On that same post, the same commenter provided the link to an article that appeared in the Albany Times Union: "Stewart's employee stock ownership plan creating millionaires." The article reports that, according to Stewart's president, "there are now 67 current or former long-time Stewart's workers with retirement balances of more than $1 million"--67 of the more than 4,500 people employed by Stewart's. The link to the article was presumably provided as evidence that Stewart's is a good and benevolent employer and, because it is, Hudson should acquiesce to the company's desires and change its zoning to accommodate Stewart's uniform expansion plans.
Since I can't remember anyone using the company's reputation as an employer to argue against allowing Stewart's to dictate zoning changes in Hudson and redefine the city's vision for its future, touting the company's employee stock ownership program seems like the very definition of a straw man argument. Surprisingly, though, at last night's informal Common Council meeting, after the letter from Marshall was accepted as correspondence, DePietro brought up the Times Union article and said he would send the link to each of the aldermen, saying it was "an interesting article about what Stewart's does for the community."
The Common Council will ultimately be asked to decide whether to grant or deny Stewart's request for a zoning change. It should be stressed that denying Stewart's request is not the equivalent of expelling them from that location. The current facility is a nonconforming use, but it can stay there, as it is, indefinitely. Marshall's most extreme ultimatum to date was delivered on March 29, when he told the Legal Committee, "If Stewart's is unable to expand, it is our intention that we will eventually leave." Stewart's could eventually leave for all kinds of reasons, even if the City of Hudson were to change its zoning to accommodate their current plans for expansion.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CAROLE OSTERINK
Living where I do, opposite Cedar Park cemetery, I come through that intersection frequently. It is horrendous and drivers have to be very alert for pedestrians, and cars coming around the corner, wanting to turn left into Stewarts, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe illustration does nothing at all to convince me that the expansion is going to make all those problems disappear. Seems quite likely that the expansion will cause even worse problems at that intersection.
The reason I believe that is that I can't see how enlarging the place so more cars can go in and out of Stewarts than do now, can cause anything but more traffic, more people having to wait, more possible fender-benders, etc. More cars for Stewarts can't do anything but cause more headaches for the people who live in the area and people who drive through it. If there is some magical way it will improve things those illustrations do nothing to convey what it might be.
Elizabeth Nyland
Precisely the points I made in my comments to Carole's previous post on the Stewart's application. Thank you.
DeleteIf he doesn't already, Mr. DiPietro should work in public relations. He is very adept at deploying industry troupes.
ReplyDeleteThe graphics of the site plan aren’t that clear, but I believe the argument about the intersection is that with the larger lot, they are proposing to move the curb cuts for vehicle access further away from the corner. I’m not a civil/traffic engineer, but I believe that paired with improved pedestrian crosswalks and signals could be a real improvement to the safety of the intersection. That said, local government could improve the interestection without any redevelopment by Stewart’s.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the proposed development itself, I don’t see an enlarged formula retail auto-oriented outlet as a benefit to the city. The additional economic activity, if any, seems modest. It’s also spot zoning which should be discouraged.
An overlay wouldn't be spot zoning -- it is arguably available to be deployed on the petition of any eligible property owner(s) or perhaps even local residents on petition to the Council. I believe a commercial overlay limited to corners would be a benefit particularly to the city's north side.
DeleteThe parcel right now is in an R-2 district for a couple blocks, so any exemption for this one property would certainly count as 'spot zoning'.
DeleteBut I like your idea of adding commercial overlays to the north side.
Right now, in this neighborhood, it seems a little strange that the G-C district north on Fairview doesn't connect to the G-C-T district further west on Green Street.
http://www.cityofhudson.org/document_center/Code%20Enforcement/Zoning%20Map.pdf
Those two streets have potential to be great commercial avenues and a secondary extension of Warren St.
I don't believe an overlay district that is properly drafted would constitute spot zoning. The most salient question that has to be asked in determining whether a change in zoning is spot or not is the size of the property affected. In the case of an overlay, no specific property is, in fact, affected until the overlay is adapted to a particular location. In the instant case, the location contains 3 discrete and conforming lots (as to area at least) with 3 distinct owners. Granted, once the overlay is in place a single owner will then own all the affected properties. Unified ownership is, of course, an analytical point in determining if zoning is spot or not but it's not as important as area and, as in this case, the unification is after the fact so, I think, less of an issue in this regard than it would be if it was unified before the overlay would be implemented.
Deleteother question is: if council does not grant Stewart's expansion, will the DPW do anything to improve the situation there -- specifically for pedestrians by figuring out where to paint some crosswalks. They have done essentially nothing in the past.
ReplyDeleteI could imagine some excellent uses for the Stewart's. An indie-run grocery for example, to serve that neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteIf Stewart's leaves, I can imagine many excellent uses for Stewart's current location. An indie-owned grocery/eatery for example, that would serve the neighborhood. Why are we allowing a company that does;t care about Hudson's best interest to dictate our zoning and our future?
ReplyDeleteWhile I see that the proposed curb cuts will be somewhat further from the corner than existing, IMO the same problem remains, of cars exiting left from either side required to cross multiple lanes of traffic, often with their sight line completely obscured by street traffic.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if I understand correctly, only NYS DOT (not local DPW) has the authority to implement any type of vehicular or pedestrian traffic control at this corner, whether Stewart's expands or remains as is.
Insofar as I am aware, there is nothing to prevent the building up of curb to narrow and restrict the existing free range approach to the store, and the installation of pedestrian crossing lights and crosswalks, to serve the site and the citizens, as the store now exists. An application for same can be made by the City of Hudson, and need not originate with Stewart's.
As to the proposed commercial overlay district, again, if I understand correctly, all of the property encompassed by it, with the exception of Stewart's, is residential, with no plan to become other than as presently in use. This might be viewed by some as a disingenuous attempt on the part of the applicant to avoid the appearance of spot zoning.
I am also curious as to Stewart's threat that if they are not permitted to expand, they will (eventually) leave. I presume they are operating a profitable business at this location, inasmuch as they have remained here for the better part of 50 years. I wonder how much more money they expect to make in order to adequately capitalize the investment of the proposed expansion; and if their projections fail to materialize, if they will be leaving anyway.
Good Morning,
ReplyDelete1. Specifically, how many TGOR posters who are upset by, and concerned about, the intersection, have called, written, and/or Emailed Mayor Rector (Hamilton/Hallenbeck/Scalera/Tracy), and Rob Perry, with those concerns, with what frequency, and what have the officials responses been? Also, how many of TGOR posters upset by, and concerned about, the intersection, attended DPW Committee Meetings, and/or called, written, or Emailed the members of the DPW Committee about this on-going issue and what has been the official response? And again, please share the frequency of your attempts to get a resolution.
2. Will an independently operated indie food store add to the city coffers the same amount of property and sales taxes as Stewart's currently does? And will the indie food store have the financial ability to, and desire to, partner with Hudson to improve the intersection?
3. Please specifically define "Hudson's best interests" and provide examples of other current businesses that have business models that illustrate that.
The answers to these questions will be helpful I think to the overall conversation.
Susan
I don't have a horse in this race, but I had the same bad reaction to ladywriter's comment: "Why are we allowing a company that does;t care about Hudson's best interest to dictate our zoning and our future?" [sic].
DeleteYou only forgot to challenge the "does;t care." That part of the comment struck me as being pretty low, with the effect of giving me a horse to back after all.
the residents of Mill St. didn't want a dog park.
ReplyDelete4. As for "modest" "economic activity", I guess it depends on whether it's your job and benefit package potentially being eliminated, or not, that determines whether the economic activity is modest. I'm certain City Treasurer Heather Campbell could provide specific numbers to TGOR regarding the current and projected amount of taxes paid to the city's coffers by Stewart's , and offer her opinion as to whether that number is best described by the adjective "modest".
ReplyDelete5. And, while I work diligently to write clearly, apparently I need to do a better job going forward. At no time, not ever, did I communicate that Hudson should approve Stewart's application based solely on the recent Times Union article profiling Stewart's.
Given however, that my understanding is Hudson wants to support economic development promoting "local wealth", the Times Union article about Stewart's spoke directly to that point. Perhaps Sheena could chime in here with her professional opinion, or perhaps Mike Tucker could join this conversation. I'm certain they both understand that not everyone is qualified to be part of the "creative economy".
And finally, I have asked this question on this forum more than once, but no one has responded with an answer, so I'll ask again: Why is it okay for other single family and multi-family home owners to sell their properties to whomever they want, but it is not okay for the owners of the two properties adjacent to Stewart's to do the same?
Susan
Susan, to respond to the last paragraph of your comment above, these property owners are free to sell to whomever wishes to buy. Stewart's does not wish to buy unless it can obtain approval of the proposed expansion. This does not constitute discrimination, as asserted in your earlier comments, against the property owners, Stewart's, or anyone else.
DeleteA couple of years ago, Altamont visited some identical issues regarding a Stewart's expansion plan. It's a wonder that no one is comparing the two stories, but then Hudson has always lived in a bubble.
ReplyDeleteI did a post about Stewart's and Altamont on January 16, 2018, unheimlich: https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2018/01/stewarts-shops-elsewhere.html.
DeleteAh!, then you have escaped the bubble. Well done, and thanks.
DeleteLet us then, compare. When Stewart's was denied the zoning change in Altamont, they did not depart the scene of their existing (profitable) business; they performed upgrades to the existing site in order, to paraphrase the present Hudson application, to offer a brighter, pleasanter "shopping experience".
DeleteThis is not the decision of a company preparing for departure.
Then, in spite of the negative outcome of the zoning application, they then proceeded to purchase, and demolish, the residential property on which they had already fixed their focus. Again, not the decision of a company preparing for departure.
In fact, Stewart's explained the company decisions taken in Altamont by stating that it takes the "long view", which can only mean that they plan to stick around, where they are, as they are.
And why wouldn't they do the same in Hudson?
I dont think Stewart’s is attempting to “dictate” the zoning.
ReplyDeletePursuant to the City’s code we made an application to amend the zoning. The Common Council can approve that consideration as set forth, amend it, deny it outright or deny it by choosing not to consider it.
This is the process outlined by the City and an example of a democratic process.
Chuck Marshall
Stewart’s Shops
Good Morning,
ReplyDeleteBack to the "language is a powerful tool" discussion. If I've learned nothing else from being a reader of TGOR, it's how language is used as a debate weapon.
Were Stewart's an idea, a cause, an event, a goal, a philosophy, or a project that the more regular posters on TGOR were in favor of, the word choices would be completely different. Instead, words like "bullying" and "dictate" are thrown about.
And as for public hearings in Hudson, I've attended enough of them to know first hand that there is considerable eye rolling at, audible mockery of, and a complete lack of patience for, those folks who apparently dare to voice opposing opinions, and who don't always use correct noun/verb agreements, or deliver their comments as effectively as others. Some would argue that's a form of bullying.
And, I'm still waiting for Sheena and Mike Tucker to jump into this conversation - I thought they were the Economic Development professionals around these parts.
Oh, and I'm anxious to learn more specifics about the indie food store, and how many people have reached out to the Mayor, Rob Perry, and the DPW Committee about the intersection and what the official answers offered have been.
Susan