Guilderland - Vision, open government and economic development

The Guilderland election is fast approaching - voters will choose on November 6th.

Our opponents have criticized us for not putting forward our "vision" for Guilderland. Like much of their other criticism, this is nonsense.

I speak for myself on this, though I think my running mate (Mark Grimm) agrees with much of the vision I set forth here. We have been talking about these things for the entire campaign.

First and foremost, we will change politics in Guilderland. The current administration hides what goes on in Town Hall. We had to dig to find out what they have been hiding. Through FOIL requests and research at other agencies, we have found all kinds of insider dealings - Ricard's lowball assessment and zoning break, and Bosworth's non-profit funnel. All of this is described in detail on the Guilderland NY website.

Mark and I will push for truly open government. Town information, such as the budget, should be available online. The Town has finally put the budget online, but only because of Mark's efforts. The budget they publish is barebones, inaccurate, and difficult to understand for most people (including for me).

The contrast between them and us is shown in the Town website. They trumpet their success in creating an "interactive" website. The town website (guilderland.org) is not interactive. There is not much information. For an example of a really good municipal website, check out this one for the Township of Brick, NJ. I know something about websites. I'm building a Traffic Court directory site that is used by over 40,000 people a month (and growing rapidly). My law firm website and my blogs are visited by thousands more. If elected, I will push for a more informative and truly interactive website - one that allows citizens to comment and to encourage discussion.

Notice that both Mark and I have websites, and that we have a joint campaign website as well. Bosworth and Ricard have no websites at all. If they have a vision, they are certainly not making it accessible.

Another stark contrast is economic development. The current administration has no interest in this. They are pandering not merely to the NIMBY (not in my back yard) mentality, but even more to the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and NOPE (Not On Planet Earth) attitudes of the extremist fringe. The town's "Economic Development Director," Donald Csaposs, spends his time sending letters to the local paper attacking us and posting outrageous comments on local blogs such as on the Times Union website. Look around Guilderland and try to find where he has improved economic development in the town. You won't find anything.

Take a look at the area around the former Bumble Bee Diner and the former Polito's property:



The area shown in the picture has a number of properties that were developed many years ago. Nearly all have failed and have been vacant or grossly underused for many years. This could be called suburban blight. The current administration has no vision for how to revive such properties. We do have a plan.

This area has two features that make them ideal for development. First, they are already developed. Redeveloping them does not require cutting down trees or otherwise disturbing an existing natural habitat. Second, they are on a state highway (Route 20) and at or near an intersection with a second state highway (Route 146). If any area of town should be zoned to allow greater commercial use, state highways and their intersections are the most appropriate.

This area is perfect for sensible commercial use. The zoning code should be amended to allow more choices for property owners in a spot like this. By saying this I am not saying that we allow for unrestricted use. Zoning can allow for more uses, but with sensible restrictions.

For example, car dealerships could be allowed, but with restrictions designed to limit their impact on the community. Done well, this would lead to low-volume dealerships that create little traffic but still allow for development.

Commercial development is a good thing for our town. A vibrant commercial sector improves the tax base and generates revenue from both property tax and sales tax. It also leads to more services being available for town residents. Some of us don't like that we have to go to Schenectady or Latham to buy a car and get it serviced under the warranty.

Currently, commercial development is concentrated on the eastern end of town. In particular, the town is very dependent on Crossgates for tax revenue. The mall is not doing all that well, and the town is woefully unprepared for the possibility that it might fail - which would dramatically reduce the tax base as well as sales tax revenue. This would lead to a large increase in taxes for everyone. Encouraging sensible economic development in the rest of town would make our tax base more stable.

The same idea for sensible growth applies to the western stretch of Route 20. Concerns about protecting views led to zoning that allows for no commercial development at all. This is foolish. Commercial uses should be allowed. The viewshed should be protected by appropriate setbacks and height limitations. Development in this part of town will not create traffic problems. As those who commute to Clifton Park know, the heavy traffic volume goes the other way. These businesses would create westbound morning traffic and eastbound evening traffic - the opposite of the current rush hour flows.

These are just a part of the vision. We have talked a lot before about fair tax assessment and fair zoning - eliminating the insider deals. There's more. We should protect the Pine Bush by zoning for the environmental concerns now, rather than waiting until objectionable developments are proposed. I hope to put this in more detail in a future post.