 Councilmember Andrea Shaut—who now serves as the Council President—introduced the subject of charter reform to the Laws & Rules Committee, which she then chaired. It was her desire that there be a collective effort to educate themselves and the community about the value of revising the charter to reflect the current needs of Kingston. 

While it was a welcome first step, her Council colleagues did not see a pressing need for action and the effort did not advance.  We are optimistic that its time has arrived.

READ: KingstonCitizens.org, “Education is Key. Common Council Takes Up Charter Revision Discussion”

Next steps

There are a host of reasons, all simple and sensible, why we have always thought that Kingston should return to a City Manager form of government.  Because it is unconstitutional to require that candidates for Mayor to have certain qualifications to hold the office beyond being a U.S. citizen and above a certain age,  our local government is led by individuals who learn on the job (hopefully) and who can restructure the administration to suit their agenda and biases. With a City Manager or administrator form of government, there are still officials popularly elected to represent the community.  The advantage of having a City Manager is that they have skills and experience specific to government administration. If they do well in their position, they can remain no matter who is elected. The same would be true for any department head.  

As practical-sounding as our opinion may be, it’s only one in a city of 24,000 people. To change the form of government is serious business. It has to be a community-based conversation guided by an unbiased facilitator. The product of this effort would be a revised charter for voters to adopt by referendum.  

We appreciate the Mayor and Council members’ support of charter reform. If they are at all serious about it, then we believe that the Mayor’s proposal to merge departments should be thrown out. An acting Superintendent of Parks & Recreation can be appointed and they can spend the next few months working with the Superintendent of the Department of Public Works to identify any tasks under Parks & Recreation that are better suited for DPW. Together, they can submit a list of recommendations to the Mayor for his consideration. 

It’s been 25 years since our city charter was last examined in a comprehensive manner. It is the responsibility of the community at large to insist that it happens. The time has never been more right.

The City of Kingston’s Zoning Interpretation Process Leads to Attempt to Infringe Citizens’ First Amendment Rights

by

Group Editorial by Lynn Eckert, Tanya Garment, Ted Griese, Laura Hartmann, Rebecca Martin, Marissa Marvelli, Melinda McKnight, JoAnne Myers, Giovanna Righini, Rebecca Rojer, Rashida Tyler, Sarah Wenk, Theresa Lyn Widmann

“…in a democracy if it’s going to work, people have to feel comfortable standing up and speaking their mind and speaking truth to power. If you are intimidated in the process…you become increasingly thoughtful and hesitant in the way you enter into public debate and that’s not good for anyone.” – Lynn M. Eckert, Ulster County Legislator and Professor of Political Science at Marist College.

In recent months, not only have City of Kingston officials been misleading the public in the review process for the proposed Kingstonian but the Mayor’s lawyers have singled out select individual citizens in an attempt to silence their advocacy for a transparent and inclusive planning process. 

At an August public hearing two citizens – Ted Griese and Sarah Wenk – delivered verbal testimony simply urging the Common Council to have a crystal clear understanding of the zoning law before amending it, which would allow the Kingstonian project to move forward. They, along with Rebecca Martin (lead organizer of KingstonCitizens.org), were the three citizens singled out in the Corporation Counsel’s letter regarding the City’s zoning interpretation, despite the fact that others in the community had also raised the question in written comments to their Council representative. 

It was shortly after that hearing that the Corporation Counsel’s office sent the troubling letter as an email attachment to the three private citizens identified above stating that the City was initiating a zoning interpretation process centered on the “Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD) provisions regarding affordable housing.”  The letter stated that the City was in receipt of their comments from the public hearing and that they had been sent to the City’s zoning officer for the issuance of a “formal interpretation of the relevant sections of the Code.” The letter never explained why only these citizens had been singled out among all of the other commentators. 

The attorney representing the Kingstonian applicant submitted his written interpretation of the zoning as it pertains to the affordable housing requirement, concluding that “…there has been no waiver or violation of any zoning law 20% affordable housing requirement with respect to issuance of a Special Use Permit, as affordable housing guidelines do not apply to new construction within the Mixed Use Overlay District under the City of Kingston Zoning Law.”    

Given the disorganized and opaque Planning Board process and the singling out of individual citizens by the Mayor’s lawyer, KingstonCitizens.org felt compelled on behalf of the public to reach out to an attorney to clarify the question before the zoning enforcement officer – even if it meant participating in a process that they and the citizens had never sought. The applicant argued that no affordable housing was required because it is not adaptively reusing buildings. However, the MUOD is premised on adaptive reuse (which must include affordable housing) and does not authorize new construction of residential apartments. Environmental and land use attorney Emily Svenson asked that the City expand its interpretation “to determine whether the zoning code authorizes new construction of residential uses at the proposed Kingstonian location,” reiterating the question asked by members of the community.

In response to Svenson’s letter, chief Corporation Counsel, Kevin Bryant, who is appointed by the Mayor, sent a reply on September 12th, requesting that, since KingstonCitizens.org was “represented” by counsel, all communications from certain named citizens regarding the project go through counsel only. It also stated that members of city boards and commissions had been instructed to no longer speak to advisers of KingstonCitizens.org. Specifically, it read:

“As you are likely aware, the Kingstonian project is currently before numerous City Boards and Commissions and the Kingston Common Council. Your client has continued to assert an interest and a public position regarding each of the pending applications.

We are hereby requesting that in order to comply with the Code of Professional Responsibility, henceforth, all communications regarding the Kingstonian with officers of Kingstoncitizens.org, including but not limited to Rebecca Martin, Tanya Garment, Marissa Marvelli, Jennifer Schwartz Berky and Lynn Eckert, shall be through counsel.

Please be further advised that City Officials and Board and Commission members involved in the review of the Kingstonian project have also been advised that they are not to speak directly to these individuals as they are represented by counsel.“

Svenson swiftly responded that the City’s request was an infringement on individuals’ First Amendment rights and pointed out the Counsel’s misunderstandings: 

“…Please be aware that KingstonCitizens.org is a grassroots, volunteer organization and not a corporation. The individuals named in your letter are simply volunteers acting as organizers or advisors; they are not staff or officers. There is no justification for limiting their ability to communicate as individuals with their government.”   

Furthermore, Svenson noted that:

 “The Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to attorneys do not limit the rights of represented parties to communicate with one another. Particularly in the context of government, it is essential for citizens to be able to speak freely on matters of public interest pursuant to their rights under the First Amendment.”

If the City’s Corporation Counsel had reached out to Svenson prior to sending his letter, he would have understood that her representation in this case was limited solely to commenting on the City’s zoning interpretation for the Kingstonian project. Unfortunately, he went beyond the understandable need to protect the City and seized on the opportunity to cut off public discourse by advising elected and appointed officials that they should not speak to the citizens, directly undermining public dialog. The City took the approach that it was managing an adverse litigation-type situation rather than a participatory public process. It’s not the first time they have done so. The City has on many occasions tried to steer  the process in a certain direction rather than allowing the process to guide its review. 

From the beginning of the Kingstonian SEQR process, residents – and particularly those outspoken women who are civically engaged – have been intimidated, bullied, and mistreated by both members of the applicant’s team and city staff. They have been accused of having political agendas; punished for being professionals in their trades; shamed for asking tough questions; and called enemies of progress for demanding an inclusive process.  

All the while, our Mayor, with the power to hire and fire city staff and appoint all members of boards, committees, and commissions, remains silent about this undemocratic and bullying behavior. We live in a democracy not an authoritative regime, where citizens have First Amendment rights to play an active role in their government.

We are daylighting these antidemocratic actions today because they erode the public trust and confidence in our local government. Politicizing processes and institutions is the most effective means for discouraging citizen engagement, the evidence of which we are already seeing. No one should have to hire a lawyer to ask questions that government officials may dislike. 

We are in the midst of another election season and as usual, elected officials are again boasting about how well they make citizens feel “heard.” To us, it rings particularly hollow. In this instance, the Mayor’s lawyer used the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers as a pretext to chill the speech of citizens with whom the administration disagreed. If the Mayor is truly committed to “hearing” citizens, he should address the silencing tactics within his own administration. 

While reasonable people may disagree about how to interpret and apply the zoning law to the Kingstonian project, we can all agree that actions taken on the part of the Mayor’s lawyer to intimidate, single out, and silence citizens – particularly female citizens – engaging in their right to free speech is simply unacceptable. With officials committed to a fair, open, inclusive, and transparent process such undemocratic tactics would be unnecessary.