Legislative Actions

The Town of Kent Town Board is proposing to amend the zoning law for the Town by adopting something euphemistically called an Office Park Overlay District, or OPOD. You can see the text of the proposed law on the Town’s website, here. The proposal would permit and encourage R-80 residential land with access to state or county roads to be developed for commercial uses such as warehouses, distribution centers and manufacturing so long as the parcel involved meets certain conditions spelled out in the proposal and so long as the Town Board approves.

After studying it extensively, I’ve become convinced the proposal is an extremely bad idea that has the potential to seriously damage our town and our way of life. Yes, we need responsible commercial development, but this is not the way to go about encouraging it.

The Town Board will reconvene the public hearing on this matter on June 21 at 7PM at the town hall. After you understand what’s being proposed, I hope you’ll come to this hearing and speak out against this ill-considered proposal.

David Ehnebuske

Why the OPOD is a Truly Bad Idea

The OPOD propsal should not become law for three main reasons.

First: The process used to develop the OPOD proposal is not a good one

The Town has a Comprehensive Plan. It was adopted after considerable work, expense and public discussion. Now the public has every right to expect the Town to use the Plan to guide its land use decisions. That said, no plan is perfect. If the Town Board concludes that there are aspects of it that aren't working as well as they need to -- for example, if the Plan doesn't sufficiently encourage redevelopment of the Route 52 corridor -- then the Town Board should amend the Plan using a process similar to the one used to create it in the first place. Once agreement is reached on updates to the Plan, then it would be time to draft legislation to implement the agreed-to changes.

What's happened here is nothing like that. Out of nothing we suddenly see fully formed draft legislation that doesn't just fail to implement an amended Plan, it hardly acknowledges the Plan's existence. In bringing forward the OPOD proposal in this way, the Town Board has broken the promise of stability and predictability the Plan ostensibly represents. Regardless of the merits of the proposal, the process used to create the OPOD proposal is both wrong and wrongheaded.

Second: The OPOD proposal itself is a bad idea

Completely independent of the process used to develop it, there's the OPOD proposal itself. I think it's a terrible idea for two reasons.

Number one, the proposal doesn't follow the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan says, "The R-80 and R-40 residential zoning in Kent should not change." (Land Use and Zoning Policy 1). The Consulting Town Planner points out that adopting the OPOD doesn't change the zoning of any property. That’s true enough in the sense that no land is moved from one zone to another. Instead, the proposal changes the definition of the R-80 zone itself. In the existing definition, office parks, light industrial, and the other uses outlined in the OPOD draft are not permitted. With the proposed change, those uses are permitted so long as the property involved meets the OPOD criteria and the Town Board agrees. In my book, keeping the name of a zone and changing its definition is a zoning change, and adopting this one would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.

The second reason the OPOD proposal is a bad idea is that it undermines the very reasons for having zoning laws. Our zoning laws assure residents and businesses that land use patterns in the Town are well thought-out, stable and predictable over long periods of time. This gives residents and businesses the confidence they need to make large, long-term investments in our community. People and businesses don't invest where land use can suddenly and unpredictably change. Yet, that's exactly what the OPOD proposes for large sections of the Town. With the OPOD in place, no one with R-80 property near a county or state highway could reasonably predict what might happen to vacant land next door. Today its R-80 zoning permits only residential use, but tomorrow a warehouse, parking garage or factory could be okay. From a zoning point of view all it takes is a developer who puts together 25 acres, gains access to the road, and receives the nod from a majority of the Town Board. This is not how zoning laws are supposed to work.

One last thing on this topic. Proponents of the proposal have put forward the idea that because OPOD projects would need to go through all of the environmental vetting processes, be designed and constructed to conform to building codes and so on, the proposal is somehow less bad. That’s hogwash. The subject of the proposal is zoning, not construction standards, architectural guidelines or environmental impact processes. At the end of the obfuscation, we’re still talking about changing the definition of the R-80 zone. That’s a bad idea, plain and simple.

Third: The OPOD proposal doesn't accomplish the goal the Consulting Town Planner said it was designed to accomplish

At the May Planning Board workshop the Consulting Town Planner said that the OPOD proposal was motivated by the desire to encourage redevelopment of some of the commercial areas along Route 52. Many people, including me, agree with that goal. But the OPOD proposal is completely off target if that's its intent. The OPOD proposal applies to land zoned R-80, but none of the parcels along Route 52 that might benefit from redevelopment is zoned R-80. The OPOD simply wouldn't apply.

On the other hand as the Consulting Town Planner said at the Public Hearing, the OPOD proposal does apply to the undeveloped land to the north of the Town Center. But that's not redevelopment.

In summary, it’s my view that the OPOD proposal would not serve the interests of the Town, its residents, or businesses and should not be adopted. It’s also my view that, the Town Board would be well advised to address any land use issues it identifies using an open process that begins with changes to the Comprehensive Plan and ends with adopting legislation. Doing it that way is much more likely to generate public support for needed change and, at the same time, produce a better result.

Help stop this poorly thought-through proposal before it has a chance to wreck our neighborhoods. Attend the public hearing on June 21 at 7pm in the Town Hall. Speak out against the Office Park Overlay District proposal.

N.Y. Senate Goes Republican, Aided by Two Democrats http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiq_YGCzi630

By Henry Goldman and Michael Quint

June 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republicans reclaimed control of the New York state Senate with help from two Democrats, who rebelled against a $131.8 billion budget they said was negotiated in secret.

Pedro Espada from the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate from Queens sided with 30 Republicans on key votes to change the Senate’s leadership. Democrats immediately challenged the claim and described the action as illegal. Governor David Paterson called it “despicable.”

The maneuver, just two weeks before the Legislature’s scheduled June 22 adjournment, leaves in doubt the outcome of bills to allow gay marriage, create a new money-saving pension category for future state and city workers and approve taxes to balance New York City’s budget.

“We would be in uncharted waters,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in an impromptu news conference in Manhattan. “I expect to have an on-time budget, but we have to have reasonable assurances that revenue will be there. And if this were to get held up -- and I don’t know if that’s the case, this is hypothetical -- we would not be facing anything that we’ve seen before.”

Democrats say they will go to court arguing that they adjourned the Senate session before the Republicans named Dean Skelos as the new majority leader, ousting Malcolm Smith.

Democrats in November took the lead in the Senate for the first time in 43 years, with a 32-30 majority. They have controlled the Assembly and the offices of governor, attorney general and comptroller since 2006.

City’s Stakes

The transfer of power could affect Bloomberg’s effort to persuade the state Legislature to extend the law giving him control over city schools, said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College in Manhattan. The law, enacted in 2002, is set to expire June 30.

The Senate switch “gives the mayor a lot of leverage because he’s been a very major campaign contributor to the Republican Party Senate campaign, and Republicans supported mayoral control” of the schools, Sherrill said in an interview. “On taxes, I’m not so sure, because the Republicans may want to use the tax issue against the Democrats in 2010.” Bloomberg has given New York State Republican Senate campaign committees more than $1.3 million since 2003, according to New York State Board of Election records. The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

Bloomberg also wants the Legislature to approve a 0.5 percentage point increase in the sales tax to balance the budget for the 2010 fiscal year, which starts July 1.

Pension Issue

The new pension category, which the state’s two largest public employee unions accepted June 5, would save state taxpayers more than $30 billion over 30 years, and has become a priority for the governor. A delay or a dysfunctional Legislature could derail it.

The pension bill is also crucial to Bloomberg’s agenda, should city unions agree to its less generous provisions, because the city would save $200 million next year and $7 billion over 20 years, Bloomberg has said.

“Given that the state will continue to face budgetary shortfalls, this will likely add to the paralysis in Albany,” Sherrill said in a written statement. “Negotiating with a divided Legislature over budget cuts and/or tax increases will be sheer hell for Governor Paterson, and for everyone else.”

Espada said he was moved to launch the revolt by the secrecy of the budget process, when the state closed a record $17.7 billion deficit with help from a rise in income tax rates for individuals earning more than $200,000 a year. Votes for that package were coerced, he said, by threats to deprive lawmakers of the funds known as “member items,” which they provide directly to groups in their districts.

Still Democrats

Monserrate still considers himself a Democrat and expects that in the new “bi-partisan coalition” he will continue to meet in conferences with others of his party. Espada said the same.

Espada said at least four or five other Democrats told him they will join him and Monserrate in a new Senate coalition.

Both senators have legal issues that could complicate their political futures. A New York grand jury indicted Monserrate in March on felony assault charges stemming from a Dec. 19, 2008, incident, when he was a city councilman, in which he allegedly slashed his girlfriend with a drinking glass.

Last month Smith scolded Espada for failing to file disclosure reports with the state Board of Elections, for which Espada was fined more than $13,000. The city Campaign Finance Board also fined him $61,750 for violations stemming from an unsuccessful 2001 campaign for Bronx Borough president.

Espada Catchup Plan

Espada said he will complete his overdue campaign finance filings by Friday, and pay his outstanding $60,000 debt to New York City’s campaign finance board by August.

Skelos said in a statement that Smith and the Democrats “broke their promises” to reform the chamber, resulting in “the most secretive and dysfunctional session in recent history and a complete and total failure to govern.” He promised “more accountability, transparency, efficiencies, balance and fairness” under his leadership.

The tactics for reversing Senate control “crystallized” at meetings over the weekend, said Senator George Winner, a Republican from Elmira. “I don’t know how long there have been talks with Espada and Monserrate,” he said.

Senator Betty Little, a Republican from Glens Falls, said, “The biggest surprise is that the plan wasn’t leaked ahead of time.”

Lawmakers may have to remain in Albany beyond the scheduled end of the session, Paterson said. “I don’t really know what the outcome will be” when the dispute goes to court, Paterson said.

Instead of arguing about leadership positions, Paterson said, lawmakers should be working on pending legislation such as a cap on state spending and curbing increases in property taxes or fixing an emerging budget deficit.

To contact the reporters on this story: Henry Goldman in New York City Hall at hgoldman@bloomberg.net; Michael Quint in Albany, New York, at mquint@bloomberg.net