QUESTIONS about the "POST OFFICE for PARKLAND" DEAL
Updated 2/22/06
Trustees in Aurora take post office deal
Syracuse Post-Standard
December 30, 2005
Village land deal likely
The Auburn Citizen
December 30, 2005
Traffic growing problem for village
The Auburn Citizen
January 9, 2006
Questions Property Deal for Aurora post office
Syracuse Post Standard
January 12, 2006
Thank you for your coverage of the special meeting of the Aurora Village Board on December 29, at which a property deal between the board and Wells College / Pleasant Rowland’s development corporation was first revealed to the public .
The record of that meeting will show that Trustee Farenthold recused himself from the board’s vote to approve the deal; he did not abstain, as stated in your article.
Records of preceding board meetings will show that the Trustees entered closed sessions for all prior discussion of the deal.
While the Open Meetings Law allows some topics to be discussed behind closed doors, real estate is included “only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.” The deal involved no sale or purchase of property by either party, this provision did not apply. It appears that the public was improperly excluded from these discussions.
And that’s a real shame. For it became clear in the meeting of the 29th that the board could have benefitted from public input. Although the board had put much effort into the process, there were important concerns which the board apparently had not considered and serious questions that it admittedly could not answer. And further review of the deal was not allowed, because the board felt compelled to vote immediately to satisfy a deadline set by Rowland.
Many issues raised by the public during the special meeting and in discussions afterwards focused on the true value/cost of the “Post Office for Parkland” deal. For example:
- The right of way to our existing park now offered by the corporation replaces one that the corporation previously destroyed and failed to restore as promised. So, the corporation is “giving” something it already owes to the community.
- The corporation’s offered parcel of lakefront for recreational use is open space in the flood plain, unsuitable for construction. It already has been in use informally as parkland for generations. The Village may gain little more from this deal than a new insurance liability, especially if further plans fail to materialize.
- Remembering recent voter rejection of plans to establish a lakefront park in Ledyard Township, what is the desirability, feasibility, and approximate cost of developing and staffing this land in Aurora as a public waterfront recreational facility? Do the village’s taxpayers support this development?
- Why were water quality tests not performed before accepting the deal, if the board hopes this land will become a village-operated public swimming area someday?
- In obtaining more “green space” in the village center, why didn’t the board negotiate for the removal of Rowland’s newly created curb-side, which has made traffic so very dangerous in the village center by blocking the sight-lines from the parking lot?
- In negotiating with the corporation to destroy our existing, handicapped accessible Post Office, why didn’t the board insist upon an equally accessible replacement?
The community loses real and important assets in this deal -- an accessible Post Office in a village without mail delivery, our only municipal building, rental income, and the only non-corporation presence in our village center (save our library) -- in exchange for a concept of future benefit so ill-defined that it wasn’t even available in writing.
Had our Village Board allowed a public hearing as well as public access to the decision making process before it voted to destroy our Post Office building to satisfy the Rowland / Wells development corporation, it would have strengthened the community, lessened the controversy surrounding this issue, and quite possibly come up with a much better bargain.
Karen A. Hindenlang
Aurora
Aurora's deal with Rowland has downside
The Auburn Citizen
January 15, 2006
On December 28th, the Aurora Village Board voted to allow Pleasant Rowland's LLC to demolish the village-owned Aurora Post Office building. This vote ratified an agreement that granted control of the downtown Post Office site to Rowland's LLC for use as a parking lot, in exchange for a stretch of lakefront on the outskirts of town.
In considering the broader picture of what may benefit Aurora in the long run, it must be acknowledged that it is a rare occasion for Aurora to have an opportunity to obtain more village owned lakefront access,
along with a park and a swimming site. This kind of recreational area
could become a valuable community asset, and would surely enhance the
enjoyment of the village for many of its residents, particularly in the
summer months.
But contrary to the assertions of some at this meeting, this agreement
with Rowland's LLC is accompanied by a serious downside. It is
distressing how this deal has failed to address, and in fact how it stands to exacerbate, the absence of commercial diversity in our downtown area. By granting control of that land to Rowland's LLC, our Village Board has,
in essence, approved the elimination of what was the last possible
opportunity for someone other than Pleasant Rowland to establish an
independently owned business in downtown Aurora. This deal has given her total and final control over the business district in our village.
Laura Holland
Aurora
Village stands on verge of cultural stagnation
The Auburn Citizen
January 15, 2006
In considering the long term well-being of our village of Aurora, it must
be acknowledged that it is an inherently unhealthy situation in any
community for any single entity to gain complete dominion over that
community's commercial district. Monopoly may be an entertaining board game, but in the real world, economists and sociologists consistently decry such a practice, citing its harmful impact on society.
We now stand to see an Aurora that is mired in a tedious uniformity
and a cultural stagnation, lacking the vitality of the infusion of different ideas and contrasting styles that accompanies a diversity of business ownership. It is a place which may appear superficially attractive to someone visiting for a short while, but which is devoid of any of the color, character, and community ties that local business ownership
would lend it. For many of us who call Aurora home, this is an important
consideration.
Swimming at a lakeside park occurs in the summer months. Life and
commerce in Aurora go on twelve months a year. Aurora's autonomy should have been the overriding issue here. The yes vote on this proposal was a vote which sanctioned the completion of the monopoly that is being established in our home. I am disappointed in the decision our Village Board has made.
Jay O'Hearn
Aurora
What are advantages?
Syracuse Post-Standard
January 26, 2006
What are the advantages of the village of Aurora owning 1000
ft of lakefront south of town? People already swim
there, walk there, etc. People will continue to do
so, but under the new deal, the Village would be
liable and would have to pay the insurance.
The Village would also have to maintain the space,
(mow the grass, clear trash, etc). The village would have to deal with
safety and security issues, making and
enforcing rules to insure people's safety, dealing
with any unruly behavior, etc.
Will this new greenspace
generate any income for the Village? Will it make up for the loss of income from the
United States Post Office? (I have heard that is
$8,400 / year income for the village, though some covers maintenance costs).
Is Pleasant (Rowland) actually going to pay the Village to
compensate it for the loss of long-term, on-going
income from the loss of the U.S. Post Office rental? Or is she just offering land that belongs to Wells College
in exchange -- giving what is not even hers to get
what she wants for no cost to herself?
Will it be possible to develop the new lakefront? This remains to be seen, depending on the DEC, etc.
What is meant by "develop" in this case? Isn't it
floodplain? Can any structure be built there? Will
there be a need to put in a parking lot, thereby cutting
down on the greenspace? Can floodplain be safely
paved? Has anyone considered the impact on wildlife? (It's an area frequented by beavers, loons, geese, etc). Is it an improvement to develop the space?
How much will it cost to develop the greenspace, if
it is possible and desireable? Who will pay for
it? The Village? With what monies? Taxes and fees? How is that an advantage -- trading a money-making property in the heart of town for a money-costing property on the edge of town?
Will residents be charged a fee to use this space
which has been used by residents for free for
generations? Is that how the project is to be
funded and how it is to be a replacement for the
lost income? That's not very democratic.
I can't see how any of this is any advantage to the
village, whatsoever. What are the Aurora public officials
thinking?
Karin Wikoff, Wells '86
Sherwood
Aurora should seek expert advice before development
The Auburn Citizen
February 2, 2006
On January 9th, former Ledyard Town Supervisor Bill Dugan wrote that Aurora needs “expanded parking...[T]he numbers of parking spaces required by standard zoning law, for the commercial businesses in the village are far more than those available now.”
Had our local government heeded the past pleas of concerned citizens, we wouldn’t be facing this problem.
In 2001, residents repeatedly asked that our Planning Board declare the commercial development in our village center a “major impact” under the State Environmental Quality Act.
Had that been done, an Environmental Impact Study would have been required. An independent study prepared at the developer’s expense would have identified the imminent parking problem, and proposed remedies for that and the project’s other undesirable and unresolved side-effects.
However, with astonishing lack of foresight, our Village government decided that the massive project would have only a “small impact” on the community. It went forward without an EIS.
Today Aurora is once again facing a massive commercial development project at its heart. Pleasant Rowland wants approval by March 31 of another 18-month demolition and construction project to create a new street and a tiered lake-front parking lot for her foundation’s businesses.
Village approval of all permits for this project is part of the “price” she requires in exchange for the possible lease and deed of some parkland to the community.
But her new commercial development proposal raises many concerns about handicapped accessibility, ecological impact, geologic stability, and traffic safety.
Will our Village government again fail to obtain independent expert advice in the public interest? Will local officials once more deny the community the benefits and protections of an Environmental Impact Study?
Karen A. Hindenlang
Aurora
See the entire deal
The Syracuse Post-Standard
February 2, 2006
To the Editor:
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Aurora Village Board, the Aurora Foundation LLC and Wells College about the “Post Office - Village Park Project” has been made public. Now residents of Aurora can see the entire deal our elected representatives negotiated behind closed doors.
Important aspects of the agreement were not made public in the December 29 Village Board meeting covered by The Post-Standard.
- The College retains the right to approve all development plans for the two parcels of parkland it is supposed to deed and lease to the Village.
- The College requires the Village to obtain new general liability insurance coverage of $10 million for the leased parkland.
- The land to be deeded to the Village seems inaccessible and ill-suited for public use. A sizable stream divides it from a somewhat more useable parcel which would be leased to the Village. The MOU does not list a bridge among those improvements which would be allowed on this land.
- The deal is not a direct exchange of some parkland for the demolition of our post office . In order to receive the parkland, the agreement also requires the Village to issue all necessary permits for a parking lot to accommodate LLC businesses in the village center, even though the problematic design of this lake-side lot is not yet finalized.
- Some aspects of the parking lot project are established by the MOU, including restoration of our existing village park’s vehicular right of way. Several years ago, the LLC destroyed this right of way and failed to replace it as promised. Restoration would provide the handicapped accessibility and access for emergency vehicles which the LLC improperly removed from our public land. However, the MOU specifies that if the LLC’s parking lot construction and legal costs exceed $1 million, the project will be modified to reduce expenses. Presumably, the necessary access road to our existing park could be withdrawn. again
- The College and the LLC issue an ultimatum in the MOU. They need not honor the agreement unless the Village produces all required government permits for the parking lot project by March 31. This deadline disallows adequate time for proper local and state review.
I urge all members of the community to visit the Village Office to read or obtain a copy of the MOU, to attend upcoming hearings and meetings, to question and comment upon on this agreement, and to monitor its implementation.
Crawford R. Thoburn
Aurora
Aurora development plan needs more consideration
The Citizen
February 22, 2006
Thank you for sending a reporter to the February 8th Aurora Planning Board meeting, at which architects employed by developer Pleasant Rowland presented plans for a newly designed parking lot in our village center.
According to our Mayor, this latest proposed demolition and construction project would take fully 18 months to complete. That is considerably longer and much more disruptive than the 3 to 4 weeks (for a portion of the project) cited in your article.
Also, contrary to your article, the architects speaking in the February 8th meeting admitted that the redesigned lot will NOT increase overall parking in the village center. When questioned directly by the public on this issue, their repeated response was "it's a wash," meaning that we would would end up with about the same number of spaces with which we began.
Though the proposed lot itself has a few more spaces, its design forces the loss of several parking spaces now available on the street. Furthermore, our existing lot already has been reduced significantly in order for Rowland to move a building and construct a delivery ramp. Her new proposal does not restore those lost spaces and will not increase the parking that had been available when her segmented development project began.
This tally of parking spaces is important because the official Memorandum of Understanding privately negotiated by Aurora's Mayor with Rowland's representatives specifically requires that the developer provide the community with MORE downtown parking spaces in exchange for her demolition of our village-owned post office building.
The development plan presented on February 8th does not meet that basic requirement. Therefore, it should not be given further consideration.
Karen A. Hindenlang
Aurora
Details of the Written Agreement and facts about the Post-Office Project
HOME