Home ownership is declining in Saugerties, Myers said, and with that, “I wouldn’t want to say neighborhoods decline, but there’s a lot of pride that comes from owning your own house, and when people live long-term next to neighbors and they keep up their properties, that really retains the community character, so I’m not in favor of the way the plan is currently written. Saugerties is a special place because people come here, they put down roots and raise their families here. I’d rather have stable, solid long-term families rather than a transient group of people. And, while many people who rent show respect for their homes and take care of them, there are also many who do not. I wish there was something in the comprehensive plan that would support people who want to maintain their single-family homes.”
Myers believes an unsubsidized rental market can serve the needs of lower income people.
“We do need a healthy rental market,” she said, noting that “those rental properties are paying their full share of taxes, as many of the developments that are proposed come with PILOT programs and pay far less. When you bring in subsidized housing, how can the existing landlords find quality tenants?” (The rental vacancy rate in the 2010 census was nearly 6 percent.)
The supervisor doesn’t like the idea of large affordable housing projects that could involve scores of people moving in from outside areas. “There’s a community standard here, and when people move in gradually they become part of the community,” said Myers. “It’s different when you move 100 people from another place.”
Freezing rentals
Suzanne LeBlanc, a former Village Board member, said she sees an imbalance between rental housing and owner-occupied housing in the village of Saugerties. The comprehensive plan gives a figure of 56.5 percent rental units in the village, and that is too high. (The overall amount, including the town, is 30 percent.) LeBlanc suggested a maximum of 50 percent rental units, and noted that the planned Country Meadows development on North St., with 55 units, would push the proportion of rental units to more than 60 percent.
“I don’t know anyone who would say that is a healthy proportion,” she said, asserting that people who rent their homes are generally less active in the community and more likely to move on than those who own homes. Whether large-scale developments or multiple apartments in a formerly single-family home, absentee landlords often neglect their property, allowing it to deteriorate, LeBlanc said. She would like to see the plan reflect a more critical position on rental housing and encouragement of single-family, owner-occupied homes in the town and the village.
The Planning Board should be discouraging rental construction, LeBlanc said. However, the board must follow the town’s zoning law, and the comprehensive plan should be the basis for zoning.
Mark Knaust went further, saying that public housing, whether you call it “workforce” or simply low-income, hasn’t worked. “I don’t think government is the answer,” he said. “In these economic times, we don’t have the money to spend on these projects.”
Knaust was critical of the large-scale projects that inevitably end up bringing tenants from other areas into Saugerties. “You could build 100 units, and end up having 100 people from outside Saugerties,” he said.
Planning Board chair weighs in
Village Planning Board chairman George Lewandowski said the zoning law should encourage single-family housing over multiple dwellings. For instance, under the current law, in one zone that sets a limit of three-family houses, there’s a provision for more units with a special-use permit. This could be tightened up to make exceptions more difficult and maintain the limit.
Lewandowski said he could understand why people may resent tax breaks for large projects. “It doesn’t seem fair that a family may pay $4,000 or more in property taxes while a developer pays $300 or $400 per family unit.” He echoed statements by others about the character of the town.
To the extent that income-based projects can bring new people into town, they can disrupt the long-term relationships that are a foundation of small village life, Lewandowski said. “If I know a neighbor who has lived nearby for many years is having problems, I may help out. But I would be less likely to help someone I have never met before.”
This could mean setting a limit on rental units.
“I don’t know if this is possible, but I would like to see zoning laws that specify a certain percentage of housing must be owner-occupied, say 50 percent,” he said. Should the number of rental units exceed the maximum, the village would declare a moratorium on new multi-family projects until enough new single-family houses were built to bring the numbers back into balance, Lewandowski said. He noted that in his experience at the Planning Board, it is not only low-income housing that brings out the protest, but many people oppose multi-family housing in general.
“I love it here, and I would like to see the village stay the same or improve, Lewandowski said.
One aspect of the process that was disturbing to him was the age of the people who attended the public meeting on the plan, said Lewandowski. “When I look at the people who are participating in this procedure, I don’t think I have seen anyone under the age of 45. I think what the village is doing with the comprehensive plan will affect young people more – they have a future here. I don’t know if they are leaving, or if they aren’t participating, but it’s a concern.”
