Facing sure defeat, the contingent was able to force into the final legislation conditions that in the end will be meaningless. The local development corporation authorized by the legislation will have virtually autonomous control over the marketing and sale of the facility. In fact, the Hein administration had repeatedly advised the legislature that placing conditions on potential developers would depress interest and thus the purchase price.
The administration says it needs at least $8 million from the sale in order to balance the 2012 budget.
According to the enabling resolution, approved 17-14:
“The corporation (LDC) shall seek to transfer the land and facilities to the highest qualified bidder. In doing so it shall examine and consider, where applicable the bidder’s:
competency and character; History of employment relations and practices; quality of care of residents; Record of retaining facilities subsequent to acquisition; Willingness to agree to build a new facility at the site; Willingness to continue to care for all existing residents at the time of acquisition unless otherwise indicated by the New York State Department of Health criteria; Financial stability; and Willingness to consider existing staff as potential employees.”
Conspicuously absent from this well-meant laundry list were the words “transparency” and “union shop.”
The resolution represents a sense of the legislature. But as legislative lawyers advised, once the county turns over title, the new owners can do whatever makes financial sense to them.
As an afterthought, the little-seen (after election) Walter Frey of Saugerties showed up for the Golden Hill vote last week. Was Frey the deciding vote? Recall, it took 17. One of nine options considered by Frey’s special committee on Golden Hill last summer was a local development corporation. Unfortunately — or was it deliberately? — the committee never made a recommendation to the full legislature.
City stuff
Buried within an interesting piece last week on Kingston school-district negotiations with its new superintendent was the caveat that “economic conditions” would be a factor in future contracts.
Hearing such news, beleaguered taxpayers might well cry “huzzah,” since constituents’ ability to pay has rarely if ever been a serious consideration in school district finance. The more cynical might ask, So what? Superintendents rule school boards.
Not to go all new-day here, but it could be the “it’s-the-economy-stupid” declaration might have been meant as a signal from the school board to the teachers’ union, now in the final stages of negotiations on contracts that expire at the end of the year.
