Letter to the Editor: Summit Greenfield should answer concerns rather than continue sales pitch

July 24, 2009
by Steven Mullaney

Dear Editor,

This past Wednesday, Summit Greenfield (the owners of the former Reader’s Digest property) sent out another town-wide marketing brochure promoting its proposed development project, Chappaqua Crossing. In the mailing, Summit Greenfield purported to “separate the fiction from the facts,” stating that “the facts about this plan have been misrepresented and distorted by some opponents of the plan.” As a member of the group, NewCastleRD.org, which has been actively challenging the plan, I am left with the impression that the comment is directed at our group.

I would like to challenge Summit Greenfield to come forward and, to use their own language, “set the record straight” by pointing out exactly what our group has “misrepresented and distorted.” We have been very specific in our criticisms of the proposal and why we think it is harmful to our town.

The mailing sent to the residents addressed four main topics: taxes, age restriction, schools and traffic.

Taxes

The mailer claims that some residents have called the property tax revenue that would be generated by the proposal “insignificant.” We have never said that. Summit Greenfield comes up with their revenue estimate using faulty assumptions regarding expenses and vacancy rates.  They use a high inflation rate to estimate the tax revenue seven years in the future and then compare it to the almost $1.5 million in tax revenue currently generated from the property. And most disturbing, they base their estimates on market values that have deteriorated significantly since they published their report nearly a year ago. 

We don’t think any tax dollars are “insignificant.” We do, however, maintain that tax revenues from this project will be significantly lower than Summit Greenfield’s claim of $5.2 million and will be less than the costs generated by the project. And this is before considering the negative impact that a 5% increase in housing stock and 46% increase in the number of condominiums would have on property values and, consequently, tax revenues.

Age Restriction

We have stated quite specifically why we do not believe that the age restriction will be maintained over time. Summit Greenfield’s literature gives advice on how the town could try to maintain the age restriction, but never acknowledges that those restrictions fail when developers feel their sales are hampered by them, or when condo associations decide that, like every other homeowner in town, they should be allowed to sell to whomever they want. .

Schools

The mailing states that some opponents have claimed the proposal will “overcrowd the School District with school-age children.” We have never said this. There is physical space in each of our schools to put additional bodies into seats, but as we saw during the crafting of last year’s school budget, fitting more students is not the problem. Providing staffing and services is the expensive part, and condominium taxes cover even less of the student cost than fee simple taxes. The developer’s own submissions to the Town Board contradict his assertion that the entire project will result in 11 additional school children. Summit Greenfield’s own documents show the number to be 127 additional children. We believe the total will be significantly higher. More importantly, we have stated that the tax revenue generated from the tax advantaged condominiums will be insufficient to cover the cost of the additional children. This will result in a lower quality of education for our children or higher school taxes.

Traffic

The mailer states as “fiction” residents’ concern that the proposal “will worsen traffic conditions on Roaring Brook Road and surrounding roads.” We don’t know how they define “fiction” or “worsen,” but Summit Greenfield’s own traffic study concedes that their proposed mixed-use commercial and residential project would result in over 500,000 additional vehicle trips to and from the property each year. That’s 1,369 trips per day. We find it difficult to believe that adding all the cars that come along with 550 new residents and an unlimited number of commercial tenants will result in an improvement of traffic conditions. 

Mailings repeat claims but ignore the issues

In brochures mailed to residents, Summit Greenfield has continually attempted to damage the credibility of those questioning their plan. Instead of addressing residents’ valid concerns, Summit Greenfield simply repeats the same claims, hoping that if they spin their material hard enough and often enough people will believe it.

Summit Greenfield has a wonderful opportunity to actually, as they say in their latest brochure, “set the record straight” and address the town’s concerns at the Public Hearing this Tuesday night, July 28. We ask Summit Greenfield to drop its rhetoric and start coming clean with the facts. We’ve stated some of our many concerns in this letter. Let’s see if Summit Greenfield addresses them.

Looking forward to Tuesday night,

Steven Mullaney on behalf of NewCastleRD.org

The author of this letter lives in the vicinity of the former Reader’s Digest property.
__________________________

Hearings continue on July 28

The public hearings on the draft environmental impact statement will continue on July 28 at town hall at 7:00 p.m. Residents can submit written comments between now and ten business days after the public hearing is finally closed, or they can come in person to address the town board at the hearing on July 28. 

The town board has mounted the DEIS and related documents on a dedicated website:

http://chappaquacrossingreview.mynewcastle.org/
and has set up an email address to receive comments from the community at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

A video of the June 23 public hearing is available on demand on NCCTV. Click here to see it. The first 30 minutes is the developer’s presentation followed by 90 minutes of comments and questions from 23 speakers.

For a complete listing of NewCastleNOW.org’s previous articles and letters to the editor on Summit Greenfield’s proposal for the former Reader’s Digest property, click here.

____________________________________________________
Thanks for reading NewCastleNOW.org.
What do you like about the site; how could it be better?
Let us hear from you.
Write .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
___________________________________________________