SamPratt.com

Quotable Gruber

“Developers and other businesses generally say that they want predictability in the regulatory environment so they know what to do, and that time is money so project delays are one of the worst things for them. In the real estate world, using a strategic approach that can get a project to approvals and construction more quickly would seem to be a big advantage.

“Why is it so rare that a developer studies what might work from a community’s perspective and tries to come in with a project proposal that is likely to have more support? If I were in this business, I would try to do my research, perhaps have several ideas in mind, perhaps present one or two concepts, and listen to what the community thinks to shape something that could move to approvals more quickly.”

—Simon Gruber, environmental planner

 

After the Flood: Shakeup in County development?

A shakeup is reportedly brewing which may alter the leadership of some or all of Columbia County’s various development agencies.

In 2010, when David Ginsberg was still President of the Columbia County Development Corporation (CEDC), Kenneth J. Flood was hired to wear three hats: Executive Director of CEDC, Executive Director of the Columbia County Industrial Development Agency (IDA), and Commissioner of the County’s Planning and Economic Development.

Four years later, multiple sources now claim that Flood is likely to lose at least two of those titles.

Several versions of this leadership upheaveal predict that Flood will be out entirely. According to another, Flood will retain his Commissioner’s position, but the overlapping roles of CEDC and IDA director will be handed to someone new—new, at least, for Columbia County.

Sandy Mathes (SOURCE: nysenate.gov)

The reported frontrunner for the position is former Greene County IDA chief Alexander (“Sandy”) Mathes, who also in the late 1990s was the Republican majority leader in the Greene County Legislature.

After moving over to the agency in 2002, Mathes left the IDA in 2011 under something of a cloud. At the time of his abrupt departure, The Watershed Post reported

If you know the history of Mathes' tenure at the IDA, however, it's not hard to guess why he’s out.

Mathes made statewide headlines last year after news broke that he received a $175,000 bonus in 2009 on top of his $130,000 salary. Although the IDA's chairman, Paul Slutzky, defended the payments to Mathes, he later resigned. It’s not surprising to find that Mathes has followed suit.

When the scandal broke last year, Mathes told the Daily Mail that the only reason he stuck around in Greene County was because of the super-sized bonuses.

While some news outlets reported that Mathes resigned, others (such as The Albany Business Review) said that the Greene County IDA “terminated” his contract due to the controversy over allegedly unearned bonuses. According to The Kingston Daily Freeman, Catskills Legislator Karen Deyo “said the issue of Mathes' bonuses was most recently raised by lawmakers following committee meetings on Aug. 9, and led to a shouting match.”

The Albany Times-Union wrote that a State Authorities Budget Office

report also found that Mathes’ salary, which jumped from $75,000 when he was hired in 2002 to $130,285 last year, has risen without proper board approvals. In fact, the report found that Mathes' salary is in the top 5 percent of all IDA directors in the state, comparable with those in more urban areas such as Westchester and Nassau counties.

A scathing 2009 investigation by New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli likewise did not look favorably on the performance of the Greene County IDA during this period. The Watershed Post again succinctly summarized the situation:

DiNapoli’s report shows that while Greene County’s IDA gives out the largest number of net tax exemptions in the state after New York City’s IDA, those exemptions, which amount of 25% of the county's tax levy, did diddly squat for job creation between 2002 and 2009. [The report found that] ‘in several of the counties with relatively large tax exemptions compared to total levy, there were job losses between 2002 and 2009 – including Greene County.’”

More recently, Mathes was hired as a consultant to Otsego County’s IDA at the beginning of this year. According to the official page of State Senator James Seward, Mathes was hired to “facilitate the preparation of a strategic economic development action plan which will include greenfield site preparation, re-development opportunities, and the re-use of vacant buildings.”

According to a source who closely tracks preservation issues, Mathes sought to set up a novel program while at the Greene County IDA to identify neglected or underused historic properties which wcould be eligible for grants—dubbed “preservation-ready,” a play on the more familiar industry phrase of “shovel-ready.” He is credited with attracting the Serta Mattress facility in Greene County, and (per the T-U) helping to convert the Steifel facility in Durham to “a toothpaste factory.”

Mathes also was a booster for a proposed $110 million “indoor water park complex” in New Baltimore which evidently has not come to pass. Greene County also lost the once-thriving Friar Tuck Resort during this period.

Said by some to be the highest-paid Columbia County employee, Flood has been under fire for a series of missteps, including several high-profile projects which have failed despite County support (such as Phoenix Hudson and Local Ocean) as well as for the handling of the proposed County Airport and Ginsberg expansions.

Other names bandied about as possible successors to Flood—if indeed there will be a succession—include CEDC microenterprise loan doyenne Martha Lane, CEDC publicity maven Carol Wilbur, former CEDC deputy director Todd Erling, Columbia County Chamber chief David Colby, Pattison Koskey principal Mike Bucci, among others.

If there is any truth to the Mathes rumor, it would extend the curious phenomenon of many prominent Columbia development officials living outside the County.

 

 

Meeting minutes inadvertantly expose chronic CEDC conflict concerns

Stark contradiction in Flood and Crawford statements

The CEDC Board prepares to meet. Five chairs were provided for the audience in the room; the overflow of another 8-10 people had to try to listen from the nextdoor anteroom.

Recently-circulated minutes of the Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) inadvertantly expose the agency’s growing perception problem regarding conflicts-of-interest among its members and staff.

Scrutiny has focused on CEDC Board President David Crawford’s dual role as the principal of Crawford & Associates Engineering (which is the engineering firm for the Ginsberg’s Foods expansion project along the border of Ghent and Claverack), as well as former Board President David Ginsberg’s influence.

Approved at yesterday’s Board meeting, the minutes for its previous August 26th gathering quote Executive Director Kenneth J. Flood on the topic of Crawford’s participation on the Ginsberg $1.5 million grant and $1 land deal:

“Mr. Flood stated to the best of his knowledge, Mr. Crawford had not taken part in any discussion or vote regarding the Ginsberg’s project.”

However, the following pages of the same minutes document examples of Crawford participating in such discussions.

In a Board debate about the hiring of Behan Communications to assist with p.r. for the Ginsberg project and to improve CEDC’s image, the minutes state:

“Mr. Crawford gave the Ginsberg’s project as an example, noting the public relations had room for improvement.”

Earlier  minutes also show Crawford on the record about Ginsberg’s during Board meetings. For example, CEDC’s June 2014 minutes state that

“Mr. Crawford noted that Ginsberg’s was well on their way to completion. He noted Behan could use Ginsberg’s as a CEDC accomplishment.”

Behan Communications, by the way, is also the p.r. company for TCI of NY, the PCB-processor whose Ghent facility exploded two summers ago, forcing County residents to stay inside for much of a summer day. Crawford’s engineering firm also likewise worked for TCI. Other Board members not directly connected to Ginsberg’s, such as former Independent publisher Tony Jones, have questioned the $10,000 retainer of Behan, which was intially greenlighted—reportedly by Flood and Crawford—without Board approval.

Later, the minutes’ account of a discussion of the conflict-of-interest question raised by Hillsdale Supervisor Art Baer again cites Crawford participating in a matter related to Ginsberg’s. Development czar Flood reported that

“Supervisor [Baer] had not backed down from his request for a formal legal opinion about the land transaction as well as a statement stating there was no conflict of interest by any Board member. Mr. Crawford stated this was all due to politics.”

Meeting in private, the minutes further state that the $1 sale to Ginsberg’s of 33 acres acquired by the County for $109,500 had been voted upon by the CEDC Executive Committee. After the meeting, this site was told by Board member Mary Bartolotta that the Executive Committee includes Crawford.

Crawford with Columbia County Republican chair and CEDC Board member Greg Fingar (SOURCE: Crawford Associates’ blog)

(Though it involves more than two members of a public body as defined in New York State Open Meetings Law, the Executive Committee does not provide notice of its meetings, and no minutes of its meetings are taken, according to a Board member speaking on condition of anonymity. As a result, there is no known record of whether Crawford participated in the above-mentioned Executive Committee discussion and vote.)

Ginsberg’s Food co-owner David Ginsberg was formerly the President of CEDC until 2010, remaining as a Board member until just two months before the application submitted by CEDC was approved by the Cuomo administration.

As also reported here, a source familiar with the process for hiring Ken Flood says that Ginsberg took the lead on the hiring process. At minimum, there appears to have been an overlap between the last year of his Board Presidency and the hiring of Flood as CEDC director. Flood has since been at the forefront of promoting and securing grant funding, tax incentives, and other benefits for Ginsberg’s Foods.

The conflict of interest issues raised by Baer, which the Executive Committee and its attorney have declined to address, clearly do not appear to come as surprise to CEDC members. The minutes of its October 2013 meeting reported that:

“Mr. Flood stated he had to hire a consultant to write the expedited application in order to submit it on time to have the [Ginsberg] project reviewed... Ms. Bartolotta asked it to be clarified in the formal meeting minutes that David Ginsberg of Ginsberg’s Foods had resigned in the beginning of the month.”

The May 2014 minutes likewise record Crawford as actively promoting the hiring of Behan by CEDC to assist Ginsberg’s, which originally was going to carry the cost of public relations itself. Crawford explicitly tied the image of the Board and Ginsberg’s together:

“Mr. Crawford stated that he and Mr. Bohnsack had met with Ginsbergs at the beginning of their project to encourage them to hire a public relations firm [to] head off any issues. He stated Ginsbergs had stated they would do their public relations in house. Mr. Crawford stated he was now encouraging CEDC to hire a public relations firm to get CEDC’s mission out to the public... He stated this should include the message about Ginsberg’s. ... Several board members cautioned against using the public relations company for only Ginsberg’s, noting it should be iused for the advancement of CEDC. Mr. Crawford asked for a motion to obtain a proposal from Behan Communications not to exceed $10,000.

The May minutes then state that “Mr. Fingar made the motion, which was seconded by Colinn Stair and passed unanimously.” No absentions were noted in the minutes, by either Crawford or anyone else.

Subsequent minutes show that staff of CEDC went ahead and signed a contract with Behan before the Board ever saw a proposal. By July, Crawford was backtracking on his original reason for hiring Behand, now claiming in that month’s minutes that “the firm had been hired to do general public relations and not specifically for Ginsberg’s.”

(NOTE: The minutes quoted above were all unanimously approved by the full Board, which includes Crawford et al. assuming they were in attendance.)

At public hearing, 5 out of 6 County IDA board members were MIA

One group of people that Ginsberg’s Food Vice President John Brusie was not able to photograph during Wednesday’s IDA public hearing: The County IDA board itself.

Out of six members, only one (James Mackerer) bothered to show up for their own meeting, ostensibly held to hear the views of the public. Chair Bruce Bohnsack, vice chair Sid Richter, Secretary-Treasuer Don Kline, plus Board members Robert Galluscio and Robert Stickles were all missing.

Instead, the Board was represented by attorney Ted Guterman (who ran the meeting) and IDA Executive Director Ken Flood, who was almost entirely silent... But who spent much of the hearing making long faces and rolling his eyes along with Mr. Brusie, who was seated across from him in the front row.

After this glaring absence was pointed out, Guterman tried to reassure the audience that the missing board members would be provided transcripts. This did not seem to mollify the audience, as anyone who has ever attended such hearings understands that reading a transcript is no substitute for attendance. One misses not only the nuances of each speaker’s presentation, but also the audience reactions, side comments, etc.

The audience also noted another absence at the meeting: David and Nancy Ginsberg.

County plans to “donate” 33 acres to Ginsberg’s, in addition to other giveaways

The February 14th, 2014 minutes of the Columbia County Industrial Development Agency reveal that the County intends to make a “land donation” of approximately 33 acres to Ginsberg’s Foods.

Former Claverack Planning Board member (and Churchtown firefighter) Nathan Chess dropped that bombshell research at tonight’s joint meeting with the Ghent and Claverack planners, as part of a a scheduled public hearing.

The gift presumably is dependent upon approval of the company’s application for a new 300,000 refrigerated warehouse, office space and trucking center on Route 66, just north of the intersection with 9H on the Ghent/Claverack line.

The IDA minutes found by Chess state that the County’s Economic Development Council (CEDC) “continued to negotiate with Ginsberg’s about the land contract.” The 2014 head of CEDC is David Crawford, the principal of Crawford Engineering—the same firm which is spearheading Ginsberg’s application before the two Planning Boards. David Ginsberg himself was listed as a member of CEDC as recently as its September 2013 meeting.

Mr. Chess further noted that the company appears to be operating under two names, G. Best Realty and Ginsberg’s Institutional Foods, per a letter from County economic development czar Kenneth Flood authorizing the company to pursue an application for a project on County-owned land. Mr. Ginsberg was in charge of the candidate search which eventually hired Flood, according to sources familiar with the hiring process.

Sardonically referring to himself as “an investor” in Ginsberg’s—as a County taxpayer—Chess further noted that the IDA’s December 3rd, 2013 minutes discussed giving the company a $30,000 “mortgage tax exemption” in relation to its Payment In Lieu of Tax (PILOT) deal for its existing, smaller facility further west on 66.

In addition to the apparent land donation and mortgage tax exemption, New York State has agreed to provide Ginsberg’s with roughly $1 million in tax credits, and over $500,000 in community block grants to fund the expansion.

The public hearing was marked by an unusual number of interruptions and admonishments of public commenters by Ghent Planning Board chair Jonathan Walters, (who serves as an editor and writer at Governing magazine). Walters warned those wishing to speak not to repeat others’ comments, and made numerous interjections during various attempts by citizens to enter questions and comments into the record.

Resident Donna Davey was among those cut off by Walters, when she attempted to express concerns about “sprawl.” During the remarks of others, such as Mr. Chess, the hearing officer made eye and hand gestures indicating he wanted the speaker to hurry up or abandon certain lines of argument.

By contrast, officials such as Columbia County Chamber head David Colby and former Claverack Supervisor Jim Keegan, along with employees of Ginsberg’s who spoke in favor of the application, were allowed to speak uninterrupted. A supportive letter from County Supervisors chair Pat Grattan was read aloud by Brandee Nelson of Crawford Engineering, again without interruption. 

Meanwhile, concerned neighbor Tom Runyon was lectured to “read the application” before the next time he offered comments, even though Runyon’s softspoken questions reflected an obvious familiarity with key details of the application.

Runyon pointed out that the two Boards had proceeded with a public hearing despite not having voted to deem the Ginsberg’s application complete, a normal procedural hurdle. Joint attorney for the two boards, Jeffrey S. Baker, argued that the application was “substantially” complete, conceding that some environmental formalities remained to be formally adopted.

Walters appeared impatient with what he characterized as Runyon’s “procedural” comments, and urged him to focus instead on the meat of the application. But Runyon was again shot down when he quizzed the Boards and their joint attorney about such particulars. He noted, for example, that the application was for a “warehouse,” but also included other components such as an 85-bay trucking operation. Board members and Ginsberg’s reps claimed that the trucking component was for “repairs,” though other discussion clearly indicated that the trucks would be loading food in and out of the facility.

Runyon’s concern about emissions from the 85-odd vehicles running “all night” appeared to be deemed more germane by several on the two Boards.

 Runyon, along with Ghent resident Patti Matheney and others further managed to tease out information that the water tower proposal for the property was a “County project,” which apparently would be paid for by the County, not Ginsberg’s. Though the proposed water tower was a frequent topic of discussion at the meeting, it does not appear to be mentioned in the public notice for the project.

The often hostile back-and-forths with audience members struck this observer as highly unusual, given that Planning Boards serve in a “quasi-judicial” capacity—with an obligation to not render an opinion until all input, including public comment, is received.

At dozens of similar hearings attended over the years, this attendee has seen members of a diverse set of municipalities and agencies take input on a wide variety of topics, without attempting to divert or derail the commenter’s line of thought. Members typically do not interact with commenters during a formal public hearing, of which a transcript is supposed to be made, answering only the simplest procedural and factual questions when these can be addressed succinctly and without tainting the proceedings with any appearance of bias.

Issues and other comments raised by commenters are more usually addressed later in a reply document, which sorts out new substantive issues from those already addressed in the course of the review, and setting aside those not germane to the process. Such reticence helps preserve the appearance of a Board not rendering objective judgements free of premature, arbitrary or capricious decisions.

Attorney blasts Reg-Star airport coverage

IMAGE: LinkedIn

Ken Dow, the former Columbia County Democratic Elections Commissioner and attorney representing neighbors of the airport in Ghent, has joined the ranks of those publicly criticizing the Register-Star’s incomplete and often slanted coverage of the issue.

Dow sent the following commentary to the Register this morning, regarding Joe Gentile’s latest stenography article, erasing most statements which would challenge the “official” storyline: 

This article gives an extremely misleading picture of what went on at the meeting. The article dutifully recites Mr. Benson's claims and talking points, but barely notes that the bulk of the meeting was one speaker after another—both members of the public and Supervisor members of the Airport Committee—questioning, criticizing, or downright ridiculing Mr. Benson's eleventh hour “proposals.”

The article does not mention that Mr. Benson's plan would require the elimination of the Meadowgreens Golf Course. That omission may be understandable, since Mr. Benson failed to mention that very undesirable aspect of his proposals, and it only came to light when raised by an audience member.

The article does not mention that meeting attendees sharply questioned Mr. Benson's remarkable feat of creating a plan that nearly copied a plan that has long been discussed and estimated by the Airport's long-time engineering firm to cost $3.38 million, except that Mr. Benson's two fantasy plans both called for buying more land than the $3.38 million plan and INCREASING the land acquisition costs by approximately $700,000 and $1,000,000, yet magically DECREASING the total costs to about $600,000 to $1,000,000 below the long-considered $3.38 million plan. What really had everyone rolling their eyes, however, was Mr. Benson's complete inability to explain how he was able to come up with these magical savings.

What really happened yesterday? Mr. Benson made a last-second attempt to derail the Airport Committee's work by offering fantasy "proposals" using made-up numbers that have the side effect of eliminating Meadowgreens, a local resource that is used and valued by hundreds, if not thousands, of local residents. Mr. Benson has had a pathetic attendance record at these Airport Committee meetings, blowing off his duties as a member and skipping all but one or two. It would have been far better if he had extended his record of absence for one more meeting and spared the Committee and public the nonsense he spewed to everyone at yesterday's meeting.

KENNETH J. DOW, ESQ.
Mellenville (NY)

At prior meetings, the Register-Star’s coverage was specifically called out by residents such as Ghent’s Mark Johnson, who pointed out that their coverage of a previous meeting “made it seem like no one in the audience was here.

This site met with the paper’s new publisher and managing editor earlier this year to discuss its institutional habit of promoting and protecting officialdom, while minimizing contrary information—especially when it comes from well-informed but independent-minded members of the public.

Indeed, Gentile’s article omits numerous statements critical of Benson’s proposal from residents such as Peter Coan, Patti Matheney, Michael Singer, and myself, as well as stern questioning from Supervisors such as Mike Benvenuto (Ghent) and John Porreca (Greenport). Even officials previously supportive of other options, such as Hillsdale’s Art Baer, were poking holes in Benson’s presentation. But Gentile omits these in favor of a long description of Benson’s point of view. Some of those omitted statements can be found in Carole Osterink’s more balanced report for The Gossips of Rivertown, for instance:

Many at the meeting--both members of the audience and members of the committee--were not enthusiastic about Benson's eleventh hour proposals. Attorney Ken Dow questioned Benson's motivation. “If this were a serious effort,” said Dow, “it would have been made months ago. This, on its face, is ridiculous.” He went on to characterize Benson's proposals as “just an attempt to muck up the gears.” Supervisor John Porreca (Greenport), who had originally suggested the solution the committee was poised to recommend, dismissed Benson's proposals as “eleventh hour crap.”

Particularly sticky for Benson was a contretemps about the authorship of his proposal, another lengthy exchanged erased by Gentile’s piece. Research by this site indicated that the metadata on a key document circulated by Benson was not authored by him as he claimed, but by Christopher D. Brubach—representative of C&S, the firm which has been consulting to the County on the airport. Benson has stated in emails that his own firm, BCI Construction, has done extensive work with C&S.

Questions were raised about why the County’s own consultants would appear to be collaborating with a lone Supervisor to undermine the Committee’s hard-won compromise solution. Despite the evidence presented below, an uncomfortable-looking Benson continued to insist that he was the author of this document:

Document circulated by New Lebanon Supervisor Michael Benson as his own

Flashback

Local ideographer and newsman Lance Wheeler dredged up this old street footage of Hudson circa 1980... Note in particular the handmade sign which appears at the end on a building in the 500 block, which suggests that not everyone was on board with some of the Federally-funded schemes which reshaped the City in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. (Bill Lowenstein, still a Hudson resident, headed up many of Hudson’s “development” and renewal programs, working closely with then-Planning Board chair Art Koweek.)

Airport Algebra: How busy is Ghent, really?

Chart of estimated airport activity based solely on Richmor Aviation and County consultants’ data

Page 18 of the Columbia County Airport’s 2011 Business Plan laid out a plan to expend $13,060,000 in Federal, State and County funds on “capital improvements” to the facility between 2011-2015. The County would pick up over $1.5 million of the tab. Are investments of that size worth it, or could the County and Richmor Aviation make do with less?

With Richmor reporting only 140-150 jet operations per year, it’s been baffling to watch Airport committee members and County staff repeatedly stress the importance of spending millions to keep the airport “jet friendly.” Consider this: Macfarland-Johnson’s projected $13 million computes to about $18,000 per jet takeoff or landing over that five-yer period.

It’s dollar figures like that, as well as neighbors’ concerns about maintaining the “quiet enjoyment” of their homes, which has made the number of flights in and out of the Ghent airport a bone of contention in recent debate. (NOTE: combined takeoffs and landings are known to aviation folks as “operations.”)

As it turns out, the answer to that long-running debate may be hiding in plain sight, based solely on data already in the Airport Committee’s hands, provided by its own consultants and tenant. It only requires a look at figures already on the record, and reverse-engineering the totals using some highschool math.Consider the following known data points, all from sources which County poo-bahs generally have treated as reliable:

• In the handout above, Mahlon Richards of Richmor Aviation reported operations to the airport committee of 141 jets and 270 turboprops for the year as of December 11th, 2013.
• Richards also told the committee last Fall that jet traffic represents 3-5% of all operations.
• Stanwcyk Aviation, a vendor of the airport, similarly claimed in a 2011 report that jet traffic represents 3% of operations.
• A report commissioned by the County from C&S Engineering estimated jet traffic as representing 8% of all operations, and the same number for turboprops.

Using only the above information, a range of total number of operations can be computed backwards using some rudimentary math. (The results are presented in the chart at the top of this post. NOTE: The table topped up Richmor’s numbers by an additional 5% to compensate for the missing 19 days of the year, even though airports are much quieter in winter than summer.)

Taking Richards’ numbers at face value, and assuming that Richmor, Stanwyck and C&S have correctly projected these to represent 3%-8% of the total, that would mean somewhere between 1,850 and 4,933 takeoffs and landings occur annually at the airport. 

The math works like this... If one assumes 148 jets represents 3%, or 5%, or 8% of all operations, 148 stands in the same relation to 3/5/8% as the total [x] does to 100%. (The author would like to apologize in advance to anyone in whom this induces a nasty 10th Grade Algebra flashback.) Solving for [x]:

Problem is that local officials and their consultants have been reporting vastly higher numbers than 2,000-5,000 operations, and basing grant applications and studies on those vastly higher numbers.

Most preposterously, a County-commissioned study predicted that by 2014 or so, there would be about 50,000 takeoffs and landings per year. That absurd number was then dutifully inserted as fact into the Town of Ghent Comprehensive Plan.

The revelation of more accurate figures than the improbable official tallies could prove an embarrassment, so some officials seem eager to derail this train of thought. Still, no one at this point is lending any credence to such grossly inflated projections, which were cooked up by C&S Engineering a decade ago.

As previously reported in detail here, 50,000 operations translates into an average of 137 flights per day. Put another way: Nearly a dozen planes would have to take off or land every daylight hour of every single day of the year to make it to fifty grand—in other words, an “operation” every five minutes.

Meanwhile, Stanwyck Avionics has claimed  there are 17,800 operations per year, translating to about 4 per daylight hour. (Stanwyck reportedly has a service contract of roughly $1,050 per month with the airport, and some expect that the company would reap a nice chunk of any work resulting from the proposed Meadowgreens “taking.”) The Stanwyck numbers supposedly come from a manual count made by a student relative of the owners, who listened to radio transmissions from incoming and outgoing planes.

Those who use the airport, live or work nearby, or even just drive the 9H corridor find it hard to believe that 18,000 operations, let alone 50,000, are occurring every year. Neighbors such as the Harrison family, who spend most of their days outdoors farming, report seeing more like 4-6 planes per day, not per hour. Notice how the Harrisons’ and others “naked eye” estimates correlate quite closely with the reverse-engineered numbers’ range of 5-14 per day.

Stopping short of accusing the Stanwyck of outright fabrication, one would prefer to assume that some honest mistake was made in their counts. Diving into the particulars of Stanwyck’s report, one finds various eyebrow-raising claims. For example, their day-by-day counts purport that on April 22nd, 2011, there were 241 operations at the airport. (The next day, they reported just one operation; maybe their wings got tired.)

That day’s length was 13 hours, 39 minutes. This would have meant nearly 18 planes taking off or land every daylight hour of 4/22/11—once every 3-4 minutes. If that had occurred, one the neighbors presumably would have been going berserk. Was their some kind of airshow? Did Snoopy and Woodstock take amphetamines and do 241 touch-and-gos with the Sopwith Camel? It defies reason.

One tends to suspect that if counts were actually reviewed, some fundamental mistake was made. Perhaps radio transmissions with another airport got mixed in, or multiple transmissions from the same pilot were accidentally logged as single operations. In any event, somehow the Stanwyck numbers came out more than triple the highest estimate that can be derived from Richmor’s jet and turboprop data.

Meanwhile, actual FAA data obtained by neighbors Michael Schrom and Patti Matheney via the well-known aviation website FlightAware showed only 1,664 operations in 2011-2012, dropping to 1,469 in 2012-13. The data shows tail numbers of the planes, as well as points of origin and destination. (That number is very close to the lowest of the figures on the topmost chart in this post, projecting a total based on Richmor’s jets as 8% of operations.)

Everyone agress that the FlightAware numbers omit some planes which filed flight plans, and thus may not include  “touch-and-go” operations by students and local recreational pilots. However, according to Mahlon Richards, any plane which reaches a cruising altitude of 18,000 feet is required by the FAA to file a flight plan. Moreover, charter companies have little interest in flying without a plan, due to the greatly-enhanced safety of their passengers when controllers knows where they are headed.

In any event, the Schroms point out the improbability of 15-16,000 touch-and-gos happening. They certainly aren’t seeing it the airspace over their property, which falls within Runway 21’s “Protection Zone.”

*       *       *

So why does any of this matter? Why should people care how much the airport really get used, and what types of planes and passengers are using?

Such questions directly impact the quality of life of neighbors, and raise suspicions in the public mind about whether the County’s elected officials and development staff are gaming State and Federal grant programs with inflated figures.

In terms of the Airport Committee’s work, resolving these questions are also germane deciding how long a runway is truly necessary—and how much economic or social value the airport has to the County. Indeed, the County’s own studies and consultants have consistently stressed the importance of accurate data to assessing options at the airport.

For example, Macfarland-Johnson Inc., the authors of the airport’s Business Plan, wrote in 2011:

The first step in determining the impact enhancement options could have on revenues is to predict the change in aviation demand if each strategy were implemented.

Gaining a clear picture of the volume and breakdown of the airport’s usage is essential for decisionmakers to make a rational, informed decision about the appropriate type of airport at this location. Such numbers also speak to the question of how many more millions of public dollars it makes sense keep pouring into a facility where usage is in decline.

That decline is another issuue no longer in dispute, with both Richmor Aviation, C&S Engineering, and airport neighbors all agreeing that usage has slumped in the past decade. Despite the recovery of the economy since the 2008 crash, a recovery at least for the types of people who charter and fly planes, everyone agrees that activity is in steady decline.

Richmor president Mahlon Richards himself has stated that he does not expect that a signficant increase in activity over present levels will occur. There is no reason to disbelieve that self-effacing statement, from a guy who has stayed even-keeled throughout a sometimes-wrenching process. The question then becomes: Why spend millions on eminent domain or other overly-ambitious infrastructure projects for a facility whose prospects are seen as flat even by its owner?

The Ghent Red Light District?

Image: Wikimedia

If one County official has his way, the Town of Ghent could become the County’s red light district—literally.

A presentation by Ghent resident Michael Schrom and attorney Ken Dow at Friday’s  airport committee meeting focused on a sleeper issue for the County: the enormous number of easements which must be acquired from a dozen or more neighbors if it goes through with its eminent domain plan.

The County would need to spend an additional half-million dollars or more to cut down hundreds of trees obstructing the flight path to the 5,350-foot runway. That runway was expanded from roughly 3,500 feet in the 1980s, without all necessary easements being acquired. So either the runway must be shortened, or moved, or a huge “taking” must be made from neighboring property owners.

None of those owners have been officially notified of this aspect of the plan. (Schrom provided the committee with an inventory of the parcels and names of owners, in case they wanted to correct this 13-year-old oversight.)

Moreover, these removal plans and cost estimates date back to 2001, meaning they do not account for continued tree growth over the past 13 years and the increase in property values, let alone inflation. Worse, the cost estimates are wildly inconsistent, with some property owners being offered as little as $127 per acre of disruption, and others more than $24,000.

Once all these complications and costs were presented, committee chair Art Bassin piped in with a suggestion passed along from David Robinson of the County Department of Public Works. According to Bassin, Robinson had pondered the obstruction issue before, and had a solution: instead of cutting them down, attach a red warning light to the top of each tree.

The standing-room-only audience erupted with guffaws. But the laughter died down as it became clear the suggestion was not intended as a joke. Bassin did appear to absorb the public’s reaction to the idea’s aburdity, and it was tabled at least until Robinson could appear at a future meeting.

[More on this latest airport meeting in another post this week.]

A big week for backing down (Part I)

Last week was a big one for Columbia County politicians to back down from  indefensible, controversial positions.

In Claverack, two outgoing officials—Supervisor Robin Andrews and Town Board member Bob Preusser—made a 180˚ change of course in deciding not to remove Churchtown firefighter Nathan Chess from the Planning Board. They were joined by Board member Katie Cashen to override two Republicans still in favor of punishing Chess for refusing to just “go along to get along.”

A collector’s item still available on Zazzle.com

The reversal came as a huge surprise to many. Andrews herself had signed and pushed for the tendentious complaint against Chess, with the unanimous support of Preusser, Cashen and the two GOP members. Allies and foes of Chess alike expected that despite the thinness of the case against him (plus the evaporation of the Town’s attorney almost immediately after a less-than-impressive Star Chamberish prosecution), the Board would again vote unanimously for removal.

What explains the change of mind? One would like to think that the three came around due to the (lack of) evidence and the obviously subjective nature of the complaint. Chess made a strong, concise case the Town Code did not support the allegations. And as the intensely personal of the dispute came into focus at last Fall’s hearing dragged on for several excruciating hours, the ongoing prosecution seemed to become a costly embarrassment for all involved.

One would like to think that this was a case of cooler heads prevailing. But given the pettiness of what preceded the final outcome (including the non-hanging offense of Planning Board meetings “not being fun anymore”), the change from a 5-0 to 2-3 vote likely derived from less noble sentiments.

As Supervisor, Andrews had bent over backwards to ingratiate herself to the Claverack Republicans—much too far backwards for many Democrats’ taste. She became a huge booster of the Pine Haven nursing home boondoggle-in-the-making, a pet cause of Tea Party elements such as Albert Wassenhove. She refused to take a courageous stand on key issues which crept into Claverack from neighboring Ghent, such as the TCI fire, or the County airport expansion.

Likewise, in her failed attempt to vault from one-term Supervisor to the State legislature, Andrews opposed common sense gun regulations just before the Sandy Hook tragedy, and opposed increasing the State minimum wage.

Thus the attempt to nail Chess to the cross had every appearance of yet another move rightward by Andrews. Yet despite all her accommodations and cop-outs, the incumbent Supervisor lost not only her State Senate campaign, but her local re-election bid. Any of the above issues could have cost her the 20 votes by which she trailed winner Kippy Weigelt. (In a bitter and undignifiied email circulated by Andrews’ partner, the candidate’s other half blamed weekenders for not mailing in their absentee ballots, though absentees cut her deficit from 80 to 20.)

In this context, the changed votes look less like listening to reason, than a departing middle finger to the GOP: We played nice and knuckled under to the GOP agenda for four years, but didn’t get any credit. So here’s something for you Republicans to remember us by. (Chess’s term runs through 2016.) Had Andrews shown that spirit earlier, galvanizing her base rather than demoralizing it, she might be getting sworn back in on January 1st, 2014.

The second instance of backing down last week came from New Lebanon Supervisor Mike Benson, who grudgingly declined to make his threatened motion to suspend the County Airport Committee’s work before it had begun.

Like the end of the Chess game in Claverack, Benson’s retreat seemed based more in calculation than reason: by the end of last Wednesday’s standing-room-only meeting, he must have realized he did not have the votes to carry such a motion. But unlike the Claverack situation, one did not get the sense that Benson had heard the public’s concerns, or recognized any error in his ways, and so his push to use eminent domain against Carmen Nero may well come back at a future meeting.

A more detailed run-down of Wednesday’s illuminating airport meeting will follow in the next day or two.

County, Richmor heap scorn on their own ‘grantsmanship’

Last night at 401 State Street in Hudson, the audience was treated to the unusual spectacle of government trashing government’s own credibility—for the purpose of getting people to trust the government’s latest claims. 

During this second informational meeting about the County airport, elected officials and Richmor executives struggled to create an impression that their Ghent facility was neither particularly busy, nor going to expand.

But when confronted with contradictory statements from the County’s own studies and grant applications, officials and executives came up with a novel defense: trashing their own previous claims.

After Richmor’s Maylon and Sharyn Richards repeatedly denied any intention to expand (a claim echoed by several officials), this attendee cited specific language from a 2012 grant application submitted by the County on their behalf.

As previously reported here, that application revealed the County’s hush-hush plan “to absorb a substantial amount of corporate and smaller freight aircraft operations” from “other airports in the region.” The application proposed renaming it the Upper Hudson Valley Regional Airport, and advocated “prioritization for the attraction of corporate aviation businesses... in order to service Richmor’s Corporate HQ [and] expand airport operations.”

In response, the author of that grant application—County economic development czar Ken Flood—rolled his eyes at hearing his own words. As far as all that stuff about expanding the airport, he said, “that was just grantsmanship.” Grantsmanship evidently being the new erm for “b.s.-ing fellow government officials in order to get funding.”

The State application was signed by Flood under penalty of perjury. Future recipients of grant applications written by Mr. Flood might want to consider that he may be using a gilded shovel... Meanwhile, Richmor’s reps claimed not to have been consulted by County about that application, or the 2003 study projecting up to 50,000 operations per year, though Ms. Richards is a member of the County’s Economic Development Corporation—and these documents repeatedly focus and rely on information about their business.

Likewise, when audience members pointed out the astronomical numbers of annual flights contained in various County studies, the responses from Richmor and various officials were that “Well, you know what kind of stuff gets put into government reports...”

This leaves the public to wonder: If people weren’t supposed to believe the County before, why should anyone believe it now?

The hearing also featured Richmor saying that a study claiming an improbable 19,200 operations per year wasn’t conducted by anyone with a financial relationship with the airport. Ghent resident Patti Matheney pointed out that  in fact, the study was done by the son of the owner of Stanwyck Avionics, which indeed does work for the airport—and which many expect would be a vendor to install new equipment if the County’s plan goes ahead.

19,200 flights per years computes to over four takeoffs or landings per hour, every day, during daylight hours. As noted by local farmer Richard Harrison, whose property is near the airport, the actual number seems more like four per day.

Data from FlightAware, which in turn relies on FAA numbers, indicate more like 1,600 operations annually, excluding flight training. For more information on the County’s wild airport numbers, see this previous post.

Other headscratchers from the meeting included Richmor simultaneously touting the airport’s economic importance to the County, while bemoaning the steady decline in activity there; and officials still being unable to produce evidence of collecting any landing fees from Richmor, which contractually is obligated to pay the County $50 each time a turbined plane lands.

Ashes for Phoenix Hudson?

UPDATE: A prominent figure involved in County development writes that Phoenix Hudson has “ceased operations.”

The arrival of Phoenix Hudson last Fall occasioned the usual breathless local media hype, and backslapping among the Columbia County development establishment.

Phoenix, the latest company to take a shot at occupying the 70,000 square foot former Emsig button factory on 2nd Street, was expected to begin manufacturing plastic fencing by October 2012, “running at capacity by November” of last year.

“By the end of the year we hope to be up at around 20 to 25 people working there,” President John Tonelli told the Register-Star. 

Tonelli received the customary invitation to address the Hudson Rotary. Then in June 2013, the Chamber of Commerce bestowed upon him its Business Person of the Year award, passing over more established businesses such as Basilica Hudson.

Lately, though, this site has received persistent tips to check into the status of Phoenix. Some even claim that the company has either already abandoned Hudson, or is on the verge of doing so. A daytime phone call to their office reached only a bland voicemail message, with no company directory. (Note: The Hudson Development Corporation provided the wrong number for Phoenix, sending me instead to Coldwell Banker.)

An in-person weekday visit to the company’s headquarters at the old button factory did not yield any signs of an active business employing 20-25 people. A single white Mercedes was parked out front, with plenty of weeds coming up through the concrete around the shuttered loading bays.

A lone employee emerged, identifying himself as “Dmitri.” Asked whether Phoenix was hiring, or manufacturing anything in the building, Dmitri indicated that for now the company is just selling off “existing inventory.” Would the company actually start making products locally at at some point? “Probably some time next year,” he said, though not too confidently.