The town’s synchronized plan to fund a pair of road projects that would provide access to the New Hartford Business Park will need to fall precisely in place for taxpayers not to feel the cost of those projects.Mr. Tyksinski, why do taxpayers need to open any new area for development when the region has plenty of areas where the infrastructure is already in place that are waiting to be REdeveloped? Boserts . . . Bendix . . . Washington Courts . . . Harbor Point . . . Utica Psych Center Grounds . . .
The town is proposing a two-pronged project to extend thoroughfares to the business park . . .
"With the 840 access, it's not just a project that would benefit the developer," town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski said. "It would open that whole area for development. There's more up there than the business park in terms of tracts of land that can be developed." . . .
Is it because all those areas awaiting redevelopment are next door in Utica? Why can't you look beyond the borders of your suburb to see the damage this does not only to New Hartford, but the entire region?
Tyksinski said he would like the town to enter into a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement with the developer to help fund the roads’ construction.
Once the access projects are given the go-ahead, the town would bond for the cost of the roadway projects. PILOT payments made by Adler then would be used to pay off the debt service on the bond, the supervisor said.So while this developer creates a situation which requires the Town to extend police services, fire protection services, snow plowing and road maintenance services, etc., the money that should go to pay for these services will be diverted to construct roads. . . i.e., New Hartford Taxpayers will pay more.
But to add insult to injury . . .
Mitigation fees collected from developers to offset the cost of upgrading infrastructure because of their projects also could be used, Tyksinski said.These are fees that other developers paid to New Hartford to mitigate the adverse impacts of their projects. Their projects do not need the proposed new roads, but they created needs for mitigation elsewhere that now may go unaddressed. Either the taxpayers will have to accept the environmental decline associated with the other projects, or cough up more money for corrective measures (such as a traffic light, road widening, or storm-water retention.)
Developers and certain landowners benefit from this proposal. The general public does not benefit from this at all because it represents Sprawl. Mr. Tyksinski proposes to add more publicly-maintained infrastructure onto all the other infrastructure we already have while the regional population DECLINES!
This is New Hartford government simply justifying more New Hartford government -- fulfilling the ambitions of politically-connected individuals on the backs of the residents of New Hartford and the entire region! Practices such as this have contributed to Oneida County being the 19th highest taxed county in the nation when taxes are calculated as a percentage of home value (per the Tax Foundation, 2009).
While New Hartford government is the focus of this story, New York State Department of Transportation (because it controls the roads) and Oneida County (through its IDA, Sewer District, and Planning Department) also bear significant responsibility for creating our costly sprawl. We already have far too much public infrastructure to maintain than our declining regional population can afford. We should not be enabling more.
In the short term: It's time to pull the plug on government forcing the public to subsidize private developers' dreams.
In the long term: People need to start thinking of making Greater Utica a political entity to effectively deal with sprawl.
More on this subject is posted on New Hartford On Line: "What a revoltin' development this is!" Revoltin' Indeed!
9 comments:
Right on Strike..no more PILOTS. They do nothing for the lifelong dedicated residents of this Town. I for one am tired of paying for developers mistakes, and there are plenty, both developers and mistakes.
Ever drive up that little winding, narrow road to Lowes..that's a mistake..now you want more traffic on that driveway. My driveway is wider.
Thanks Strike, I'm glad to see you taking on New Hartford. I wish the OD would put half of your effort covering the town. Their cheering leading is unbelievable! Its amazing how much the OD underreports or covers up on New Hartford.
Keep this up and the migration out of here will be that much faster. With so many already voting with their feet and the taxes going ever higher you'd think there would be a change in direction, but no it's full speed straight into oblivion. So watch for the headlines as more employers start leaving as well
No mention here yet of the 840 traffic light so that must be in the next phase. What a joke this is - Adler must have some heavy pull in NH and county government.
All I know is that I'll be leaving as soon as the kids are out of school because I don't want them living here because of me.
With the population declining in O.C. at a steady rate, I don't think we'll have to worry too much about maintaining our roads & the rest of our infrastructure. There'll be nobody here to wear it out. You're correct Strike. Utica's empty sites don't get a mention when it comes to development. The selct few won't benefit from developing Bossert's, etc.
An arguement about sprawl would make more sense if the utilization of foolish alternatives ceased. Bosert's and Washington Cts.- tiny sites, Bendix- small with contamination issues, Harbor Point- what decade will a site be ready? Utica Psych- massive demolition or outrageously expensive renovations. The New Hartford site is clean and ready. The primary arguement against it is the excess land at Griffiss and the old airport park in Whitestown. But, please do not use substandard or otherwise inadequate Utica sites as alternatives. The real arguement has to do with business development strategies not sites. Finally, would your responders please learn what PILOTS are before commenting on them ?
PILOTS should be designed for non profits to volunteer to pay their fair share, not for the benefits of developers and their marketing people. That is the original intent of PILOTS.
Incorrect. PILOTS were created as part of TEFRA in, I think 1986, to encourage business investment by creating tax exempt securities.The intent had nothing to do with collecting substitute tax payments from non profits.
Well, I believe this is how Preswick Glen was going to be. A non for profit PILOT. Make no difference who is right or wrong PILOTS do nothing for the taxpayers.
The premise of PILOTS is based on generating tax dollars. By creating a tax free, for term of bond, investment vehicle investors are attracted to situations they may not otherwise be.As a result, job creation projects result. The problem with the program is that its original intent has been expanded and misused, particularly in commercial projects. But, these are local interpretations by local boards. Don't like it? Complain to or remove a County Executive who makes board appointments
Post a Comment