Can this Adirondack Park Agency board handle the Adirondack Club and Resort decision?
That’s one of the big questions I’ll ask departing APA chairman Curt Stiles when we sit down for an interview later this week.
Stiles shocked the Adirondacks earlier this month when he abruptly announced that he won’t stay on for another term. His departure is very nearly immediate, as he’ll be stepping aside before the next meeting in August in Ray Brook.
All of which raises troubling concerns about the APA’s ability to fairly and thoroughly adjudicate the Adirondack Club and Resort project proposed for Tupper Lake.
The resort’s developers want to build hundreds of condos and mansions, as well as a modern state of the art marina, ski resort, equestrian center, and more.
The public hearings which just wrapped up cap a review process that has gone on for years, with mountains of information and context and citizen involvement all thrown into the mix.
This is quite possibly the biggest, most controversial single decision the APA will make in its first half-century.
Now, it appears that the Agency will make the final call led by an interim chairman, or by someone new to the post hastily appointed by Governor Andrew Cuomo and confirmed by the state Senate.
What’s more, a total of four other APA commissioners — not including Stiles — are serving after their terms have expired. That’s fully half of the eight citizen board-members who are lame ducks.
Members of the commission who represent other state agencies are also relatively new to the panel and some have expressed anxiety about getting up to speed on the massive project.
According to APA officials, the Big Tupper applicants have given the commission until January to make this decision — to reject construction of the resort, to approve it (likely with conditions), or to call for more public hearings.
That gives Governor Cuomo a little time to sort out the APA’s leadership, though in fact much of the board’s deliberating and internal review process will begin almost immediately.
It helps that the Park Agency staff is fairly stable at the moment despite the state’s economic tribulations. Their expertise will play a big role in helping commissioners sort through the piles of documents, maps and testimony.
But the learning curve on ACR is steep. The nuances of fact, science, and public sentiment will be daunting even for veteran commissioners.
And ultimately, this decision is the commission’s responsibility, not the staff’s.
Even without this muddle, the outcome of the Adirondack Club and Resort vote, whatever it is, will be be hugely controversial and the APA’s credibility will be called into question by one faction or another.
Surely it would help matters if the final decision were being made by an experienced chairman working with commissioners who are properly appointed by the governor, properly confirmed by the state legislature, and still serving their proper terms.
If nothing else, this situation highlights the need for leadership from Albany. Obviously, Governor Cuomo has been preoccupied with much bigger issues than the APA or the Adirondack Club and Resort.
But it’s been two years now since a governor — David Paterson, in fact — tried to fill one of the expired seats on the APA commission.
If the state wants Adirondackers to live under the APA’s regulatory authority, it seems only reasonable that officials in Albany take the time to give the agency proper attention, so that it can carry out its duties appropriately.
Tags: adirondacks, apa, economy, land management, land use
“If nothing else, this situation highlights the need for leadership from Albany. Obviously, Governor Cuomo has been preoccupied with much bigger issues than the APA or the Adirondack Club and Resort.”
No question about it. I think this highlights one of the main criticisms of the agency since its inception. State government and its many state agencies flounder and local folks that deserve a fair shake get this kind of treatment. It doesn’t matter what side of this issue folks are on, the process has not gone well and the decision (whichever way it goes) will be fodder for legal action from both sides.
Paul –
Some good points, but I would argue that there is a significant change here as well. When I arrived in the Adirondacks 12 or 13 years ago, it was obvious that the Park and its issues were a significant preoccupation in Albany.
Governor Pataki and his staff played a constant, active role — perhaps too active, given the APA’s theoretically independent, nonpartisan make-up — in decisions.
Prior to Pataki, Governor Mario Cuomo also spent a lot of political capital in the Park, though not always with happy outcomes.
It’s interesting to think what might have been if Spitzer hadn’t imploded.
But so far, in the Paterson-Cuomo II era, it’s hard to find evidence that the APA is on the Albany radar screen in the way that it once was.
–Brian, NCPR
I was not shocked when Stiles announced he is leaving.
Neither would I be surprised if Albany shows little interest in the APA or the Adirondacks in general. The votes aren’t here.
As to the ACR thing, I imagine it will get a pass with some conditions.
As to those who want to sue over whatever the outcome, well that’s what Americans do. They sue. It makes them feel good and important.
Meanwhile, life for the average Adirondack resident will go on as usual and the talking heads will continue to talk.
Given the shake up and the open seats on the board this Governor certainly has an opportunity to make some significant changes if he wants to. Much stricter implementation of the APA act could make for some big changes and some very ruffled feathers on birds that are usually pretty cool with the way things have gone over the past decades.
Brian, you have lived in SL for over a decade now. You understand this very interesting tone that comes even from what I would call “quiet supporters” of the APA. Even these folks have a kind of fear that at some point things could go too far with restrictions on certain types of development. These are often the folks that have banked their families net worth in waterfront real estate and they may want to someday cash in. If they can’t do it, either through increased restrictions (like we have seen over the past few years) or by increased enforcement (like we are also seeing now to some degree) the agency may quickly lose this “quiet support”. That leaves a support base that is almost non-existent in the park save a few loud voices.
Who is the ideal, some one’s “wet dream” of a replacement.
What’s his resume look like?, real OR imagined.
Want a semi-outsider’s p.o.v.? (part time resident/most time reader here)
A little developement could attract the tourism, new homeowners, support trades and merchants that many here on this blog expressed a desire, if not a vital need for locals specifically and the park in general.
I’m not a big on developement guy, condos, hotels, and crowds — we have a primitive shack in the woods basically, but there are people with other tastes.
If it would inject some cash into your local community.
Control it with zoning laws specific to the project, but don’t flat out disallow it’s inception.
Again, an outside look in.
The good news is that the staff has a much greater impact on the commissioner’s decision making process than the chairman. There are a couple of former chairmen who might be drafted to serve as interim chairman. This move is not without precedent. The Governor has an opportunity to select a chairman who may act as the voice of the agency with just a little more diplomatic approach than Stiles. At times it seemed as if he enjoyed throwing gas on the fire.
Lastly, I’d just note that the unrenewed or hold over status of 4 commissioners isn’t unusual. Appointing new commissioners is a low priority for the Senate. Typically the senate waits until the end of the session to get these appointments done so it’s very likely that these 4 commissioners will be in the same status until spring of 2012.
Sounds like they are paying the same amount of attention to this as they are sunmount.
Well lets get on with it. This has taken way too long. Vote it in or out, but do something. If you like going to a town like tupper looks today. 12 empty store fronts , this is viable ? You have a good investment there with the wild center. This resort can’ t help but help that town. Saranac Lake has development, Lake Placid certainly does, where was the APA with some of those development decisions? Why should the people of Tupper Lake be left out if this company wants to make an investment to help the area. Sounds like a great idea? Remember 12 empty store fronts on main st. in Tupper Lake! The only thing is that they should support the community by paying their fair share of taxes( don’t over assess them), and pay for upgrades to the infrastructure . Also give money to the school.
“The only thing is that they should support the community by paying their fair share of taxes( don’t over assess them), and pay for upgrades to the infrastructure . Also give money to the school.”
Hookey,
Exactly why there has been some much needed attention to the proposed PILOT that will, in large part, finance this proposed development. Some people share your opinion and thus want a thorough review of exactly what is contained in the PILOT (a type of PILOT never before written by Franklin County by the way) and what will happen should the project begin and later fail. In other words, are the residents of Tupper Lake and by extension, Franklin County, left holding the bag if the company defaults on its PILOT payment? I don’t think there’s too many residents who don’t want development as a whole, but just want to be sure their protected should that development collapse.
Brian, I hope you had a good vacation. Just a couple of points 1) The departure of Curt Stiles has been in the news for some time now. 2)You indicate you plan to ask him about his departure and its effect on the ACR deliberation. I believe Chris Knight beat you to the punch on this and allready asked him that question. Paraphrasing I believe he (Stiles) said something along the line off he has confidence in the current members abilty to render a decision. If you do go forward and ask him this question It would be interesting to see if his answer remains the same. 3) Brian you use the term the APA will now adjudicate the project. I believe you mean deliberate. Although you do use the word deliberate later on 4) Finally could you be more specific on which Commisioner expressed anxiety on getting up to speed. Thanks Also does the Chairman role even need to be filled before a vote is taken?
One more thought Brian, Betsey Lowe will be abstaining from her vote and her equal from Region 6 DEC will represent DEC in this matter. Maybe you good dig into what that is all about. Thanks
hookey, The 12 empty storefronts in Tupper Lake you refer to are owned or controlled by Tom Lawson, the main investor in the ACR(TL Free Press 3/9/11). He is not advertising these properties anywhere for rent or for sale. He is purposely keeping them vacant to support his position of the poor economy in Tupper Lake. You do have a good point about them paying their fair share of taxes though. Unfortunately they already have a poor track record in that regard, they are currently in default of a repayment plan to pay over $100,000. in overdue taxes on the ski area and marina they already own. Mr Lawson is also facing federal tax liens for not paying income tax for 07, 08 and 09 to the tune of $540000. Tupper Lake needs to be very careful in negotiating any PILOT Program with these developers. The current proposed PILOT puts the taxpayers at great risk of paying higher taxes to support infrastructure costs the developers should bear. At the same time the wealthy second homeowners in the development will not be contributing their fair share of taxes to the School, County and Town. The bulk of their taxes will be used to pay off the bonds that were borrowed to pay for infrastucture costs. As proposed the developers will need to sell 38 MILLION DOLLARS worth of real estate every year just to get enough tax revenue to pay off the bonds. Even if they managed that, which is totally unrealistic, the taxing entities will not see a penny in increased tax revenue in their coffers. Tupper Lake needs to be very wary of any financial dealings with the ACR.
Rich
I didn’t realize this when I posted. Tupper Lake should never sign a Pilot Program like that. ..ACR needs to clean up the old mess before they start a new one in town. They need to pay their back taxes. I didn’t realized they owed so much to more than one entity. If he can’t pay the repayment plan or back taxes I don’t know how he could fund upfront a project of this magnitude in such a down economy. He would need investors?
The PILOT and the APA permit are separate, the APA board has no say in that decision. An APA permit could be granted and a PILOT denied if the town determines that it is not in their best interest. Then the investors can come up with another financing plan, or not.
Paul, The proposed PILOT is part of the application submitted to the APA by ACR. True it will be a seperate application to the FCIDA but the APA still reviews it as part of the overall application. If the town deterimines the PILOT is not in their best intersets they may still be faced with it anyway. The IDA and county legislators have the final say and they can overrule any opposition from local taxing entities if they feel the PILOT is in the best interest of all county residents. I doubt they would overrule local oppostion but it is an option. From the documents produced at the Adjudicatory Hearings it appears the proposed PILOT submitted by ACR will have to be totally reworked. They showed that the IDA had never heard of this type of PILOT (actually Sub -PILOT), nor had their bond counsel and they weren’t even sure if it was legal. I hope the investors have a back up financing plan because the application submitted to the APA made it clear that the project is not financially viable without a PILOT.
The ACR is another real estate scam that will privitize any gains to Foxman, Lawson and their buddies and socalize any losses to the public. Existing residents, local government, school districts, etc will not benefit from the PILOT and will wind up subsidizing the infrastructure for the project. Existing residents will have more traffic, noise, lighting and a changed community in addition to paying more property taxes.