Welcome to the final round of the Big Tupper debate
After years of muddle, dithering, government bureaucracy and occasional false starts by the developer, we’ve entered what will likely be the final phase of review for the Adirondack Club and Resort in Tupper Lake.
Developer Michael Foxman has submitted revised plans to the Adirondack Park Agency, which is preparing to complete a formal adjudicatory hearing.
Then the APA commissioners will vote Yay or Nay on a permit, likely some time next year. (I know, that still seems like a long time…)
Meanwhile, it appears that at least some environmental activists think the project in something like its current form is acceptable.
Brian Houseal, head of the Adirondack Council, says he still has significant concerns, but added in an interview with NCPR:
The Adirondack Council has a large board of 25 people so obviously there’s a diversity of viewpoints about this project in Tupper Lake.
But my mandate from the board — and it was a consensus mandate — is to get a permit with conditions from the APA so that this project meets the APA standard of no undue adverse impact, but also a project that will benefit the economy of Tupper Lake.
So I have a direct mandate from the board to go forward and make sure this project gets a permit.
Obviously, there are still some big flash points here.
Mr. Foxman and the town of Tupper Lake have begun eminent domain proceedings against an environmental group, the Adirondack Nature Conservancy, trying to win access across a TNC-owned road.
The Nature Conservancy says its private property rights are being assaulted and has promised a court fight.
Meanwhile, some green activists remain convinced that this project is a very bad idea. Writing for Adirondack Almanack, conservationist David Gibson put it this way:
Since the first conference between Mr. Foxman, APA and potential parties to a public hearing in April 2007, he has been unable or unwilling to substantively negotiate two major problems with what he wants to do: the lack of a permanent open space protection component in his proposals and his inability to allay concerns for water quality impacts from sewage, stormwater and steep slope development.
NCPR is currently working on an in-depth story about these environmental questions, attempting to assess the latest project design and its potential impact. We’ll report back on that soon.
We’ll also prepare an in-depth look at economic questions surrounding the ACR project.
Meanwhile, community activists are continuing to organize in support of the Big Tupper resort. The group called ARISE will hold a public meeting tonight in the high school. Here’s their invitation:
On Wednesday, August 18th at 7pm in the Tupper Lake High School Auditorium, ARISE (Adirondack Residents Intent on Saving their Economy) will host a presentation to update the community on the Adirondack Club and Resort (ACR) as well as other community development programs.
Presenters will include ACR principals Michael Foxman and Tom Lawson, ACR attorney Robert Sweeney, Kevin Franke from the LA Group (the architects and engineers for the ACR), Jim Martin, author of the APRAP (Adirondack Park Regional Assessment Project) report, John Tubbs of the Franklin County Industrial Development Agency, Tupper Lake Village and Town representatives, and Jim LaValley, Chairman of ARISE.
According to LaValley, “we are encouraging the community of Tupper Lake and surrounding region, to attend this special event to receive updates on the ACR project, as well as other community development opportunities that are in the making.”
One of the most important parts of the presentation will be the opportunity for the community to ask questions of the group.
I’ll be at the meeting tonight and will have a full report tomorrow during the 8 O’clock Hour and All Before Five.
I really couldn’t care less but do say, build it and go broke.
Builders (developers) down in Glens Falls are making money by building apartments and can’t keep up with the demand while up here they build expense stuff for those who think they are rich and want to prove it.
I’m betting this dies like most other developments in the Park. Of course only the locals will suffer.
“the lack of a permanent open space protection component in his proposals and his inability to allay concerns for water quality impacts from sewage, storm water and steep slope development.”
First on Open Space, I looked at the map of the project. It appears that much of the development is clustered, leaving lots of open space. That is the type of development suggested by the APA to limit environmental impacts. Also, as someone else pointed out in a comment on the Almanack. Isn’t there about to be 15,000 acres of open space (the Follensby Tract) added to the Forest Preserve right next door to this development? How much open space does this new environmental group expect?
On the other issues (water quality etc.) let the APA do it’s job and make those determinations. In most places this would be considered pretty low density development.
The financial components of the project are a bigger issue. But that is not a question for the APA.
Were steep slopes ever a consideration when the Blue Mtn Museum was built?
Paul,
Where did you see a map of the project?
Mateo – you can see all the plans at the goff nelson memorial library
How old is Mr Foxman? How long has this been in the planning stages?
I support a project – my kids learned to ski at Big Tupper and the village needs the stimulus a project will bring. However, I am scared to death that the developer will get partially into the project and fail, leaving an environmental disaster and unsustainable tax burdens on the Tupper Lake citizens. The answer is for the APA to INSIST on a staged project with bonding for each stage – i.e., make each step self-sustaining. It seems the developer wants to do the opposite, selling off “great camp” lots to finance the next stage, which could leave us with an incomplete road, sewer, and water network, erosion and a permanent eyesore. Staging, for example, the renovated ski center, then cluster housing, etc. would prevent a mid-stream failure, or at least make sure that a failure left a sustainable partial project. Similarly, the financing for this project needs intense scrutiny. It would appear that the developer hopes to finance this with bonds that would be paid off from revenues that are dependent on sales of the property. In this economy, borrowing on the hope that if “we build it they will come” is sheer lunacy. I hope the people of Tupper Lake are smart enough to want this built, but not with risks that could cost them their kid’s inheritance and future, as they would be the ones paying the bill if it is not implemented properly.
Lee, Ithink the most of the people in Tupper Lake want to see Big Tupper reopen, the rest of the project they couldn’t care less about. The really scary thing about this project is the TL town board. They are backing this so called developer lock stock and barrell without asking questions that need to be asked, especially regarding the financing. Foxman is armed with a team of consultants and high priced lawyers directing the town board and they are doing whatever is asked of them. ( Ex. Nature Conservancy easement case, extending PDD zoning in perpetuity). Meanwhile the town board has absolutely no one looking out for the taxpayers interests. They even have a local law that would allow them to force the developer to pay for a consultant to help the town but they won’t even ask him to do that. Actulally Mr Foxman did partially fund a consultant for the town but when he didn’t like their findings he stopped paying. The PILOT program is a potential fiscal nightmare for the existing taxpayers of TL. If sales in the project don’t pan out as planned the town, county and school may not receive any tax money at all. I looked at the revised plans at the Library in TL, Foxman is hallucinating, he has actually increased the projected sales prices of the realestate by 20, 30, 50 and for some properties up to 80% above the projections from 2006. I guess the developer hasn’t been conscious for the past 4 years while the housing bubble burst and real estate prices have plummeted acoss the country. Also Lee, I agree, make sure the project is phased properly. The APA should require that Big Tupper is totally refurbished before any houses get sold. I hope the Town Board wakes up before it’s to late but given the recent audit by the NYS Comptrollers office and the Franklin County investigation by the DAs’ office I’m not holding my breath.
MIke, I agree with you on some of your comments. But isn’t Foxman going to this meeting tonight in Tupper Lake? If the town board or anyone has any questions regarding financing just go and ask him. The financing may be suspect but it sounds like he is being pretty open and responsive about what it is. He could easily skip the meeting stay in some bunker and let his “team of layers” field the questions?
Besides, do they really need to hire consultants? This type of financing structure is not that complicated.
How much does he plan to charge for the larger “great camp” type places. If it is millions he is hallucinating. The fact that these places are not waterfront is a mistake. Nobody is going to pay big bucks for a big camp in the middle of the buggy woods!
Paul, “do they really need to hire consultants”? Absolutely. In the APA application it clearly states that the project is not economically viable without a PILOT. Show me any other luxury second home development in the country with this type of financing, i guarantee you wont find one. According to the revised application he is planning on charging over 2 Million for each of the large 8 “great camp” lots and $800,000 for each of the 16 smaller “great camp” lots in the first phase of the project. These are not waterfront properties, only the lots, no houses on them. Also, 44 single family houses on lots in the woods projected to sell for over 1 Million each. So, yes he is hallucinating.
Mike, Those prices sound pretty out there. The 2 million includes the buildout I am sure, but either way it is unrealistic.
On the financing, why is the county economic development director so comfortable with the bond arrangement?
It sounds like this project may never fly, but again I don’t understand how a failed project will leave the town holding the bag? They gotta sell the bonds to pay for the project so the APA approval is only a first step.
Bottom line, the APA should weigh in on the permit-ability of the development, leave the financing and other PILOT issues to others. If they need consultants than fine hire one, the analysis won’t take more than a half a day. The worse case scenario is that not single unit sells, what are the consequences? MIke, you seem to have quite a lot of knowledge on the subject can you explain a bit more. If payments in lieu of taxes never come that is because no one is on the lots and no one is using the services that the taxes cover. If no one is using the services than you don’t need the payments to cover them? The only folks that will lose are the developers and the bond holders that will be left holding worthless bonds. True, this sounds like a very risky project but the bond prices should reflect that risk.
BTW, like I said before I think all these places should have septic and wells and maybe even be built off grid. That will solve the infrastructure build out issues and keep them more green and energy efficient , a potential selling point for the developers.
If Big Tupper were economically viable it would already be open. Small and medium sized ski slopes are simply not succeeding in the Adirondack region they are failing not succeeding. Now if you would build something like a casino you could use that to subsidize the losses a ski slope would have. Foxman wants to make his money from real estate development with the ski area as a bonus to help the real estate, but the condo’s are what this is about, not the skiing.