Photo Diary: APA’s Big Tupper decision brings out all the players

Yesterday was the beginning of the end of the Adirondack Park Agency’s lengthy, involved review of the Big Tupper resort project.

All the players were on hand for the deliberations, chaired by Lani Ulrich.

Check out the images from yesterday.

Adirondack Council Brian Houseal broke ranks with other green groups, saying Big Tupper project should move forward

Richard Brummel from Long Island arguing that the resort should be stopped

Frank Mezzano pores through mountains of data

Developers Michael Foxman (left) and Tom Lawson (right) look on Wednesday

Tags: , , , ,

11 Comments on “Photo Diary: APA’s Big Tupper decision brings out all the players”

Leave a Comment
  1. Paul says:

    One thing for sure… This agency meets it’s “open meetings” requirements in spades.

    From listening in a bit yesterday it was strange to hear them sort of wasting their time going over their own rules and regulations and thanking each other for all the work that has been done.

    Just get on with a substantive discussion of the issues you are almost out of time.

  2. zubrow says:

    It was also amazing to hear how uninformed the commissioners are on this project, obviously they have not read the actual record. And where did these new financial figures come from on the bonds? Suddenly the ACR has all new figures to show financial viability? I don’t recall any of these new numbers in the record, where did they come from? More figures made up by Foxman? Just like the projected increases in selling prices from 2005 to 2010 that he made up? WOW. And the commissioners all just swallowed it hook line and sinker. The best questions came from Art Lussi, he actually must have done some rudimantary calculations which are correct. The developers say they will sell 91 MILLION in the first 3 yrs and Lussi correctly pionted out their expenses only total about 28 MILLION so they stand to make 58 MILLION, so why do they need a PILOT? Wouldn’t all the tax revenue being generated be better utilized if it all went directly to the taxing entities rather than paying off the developers infrastructure costs? So why do they need the PILOT( the application clearly states the project is not viable without it)? Because they have no money and in these economic times they have no real investors either. And with Foxmans poor financial history and Lawsons current financial difficulties(fed tax liens for 500K for non payment of income tax 07,08,09) they will be unable to get any bank financing. Hope Lussi asks more questions on this issue.

  3. Pete Klein says:

    I wouldn’t worry too much about this project for the simple reason it is not waterfront and the second home economy really sucks and probably will continue to suck.
    7 years of debating this thing is ridiculous.

  4. Paul says:

    A PILOT by it’s very nature is a “payment in lieu of taxes”. What is the payment that they plan to make to the taxing entity in lieu of what they would owe in taxes????

    Is this really a PILOT?

    zubrow, if all you say is correct than they will not get a PILOT. That isn’t an APA decision.

  5. Paul says:

    Good to see the Long Island contingent showed up!

  6. If Clapton is God, Warren Haynes is Jesus says:


    Why are you so confident about the PILOT not be granted if yesterdays profit numbers are correct? Are you suggesting that the tax payers of Franklin county will actually have a direct say as to whether or not the PILOT application is approved? I’m curious as I haven’t heard that. Please expound on your assertion as maybe I missed that along the way. Thanks in advance.

  7. Two Cents says:

    ” Because they have no money and in these economic times they have no real investors either.”

    If they get the Approvals and Permits, they now have a much more viable package to offer to another developer, one with money and/or investors.
    Foxman doesn’t have to actually build.

  8. Paul says:

    Clapton, I am not “confident” that they won’t get a PILOT. It just seems to me that if all the financial things I have heard are correct then granting one under the circumstances doesn’t make any sense. But people are free to make bad decisions. My point is that it has very little to with the APA decision. The agency can and does grant permits all the time for projects that folks cannot yet afford.

  9. zubrow says:

    Paul 9:52 am, Yes a PILOT is a “payment in lieu of taxes”. The problem with the ACRs’ proposed PILOT is that there is NO guarantee of any payment to the taxing entities. They only get what is left over after the bond payment is made. And that only gets made if they sell enough property at the insanely inflated prices they made up out of thin air. If the FCIDA does there job properly, you are right, they will not get a PILOT, but I have no faith they will do that. The ACR desperately needs the PILOT because of Foxmans past Sunrise S & L failure in the 80’s that still haunts him(google Michael D Foxman) and Lawsons 3 federal tax liens for not paying his income taxes the past 3 yrs(07,08,09) that total about $538000. Go to the Broward county FL website and check under tax liens to see them. No Bank in the country would loan these guys a nickel without $10 cash collateral. All that aside, the market place and the economy will be the quick death of this crazy scheme anyway.

  10. Paul says:

    “The problem with the ACRs’ proposed PILOT is that there is NO guarantee of any payment to the taxing entities. They only get what is left over after the bond payment is made”

    Doesn’t sound legal. But this is still no business for the APA. They don’t have the expertise to rule on that even if they wanted to.

  11. Bob Cat says:

    Paul, they need the PILOT. They gave all their money to their lawyers and the LA group. Imagine if people worked together and that money was used for a wildlife survey, providing catch basins, etc…? What a waste! If they hadn’t spent all the money on the permitting process they wouldn’t be behind on their taxes or need the PILOT.

Leave a Reply