Tuesday, March 07, 2006

SL Village Sandpit SEQR

Article here at WNBZ. The environmental review (SEQR) on the village sandpit site has been completed by Architectural and Engineering Design Associates of Plattsburgh. The site is currently zoned for residential use. They compared 3 possible uses for the property.

1) Single family homes. 23 singly family homes could be built at a development cost to the village of $37,000. Traffic would increase by about 200 cars a day.

2) Townhouses. Up to 53 townhouses could be built at a development cost of $13,500 per unit. There would be about a 5% increase in area traffic (475 cars).

3) Commercial development. The sandpit area is sufficient for 80,000 sq ft and 400 parking places. Water and sewage could be accomodated by the village. Peak traffic would increase 86% daily and 136% on Saturdays. Such an increase in traffic would require detailed traffic studies.


At first glance, it sure seems like #1 and #2 would generate as much tax revenue as a possible Wal-Mart. Seems like housing development would be perfect for that site. Let a retailer buy property downtown and get tax revenues from both.

A copy of the study is available for only $57. Jeebus, haven't these people heard of computers and pdf files?

4 comments:

YNW said...

I would not jump the gun on option #3 as a the proposed Wal-Mart could generate $90,000 a year in School Taxes, $72,000 in Village Tax, and $##,### in County/Township Taxes - Not to mention water and sewer taxes. With just the combined School and Village taxes at $162,000 per year this would be equivalent to 36-40 homes with property taxes at $4,500 per year (Equivalent assessed value of homes in this model being $200K). Like I said this is ONLY considering the School and Village Taxes and if you were to tally in the town/county taxes this could be equivalent to 50-60 homes on the tax roles! I believe the Wal-Mart would be the better option for the village as the sand pit clearly cannot be developed for 40+ homes to generate equivalent tax returns. Also, everyone keeps beating the affordable housing issue so I can only assume that Susan Waters has plans for the entire sand pit to become one giant "habitat for humanity" project! Possibly we can have some Essex County Housing Authority "townhomes" established like the ones on the Harrietston Housing Authority at Algonquin Ave. That way the taxpayers can have the pleasure of supporting the thing with their property tax to subsidize the entire operation. Also, I'm sure the railroad tracks, marsh area and former village landfill areas will make excellent playgrounds for the kids in the development! I know everyone living there will enjoy the wonderful pastoral view of the capped landfill with all those interesting PVC pipes sticking out of the ground. You are so full of it Pete! I Don't know why I even waste my time looking at your childish blog. Have a Nice Day and do you still have your SAMS Club Card?

Adirondack Wal-Mart said...

I don't know why either. You sure check it often enough and it can't be good for your heart.

Not Paid By WAL-MART said...

Pete, Why won't you answer my question about your SAM's Club Membership? I think it is highly hypocritical of you to maintain a web blog constantly slamming Wal-Mart but are perfectly comfortable with being a "Member" of SAM's Club! Maybe you think the money you spend there somehow doesn't make it into the coffers in Bentonville. Membership has its privlidges and I think it is high time you turn in your SAM's Club card. I wonder how many other anti-Wal-Mart individuals in this community have memberships at SAM's Club? An interesting question.

peterH said...

property tax payers would have to subsidize Walmart as they would for subsidized housing. We would have to pick up the tab for the health care for many of the employees, as well as the infrastructure to get all the cars around the Flower Ave intersection. Otherwise it would take half an hour to get past the Ames plaza/Walmart area. I suppose we might hit up the state or the feds to pay some of the extra burden.