SamPratt.com

The Glacier Cometh

 

Take a moment to ponder this astonishing statistic: Columbia County’s population has not even doubled since 1800. 221 years ago, there were 35,000 people here. Today, there are about 63,000.

 

This one statistic explains 95% of why our area is now viewed as so “desirable.” Sure, we have a National Heritage River, great scenery, ruggedly beautiful terrain, plenty of agriculture, and lots of historic buildings. But it would be hard to notice any of those things if local population had kept pace with the rest of the nation. We would have hundreds of thousands, or even millions of residents (proportionally speaking). It would take an hour to drive from Hudson to Hillsdale.

 

How long can that last?

 

There is a population glacier to our south, and it is creeping northward. Has been for decades.

 

Events like 9/11 and COVID cause The Glacier to leap ahead, then settle down and resume its slow creep. Longtime residents get alarmed by the big leaps, then go back to sleep and take less notice of the steady glacial deposits.

 

With more climate, economic and other disasters (recently, the subway and apartment floods in NYC), that constant northward flow will just keep coming, and accelerating.

 

Frankly, it’s futile to try to stop it. Yell on Facebook about “citiots,” reminisce about the (not so) Good Old Days, pray for them to go back to Brooklyn all you like.  It ain’t happening. The culture wars between old and new (and newer) may rage; but the changes will proceed without a pause. Glaciers can’t be stopped.

 

.....................................

 

It will not be surprising if mid-Hudson populations explode over the next 25 years. As New York City, Long Island and Westchester become less and less livable, the Taconic and I-87 will be the paths of least resistance for urban refugees (already are). Destinations within a three-hour drive north of the metroplex will keep filling up. It only takes a small percentage of residents from those areas to head north to abruptly transform low-density counties like ours.

 

For now, population has remained steady, in large part because the increase in households has been accompanied by a decrease in household size: There are more homes, but smaller families. Don’t expect that to continue.

 

The average family size will stay smaller than it was a few generations ago, but the number of families will keep growing. In Columbia County, 65,000 could easily become 125,000. People will wake up and lament, “What happened to the place I once knew?” as if they never saw it coming. And then look around for scapegoats to blame, other than ourselves.

 

Across the River, you’re already hearing a lot of grousing about developments like the “massive” Winston Farm project, which would cover some 800 acres. According to published reports, this would include not just standalone homes, but also multi-family units... along with “an indoor waterpark resort,” plus “job incubators, an amphitheater, event space, camping spaces and an old mansion on-site that would be turned into a boutique hospitality space.

 

Oh, and an “agrihood concept,” whatever that is.

 

All that sounds pretty undesirable, at least at this moment. Honestly, this observer doesn’t like it one bit. Nor should anyone buy the developer’s carefully-massaged sales pitch, cribbing buzzwords and concepts from “smart growth” advocates as selling points.

 

Still, Winston Farm may look tame or even enlightened in retrospect, compared to what else may be coming. The pressure to slam in half-acre cookiecutter developments is going to be immense in the coming years, as realtors run out of existing housing stock to sell.

 

Then distressed farms and other larger properties owners, unable to foot their tax bills, will be glad to cash out to developers. They’ll retire to the Carolinas or Florida… only to get their comeuppance from heat and hurricanes. But that’s another story.

 

City buyers who 20 years ago would not “settle” for less than a handsome falling-down farmhouse on 20+ acres may in another 20 years come to feel fortunate to find a condo within sight (and earshot) of the Parkway or Thruway. Beats living with an elevated train 10 feet outside your apartment window, not to mention floodwaters up to your knees. And empty grocery shelves. They’re not going to feed millions from bespoke rooftop gardens.

 

.....................................

 

Many fantasize that land trusts will save us from this quandary. Their project is to raise money from ultrarich residents to put farmland and forests out of the reach of developers. Problem is, most if not all of these trusts have highly corporate-friendly boards, who are as terrified of controversy as they are inclined to “compromise” with (read: reap major donations from) developers. Often, these boards are populated by developers themselves.

 

Covenants meant to protect open space forever will get modified or even abandoned as the land rush accelerates, greatly augmenting these trusts’ coffers. Release 200 acres here to development, then sprinkle a little of the developer’s donation on one corner of the land for a small public park or farmer’s market, to appease any pesky critics. As once said by Ned Sullivan of Scenic Hudson—who placidly made a deal with a fossil fuel power plant behind the backs of activists, in exchange for a multi-million donation to his organization: Development is something they only seek to manage, not oppose.

 

Such all-but-ineveitable sellouts will be justified as necessary triage. We’ll come to accept the “curation” of growth, and try to make the best of things. In reality, we would be relegated to selecting the least worst option.

 

So what can we do to prepare for the inevitable? For starters, certainly support local agriculture to lessen their temptation to sell to developers. Get as many of your groceries and other essentials from local sources.

 

While we’re at it, tell your neighbors hyperventilating about solar farms to knock it off. We are headed for not just global warming, but global catastrophe. Every inch of solar generation—whether it is located here, or in Nebraska, or Siberia—benefits everyone to the extent that solar replaces fossil fuels and the carbon emissions which result from them. It also helps keep space relatively unspoiled. Solar can always be pulled up, and the soil will still be there.

 

Also, tell your newly-minted neighbors—whether longtime locals, or new arrivals from Manhattan—to not just register to vote, but to vote in more than just national elections. As reported here, turnout from the 2020 Trump-Biden tilt dropped precipitously in 2021, dropping off 43% just a year later. This demonstrates that many voters have yet to understand that local elections actually affect their quality of life (and pocketbook) more than Federal ones.

 

If you want to be able to recognize this place in 20 years, get involved. Support better zoning and more sensible local officials. Oppose boneheaded ideas that would truly destroy the health and character of the area; don’t oppose trivialities. Rather than railing at out-of-place newcomers, or mocking the supposed backwardness of old-timers, focus on solutions that will meaningfully lessen the dramatic changes heading our way.

 

That should include relatively low-impact and contextual new housing stock, built while we still have time, not in a hurry... before the pressure reaches crisis levels, and every pasture gets turned into Levittown.

Premature construction causes Ginsberg’s to torch its own $500K grant

David and Nancy Ginsberg, in a photo posted at the company’s website

Agency denies release of funds due to failure to follow grant requirements

A $516,000 Federal grant for the expansion of Ginsberg’s Foods in Ghent has been rescinded by the State, due to the company and Columbia County’s failure to follow strict procedures set forth in the grant requirements.

According to a news release from the community group GhentCAN, which obtained a letter documenting the State’s decision, the final approval of funding was denied on January 11th. The main reason given was a regulation which prevents grantees from beginning construction prior to final approval and release of the funds.

The letter from the Vice President of New York State Homes and Community Renewal, which can be downloaded as a PDF via this link, states firmly that “the Request for Release of Funds cannot be approved [due to] the transfer of the property to the business and construction starting at the site… The consequence of [these actions] is that the Federal HUD funding cannot be used for the ‘project.’”

Furthermore, the transfer of land from the County to Ginsberg’s was also apparently performed prematurely—both action leaving the State no choice but to cancel the grant under its rules.

The findings by the State indciate that evidence of premature construction was found on the website of the Columbia Economic Development Corporation, or CEDC, which was involved with obtaining the grant funding and approved transfer of 33 acres to Ginsberg’s for just $1. (The value of the land has been estimated at roughly $275,000.) The State letter indicates it also performed site visits and obtained information from local residents.

The relevant State regulations are apparently both clear and strict, leaving the State no choice but to cancel the grant.

Numerous residents driving past the expansion site off Route 66 had noticed in November and December that work was underway at the site, without realizing that it was in violation of the grant regulations. According to GhentCAN, residents noted excavation activity, including the “removal of dirt and gravel from the site”; the creation of “an access road”; and the presence of “various construction companies and personnel.”

Trucks belonging to the Colarusso company were noted by some passersby, which was of note as the company’s president has been a longtime CEDC member who voted in favor of benefits for the project. Colarusso’s name no longer appears on the CEDC board roster as of its December minutes.

GhenCAN also noted that Columbia County appeared to be well aware of these rules, having signed an October 20, 2015 certification agreeing that “no physical alteration to individual sites can occur nor can funds for those activities be committed or expended until receipt of an environmental clearance letter.”

 

Eliminate Hudson agency, State recommends

The City of Hudson has no further need for its Industrial Development Agency, according to a review and recommendations by New York State’s Authorities Budget Office (the “ABO”).

Though the report was issued three weeks ago, news of the State’s conclusion has been slow to hit the local papers, creating an impression that local officials may not be eager for word to get out. The report can be downloaded as a PDF file via this link.

Dated July 14th, 2015, the ABO report concludes that

“there is no demonstrable need for the IDA to continue in existence. The potential economic development functions provided by the IDA are being accomplished by other entities within the City of Hudson and any financial assistance benefits in the form of tax exemptions can be provided by the Columbia County IDA.”

The ABO’s main reasoning for this conclusion appears below:

“Since the IDA has only one active project, the project’s purpose is to provide low- income housing and not to create jobs, similar projects are administered directly by the City, the IDA is not actively marketing the property it owns for economic development, and other economic development entities are serving the City of Hudson, we question whether the IDA is needed.

Section 882 of General Municipal Law states that when all of the bonds or notes issued by an IDA have been redeemed or cancelled and all straight lease transactions have been terminated, the IDA ceases to exist and its rights, titles and interest and all obligations and liabilities are to vest in and be possessed by its sponsoring municipality. The IDA has no outstanding debt, and the existing lease and PILOT agreements could easily be transferred to the City, since the City already administers similar agreements.”

The report found a number of reporting and accounting errors by the agency regarding rents and tax abatements issued to various project. The agency reports only one active project, the Hudson Terrace Apartments, though the State found five other affordable housing projects on its books as of 2013, but no longer generating payments to the agency.

For as long as the IDA remains in existence, the ABO further concludes that

“it should take appropriate action to correct the PILOT allocation and lease revenue errors that occurred during 2011 through 2014 as identified in the report, and obtain and ensure that all data is accurately reported in PARIS.”

The findings likely did not come as a complete surprise to IDA members, as the ABO noted that in March 2011, the City agency’s board “considered the possible dissolution of the IDA, noting that the City could continue to administer the IDA’s PILOT agreement and that the Columbia County IDA could take over the IDA’s duties. However the board has not taken any formal action to begin the process of dissolution since.”

The current Hudson IDA members are Mayor Bill Hallenbeck, Treasurer Heather Campbell, Common Council Majority Leader Tiffany Garriga, 5th Ward Alderman Bart Delaney Jr., Planning Commission Chair (and Taghkanic resident) Cappy Pierro, and assessor Cheryl Kaszluga. There is also one vacancy on the board.

The report notes that the Hudson IDA has “no staff since all functions are performed by board members or obtained under procurement contracts.” The agency’s auditor is Shallo, Galluschio & Bianchi, whose most recent (2014) audit also can be downloaded as a PDF via this link.

Crawford resignation rumored this morning; some members have been meeting in secret

NOON UPDATE: According to GhentCANN’s Patti Matheney, Crawford did indeed resign this morning. (GOP chair Greg Fingar presented him with a bottle of gin as a farewell gift.) Retired realtor Mary Bartolotta, who has been outspoken about her distaste for the State investigation which prompted Crawford’s resignation, will serve as President for the next month as CEDC decides on next steps. Consultant Mike Tucker’s $6,000-per-month contract as temporary director was approved, taking on the role previously filled by Ken Flood, who remains in his County Planning/Development post for now.

---

According to a well-placed source, CEDC President David Crawford intends to resign at this morning’s meeting of the agency’s embattled board.

David Crawford with fellow CEDC Board member and GOP chair Greg Fingar (source: Crawford & Associates blog)

Crawford’s failure to disclose an obvious conflict of interest, while participation in CEDC decisions regarding his client, Ginsberg’s Foods, were highlighted in the recent State Authorities Budget Office investigation. The report was prompted by a complaint from citizen watchdogs GhentCANN.

Meanwhile, the five members (which includes Crawford) of CEDC’s new management committee have reportedly been meeting in private, without publicly noticing their meetings or posting minutes documenting them.

Failure to comply with Open Government regulations was one of the topics of the much-discussed State investigation of the agency.

According to New York State law, a public “meeting” is  defined as “the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business.” A  “public body” consists “of two or more members, performing a governmental function for the state or for an agency or department thereof, or for a public corporation...”

Since the management committee is conducting business for a public authority, and more than two members are present, its proceedings require public notice.

The ABO report noted regarding CEDC’s committees (prior to the formation of the  new management group) that

Committees and subcommittees established by public bodies are also subject to Open Meetings Law. CEDC has established two committees, its Executive Committee and a Loan Committee that reviews loans recommended by CEDC staff and determines if such loans will be recommended for board approval. However, CEDC does not provide public notice of these committee meetings or allow public access to these meetings. The CEDC does not maintain meeting minutes for its Loan Committee. CEDC also did not maintain meeting minutes for all of its Executive Committee meetings in 2014. Of the nine meetings held, minutes were taken only for six of those meetings, and none of these meeting minutes are posted on the CEDC website. [Emphases added.] 

So though the State chastised CEDC for failing to provide notice, allow public access, and maintain publicly-accessible minutes of its decisions for its two existing committees, the agency appears to not only have formed a third committee, but to be actively thumbing its nose at the State’s findings. No such notices or minutes currently appear at the agency’s website.

No strings attached? County kept paying CEDC without a signed contract

Despite having no signed contract with the Columbia Economic Development Council (CEDC) for the past 18 months, Columbia County has until very recently been sending CEDC some $115,000 every quarter.

Board of Supervisors chair Patrick Grattan

The news raises doubts about whether County officials neglected to exercise due diligence, basic oversight, and fiscal responsibility for funding totaling $437,000-$460,000 per year.

Funding allocations were approved each year by the Supervisors, but apparently contracts dictating the terms of their largesse stopped being signed. The County last had a contract with CEDC in 2013, according to documents obtained by this site, which can be downloaded [ HERE ] and [ HERE ].

In an email to colleagues this week, Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin characterized the situation as “sloppy management,” and that “common sense says you don't pay without a contract.” While waiting to find out whether the County “broke any rules, regs or laws by paying them without a valid contract in place,” Bassin questioned the potential legality of the (non-) arrangement:

“Arguably the payments we made in 2014 and 1Q 2015 are unauthorized and maybe even illegal...so it would be inappropriate to pay them for the 2Q until we resolve the contract matter... [W]hat are the legal implications of having paid CEDC for 5 quarters without having BOS approval via a valid contract?”

Bassin also noted that “As of last month's [Economic Development] Committee meeting, Ken Flood did not know whether or not Pat & CEDC had executed a contract covering the $500,000 of County support.” Flood is currently the County’s Planning and Development Commissioner, but has been let go from his Executive Director position at CEDC, without consultation with the County.

Hillsdale Supervisor Art Baer confirmed via email that “we do not have a contract [with] CEDC.” At the most recent Board of Supervisors meeting, County attorney Rob Fitzsimmons, who said at the last full BOS meeting that there is “no written contract” with CEDC, has also written that the 2014 contract was never signed. A marked-up, revised 2015 contract, stipulating a slightly lower payment of $109,250 quarterly, remains in limbo, per Fitzsimmons:

“I know Pat was going to review / discuss at a special County CEDC committee meeting, but don't think that occurred. I checked with Ken on the 2014, and that was not executed. ”

At least the County’s 2nd Quarter 2015 payment has apparently been held—not at the County’s initiative, it would seem, but due to a request by CEDC President David Crawford to hold back while the troubled development agency attempts to steady its listing ship. 

Curiously, though, minutes of the recent CEDC board retreat held at Columbia-Greene Community College appear to refer to an ongoing arrangement. In a discussion about proposed changes to how the agency is funded, a footnote on p. 8 of those minutes states that

“the actual wording of the Contract between CEDC and Columbia County is very similar to this wording.”

Some limited debate occurred at a recent County economic development committee meeting to find out about the status of the contracts, with Bassin being charged with looking into it. Since that meeting, Committee chair John Reilly has suggested in email that the County may still have an “oral” or “implied” contract with CEDC.

Reilly and Baer have been charged by the County with conducting an investigation into CEDC’s loans over the past five years. Allegations have arisen that while Baer remains keen to start digging, Reilly is dragging his heels—a charge he denies.

Baer had proposed instead that an independent investigator be appointed, and $10,000 allocated, so that any findings were not perceived to be political. That proposal was shot down by the full Board of Supervisors, with many recusing themselves, largely due to claimed budget concerns. (Though $10,000 to get to the bottom of a brewing scandal was deemed too much, apparently sending CEDC $115,000 quarterly without a written contract was fine.)

Hudson 3rd Ward Supervisor Ellen Thurston surprisingly has argued for paying CEDC its 2nd quarter monies anyway, and not “necessarily interfer[ing] in the internal management decisions of this nonprofit organization”—despite the County being essentially CEDC’s only means of making payroll. Moreover, the 2013 contract was for CEDC to provide "support services” to the County, and “administrative support” to the County’s Planning/Development Commissioner, tying the two even closer together. CEDC was acting as an “independent contractor” to the County, according to the contract’s language.

The status of any contract could have both an investigatory and a financial impact. In a blustering and typo-ridden letter to the Supervisors, CEDC attorney Andrew Howard questioned the County’s legal right to seek information on how it has spent these monies. Several Supervisors have pointed out what citizens have also said: As the principle funder of CEDC, the County certainly has the right to deny funding if its contractor refuses to provide important information. (Many attendees of recent meetings have noted the unusual degree to which CEDC board members seem to view it as a private business, rather than a public authority, for example by never acknowledging the audience and denying citizens the opportunity to ask questions.)

And interestingly, the 2013 document contained provisions for either party to recover costs for actions taken to enforce its rights under the contract. So possibly that $10,000 independent investigation proposed by Baer but voted down by the BOS could’ve been done for free, with CEDC footing the bill.

The County EDC generally agreed to a draft resolution to be proposed to the Finance Committee and full board, which reads:

“That the Board of Supervisors suspend quarterly CEDC funding (including the outstanding payment of the second quarter of 2015) pending a newly executed Columbia County-CEDC contract for 2015-2016 acceptable to the BOS and negotiated through the EDC committee and county legal department and conditioned upon fulfillment (before renewed payments) of the approved BOS loan file review (a BOS document request will be attached to the Contract).  Further, any proposed CEDC Restructuring Plan will also be approved by the BOS prior to the BOS-CEDC 2015-2016 Contract execution.”

However, Reilly did not bring the resolution forward as a motion, and there was no roll-call vote, so the Committee will have to have a special meeting in advance of the other two bodies to finalize language and take a formal vote.

Roback: Firing Flood isn’t enough

Stockport lawyer-turned-baker Louise Roback—who has been attending many of recent CEDC and County EDC meetings—has sent the following letter to her Town supervisor and others in County Government, reacting to the news that development czar Ken Flood has been pushed out of one of his three positions.

---

DEAR SUPERVISOR MURRELL AND SUPERVISOR MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:

I wish to share my comments on the “reorganization” of the CEDC announced as a result of its Board retreat yesterday.

That’s pretty terrible if the extent of the “reorganization” is to push Ken Flood out and not:

Remove the conflicted board members, hire new counsel who knows what conflicts of interest are and so instructs the board members, impose term limits on board members, and open up the organization—and its board of directors membership—to public oversight and monitoring, including pledging to fully cooperate with the review of loans to be undertaken by Supervisors Reilly and Baer.

It is atrocious that David Crawford remains on the board, the executive committee and will oversee the operations of the CEDC. Mr. Crawford should step down, as should Mr. Better and Mr. Sherwood, the Kinderhook Bank president, per the ABO findings. The Board should apologize to the County taxpayers for misappropriating public funds, years of making money for themselves and their friends at our expense. Mr. Better should return the money he made while a Board member to the taxpayers, and resign.

Mr. Crawford should not stay on the Board and have a part in administering the odoriferous Ginsberg’s public funds giveaway when he properly should not have been involved in the authorization of this boondoggle, per the ABO.

And the Board needs to answer to the Authorities Budget Office and Columbia County residents as to how it will resolve the systemic self-dealing found by the ABO. Merely looking for a new ED as announced in the press release is woefully inadequate. It is not a restructuring of the organization or the Board—whose conflicts the ABO addressed its report -- but merely superficial, and insults th public who pays for the CEDC’s operations.

If significant reorganization of the CEDC Board and operations does not occur immediately, Ihope the Board of Supervisors exercises its responsibilities and de-funds CEDC. Enough!

LOUISE ROBACK
Stockport

Supers meeting on Wednesday may be best show in town

BOS Chairman Pat Grattan (image adapted from: GrandOldPress.com)

The public may want to bring some extra bags of popcorn to the County Board of Supervisors’ regular meeting on Wednesday at 7:30—where the ethics, transparency and other management issues dogging the Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) are likely to come up.

Last month, the County’s separate economic development committee voted 5-0 to forward a resolution proposed by Hillsdale Supervisor Art Baer to the full Board, calling for an independent investigation into possible conflicts of interest during CEDC’s past five years of loans and grantmaking.

Prompted by a State report on conflicts of interest related to the Ginsberg’s Food proposal, as well as violations of open government laws, the investigation (if approved) would focus on only grants of $25,000 or more.

GhentCANN petition gathers steam

In five days, over 270 signatures have been gathered on an online petition calling for the Ghent planning board to appeal a judge’s ruling, which forces the Town’s Planning Board to issue permit to Ginsberg’s Foods.

The petition, which also calls for reforms of the County’s economic development agencies, can be read (and if so moved, signed) at this link.

The Board is slated to meet and discuss its options tonight at 7 pm at Ghent Town Hall.

UPDATE: Attorney Louise Roback has obtained and scanned the four decisions by Judge Koweek, which can be downloaded at the following links: ONE | TWO | THREE | FOUR

Reilly goes rogue, nullifying Committee’s vote

John Reilly (IMAGE: Gallatin Democrats)

Gallatin Supervisor John Reilly seems to want to head the Kafka Economic Development Committee. For Reilly, the chair of the County committee charged with overseeing economic planning, is now bizarrely denying what occurred in front of several dozen witnesses. Let’s review:

More than a week ago, at a meeting chaired by Reilly, it was reported by the Register-Star that:

“[C]ommittee members also voted to request a special Economic Development Committee meeting 4 p.m. June 10 to hear from Crawford, Sherwood and Better regarding the Ginsberg’s deal.”

The paper was referring to Crawford Engineering principal David Crawford, Kinderhook Bank president Bob Sherwood and attorney Bill Better—the three members of the Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) who were cited in a State investigation for failures to disclose conflicts of interest related to the controversial Ginsberg Foods deal.

This site observed and reported the same vote:

“Current Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin noted that the three ‘members of CEDC who are cited in the report have never come before us.’ Bassin later motioned to table Baer’s call for the three Board members’ resignations, in favor of inviting them instead to explain themselves at a future special meeting of Reilly’s committee—tentatively scheduled for June 10th.”

In the week after this site’s report appeared, neither Reilly nor any other committee member asked for a correction. Nor does it appear that any such correction was requested of the Register-Star, either. Why? Because everyone seemed to have seen the same thing.

Multiple attendees, including current and former elected officials and others present, had the same understanding of the vote. Patti Matheney of GhentCANN recalls:

“Art Bassin made a motion to ask Better, Crawford, and Sherwood to the special meeting to discuss the ABO report when Art Baer's motion for their resignations did not pass.”

In addition to the 5-0 vote in favor of Bassin’s compromise resolution, there was extensive conversation about the best date for a special meeting, given that time was of the essence. Committee members agreed to try for the 10th before the full Board of Supervisors meeting that day.

Following the vote, others in attendance spoke directly to Bassin’s motion, clearly referencing the invitation to the key CEDC members cited in the State report. As reported here:

“[Claverack resident] Ron Cardiss said that even if they were to take a ‘polygraph of Crawford and Better,’ that they’d just hear some variation on the old slogan that ‘what’s good for GM is good for America. They’re just going to say that what’s good for CEDC is good for the County.’”

In the wake of the meeting, attendees were buzzing about whether the trio would actually appear on the 10th. Would they snub the County committee? Or would they attend?

The next Tuesday morning, Hillsdale Supervisor Art Baer—who had called for the three’s resignations, leading to Bassin’s compromise motion to have them come before the Committee first—wrote to Reilly: 

“I would recommend you notice the special the June 10 meeting at 4:00 that the Eco. Dev. committee voted to have as soon as possible. And that Crawford, Better and Sherwood are personally invited to explain their side of the ABO Report. Would not want them to say not enough notice.“

That did not happen—quite the opposite.

Instead, the Committee’s 5-0 vote now appears to have been unilaterally dismissed by chair Reilly—who now claims things did not occur at all the way any of the above remember.

At a meeting this Tuesday of the CEDC, Reilly unexpectedly appeared in the company of County Board of Supervisors chair Pat Grattan. After Grattan sung the recently-stung agency’s praises for several minutes, Reilly (to the astonishment of multiple witnesses) then proceeded to deny that any demand or request for the appearance of Crawford, Better and Sherwood was made by his committee.

Moreover, he indicated that there would be no special meeting on the 10th.

After the meeting, one attendee told Grattan: “Reilly lied to you in there.”

This site has reached out to Reilly for an explanation and his version of events, and has had an extensive back-and-forth about what he believes transpired when his committee voted unanimously the previous week. Reilly now claims that they merely

“discussed inviting the CEDC to respond to the public comment on the ABO Report. At no time, did I, or the Committee, plan to single out or invite just the three individuals Supervisor Bear raised. The discussion was to invite the full board, including the whole Executive Committee…”

The full CEDC board has 22 members, making such an invitation impractical at best. Had that bee the subject of the 5-0 vote, someone surely would have at least suggested a larger room for the special meeting.

In an email exchange between several Supervisors which has since occurred, Reilly again denied what others recall had occurred: 

“We did not discuss inviting just three individuals to the special meeting, or any meeting.”

Baer speedily contradicted Reilly’s revisionist version of events:

 “[I]t was decided that the individuals who were named should have a chance to explain their part in the ABO report.”

While admitting to be fuzzy in his recollection of whether the Executive Committee or whole 22-member CEDC would also be welcome—something he discussed with Reilly after the meeting and vote—Bassin chimed in that

“My recollection was that we wanted to review the ABO report with the three individuals named in the report before voting on Art Baer's resolution to ask for their resignations…”

One thing is absolutely clear: Reilly decided on his own to nix the June 10th meeting—because he wants CEDC to have the benefit of a “retreat” first. He writes in an email to this site:

“I think they are best prepared to come to our next monthly meeting, not a special meeting the day before their annual meeting.... The CEDC has taken path to implement a whole new structure in response and not just ignore the issue as a technical oversight. If I am going to be supportive of public input, then I also have to applaud the CEDC's earnest reaction to that input.”

 

As noted by attendees of a meeting immediately after the ABO report came to light—an investigation which CEDC did not alert Reilly’s committee about, even when asked pointed questions—members joked about and scoffed at the State’s findings.

Reilly indicated in an email to this site only one regret: that they did not write down the actual resolution. He still insists:

“I recall and I think the minutes will attest that we actually set up the meeting to invite all CEDC Board and the executive Committee.” 

So what are the status of those minutes? According to a source who spoke with the minute-keeper, she did not record the proceedings on tape. A draft has, however, been prepared. Prior to circulation to the entire committee, her minutes are submitted for editing by… Supervisor Reilly.

To paraphrase comedian Richard Pryor: Who are you going to believe—Reilly, or your lying ears?

Denial of Ginsberg’s permit overturned by Judge Koweek

According to an attorney who has seen the decisions, Columbia County Judge Richard Koweek “ruled in favor of Ginsberg’s on all four lawsuits” and has ordered the Ghent Planning Board to grant the company a special use permit.

As a rule, it is very rare in New York State for judges to overrule decisions by local agencies such as planning and zoning boards.

The decision is ironic in at least one respect: The State Authorities Budget Office decided not to delve deeper into the conflict of interest issues related to Ginsberg’s and the Columbia Economic Development Corporation, due to the denial by the Ghent Planning Board. The ABO said that the denial rendered such conflict questions moot:

No harm has yet arisen [emphasis added] from the board’s failure to follow its own policies since the Ginsberg Foods expansion project was not approved by the Ghent Planning Board. This may not always be the case with future projects.

Today’s news begs the question: What harm may have arisen now?

From the rafters

The new organic dairy barn in Churchtown, designed and built by Rick Anderson for Abby Rockefeller (first reported upon here several years ago), had an open house Saturday afternoon in conjunction with the nearby Triform Camphill site. More photos of the site and event are below:

Above: Anderson & Rockefeller

All the gory details from County meeting about CEDC

Current and former officials join call to hold agency accountable for “odor” around loan deals

Along with the two corrective resolutions proposed yesterday by Hillsdale Supervisor Art Baer at the County’s development committee meeting, loads of other revelations and opinions were aired about how CEDC conducts its affairs.

An unusual number of past and present County officials joined concerned citizens at the standing-room-only meeting, held at 401 State Street in Hudson. Each group uniformly criticized how the Columbia Economic Development Corporation (easily confused with the County’s similarly-named committee) does business.

Former Stockport supervisor Leo Pulcher urged the County’s leaders to act promptly on the recent, stinging Authorities Budget Office (ABO) investigative report into the Ginsberg land deal and other inner workings of CEDC.

Following Austerlitz Supervisor Rob Lagonia’s demurral that he did not have enough information yet to form an opinion, Pulcher retorted that “You have an independent agency who already did” the investigative work some on the Committee were proposing.

“Look hard at that report,” Pulcher said, “It's been done. Act on what is before you.”

The scene at 401 State

Supervisor Joel Craig had to leave the committee early for a Germantown meeting, but stated that “the ABO report concerns me greatly.”

Former Gallatin Supervisor Linda Scheer echoed Pulcher’s sentiments, cautioning against any suggestion of “just sitting back, waiting, and forming more subcommittees.”

Scheer said that there is “an odor” around “certain projects,” citing not just the Ginsberg land deal but other past projects, such as funding for the Soil & Water building and the aborted purchase of a County building in Hudson. CEDC seems accustomed to “circumventing” usual channels, Scheer indicated. “You can’t just keep saying, ‘let’s look into it. CEDC members will just keep saying, ‘Let me see what happens, whether I get caught.”

As the tidbit was shared that the CEDC’s sister group, the County Industrial Development Agency [IDA], had less than $10,000 in cash to spend, Scheer wondered “how did the IDA afford to pay attorney Bill Better $22,000” as reported by the ABO.

Scheer likewise wanted to know who sold these agencies their insurance policies, and whether there was transparency on such contracts to avoid more conflicts of interest. County economic development czar Ken Flood claimed that the CEDC alone had about eight different insurance policies, but did not name which insurance brokers write these for them.

Near the end of the meeting, Scheer also called for a “point of order” as the Committee was proceeding to vote on Baer’s resolutions, due to Hudson Supervisor Sarah Sterling’s recent appointment as CEDC board secretary. Sterling abstained from the first, but not the second, of the votes, as Scheer cautioned that it was risky business for an elected official to also serve as an agency’s officer.

As a new officer of CEDC, Sterling now sits on the agency’s Executive Committee, which was found in the report to be out of compliance with Open Meetings law. “It was hard to even find out who is on the Executive Committee,” Sterling noted. “There seems to be a revolving cast of characters, though they are supposed to be appointed by resolution. [But] that hasn’t always happened,” she said.

Pressed for names, Flood indicated that at the time of the Ginsberg’s land deal, CEDC’s Executive Committee consisted of its officers—President David Crawford, whose engineering firm has performed extensive work for Ginsberg’s, Vice President and retired realtor Mary Bartolotta, then-Secretary David Colby and head of the County IDA Bruce Bohnsack, plus Republican County chair Greg Fingar of Fingar Insurance.

Baer, for his part, issued possibly the most stern official words about CEDC. He recalled that he had received “two letters from CEDC’s lawyer [Andrew Howard], denying his request for an opinion on the Board’s ethics, calling the request overboard and not warranted. These said that CEDC has complied with all ethical matters. I was not made aware that the ABO had already intervired CEDC. I didn’t know there was an investigation going on,” which would soon find there were “serious conflicts with three CEDC Board members.”

Baer added that a p.r. firm, Behan Communications, was also hired without Board approval to assist with promoting the Ginsberg’s proposal.

“The issue is the process that occurred in this case, and may have occurred in other cases,” Baer continued. “It’s time for the Board of Supervisors to be proactive, not reactive, and restore the public trust about the use of taxpayer money for economic development. We need to show that we are not just a microcosm of the State Legislature, just with fewer zeros. [Board of Supervisors chairman] Pat Grattan said at a recent commencement that students should ‘be true to yourselves.’ It’s time for us as Supervisors to also be true to ourselves.”

Former County attorney Dan Tuczynski spoke at length about how he is “very concerned” by the process CEDC uses to hand out loans and choose development projects for support.

“This is about public integrity,” Tucznyski said, adding that since “we all know the people in this community, it can be cifficult to speak out about conflicts. The average person doesn’t want to do that. But I think it is important now. There is a question about whether everybody can get a fair shake” before the agency.”

“Nobody is disclosing conflicts” on the CEDC board, Tuczynski continued. “In my opinion, it is wrong. You need to get to the bottom of whether this [the handling of the Ginsberg deal] is an aberration or a pattern.” He concluded by stating that the County should not pretend to be powerless in the situation, since they have “the absolute power to make change” through its control of almost all of CEDC’s annual funding.

Current Ghent Supervisor Mike Benvenuto said that he was attending primarily as an observer, but that he was at the moment disinclined to vote for continued County funding of CEDC. Ghent Town Board member Mallory Mort concurred with comments from the audience, including from former Hudson Planning Commission member and business owner Peter Jung, that long-term tax abatement deals put a big strain on local budgets, transferring budgetary burdens from corporations to ordinary taxpayers.

Jung said that “preferential tax deals—ten-year property tax abatements to corporations which gross over $100 million—create a vicious cycle.” He also warmed of the “great danger of this committee kicking the can down the road. There’s a dark cloud over development in this County, and it has to be dispelled.”

Several who attended the last meeting of the CEDC noted that the agency’s leadership showed a dismissive attitude about the ABO report.

Hudson Development Corporation board member Christine Jones noted that “A lot of jokes were made about the ABO report.” The CEDC board “could not have been less welcoming” to the audience.

Despite CEDC being a public agency funded almost exclusively by tax dollars, “They look at you with such disdain, like you shouldn’t be there.... This is a group which is very well-connected among themselves,” she added.

Jones noted that she has taken the State-mandated trainings which some CEDC Board members had been shirking for years, indicating that these take only two hours, and can be completed by conference call. CEDC minutes for years have included perfunctory reminders that Board members still needed to complete such trainings; Flood, said to be the highest-paid County employee, claims that in the wake of the ABO report all but one have now finally complied.

Jones also got into a back-and-forth with Flood, who she said had opened the CEDC’s last meeting by blaming “politics”—“the governor and the legislature”—for its recent troubles. Flood protested yesterday that he hadn’t really been complaining about the laws requiring more accountability from the public, but was merely providing “context,” but the explanation fell flat and elicited groans from the audience.

Repeated statements were made that the laws requiring ethics training, conflict of interest disclosure, and open meetings had only been on the books since 2012, or even less time.

This commenter noted—as previously reported here—that The Public Authorities Reform Act of 2009 which appeared to vex CEDC board members was nearly six years old, and had been in place before either Flood or Crawford assumed their positions.

(Another comment from this corner: Why is CEDC’s microenterprise loan program now offering terms of 7.75% interest, when Ginsberg’s only paid 1% on a long-term $400,000 loan—and a small farm recently was “given” far higher terms of 10%? The agency’s newly-announced rate is all the more baffling, given that commercial banks currently offer more like 4%... Is CEDC gouging local borrowers, or taking on riskier-than-average clients?)

GhentCANN’s Patti Matheney, who attended the last CEDC meeting along with Jones, agreed that the agency literally makes “no room for the public. We are not recognized, and they go into executive session at the drop of the hat.” Citizens who attempt to find out how their tax dollars are being used get the strong impression, she said, that “everything that comes before their board has already been decided in private.”

Committee Chair John Reilly, Scheer’s successor as Supervisor of Gallatin, seemed to take interest when Matheney highlighted a point made in the ABO report. The State’s investigation only provisionally found that there was “no harm, no foul” arising from the potential conflicts of interest in the $1 Ginsberg deal, since the Ghent Planning Board had turned Ginsberg’s expansion project down. But if the Planning Board’s decision is overturned due to the company’s legal appeal—now being considered by County judge Richard Koweek—that would reopen the can of worms. You could no longer say, “no harm, no foul,” Matheney observed.

A back-and-forth between Reilly and Lagonia teased out indications that the roughly $430,000 donated by the County annually to CEDC goes almost entirely to staff salaries, not even including Flood’s pay, said to be well in excess of $100,000 per year. Reilly also stated that his committee’s “oversight role has not be clear, and needs to be better established.”

Lagonia also wondered why the CEDC oversight subcommittee appointed by Grattan had been dissolved “without his knowledge.” Reilly indicated that it had never met.

Matheney continued that the problem does not seem limited to the recent controversy over giving 33 acres of land for $1 to Ginsberg’s Foods. On issues such as the County Airport or the TCI plant—which handled PCBs and caused a Countywide emergency when their building expoded—CEDC showed interest in only the industry’s side. “There was no interest in public input, no interest in hearing the facts. The public has been misled over and over again, and even the ABO report seems to be a joke to them.”

Lastly, Matheney lamented how citizens have to hire lawyers if they want to get any information about these publicly-funded issues.

“Good luck getting anything out of them,” Matheney said. “I feel your pain. It’s almost impossible to find anything out without hiring an attorney, even for a simple FOIL [Freedom of Information Law] request.”

Local farmer and potential Ginsberg’s neighbor Tom Runyon noted that “if you go back and look at some of CEDC’s records from the 1990s,” when it was formed, “you see a lot of the same names” on its Board. “That could be part of the problem,” Runyon said.

This attendee likewise noted that the first (and last) time he was invited to a CEDC meeting was in the Spring of 1999, and that most of the people in the room 16 years ago remain either on the CEDC board, or the IDA, or other positions of prominence in the County. CEDC was led at the time, for example, by accountant Dick Koskey, whose firm is now the agency’s appointed auditor.

Claverack resident Joann Cardiss reminded the Committee that Flood had misled the public about the County’s cost of acquiring the land later to be given to Ginsberg’s for $1. “You said it was inherited, until I brought a member of the family who sold it to the County to a meeting,” Cardiss recalled. (At that County IDA meeting, residents proved with hard documentation that in fact the County paid $110,000 for the 33 acres in 2007.)

Flood claimed that he was “misquoted” in the paper regarding an inheritance, but he never appeared to contact the Register-Star for a correction. And multiple IDA and CEDC board members stated that they had not known the land had cost the County anything.)

Her husband, Ron Cardiss, added that CEDC needs to be completely “dismantled and rebuilt.”

Stockport resident Louise Roback, an attorney, said that she had “never complained before at a meeting, but this is outrageous.” Calling the CEDC’s procecures “a disgrace,” she lamented that the public “likes to presume that everything is regular. But it’s not that way at all. Ken Flood didn’t even mention the ABO investigation at your last meeting. I don’t think the CEDC takes this seriously.”

Regarding the report’s finding that Better was paid more than $22,000 to advance tax breaks for the Ginsberg’s project before the IDA, while he served on the CEDC—a conflict never disclosed—Roback said that “You shouldn’t enrich yourself at taxpayer expense. How can Better stay on the board.” (Note: Better not only remains on the Board, but was promoted to its Executive Committee after the ABO report.)

“What is CEDC doing to address these serious ethical lapses?” Roback asked. “They need to show us why they should still get public funding. The three board members caught enriching themsleves from [CEDC’s] pursuits should resign. They used their positions to help themselves.”

Current Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin noted that the three “members of CEDC who are cited in the report [Better, Crawford, and Kinderhook Bank President Bob Sherwood] have never come before us.” Bassin later motioned to table Baer’s call for the three Board members’ resignations, in favor of inviting them instead to explain themselves at a future special meeting of Reilly’s committee—tentatively scheduled for June 10th.

Regarding Bassin’s deferral of action on the ABO report, Ron Cardiss said that even if they were to take a “polygraph of Crawford and Better,” that they’d just hear some variation on the old slogan that “what’s good for GM is good for America. They’re just going to say that what’s good for CEDC is good for the County.”