Letter to the Editor: A possible compromise for Chappaqua Crossing
[This piece has more than 40 comments trailing it . . .]
Monday, October 18, 2010
by James McCauley
The problem
After attending the September 28 town meeting on Chappaqua Crossing and listening to developer Summit Greenfield’s description of Alternative I, as well as the heartfelt opinions of all of those in opposition, I’ve continued to think about the potential results for the town as a whole. According to Rob Greenstein, 800 people have signed a petition indicating they will pursue legal action if the town board approves the project in any form.
The board itself has indicated in earlier statements that they believe Summit Greenfield would resort to the same type of legal moves should they be denied the residential rezoning.
It should be obvious to any observer that either suit would leave the property in a legal limbo for at least two to three years (probably longer) and might cost the town many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in legal fees to defend either suit. Add to that cost the declining tax revenues from the property, and the total cost will be significant to both the town and to the school district.
More problemsAccording to Gregg Bresner’s April 2010 projection of expected school tax increases over the next five years, before any talk of declining revenues we already face 8% annual school tax increases.
Further, the analysis I presented on September 28 shows that the average school tax revenue contribution of $6100 from the existing condos (numbering 652) and fee simple planned units such as 149 King Street, Cornell Woods and Apple Hill Farm (numbering 72) is very close to a break-even because the ratio of students for these units is so much less than the ratio of students in single family homes. The 652 condos generate 176 students; the 72 fee simple units generate 23 students. Combined, the 724 condo and fee simple planned units generate199 students, or .27 students per unit.
According to information gathered from the town assessor and the Chappaqua Central School District, this means that one out of every four of the 724 units generates slightly more than one student. Multiply the average tax revenue contribution of $6100 per unit by the four units, and the resulting $24,400 covers 94% of the cost for each student generated.
An alternate view of the risk
If, as the developer’s representative stated on September 28, the units other than the 20 affordables will be priced between $700,000 and $1 million, the tax revenue contribution per unit of the Chappaqua Crossing project should be significantly higher than the revenue contribution of the existing 724 condo and fee simple units.
In addition, if the town board requires that at least 30% of the 199 Chappaqua Crossing units be made fee simple, as opposed to 10% of the existing 724 condo and fee simple units, this too will result in a higher revenue contribution from the units at Chappaqua Crossing.
At this point in time, the town board is taking the position that the 60 townhouses of Chappaqua Crossing must be fee simple. The developer is taking the position that all units including the townhouses will be taxed as condominiums.
Therefore, as long as the student-per-unit ratio stays relatively constant, the risk to the Chappaqua Central School District will be minimal. It may even add tax revenues especially when and if the commercial portion the developer’s proposed Alternative I is refurbished and fully leased.
A possible solution
After careful analysis of all the impacts, the town board should approve a version of Alternative I with as many fee simple units as feasible, given the constraints of land use, coverage, sewage and traffic, at least the 60 fee simple units they are insisting must be fee simple, and perhaps as many as 100.
The developer’s lawyer Steven Kass stated at the September 28 meeting that the developer would not offer a guarantee through some sort of escrow account to protect the Chappaqua Central School District against the possibility of a greater number of students than the developer projects. However, the town board could require as a condition of approval that the developer offer such a guarantee. If the developer is confident in his projections this shouldn’t be a major cost or impediment.
The town board should also:
• Ask that the developer drop tax certioraris for a reasonable period; and
• Ask the opposition leaders to publicly vow not to sue the town.
Benefits• No lawsuits, everyone gets back to their main focus in life. No additional costs to the town, the Chappaqua Central School District or the residents who may join the suit.
• The tax base may actually increase over the next five years, thereby lessening the burden on taxpayers of both the town and the Chappaqua Central School District.
• Affordable workforce units will be built, further benefiting the town and its existing employees.
James McCauley
That’s a very big “IF” on which to base a giveaway of this size to the developer. You write “It MAY even add tax revenues especially when and if the commercial portion the developer’s proposed Alternative I is refurbished and fully leased” and “The tax base MAY actually increase.” The very minute the developer gets a zoning change the property will be worth millions more to HIM. He can make the changes he says he will—or he can FLIP the property to any next person. What you suggest is US making HIM a very large GIFT. From our pockets to his.
This business plan the developer has put forth depends on New Castle residents forking over value to him. It’s not a good deal for the town. It’s only a good deal for HIM. Commercial is the good deal for New Castle, not more residential.
How exactly will town employees benefit from condos priced between $700K and $1 million, as the developer’s lawyer stated at the Sept 28 info-spin session?
This is a mighty big risk the town board would be taking with our town. The Capelli-Trump development in Yorktown is a ghost town.
Is our board counting on the real estate market bouncing back and this development being successful? On what do they base these assumptions?
does the author really believe that the units will sell for 700 thousand to one million? Or that the developer will get financing for such a scheme? people in this town know much more about markets than the developer’s brochures give them credit for. and about those brochures—they’re still shouting about 5.2 million in taxes in 2015! the developer’s guys said between 200 thousand and six hundred thousand with 100 thous of that to the town, the rest to schools. where’d the millions go?
To the author- first let us just not accept Gregg Bresner’s April 2010 projection of expected school tax increases over the next five years of 8% annual school tax increases. This MUST change - enrollment is declining - so should the budget (taxes).
Second- you make the same straw man argument as many before you that current student in condo population will remain the same. You assert that since this ratio exists today it must therefore follow that newly built condos will also have the same percentage of school age children. That is a ridiculous assumption and you base all of your math on it.
Young families with students currently living in condos made the decision to buy several years ago. Today’s economic and real estate environment are entirely different and the young family buyer is likely to find condo living more appealing. Neither you nor I can offer statistics to show what will happen in the future but common sense and logic indicate that in today’s troubled economy and stressed real estate a buyer would save money living in a condo and still get the benefit of our schools. If anybody doubts this logic then just look at the marketing materials for Chappaqua Crossing. It is advertised as “family friendly”, with playgrounds and great schools. Who do you think the developer is targeting? Young families with school age children. So how can you possibly assert that the current student population in condos will guide us as to what future numbers will look like. It will be HIGHER, LARGER- the question is how much more but certainly not the same.
So why don’t you rework your numbers with a few new possibilities. Why not assume that the developer will be successful and the advertising and marketing campaign does in fact entice young families with children. Why not build into your model a 25% or even 50% rise in students living in condos and then come back to us and tell us how the numbers look…..
What if the developer gets approval to build residential and cant get financing? What if the project should begin and there are not enough buyers of $700k - $1mill condos? What if the project is halted (as many have been) during the building and the developer walks away? There has not been enough discussion and marketing about the Chapp Crossing (Readers Digest) as a commercial site. Why haven’t we seen any marketing to entice the commercial tenant? This a unique and special commercial campus set in a beautiful residential setting. Isn’t this an outstanding site for owners of businesses that want to provide their workforce with a tremendous quality of life in a great environment. I am sure if Summit Greenfield spent as much time, energy, and money on marketing to commercial tenants to occupy Chapp Crossing then this problem would already be solved. When the economy turns up again there will be many businesses that will find this site very appealing. Why turn everything upside down trying to accommodate this developer. Let’s see the developer’s marketing materials to attract commercial tenants just as we have seen his marketing materials to residential buyers. A suspicious person might conclude that the developer was interested in residential all along. We must make the right choice here and that does not include which lawsuit to defend.
Do you REALLY think those condos will sell for $700-1MM? There is a random farms house for sale for just over $1MM on a big piece of property with common pool, tennis etc === in what world would this developer get $1MM for a 2-3 br condo with no pool, etc?
We cannot be bullied into this proposal because we are afraid of being sued. The developed has no grounds to sue becuase the town won’t change the zoning. Their $1.5MM in taxed is bupkis compared to the town and the school budget. Losing their tax rev is a rounding error.
Too Big to Fail—Does it sound familiar?
When a developer comes in asking for 348 condos, then 278, then 199 it might seem like compromise FROM WHERE HE STARTED. But the compromise you’re asking for is ALL on residents’ side, out of residents’ pockets.
We’re being asked to make the developer whole. Better for him to sell it at a lower price than HE paid to someone who will be starting with an investment of a fitting size. Then THAT developer may be able to do something WITHIN THE ZONING that works for him.
This market correction has to affect the DEVELOPER—not the townspeople. The townspeople will benefit from the correction and new ownership. Let the market work. The town board and the developer are both telling us that this developer, at this site, is TOO BIG TO FAIL. We’re not buying it.
This letter was written by a developer, enough said! But, the comments by readers, below this piece, make a lot of sense & I would encourage everyone to send copies of their comments directly to the board members.
Mike Wolfensohn
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Barbara Gerrard
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Robin Stout
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Mr. McCauley,
How dare you be so reasonable?
Developers are evil profit mongerers, businesses are exploitative, the town board is incompetent, compromise is equal to losing, and we can make tax revenues appear out of thin air.
Just watch the town meeting video linked to this site and see how far you can get against the group that opposes this project. The sentinel moment of that video was when one local business person got up and gave a very respectful and heartfelt speech for the project that took guts, and she finished to about 2 people clapping, the rest of the crowd looking at her as though she were the devil and doesn’t belong in this town.
Unfortunately I think we are seeing the worst of ourselves in this process and it is greatly disappointing.
I agree with all the comments that ask the town board not to cater to the developer. His motive is profit on his investment, not the preservation of Chappaqua. Does anyone really trust him to care what happens after he gets what he wants? Million dollar condos? You can get a pretty nice house in many of the surrounding communities for that price, especially now, and prices may not be at their lowest yet. I think the town board should be loyal to the residents and try to protect our investments in our homes. We are the ones who will be living here. Where does the developer live?
I just crawled out from under a rock…..Whatever happened to the “Over 55” requirement that the developer originally espoused? Was it unenforceable?
If the developer spent as much time and money on marketing to commercial tenants and finding commercial tenants as he does trying to persuade New Castle Town board and residents that residential is good he would have found his replacement commercial tenants by now. If the argument is that the economy is so bad that he can not find commercial tenants then what makes him think he can sell 200 residential condos costing $700k - #1million? If the economy improves (and someday it will) then commercial tenants will find Chapp Crossing -Readers Digest a unique and wonderful corporate/commercial campus. If, heaven forbid, the economy does not improve then finding those commercial tenants will be prove challenging. BUT so will building and selling 200 new expensive condos! Why are we wasting all this time, money, and energy trying to accommodate a developer that timed the market incorrectly. If Summit Greenfield doesn’t like it let them sell the property, take their loss, and move on. At the right purchase price another commercial owner/landlord will figure out how to keep this a viable commercial property.
I was about to despair that I was the only one in town who held a view different than the majority but then By Clittle reminded me of the few others who have spoken their mind.
Responses to some of the comments:
The Workforce Housing costs were stated to be $225,000. per unit well within a reasonable range for these buyers.
Even with approval the developer still has to invest a significant amount of money to realize a profit and there are no guarantees.
Since when is it a crime to make a profit. I believe I’d be correct in assuming that the vast majority of us who are fortunate enough to live here are able to do so because we own or work for a profit making enterprise.
Very few towns in Westchester or anywhere for that matter would exist unless, developers and builders were willing to take risks. I’m not saying we owe SG anything, we don’t, but let’s be a bit more civil in the characterizations. The same goes for the Town Board, they are looking out for us not just rubber stamping a request. Most of us have attended a few meetings, they’re civic volunteers who’ve spent 5 years on this project. Yes, they get a stipend for serving but it certainly doesn’t pay the bills.
I believe I supported my argument that the exiting condos/FS pay their own way. Granted, if there are 4-5x as many kids per unit that would not hold. However how does anyone postulate that the 25yrs.+ of experience will be reversed by a factor of 4-5x. I can see that there could be some more kids than in the past but not to the degree projected by G. Bresner (282) or the last BOCES estimate (216 & 166).
Lastly, the biggest problem we all face is the enormous cost to educate the children. 2-3xs the national average and one of the highest in the county. We are pricing ourselves out of contention for new buyers of any income level. Let’s get serous about that risk to our future.
The 20 affordable units the developer has committed to build would, he has said, meet the requirements of the county’s fair and affordable housing settlement. Under that settlement, from all that we have heard so far, no “set-aside” for employees of your town (who would make too much money to qualify for the units ANYWAY) or anyone else’s town among the 31 targeted municipalities would be permitted unless they met the income requirements. The units would be broadly advertised—the point is NOT to advertise them in the towns where they are to be built—and given out on an economic basis only. So town DPW, civil service, police, firefighters and teachers all make too much money even to enter the lottery by which the units will likely be given to applicants. There is much that’s not known about the settlement, but setting aside units for local workers who make too much money to qualify is NOT the purpose of the settlement. That should be OTHER affordable housing—and probably NOT those $700,000 to $1,000,000 units that the developer says the rest will sell for.
Look at White Plains. They are still fighting with Capelli to get the affordable units that he promised after building his hotel and residential units. Also there is a serious problem of extending the sewer line. We have tried for years to help other areas of town and been rejected. I believe the town houses many be in this extension area as well as the affordable units. What would this do to swing the tax amounts? No fee simple and then what does happen to this alternative I? Do not believe all that you hear-dig deeper and realize that we cannot accept information at face value.
I am not against the developer making a profit. I am not against a residential development if the planning is based on realistic impacts on the school district, traffic etc.
My home in this town is an investment which I want to protect. If the developer can make his profit without damaging my investment, all well and good. I just don’t believe that project as it stands now is in the town’s best interest. Come forward with realistic estimates of increased school enrollment and traffic increases. How is the intersection at Reader’s Digest Road and the Sawmill going to be handled? It is a mess now at certain times of the day, and dangerous as well when cars attempt to squeeze across the intersection before the next red light. 199 condos mean at least 199 additional cars probably many more. And at least 199 new students, in my opinion, no other reason to move way out here. If you don’t care about the schools because you aren’t having kids, I think there are plenty of condos throughout Westchester with more convenient commutes, shopping, lower taxes etc.
And no, the affordable housing mandate will not make these units available to local buyers. These are to be marketed outside the communities where they will be built. That is the point of the mandate.
To Mr.McCauley…Part 1- why does it matter that the developer will still have to invest money as you state. That’s what developers do- right? Why not invest money to attract commercial tenants after all that is what the developer bought - commercial property. It is not a crime to make a profit but it is also not a crime to take a loss when one times the market poorly or makes a bad investment.
Like you said we are all fortunate to live here because we own or work for profit making enterprises. But you seem to ignore that many of us have also lost money in ill timed investments, in our 401k’s, and anybody that bought our house here since 2001 has probably gotten crushed on their real estate investment. Who is changing the rules for us so that we may turn our bad investments into good ones? This developer, like many of us with our money, got this investment wrong. You want to change the zoning and bail him out.
There has been almost NO dialogue about commercial viability which is what Chapp Crossing is zoned for and was purchased for. Where are the developers plans and marketing that is intended to keep this commercial? We have seen little evidence that a true and concerted effort has been made to find new commercial tenants. If the economy and real estate market is so bad that the developer must abandon commercial for residential than what makes him or you think that 200 expensive condos will sell?
I agree with you that developers need to take risks and that little would be accomplished if risk was not taken. But the definition of risk is that danger of loss may occur. You want to mitigate that danger by changing the rules for the developer so his investment (loss) in commercial can be recouped by changing New Castle zoning laws so he can build and sell residential. That heads I win tails you lose! Win win for him.
To Mr McCauley - part 2….. I repeat- who changes the rules for us? For the homeowner that purchased a house 4 years ago and is down 40% should we lower his taxes to ease the pain?, change zoning from residential to commercial so the house can be used for commercial endeavor in order to ease the pain of his loss?
I do agree with you on our cost of education and how our school budget (taxes) are pricing out new buyers from moving here. Our school budget must be trimmed and taxes must come down! That is a separate argument and one that must be addressed very soon by CCSD Board but it is unrelated to changing zoning laws from commercial to residential to accommodate a developer.
Any postion that 200 residential condos is some how good for our schools, good for our school budget, and good for our taxes should be viewed as self serving and way off base.
Mr. McCauley,
I give you credit for signing your name to your posts—especially given that you are not bitterly opposed to the project like everyone else who posts out here. I have chosen to use my maiden name on mine because I’ve seen what happens to you and a few others who dare be so illogical as to find potential good that can come out of this project, and who wants to be fair and reasonable.
I suspect there are many in the “silent majority”, or if not a majority a significant number. Unfortunately as is typical in cases like these, the vocal ones are the opposition.
I just wish that everyone who posts here, and other opponents in the town, would look for ways of resolution. We can be confident that simply saying no to everything, or catering to the 100’s of different opinions people have, will not lead to a good ending.
This town is full of smart people, and our Board is a group of dedicated people trying to do the right thing for the town considering all interests and legal obligations. Can’t we, the citizens, do better than we have? Absolutely.
“You misunderstand” is quite right.
I wish Mr. McCauley would read the HUD specifications. Income is one issue that would exclude our workforce, but there are other issues, too. HUD specifies that there must be availability of facilities for everyday needs such as shopping, etc., close at hand. The Supervisor is right in considering building the affordable housing units close to downtown Chappaqua. HUD also wants to pull from different areas and disseminate population throughout Westchester County. If you read the HUD documents, they give the AMI tables and other requirements, as well as their requirements for habitability, how many bedrooms per family, etc.
The HUD requirements are very specific.
In addition, In a letter, dated June 16, 2009, to Commissioner Gerard Mulligan, Westchester County Department of Planning from Jessica Bacal, Chair, Land Use/SEQR Committee, she states: “Of course, all affordable housing units should be integrated seamlessly and anonymously throughout the site.” As I understand it that is not the plan at Chappaqua Crossing.
Also, there is the question about HUD refusing to participate in any project previously planned.
If Mr. McCauley is as accurate on other issues as he is on this one. . .?! I will say no more.
Mr. McCauley,
It is interesting that you are willing to risk the tax impact on single family home owners when you are a condo owner paying a minimal tax and YOU PERSONALLY ARE NOT AT RISK.
How about suggesting that ALL CONDOS, INCLUDING YOURS, ARE MADE FEE SIMPLE. After all, if you want to solve the tax issue, that would certainly do it.
How dare you assume to tell us to take the risk when you are a condo owner. Did you disclose that fact either in your published letters or in your presentation in favor of SG at the town board meeting on September 28?
Clittle, if you suspect a “silent majority” or “a significant number” are in favor of this residential development I would respectfully suggest that you to start a Petition to prove your suspicion (www.ipetitions.com). In my opinion, and based on my Petition (www.ipetitions.com/petition/fighttostop/signatures) the majority of those following this issue are clearly against this residential development.
To CLITTLE….I disagree with you. I do not think we are seeing the worst in ourselves. I think we are seeing people defending what is right and objecting to what is wrong. I see it as the best and the brightest standing up for their rights. Why are you so quick to defend the developer and insist that the people of New Castle need to compromise to find a solution. The developer bought a commercial parcel of land. The developer is a very savvy and experienced real estate entity. Unfortunately the developer lost its key anchor tenant (Readers Digest) and is experiencing the same economic pain that the rest of us are experiencing. Now the developer wants to change the rules - change the zoning. People of this town don’t owe this developer anything and many are making the case that to accommodate the developers wishes it may actually harm us thru higher taxes (school budget) more traffic, and a host of other concerns. I live right near Chapp Crossing and I am grateful to live in a town where people stand up for their rights and push back when they sense something is wrong. Why compromise when we are right and the developer is wrong. Why aren’t you also insisting that this developer put all energies into making this the commercial gem it once was? Until we are convinced that a best efforts attempt has been made to find commercial tenants why should we change the zoning? Maybe the developer is asking too much rent and he needs to lower his asking rates. Why aren’t you concerned that houses are not selling in New castle yet this developer thinks he can sell 200 expensive units? I see no reason to compromise until some or all of these types of issues are addressed.
LawrenceFarmsEast,
I respect your opinion and I understand what you are saying and, though I don’t have the same stakes you do in this because you are in close proximity to the development, I disagree with you. First and foremost, I am not defending the developer in the way you express it. I am just not the kind of person who assumes that developers are greedy and want to rape the land and then leave. And that if they do, in reasonable negotiations and discussions that would become clear quickly and then we could stop negotiating. Another citizen suggested just such a thing a month or so ago and was excoriated, as if somehow talking to this developer represented the height of ignorance and compliance. You say you want to be convinced that the developer is making their best efforts, yet they are treated by most of the vocal opponents in our town as the Evil Empire, and reasonable “discussions” become forbidden. We Just Say No.
We have put up an impossible gauntlet for the developer. Some are glad about that. To me, this is not how America works, and it certainly is not how I want my community to approach things. I would rather see us be fair, reasonable, balanced, and prudent. Instead I see obstinate, unreasonable, defensive, emotional, unbending, and impolite (I’m not referring to you personally, but to the way the whole issue is being handled by those in opposition in our community).
Dear Author:
Thanks for your “unbiased” opinion as a retired developer and who lives in a condominium. Or perhaps you should be my real estate broker because surely if you can sell one of these condos at $700k (with the ridiculous assumptions) then perhaps you can sell my home for more and I can move to Greenwich where taxes are far better and get out of this crazy town.
Dear “clittle”:
What, exactly, has been impolite about the community challenging the developer’s assumptions? The developer is allowed to puff and spin his plan; people are allowed to inspect it closely and kick the tires PLENTY. I’m grateful for their existence and their attention to this issue.
If you manage to just listen to the arguments, those who oppose this plan have been articulate and reasonable. I don’t recall anyone using “rape the land” language. It’s a fact, however, that the developer is asking the town of New Castle for a very big gift of a zoning change. It’s very wise to consider what the town gets in return for that.
So, Mr. McCauley’s conclusion is that we should allow the developers to get whatever they ask for because we get to avoid a lawsuit? You have got to be kidding! I have 2.5 acres of property. Can I get a zoning change and build a second house? There is plenty of room and I can use the extra income. If my neighbors sue I will tell them that I may be altering the character of the neighborhood, but ultimately we are all better off if they don’t sue because it is disruptive. Why are we even entertaining these absurd notions? It should be clear that Summit Greenfield has no interest in the future of our community. If laws and rules don’t apply to all citizens equally then what type of society do we live in? The developers are opportunists who are focused on one thing and one thing only: corporate profit. It’s time to show them the door. Someone made a bad decision at their company—too bad.
Clittle,
“Silent majority”? Right! Perhaps, there are gremlins living in the bushes or maybe the tooth fairy exists.
Do you expect someone to prove a negative?
Let’s keep this discussion on an adult level, please.
In clittle’s dictionary, those few supporting CC are “fair, reasonable, balanced, and prudent”, while the majority of our residents who oppose CC are “obstinate, unreasonable, defensive, emotional, unbending, and impolite”. If I am the developer, I will give clittle a medal.
Just read the last 2 posts and now you know what I mean about “emotional” and “impolite”.
Another example. I watched it again the other day, Jen Cook, local small business person,getting up to speak at the town meeting a few weeks ago. Again I don’t know her or what she does, but my bet is she makes 10% of the average house-hold income of a New Castle resident. She gives a respectful, heartfelt speech to see if she can open people’s minds somewhat, surely at great risk to her business and to her relationships with people in the town. And I’ll bet she never gives speeches, unlike most of us. So we have this person speaking to the lawyers, investment bankers, and business executives of all types sitting in the room. And how do these captains of our economy treat her? Dismissive, angry, and yes—impolite. No magnanimity whatsoever.
You’d think, even if you disagreed with every word she said, we’d be a bigger set of people and show her respect and be polite. To appreciate the way she put herself out there. Of course not, just watch it. Sincere person who can’t afford to live within 20 miles of New Castle, scorned by those who are fortunate enough to perhaps be able to own 2 houses in our town. It was a shameful moment, and there have been others.
I’m not saying everyone has been impolite, etc. But there have been too many incidents. I suggest we open our minds, get creative, be constructive, and also of course be vigilant. Don’t write back to me with “700k is ridiculous”. Write back to me with ideas, a plan for resolution, an interaction strategy. “No” is not worthy of our capabilities and obligations.
To CLITTLE…based on responses to your post you should understand that you are way off base on this. I have been following this issue very closely and I dont recall any discussion or anybody using an expression like “rape the land”. We have not put up an impossible gauntlet for the developer as you assert. The zoning law that Chapp Crossing be commercial was in place when Summit Greenfield bought the property. Nothing was put up - it was already there. Your statement that “this is not how America works” is amusing. I thought we have rules and laws we are expected to obey. Those rules and laws are intended to serve and protect. I suppose in your America when you get a speeding ticket, rather than obey the law you want the speed limit increased. I have heard few if any accusations that the developer is big business greedy. I don’t blame the developer for trying to change the zoning laws to suit his needs but that doesn’t mean we should roll over and comply. I agree with many before who have said that this is a unique and special commercial property and it will appeal to commercial tenants at the right time and for the right price. I also agree that if economic times are so tough that we need to change zoning to accommodate the developer then those same bad economic times will make it equally difficult for him to sell 200 luxury expensive condos. It’s the economy stupid- it’s commercial stupid.
Clittle is correct in his response to another Lawrence Farms resident that we would be disadvantaged by the project; but that doesn’t disqualify us from commenting, so much as it underscores the fact that the proposed Chappaqua Crossways project would create hardships for a significant portion of the Chappaqua community, even before larger issues relating to taxes and the schools are considered. Why don’t we count? We have bought property, obeyed the laws, and kept our deal with Chappaqua; we are taxpaying citizens of this community.
When considering whether the community as a whole will benefit from this project, the qualify of life of the Chappaqua homeowners in Lawrence Farms East and South should be considered. Our traffic conditions are already terrible due to back-ups on Route 117 and near Greeley; the condos will make the traffic jams and delays worse. Our property values will be affected by the traffic and crowding, because the semi-rural atmosphere of our area will be ruined. The developer does not acquire rights to inflict such damage, merely because he buys property. He made a bad deal. Too bad. The town needs to keep faith with those who have kept faith with the town.
As for the “silent majority” —I have not met a single Chappaqua resident who supports this project. 800 people have signed the petition. None of us is yelling; we are merely familiar with the laws, able to do the research, and willing to assert our rights. Indeed, I offer to donate my attorney time, pro bono, to this effort. The author of the above article is a retired developer who lives in a condo; perhaps he is a “majority” of one.
I agree completely James. If we can get these developers in here and get a couple high rises scattered throughout town then we can add that many more people to the tax base. High five James!!
Condos utilize more resources than they will ever give back to the town in tax revenues. The land should be zoned for 1-2 acre minimum lots and single family homes built. These homes will provide a large and steady tax base, less burden on our schools, and sell a lot faster than 200 condos. People do not move to Chappaqua for condos, they move here to raise families, have space (land), and good schools.
I do not think it is fair to ask New Castle residents to bail out a developer’s bad investment. Sometimes investments do not turn out the way one hopes; we have all been in that situation before. Don’t ask New Castle residents to subsidize someone else’s poorly timed decision.
In addition, I ask everyone to use their real name when posting. No need to be ashamed of your opinions.
Clittle, you write about the young woman who spoke at the info session on 28 sept, “Sincere person who can’t afford to live within 20 miles of New Castle, scorned by those who are fortunate enough to perhaps be able to own 2 houses in our town. It was a shameful moment, and there have been others.”
that’s a big exaggeration.
she may be a sincere person, but she lives in my condo development much closer than 20 miles away. i don’t think she said she lives 20 miles away. in any case, she doesn’t . and i watched it, as you suggested. people were not at all rude. are people supposed to applaud just to be polite? they applauded the speakers they agreed with. they didn’t agree with what she said. that’s not rudeness. and what makes u think that you can tell who in that audience owns two houses or one house or no house or rents or is in default of their mortgage? TAke a step back and compose yourself.
We need to vote in a new Town Board. I for one would consider running. Let’s galvanize some people. Let the Board know that their political careers are over and whatever extra money as councilmen and women will no longer be in their accounts after November 2011. Delay the process and vote them out. It really may be that simple. Not with words, not with stones, but with our votes we can protect Chappaqua by putting people on the Board who will not fall in line for the Developer. Some development there will be necessary, but we don’t need to damage our future for their profit.
That woman who wants to live in Chappaqua is looking out for her own personal interest. She wants to live here. We are looking out for the interest of the town and the future. We can agree to disagree what is best, but she merely wants to live here. Her position is a selfish one. It not about where she wants to live. It is about the greater community.
Perhaps I am being a bit simple minded, but every time I mention to someone I live in Chappaqua, the same two observations always come up: (1) the Clinton’s, and (2) a great school system.
My wife & I work in the city just like many here, and both of us each have to endure a ~3 hours door-to-door round trip commute everyday. Frankly the reason we choose to do this is because of the school system for our son, and I trust we are not the only ones.
Therefore, it seems entirely logical that 199 units = AT LEAST 199 more kids. If you assume that just some of those units will be occupied by families with >1 child then you can easily get to a mid/high 200’s figure.
Separately, let’s also not forget that higher population density and more cars point to higher crime rate and more traffic accidents. I seriously doubt that any of the current resident families would want to expose their children to such risks - no matter how remote the developers/proposal supporters might claim them to be.
The downside here just seems too high for those with real skin in the game. “The Benefits Are Clear”...but to whom? Certainly not the town.
I agree strongly with TW’s post. We moved here fairly recently, and our decision was not based on the convenient commute! My husband sacrificed in that regard so we could buy a home with a little more property in a notably fine school district. We came late in the game (our kids are not in elementary school) believing that it was a good investment because of the schools. Expect others to think so too, and to move here for the same reason, making 199 new kids a pretty reasonable prediction.
This development as it stands now seems like a very bad idea for the residents of Chappaqua.
In addition to the problems related to school enrollment, you can expect other changes that don’t seem to have been discussed in any detail, if at all. Don’t forget that the mandated affordable housing requires that the municipality provide other types of supports for families moving there. The building of the housing itself is really only one small part of the process and the community’s responsibility does not stop there. How will those residents get to the train station, the supermarket, doctors appointments, etc.? Public transportation has to be provided, so expect bus traffic on Bedford road to and from Chappaqua’s downtown area and to Mt Kisco. I’m not sure which taxes pay for that, village or county, but it is a safe bet that a tax will be paid. Frequent running of Beeline buses (or whatever bus provider is used) will significantly change the character of rt 117. Increased emmissions, noise and traffic can be expected.
This development has the potential to change Chappaqua quite a bit, and I don’t yet see how it will be for the better. Don’t let the threat of a lawsuit bully us into handing our future over to Summit Greenfield. They’ll get what they want and then they will be gone. We are the ones who will live with it ever after.
For the Record: Part 1
I have disclosed in previous posts and my statements at the 9/28 meeting the following personal facts but will do so again to quiet the outrage that a condo owner might have an opinion on this subject:
I have lived in Chappaqua for 32 years, 17 as a SFH owner, 15 as a Condo owner. My two children attended Chappaqua schools for 10yrs.
As the General Partner of a small partnership I built an 11 unit condo Project during the mid -80’s and have lived in it since 1995. I also was involved in a group that built 4 homes in Random Farms in the late 80’s.I have also been and continue to be a volunteer in several local groups.
I have no financial interest in this project and have not been involved in real estate development of any kind since the early 90’s. One of the law firms representing SG did represent me on more than one project but again not since the early 90’s.
So, for those who take umbrage that I may now pay a lesser tax than they do, the projects I have been involved in and put my own assets at risk to develop and build have contributed tax revenue to New Castle since at least 1987 in addition to my personal taxes since 1978. The 11 condos currently contribute over $60,000./ year in school taxes and have 1 child enrolled in the schools. There have been others but never more than 2 kids at a time. (Other than renters who were having their homes remodeled) The 4 SFH homes were initially taxed at over $20,000.each. I don’t know what they are today but the amount has to be significantly higher per home and cumulatively a major contribution.
As for those who want condos made fee simple, I guess they didn’t read the part of my post that showed that condos/FS contribute 94% of the cost of the 199 students currently in the schools. Simply put Condos and attached Fee Simples pay their way. (Supporting Data has been supplied to the NC-NOW Editor but because of length was not published.)
Part 2
What hasn’t been fully looked at is the benefit received by SFH owners with one or more children enrolled in the schools who are not
paying the $26,000. cost per child. There are an estimated 2375 households with children in the district. (Bresner’s August Report)
This is approximately 43% of the est. 5525 total households, If one subtracts the 724 Condo/FS Units mentioned in my previous post that means that 1651 households or an est. 30% of the total receive the vast majority of the benefits of the stellar school system. Food for thought.
I’m quite certain that the previous paragraph may create even more of an uproar, but that is not the purpose. The purpose is to illustrate that there is more than one way to look at this whole situation, neither side is absolutely right or wrong, they just have opinions and competing projections.
I am not for or against the developer, I consider them business owners/investors whose timing was unfortunate, that doesn’t mean the Town has to bail them out. I also don’t see them as evil or greedy.
I am fully aware as a developer that if the sewer issue can’t be solved there is no residential. I’ve previously addressed a possible solution to the concern over more students than currently projected. Traffic issues can be dealt with mitigation measures, staggered work starting times etc.
I think that we have to look at our interests in the longer run. A viable commercial and residential development would at minimum result in millions of dollars a year in contribution to our School & Town Tax Base. (The precise amounts can be debated and won’t be known for years but even 3-4 million would be helpful and should not be blithely discounted.)
None of the previous condo/FS Projects have created the calamities projected at the time even though the same arguments have been made over and over. Let’s all take a deep breath, lower the temperature of the invective then decide what is best for the Town.
Clittle, it appears that Summit/Greenfield adopted my suggestion to you…...a link for an on-line is now on their web site. It’s for those who want to show “support for the Chappaqua Crossing project”. I’ve enclosed the link for your convenience. If you sign, you’ll be their 7th signature.
www.chappaquacrossing.com
One of the most striking things about the Sep 28 meeting was listening to SG’s presentations. If you just walked in off the street you’d think their primary objectives were to solve Westchester county’s affordable housing problem and to fix the New Castle Town Budget. In reality nothing could be further from the truth.
If this was a court of law all of their experts would be summarily dismissed as being hopelessly conflicted. I pray the Town Board weights their findings with this in mind. Besides they missed the key point..even if our enrollments are projected to decline, why do we have to find away to take in more students? Why can’t we just lower the costs of educating the ones we have? You don’t have to be a real estate guru to know that lower school taxes will improve your property value.
My message to the SG folks is this: Don’t pretend to worry about our problems (it’s actually quite offensive). Find a commercial tenant or some other solution which does not slaughter the sacred cow that is our school system. If you can’t, turn over the property to your lenders and let them find a buyer that can.
