Government Waste
Developers get no respect: Part 1: Amherst Town Board meeting
By Lee Chowaniec
May 30, 2006, 08:25

Developers believe themselves to be the primary economic engine of a community and often times cannot understand why their projects and proposals lead to controversy and legal challenges, and why their future proposals lead to suspicion and their personal mistrust and disrespect.

At the recent Amherst Town Board meeting, part of the afternoon session concerned a special meeting called to transfer fund warrants to pay bills. Also on the special meeting agenda was Supervisor Satish Mohan’s resolution titled 'Amherst Building Occupancy and Tax Abatements.'

The resolution reads as follows:

Whereas the Town of Amherst, during the last decade, has built many office buildings with or without Amherst IDA abatements, and several of them are partially empty, and

Whereas, the Amherst IDA continues to add more office buildings which attract tenants from earlier built office buildings, and

Whereas, the Town's property tax is based on the percent occupancy of these partially occupied office buildings, and

Whereas, our assessors office does not have the occupancy rates of the Town's office buildings now,

Therefore be it resolved, that the Assessor is hereby is directed to field check the percent of occupancy of each of the buildings, using the six in-house appraisers, and report the occupancy by June, 30, and also

Be it further resolved, that the Amherst IDA is directed to not provide tax abatements to any new buildings until all the existing office buildings are at least 95% occupied, and also

Be it further resolved, that in cases where the tenants demand Class A office buildings, the owners of the older buildings be encouraged and provided technical assistance to upgrade their buildings to class A.

The intent behind Supervisor Satish B. Mohan’s proposal was to survey the amount of vacant office space in town. Mohan says officials need to know how many vacant offices there are before the Amherst Industrial Development Agency gives developers incentives to build more office buildings in town.

Council Member William A. O'Loughlin stated he invited developers to attend Monday's meeting and speak out against the office vacancy survey, saying they are "very upset" about Mohan's proposal.

Some of the biggest developers in the Buffalo area showed up. They spoke at the meeting to inform town officials they are discouraging builders from working in town.

Mohan's made it known that the town has built many office buildings over the past decade, and some are partially empty. "The Amherst IDA continues to add more office buildings which attract tenants from earlier built office buildings for tax abatement benefits."

The resolution directs Assessor Harry Williams to check the amount of occupancy in the town's office developments and to report back June 30. And it also asks the Amherst IDA to stop providing incentives to new office developments until the existing buildings are 95 percent occupied.

In a Buffalo News article written by Tom Dolan, Mohan and other board member set aside the meeting's agenda, including the proposed office study, to hear the comments from developers.

A handful of speakers led by developers Dennis Penman and Paul and Frank Ciminelli, AIDA head James Allen and Amherst Chamber of Commerce President Colleen DiPirro urged the board not to take in the town's welcome mat for builders.
"I think we need to take a step back," DiPirro said. "Our residents and our leaders need to know the value of economic development to our quality of life."

DiPirro and several other speakers urged the town board to meet with them to discuss the issues.

Paul Ciminelli said that, "with the help of the AIDA and the Town Board," his company's Centerpointe Development now pays $800,000 in taxes and will soon be paying over $1 million. "It was a profitable venture for the town," he said, pointing out that other office developments have brought similar success to Amherst.

He added that his concern about the office study is it will send the message that "Amherst is closed to business." "You can't legislate economic development," he said. "All you can do is make it as easy as possible within reason."

Council Member William Kindel agreed with developers, saying the town board has repeatedly voted against business since January, including a resolution calling for a moratorium on development in the flood plain.

And Allen said the development agency "would like to be a partner with the town."

As the meeting broke up, Mohan asked DiPirro to set up a meeting of town officials and developers to discuss the issues. And he urged Allen to gather the figures on the AIDA's activities and how they have helped Amherst.

(http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060523/1070398.asp -Buffalo NEWS article)

Bogdan presents detailed report and analysis

Amherst activist Colleen Bogdan was present during the meeting and in fact addressed the board. Bogdan added to and expounded on events not presented in the Buffalo News. Bogdan wrote:

Dear neighbors- just thought you should know:

Monday’s afternoon-session was unprecedented! Many of the largest developers in Amherst were invited by Bill O'Loughlin to show up to complain about their perceived, recent "anti-development" policies of the Town Board. I assume O'Loughlin also invited the press, as many were in attendance - unusual for an afternoon session.

Surprisingly, many of the comments expressed, specifically, about North Amherst, are most alarming and worthy of note. I will do my best to explain what transpired:

Part of the afternoon session was a special meeting called to transfer fund warrants to ay bills. Also on the special meeting agenda was a Mohan resolution titled 'Amherst Building Occupancy and Tax Abatements.'

Some meeting notes not reported in the NEWS article:

(Councilmember) O'Loughlin opened the comment session with the proclamation that Amherst's 8 billion dollars in real estate, 6 billion taxable, was threatened by this resolution.

Bill Kindel chimed in with the statement that today we will finally hear from the "will of the majority". Kindel later proclaimed that the debate should not be limited to just the IDA resolution but they should also talk about the three "business killing resolutions" passed by the board. He identified them as:

1. IDA,
2. The moratorium
3. "The artificial shifting of development from north Amherst to Eggertsville" (i.e. the proposed Urban Renewal Agency). Kindel stated that these board actions were "demonizing the business community". When Kindel made the disparaging remarks about the moratorium I got up to stand in line to speak.

Some speakers before me

Colleen Dipirro:

Chamber of Commerce- reiterated the Chambers displeasure with Mohan’s anti-business philosophy. She promised a "careful, methodical study of the job creation benefits of the IDA and said, “Until we have all the facts we should not "shut down development."

Note: Dipirro recently called the moratorium an "anti-business" action. ASLO- see Dipirro's stunning new announcement- published the MAY Chamber newsletter- that the Amherst Chamber "has concluded" that the flood problem in Amherst is over -a thing of the past.

(Link to report http://www.amherst.org/files/newsletters/May%20Agenda%20final.pdf)

Paul Ciminelli:

People are misinterpreting what IDA’s do. They do not take money and give it to developers. Not saying the Pilots agreements don't have to be looked at but you can't legislate economic development... You should facilitate it. Indicated a stakeholders meeting is necessary for "what I consider to be the stakeholders, developers, builders Chamber, etc."

Shelly Schratz:

Schratz said she was glad Mohan put the resolution out because the result was that so many showed up for the meeting. She encouraged the development community to start working together with them on the many issues the public want addressed.

Dennis Penman:

He identified himself as one of the largest residential taxpayers in town. Said the impact of those office buildings lowers his tax bill.

Colleen Bogdan (resident):

I took issue with Kindel & O'Loughlin’s statements that those in the room represented "the will of the majority" and reminded the board that the majority of Amherst taxpayers, by far, were residential taxpayers.

I said- It's a pleasure to finally see the real "vocal minority" at a town board meeting, having the courage to stand up and speak in public about their problems just like the sinking and flood homeowners do on a regular basis.

I noted that those attending are used to speaking behind closed doors. I invited them to appear more often and start working on the issues affecting residents... Also that ... It is not good enough to just come to the table for profits while others suffer the impacts.

I pointed out that the session was obviously a well organized campaign to blindside Mohan and get the resolution off the table before it can be discussed, weighed, amended etc. This is what is holding back WNY - new ideas are killed before they are being allowed to be presented and considered.

I also pointed out- the just release Hevesi citing of the shortcomings if the Amherst IDA; it may not tell the whole tale but it can't just be ignored either
(lnk to report www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/swr/2006ms2.pdf)

IDA Chairman Stachura:

Stachura said there is no political influence in their decisions. The public almost never attends IDA meetings to give input, not more than a handful over many years. Why do developers come to Amherst? Because they know they will be supported. We will show the benefits to the community (i.e. study promised by the IDA & Chamber).

Kathy Weppner (resident):

The majority spoke in November electing the board to ask questions like this... IDA abatements are almost like bribing people to build here.... Why do we need them if Amherst is so attractive?

Frank Ciminelli:

He learned 3 things a long time ago about where to locate office buildings. 1. Location / has an airport nearby. 2. Near a university. 3. "Look where the decision makers live".

Bogdan Commentary on the Town Board

Bill Kindel has showed his true colors. In his opinion, developers are the ruling majority in Amherst. This is transparent government at it's best! Too bad the cameras weren't there!

For the last four years, homeowners attended town board meetings to patiently express public safety concerns, to patiently explain, with substantiating documentation the threat to their residential investment, with little, if any, success. But when O'Loughlin and Kindel hear that a few developers feel their economic interests are threatened...they immediately orchestrate a press campaign to overcome a problem which is as yet, only an idea, a concept for discussion / modification / dismissal.

Opposition speakers are not only allowed to speak without limitation, they are invited and encouraged to show up en-masse. No extra police officers were called in for crowd control. No one was asked to stop making duplicative comments as happened with residents.

I don't know if the Mohan resolution is good or bad, because I haven't heard the details behind it, but I strongly object to the "real vocal minority", the chosen few, dictating what public policy is okay to discuss in a public meeting.

Bill Kindel has just redefined a moratorium intended to protect the floodplain residents he represents in N. and E. Amherst as an "anti business" action, and then encouraged the developers to express scorn. I suggest you take note of Mr. Kindel’s & O'Loughlin's words and actions; save them, share them and carry them into the election booth a year and a half from now.

Bogdan Commentary on the developers

I had lengthy, productive discussions after the meeting with some of the developers. Here is the honest opinion I gave them: Why? Because, we need each other!

1.They are not enemies and they are only part of the problem. When the town misleads them about the severity of the flood and/or sinking problems the town makes the problem worse. The Corps study documents the soils problem, causes and damage.

2. Adequate flood control infrastructure is not in place to accommodate massive new development in the floodplain. The risk to existing homes and infrastructure is documented in the 2001 Ransom Creek Study. As soon as the study came out, developers bought up key parcels and planned for Town flood control (i.e. the Smith Farms site). They are creating their own problems regarding future development by preventing the town from placing the needed flood control and needed infrastructure that enables safe development.

3. There is widespread public dissatisfaction with over-development and IDA abatements, which can work to exacerbate over-development. Right or wrong, people simply want IDA questions answered.

4. The developers are creating their own negative public perception by hiring attorneys to constantly go before the town board to disparage homeowners who are guilty of nothing more than suffering from environmental events beyond their control (i.e. small vocal minority – NIMBY’s, tree-huggers, Lois Gibbs wannabes, anti-development activists etc.)

The affected homeowners have been very patient. They don't oppose reasonable development. They are just trying to protect their homes, safety and investment - just like developers do for their own interests.

Homeowners have never focused on disparaging the business community as the business community has done to them. This tactic is insulting...to the "decision makers" that live in these homes.

5. They have ignored our problem while pursuing their own interests. If they want floodplain development, they must be part of the solution, working in tandem with the residential community instead of pitting themselves against it. They must work as hard as the homeowners are to secure the needed infrastructure that is the key to ensuring safe new development. It is their problem as well! If we are to understand their risks and problems, they must also understand and work to solve ours.

6. There is plenty of talent, expertise, desire and political power available in Amherst to find real, viable solutions to the problems. The development community has known about the flood and sinking problems for the entire fours years I have been working on these issues. They have done nothing but give lip service.

We have the 4th largest municipal tax base in New York State. If the political will is not there, our common problems will remain unsolved. We have choices. We can either work together to fix the problems or work against each other, which in my estimation is time wasted.

7. If wetlands are not identified properly than proper compensation and stormwater management cannot be planned and provided for properly. This exacerbates flooding.

8. Minimum codes do not provide maximum safety.

9. Many of the folks in the sinking and /or flood areas are executives in the workforce – decision-makers. They are not stupid. They know flooding and cracking when they see it. The developers "studies" will not erase what we can see with our eyes.

The folks are not buying the simplified answers anymore. The development community is misreading the very audience they need. Intelligent people do not raise their hands to volunteer for potential property devaluation unless there is a serious unresolved problem.

Friends, the real power play took place on Monday afternoon, well before the SABRES game started. Forgive me for being somewhat amused to see the Chamber pleading with the Board to wait to review the results of their upcoming, "careful, methodical" study of IDA benefits, before taking Town action to limit the IDA' role.

These are the same folks who so quickly forget or discount our existing, taxpayer-funded, engineering studies that prove added risks to the residential community when those studies interfere with their business plans.

Bogdan declares that she will keep attending meetings, pushing and prodding and keep looking for solutions and co-operation. "That's what communities are supposed to do," she says.

Next: Developers get no respect: Part 2: IDA abuse




© Copyright 2003 by Speakupwny.com