Saturday, November 19, 2011

Metroplex Razes St. Paul's Temple

Man stands alone in protest of plan to raze historic Schenectady hall

Sunday, November 20, 2011
By Bethany Bump (Contact) 
Gazette Reporter


http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2011/nov/20/1120_protest/

SCHENECTADY — A leisurely bystander paused in front of the former Odd Fellows Hall on Saturday to ask Tom Hodgkins what he was fighting for.
“Somebody’s going to tear this down?” he said, staring up at the historic State Street structure bearing the familiar red “Arts at 440” inscription.
“They bought out the government,” Hodgkins shouted, as his three small children played nearby. “They’re going to tear down a temple for greed.”
“Do you have any petitions?” asked the bystander.
Clutching his cardboard sign reading “Built for love, razed for greed,” Hodgkins smiled and shook his head.
“We’re just appreciating this building and the values it embodies before it’s gone,” he said. “It’s already been done. The city’s been bought out. It’s done. We’re just here to appreciate it before it’s gone.”
His message was simple, but resigned: inform the people.
The former International Order of Odd Fellows Hall, located at 440 State St., is slated for demolition before year’s end. The decision was approved Wednesday by members of the city Planning Commission after building owner Tony Civitella urged the commission to move ahead with demolition plans so construction wouldn’t be delayed until spring.
But to rush through approval of a demolition that will eradicate a historic piece of the city is undemocratic to Hodgkins. So he stood outside the building, with his three kids, his sign, drums and bells, for two hours Saturday before packing up his belongings and leaving.
“I think it’s important that we keep our heritage,” Hodgkins said. “This is not just some apartment building, it’s not some bank. It was a building built by the community. It wasn’t some rich man’s house. It was built by the people for the people.”
Although Civitella originally called for leveling only the rear two-thirds of the structure, it was determined that the ornate terra-cotta façade is inseparable from the brick substructure of the building, prompting the decision for complete demolition.
Overall, the construction project will cost $5 million. The Metroplex Development Authority in June said it would give Civitella a $150,000 renovation grant and $60,000 façade grant so his software development company, Transfinder, could move its headquarters into the building formerly owned by Proctors.
“But that was the plan all along,” said Hodgkins, who wore a foot-and-a-half tall birch bark hat on his head and a bell on his waist, of the demolition. “That was the plan. That was the Trojan horse. They had a reason to subvert the democratic process because Metroplex is not a democratic organization. They are unaccountable. They have a job, and they will do anything to accomplish what they want.”
Transfinder has plans to incorporate an open space environment and work modules with access to sunlight by installing large windows on each of three floors, balconies and space for a garden on the third floor. Civitella must go before the commission in a month for an architectural review of his building before the plan can move forward.
Schenectady Heritage Foundation Chairwoman Gloria Kishton was not pleased with the commission’s decision. She criticized the new plan, questioning whether the terra-cotta façade was the real reason Transfinder wanted full demolition.
“A lot of people are upset with it,” she said. “I’ve been getting calls from people saying they’re not too happy about this.”
The State Street structure was built by the fraternal organization to embody the principles of love, truth and friendship, said Hodgkins. The community organization spent years involved in charitable works and providing homes for orphans and the elderly, he said.
“I think it’s just a real shame that this had to happen,” he said, “that the developers run the city instead of the people.”




Tom Hodgkins of Schenectady protests Saturday the plan to demolish the building at 440 State St.


Also see:
http://stockadetrees.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/appreciating-and-mourning-ioofs-temple-of-st-paul/

"The Planning Board majority, with virtually no time for the public to weigh in, rushed to impose the death penalty on the Temple after Civitella came up with an engineering report saying the façade cannot be saved, and pressed for immediate action on his new plan due to imminent winter weather.  We’re supposed to believe that no one at Metroplex, no one in Civitella’s organization, and none of his architects thought to ask the obvious question last Spring: “can the façade be saved and can we afford to do it?” Instead, the building gets purchased at fire-sale rates, Metroplex promises grants — including a $60,000 façade grant — and the project is announced with great fanfare and applause for Mr. Civitella and Metroplex.   If there was no engineering report prior to the first approval, lots of heads should roll. Ditto, if there was an engineer’s report that endorsed the façade-saving plan.
  For me, it’s much too much like the sorry Gillette House bagel shop story from January, 2011, leaving the same bad taste in my mouth.   Shortly after much hoopla and back-slapping over a plan to “save” an important historical building, the shrewd businessman-buyer discovers his original plan is simply no longer viable, and civil servants with the obligation to look hard at the situation and to preserve and protect our architectural heritage give in without demanding lots of facts and taking time for appropriate consideration. It is outlandish that a decision could be made when Civitella only submitted his drastically altered plans two days before the Planning Commission hearing.   Does anyone know when Civitella got the first no-go engineer’s report and when he could have first given the Commission a heads-up?   It seems far too convenient that it happened so far into winter that the Commission could hide behind weather as a reason for its hasty action.
 You can bet there will be a great rush to knock that building down, especially the troublesome façade.  A lawsuit will be complicated and expensive, and have only a slight chance of finding a sympathetic judge who could act in time to save this fine old building.
Thanks to Planning Commission member Matthew Cuevas for trying to slow down the process by tabling the measure.  And, thanks to Schenectady Heritage Foundation Chairwoman Gloria Kishton, for frantically piecing together public opposition over such a short timeframe.  Especially, thank you, Tom Hodgkins and kids, for reminding us what we’re losing.  As Tom told our email group yesterday:
  “Spending time in that location really gives one some perspective on how few historic buildings remain downtown, and the loss of a building built by the people for the people in the name of love is a crime.  Its not the loss of a bank, or some industrialist’s residence, it is the loss of a temple. “

Friday, March 18, 2011

Lack of Transparency and Respect for the Public

Metroplex is unaccountable and it has little respect for the public's right to know about how it makes its decisions.  The entire process of choosing a developer for the redevelopment of ALCO was done in secret.  Opposing submissions were not made public, review of submissions was done in secret, and the final decision was done in secret.  This is not the way an Authority should be run.  Any government that has the right to tax, spend, condemn land, initiate PILOT agreements on behalf of local governments needs to be elected and be completely transparent.  


Below is another example of the disdain Metroplex has for the public.  The documents that the public has a right to make comments on are not available on the Metroplex website, and the location and time for public meeting on the unavailable documents are not given.  


Metroplex tries to obfuscate their actions and limit public input as much as possible.






From their website:
"Alco Redevelopment Project: Resolution 623-10 — Hold Public Hearing for Alco DGEIS

In advance of the meeting, Clough Harbour & Associates distributed the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement regarding the redevelopment of the Alco site. The document establishes certain development thresholds which are then analyzed for cumulative impacts relating to traffic; construction noise, air emissions and waste removal; visual impacts; infrastructure requirements; and economic impacts in terms of job creation and expanding tax base. The DGEIS confers prospective development partners with a workable revitalization plan for the site, expedites the City and State permitting processes, and accessing the $4 million Restore NY grant already awarded for site preparation. Terresa Bakner, the Authority’s environmental attorney, added that the DGEIS is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2008. She reviewed the schedule for reviewing the DGEIS, accepting comments through March 11; holding a public hearing on March 1; and reviewing the final document by April 28. Mr. Golub moved Resolution 623-10; seconded by Mrs. Hutchison. Following discussion about site conditions and remediating soil contamination, Resolution 623-10 was unanimously approved."

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Research on Economic Development

Metroplex is an unaccountable authority that raises your taxes to support businesses that would have sited in Schenectady anyway.

The following is an excerpt from a review of Michigan's Economic Development policies.

A meta-review of economic development literature in 2004 by Alan Peters and
Peter Fisher of the University of Iowa is probably the most comprehensive survey
yet published. Their paper, “The Failures of Economic Development Incentives,”
appeared in the Journal of the American Planning Association and evaluated
a wide body of other scholarly articles on economic development programs.
These programs included targeted tax incentives, enterprise zones, tax-increment
financing, industrial revenue bonds and “non-tax discretionary incentives.”
As with many previous literature reviews, the findings were somewhat ambiguous,
but on balance Fisher and Peters surmise that these programs are either ineffective,
or the costs exceed the alleged benefits. They write:
The upshot of all of this is that on this most basic question of all —
whether incentives induce significant new investment or jobs — we
simply do not know the answer. Since these programs probably cost
state and local governments about $40-50 billion a year, one would
expect some clear and undisputed evidence of their success. This is not
the case. In fact, there are very good reasons — theoretical, empirical,
and practical — to believe that economic development incentives have
little or no impact on firm location and investment decisions.174
And
The most fundamental problem is that many public officials appear
to believe that they can influence the course of their state and local
economies through incentives and subsidies to a degree far beyond
anything supported by even the most optimistic evidence. We need to
begin by lowering [policymakers’] expectations about their ability to
micromanage economic growth and making the case for a more sensible
view of the role of government — providing the foundations for growth
through sound fiscal practices, quality public infrastructure, and good
education systems — and then letting the economy take care of itself.175
In October 2007, Gary Sands of Wayne State University and Laura Reese of
Michigan State University released a paper for the Michigan Land Use Institute
examining the performance of “Public Act 198” tax abatements, which are
frequently part of the MEGA deals described earlier. Sands and Reese found that
abatement data “fail to show a clear, consistent relationship between abatement

174 Alan Peters and Peter Fisher,
“The Failures of Economic
Development Incentives,” Journal
of the American Planning Association
70, no. 1 (2004): 32.
175 Ibid.: 35-36.

http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2009/S2009-06.pdf