Hear, hear!

Of all the places I've ever lived, no place respects its history like this Village and Town do. I grew up in a village which had a great 4th of July tradition, but nothing like the magnificent celebration here.

Yet there's a disconnect now, because the Village isn't really a "village" anymore; it's become a "sleepy bedroom community." Where small community businesses which both served and employed once stood, now stand either closed living spaces or, in the case of the riverfront, essentially nothing. The result is that much of the interpersonal and transactional charm of village life has been lost.

That's why I've advocated for careful study of our history and a searching look forward to the next generation of life here. For example, while I'm not unmindful of the potential downsides to development of the riverfront north or south of Donahue Park, I don't believe it should be rejected without careful, professional study of the options.

And I believe that the long-term plan for the Village Center should be directed at restoring it to it's historic function as a center of village life, with businesses which people need and can walk to.

To me, that's the kind of preservation that makes long-term sense and can help us return to greater fiscal stability in the future.

In other words, the way forward is to become a "village" again.

Jon Chase
Cornwall-on-Hudson

John Wenz & Jon Chase,

Excellant letters. Before we moved here we looked at a couple of communities in town I'll keep nameless so as not to offend anyone. We were looking for a community with more vibrancy not a sterile community. A village could have a bakery, fish store many other things that would make it more of a community.

I just bought a book yesterday at Hazards pharmacy,Images of America Cornwall-On-Hudson by Colette C. Fulton Great book. This was a more vibrant community a century ago. We have lost that but with the proper leadership and planning I believe we could regain some of that lost vibrancy and sense of community.

Exactly. What once was a "village" has become a "suburb," with too much of the de-personalization that implies.

We can do better and, with this magnificent natural setting, we certainly should. And, with the vision and example of our forebears here to draw upon, I don't believe that we are doomed to reckless decisions about either development or business promotion in the effort to grow sensibly.

For my part, I should add that my comments are directed at the Master Plan process and offered to all the candidates in the Village election, as well as to the incumbent Trustees. As a relative newcomer to the Village, I do not presume to endorse any candidate(s) over any other(s).

Jon Chase
Cornwall-on-Hudson

Folks:
Please read the minutes of village board meetings from 1975-77 and beyond to understand the tempo of village activity and plans for the Hudson St. corridor. The focus then was what to do with antique shops. There was only the deli at Ave. A & not another place to buy a sandwich.Hosier's store was still open on Duncan Ave.Other small stores were viable. Fogarty's Bar was still kicking next to St. Thomas Church. What progress ended these neighborhood establishments? I guess growing up is enivetable.

This is a very interesting discussion. It was my question to both the Mayoral and Trustee candidates that set up the dicotomy of visions and my wording of "sleepy bedroom community" vs increased business development. I used sleepy bedroom community as that seemd to encompass the "leave everything alone" (or "exactly as it is" if you will) at one end of the spectrum, as opposed to the increased local development (stores, waterfront, natural attractions, B&Bs, inns, entertainment, etc.) on the other end of the spectrum.

I have lived here since 1998 and have seen both the village and the town's businesses drain away, but also seen new one's spring up. I think Deke Hazerjian (sp?) did a FANTASTIC job with Woody's, SKAT, Yoga Mtn, and the now empty boutique. These business absolutely enhance our community. Likewise for 2 Alices, Studio 208, The Food Coop, and The River Bank (I for one think the outdoor seating area and the new wall are wonderful and to me worth giving up 2 parking spaces - although, I have my concerns about the way in which it happened I really don't know enough about it), Step by Step Dance Studio (where my daughter Monica works), etc.

Here's the thing. I now think this debate is NOT about the false dichotomy my question set up. But rather HOW EXACTLY do we achieve or maintain a healthy balance? While some of these businesses seem strong, we've seen many whither and fade over time. How many of these businesses can thrive (especially in hard times) on LOCAL patrons only? Some of these must depend on outside traffic coming in. Like it or not - MOST people will shop where they can get the best price & selection. Walmart, Home Depot, BJ's, Kohls etc will beat out a small local hardware, grocery, clothing store every time. Like it or not - most people who live here do NOT work locally but commute to their jobs in other towns or the city, and are therefore not really here during the week to patronize local businesses. How many delis, restaurants, bars, hair salons, pizza shops, etc. can one community support? I don't know about everyone else but if I go out to eat at Painters or Drews etc 3 or 4 times a years that's a lot for me. so what kinds of businesses can survive and thrive here now? We are NOT the community that was here 100, 50, 25, or even 10 years ago. Times change. It seems like the businesses that might thrive are more "tourist" trade types of businesses that attract outsiders to COH. And yet - that brings increased traffic, increased need for police & fire personnel, better roads and parking, etc. This costs us taxpayers MORE which we all complain about. So what do we get from this increased traffic? Well - as many in the debates pointed out - we might have thriving local businesses - but that doesn't necessarily translate into increased tax revenue. So why do we want more traffic, increased costs, higher taxes by attracting more "outsiders"? That to me is an important question that needs to be thought through. I don't know the answers, but I DO know I don't want my taxes going up any more than they already are.

Chuck Trella

Excellent discussion.

My point throughout all this has been and is that we no longer are a functioning "village" and there would be no credible case to create one under present Village circumstances if it didn't already exist. And that's why paying for the services which the Village government provides is an increasing struggle.

So, in my view, it is absolutely fundamental to the Master Plan process to decide whether we are going to try to go forward as a "village," with all that implies about financial viability, or we aren't. If we are, we need to recognize that the tax base must grow to a sustainable level; if we aren't, this "suburb" will continue to strain to pay for "village" services which are more and more difficult to justify.

To be sure, resolving that most basic of questions will require careful study, a coherent vision, creative planning and perseverance.

To me, that's why this election is so important.

Jon Chase
Cornwall-on-Hudson

I just came back from a wonderful conference titled " Smart Growth" which talked about these very issues and creating communties that have walkable downtowns where we can create a sense of ritual in our community and life. I for one would rather have the option to walk to a hardware store to get some nails rather than get in my car and drive all the way to Home Depot to pay 10% less-
It is too bad none of leadership was at this conference they would have learned that parking is not the problem they think it is ( our Ritz Theater in Newburgh has 130 attend the Bucky Pizzarelli concert with maybe ten spaces available right in front and not one complaint)

Some great comments on this thread

Some reactions:

Jon - whether or not the village would be created today is almost beside the point. There was NO support for the idea of disincorporating the Village to become part of the Town government. Granted the candidates will NEVER support such an idea - but there was very little support from the audience. I suspect that would be true of the general village population as well. So I think you're beating a dead horse there.

Tricia - although I am a supporter of the idea of buy locally I am also a realist and was a business major who understands human behavior. You and those who support the notion of paying 10% more to shop locally are by far the minority. First of all the difference in pricing is often WAY more than a 10% difference. Most folks (especially when times are tough) are going to do anything pay less. Including driving 10 min to Price Chopper to get better selection and pricing than Key Foods for anything other than minor shopping. Likewise - I'll drive the 20 min to BJs or Home Depot or Lowes. If you think that such commodity items will ever be bought locally again in this town by anything other than a small niche market I think you're kidding yourself. For example - my wife and I LOVE the idea of joining the food coop and supporting local agriculture. When we looked at what it would cost us to by from their list for Christmas as compared to carefully shopping for decent food from other sources - it would have cost us on the order of a 25% - 50% premium. That simply is not in my budget. I hate to say it (because like I said - I am behind it totally on a conceptual basis) but too often the whole buy locally thing ends up being somewhat elitest. Most folks simply can't afford it financially.

So what does that leave for local businesses that can make it. Well - there are the convenience ones (Cumberland Farms, quick food like Pizza, Chinese, Dunkin Donuts, Bagel & Deli shops. Personal care - hair & nail salons, barber, laundry, pharmacy. Then you have your niche market shops - Brid's Closet, clothing boutiques, Bryan's Bikes, etc. Then you have your professionals - Attorneys, Doctors, Dentists, Therapists, Accountants, Yoga places, Dance Studios etc. So what's left? Those that need a blend of local and visitor clientele: Art Galleries, Antique Shops, gift boutiques, entertainment (restaurants, bars, inns), Storm King Adventure Tours, etc.

These can survive maybe on locals only - but would really like to see COH become more of a destination promoting the water front, the natural beauty, arts, crafts etc. This is something many of the locals (especially those who grew up here) DON'T want. They don't want to see us become a Cold Spring or a Nyack.

Again - WHY do we have to have a thriving business district beyond what we have today? Are there enough locals to support it? Do we think we'll lower taxes by attracting and promoting more development? It doesn't seem to be the case from what the candidates are saying.

Like I said - I don't have the answers. But it seems to me like NOBODY really has any answers. All I know is I don't want to see my taxes constantly rising even 2 or 3 percent a year because although that may seem small it compounds and continues to create a barrier for those wishing to stay into retirement. I am open to more business and even a little more traffic (although I live on Rt. 218 as it enters the village from West Point and I LOVE when it get's shut down due to weather. So much quieter.) but what will that really get us and opposed to what it might cost? We need better information from the candidates and a more specific vision for the Master Plan. At least that's how it seems to this resident.

Chuck Trella that was well said and I believe our mayor has those same concerns. I'm sure everyone in this community would love to be able to walk and purchase groceries, a light bulb ,loaf of bread ect?..If there was a demand for store space wouldn?t one think that the empty store fronts in the village and the town would be filled. So like Chuck states we bring in tourist and traffic and a host of other problems that is why we must look towards a self sufficient village and I?m sure we could fit a General Store in somewhere . But just like some I?m new here and there must be a reason why this area is sought after and I don?t believe exploiting this land would be an option.

Here's the thing - I am honestly torn. On the one hand I'd like more "ratables" IF that will in fact lower our taxes. At the same time - I do NOT want more traffic on Rt. 218 (especially those accursed motercycles that just HAVE to be a loud as possible - instead of being muffled properly??!!). As it is when the WP folks are coming home in the afternoon I can barely get out of our driveway. So when Mr. Neuman talks about getting the land south of the Yacht Club back and "developing" it - I'd like to know what exactly that means? Developed as what exactly? Where will they enter and exit from - 218??? I am not sure I am so enamored of this idea. What does "develop" the waterfront mean? Adding composting toilets? A snack shack? A dock? These things seem ok to me. But if it means building up a "business district" down there - not so much.

I am NOT opposed to businesses using existing vacant store fronts or homes in the "village proper" and I happen to think Deke did a GREAT job of taking properties in town and village and rennovating them beautifully and bringing in businesses that make sense and add to the ambience. So I don't like the idea that Joe Gross is "anti-business" and "obstructionist" about every project as he has be characterized. But neither am I wanting to go back to back room deals and development to enrich some running rampant - especially if it won't really help out taxes as Mr. Vatter I think it was suggested.

So - I am frankly in a quandry. I am hoping that either Mayoral candidate is more moderate and truly even tempered than their critics make them out to be.

it is certainly true that none of us have all the answers- there was however a lot of smart people who were at this conference today that made a lot of good points that proved to me we can have a viable village once again- and at the same time not lose any of the charm of which brought all of us here in the first place.
I also agree 100% that what Deke did in this village was outstanding- taking run down unused buildings, beautifully restoring them and creating destinations was a brillant plan

That sounds interesting Tricia. Where was the conference? Is there any information from it available online? It sounds like the kind of information that needs to be disseminated and learned from. I am just a resident who commutes in & out of NYC each day, works as a sustems analyst, and moved here to provide my then young family the best environment I could afford to live in. We have loved it here in Cornwall and COH. I hope to stay here for many years to come. But between the State & local taxes I may NEVER be able to afford to stay here and retire (especially now that my 401k got whacked!!!). But neither do I want to see development go unchecked. It sounds to me like the "Master Plan" was a good first step - but it doesn't seem like it was thorough or complete enough to truly function as a master plan and guide effectively our planning boards going forward. That said - it shouldn't just be shelved and left to languish either.

Anyway - I am certainly not that knowledgeable on these topics, so I guess I'll have to defer to those who are a lot smarter than I, but I don't trust the process to remain fair and balanced if the profit motive and developers can find a way to game the system.

Let me say that Joe Gross is not anti-business the ones who portray him as are the individuals who would like to see over development and enflows of traffic. he wants balance just ask him directly.

That may be John, but neither will I accept the characterization of all those in favor of an increase in development as necessarily favoring "over development" etc. The problem with asking these questions and speaking to candidates - is that everyone tends to speak in generalities. But "the devil is in the details" as they say. It isn't about whether a candidate is "pro-business" or "anti-business", or "pro-environment" or "anti-environement" (well - no one would say they are anti environment). It is about the following:
- Given that taxes are burdonsome and rising even if we keep costs in check as much as possible
- Given that COH is mostly developed already with few opportunities to build new ratables (except in places like the riverfront, or the parcel of land just south of the Yacht Club if it can be regained)
- given that some businesses already in COH have struggled to survive (the restaurant down the street from me - the old Max's, Porto-spain)
- Given that thriving businesses in already existing buildings do NOT apparently add to the Village tax coffers by much if any . . .

- is there really any good answer to keeping taxes in check while promoting a thriving village business sector (however that's defined), that doesn't increase to uncomfortable levels the traffic or threaten unnecessarily the environmental beauty we currently enjoy and achieves a sustainable balance?

Especially when there is disagreement over what that balance point looks like specifically - which is what that Master Plan is supposed to achieve. i.e - Do we want to move towards being like a Cold Spring that has a very active business district of artsy craftsy shops, resaurants, entertainment venues etc that enjoys the natural beauty of the Hudson and surrounding area but attract lot's of outsiders (traffic) and actively promotes itself as a destination? Or do we want to stay where we are and keep the waterfront and the mountain mainly for residents enjoyment, and have only those businesses that can survive on local patrons primarily. (i.e. basically what we have now)? Will moving more towards a Cold Spring like village actually help us reduce taxes or will it actually increase taxes due to the need for increased services? Or is there some balance point in between these two extremes and if so - what is it? How much more and what kind of development?

I still don't have a good idea of where exactly the candidates stand on this. I only know in general terms that Gross would tend to lean away from further development and Neuman towards it. I voted for Joe last time mainly because I am againt ANY candidate getting entrenched for 26 years. To me that provides a recipe for trouble. I also voted for him because I really liked that he got out and about, met with people on the street and listened to their concerns. So far I have been please with that aspect of his office. However, I don't like that the Master Plan has languished. I like that he is strongly overseeing the departments and pushing for savings, but I also like much of what Neuman had to say about fighting for COH and Cornwall's water rights, and allowing some increased development to lower taxes further (IF it will actually do that).

Sorry to be so long winded here. I'll pipe down and see what others have to say.

Cheers!

Chuck: the name of the conference was called " Reinventing our Places" it was at the Mt. St. Mary and was funded by the Citizen's Foundation-
I would be glad to share with you all the materials I have-

Thanks Tricia!! I'd love to check it out. We can talk when you come to the St. Thomas YG to do dinner next week.

Cheers

This is a great discussion. All of us need to figure out how to make it happen at Village Hall. We've got to make sure that we temper our comments so as not to make this a political debate. Let's try not to accuse or defend any individual or their actions, it'll be counterproductive.
I discovered a document called "Zoning and The Comprehensive Plan", published by the NYS Department of State. Discussions about our Master Plan seem to indicate that the document must include what would amount to a whole new body of zoning law. I found some evidence to the contrary. Here's an excerpt from that document:
"Adoption of a comprehensive plan...is voluntary. If a city, town, or village chooses to utilize this process, the resultant plan may range from a set of policy or vision statements to a very lengthy document composed of many subject-specific component plans (e.g. transportation, natural resources, historic resources, population statistics, etc.). Once adopted, however, all land use regulations must be in accordance with it. This usually means (though not mandated) that plan adoptation is followed by the adoption of a series of zoning laws designed to 'implement' the comprehensive plan." You might say, then, that the collective vision as articulated in the Comprehensive Master Plan is the foundation for zoning laws. Very interesting....

John Wenz

Very interesting indeed John. I agree that this really shouldn't turn into a political debate. I am more interested in how the whole process can move foward and explore sustainable balanced development if any. But what I'd really like to see is an analysis of what various levels of development would actually mean to the finances of the village. I honestly don't know enough to know which direction to support.

Bravo! This kind of thoughtful, in-depth discussion is the best and highest use of a forum like this.

As I see it, our current budget plight is a sign that we have reached a major crossroads in this Village. In my view, we must recognize that those who argue that we can keep everything just as it is without encouraging any sort of growth are consigning us to an endless cycle of budget fights and related tax increases just to keep the village wheels turning.

On the other hand, we all know there is bad development, but not all development is bad. My point is that, if we want to continue as a "village," we have to figure out a feasible way to do that economically. And that "fiscal sustainability" is -- or should be -- at the very core of the Master Plan process.

We mustn't forget: this Village was never a sleepy "suburb" until recently. Historically, it had industry, commerce, even its own well-known tourist trade. And I agree with Mr. Welch that there are significant benefits to living in a vibrant, organically functioning village structure. It ain't rocket science that there's more cohesion in a community when people are doing business with and around each other.

To me, the obvious candidates for germinating smart growth here are those which made the village the destination it long was: the uniquely proximate river and mountain. There's no excuse for the inadequate parking at Donahue Park and fixing that, to me, is just common sense. There's the parcel south of the yacht club, which not only is a long shot because it's state parkland but also is farther distant from the Village center. But the fallow land on the shore north of Donahue Park is doing nobody any good as things now stand. It's close and could be a wonderful place not only for appropriate summer recreational use but also to welcome maritime visitors, who would need the restaurants and other services in the Village center. And, with careful planning, it could bring in badly needed outside dollars.

But these are the kinds of things that must be part of a coherent Master Plan. And I keep coming back to the "Village-or-not" question because I'm convinced that it is, in fact, an "either, or" proposition. Either we get to a point of fiscal sustainability or we simply cannot continue to be a "village."

Jon Chase
Cornwall-on-Hudson

Well said as always, Jon. It becomes clear how closely related sustainability is to a certain quality of life.
As I understand it, a Master Plan is supposed to describe a collective vision. One would expect the goals to include sustainability and an enhanced quality of life. Broadly speaking, I think that the document produced by our village committee accomplishes that goal. Of course the Village Board may decide to make adjustments, but the process was carried out by a committee with public input. The question of 'why it got bogged-down?' gets too political for my taste in this discussion.

Some other thoughts-
First, there are a lot of contributing factors to the decline of Main Street culture all over the US. We could spend a lot of time discussing that topic, and personally, I find it very interesting. But for now, we can agree that it happened here in Cornwall-on-Hudson. I think the more relevant facts are: 1- that some communities did survive; and 2- the trend is reversing.
Second, there are lots of examples of villages that continue to function in what might be considered as a "traditional" fashion. They dispel many of the reasons given for why "it can't happen here." For example, City Island is roughly the same size as COH and it supports a functioning main street. It's "off the beaten path" and it works. I've lived there so I know. And how is it that Highland Falls supports two hardware stores? How has Warwick managed to revitalize the center of that out-of-the-way village? As I understand it, there's been effective leadership which has achieved progress through participation in the process. By the way, are progress and preservation mutually exclusive?

The discussion including the concepts of smart growth, relocalization, and place-making may be too "left-coast" for some people, but if you've got an open mind, there are some good resources on the subject. Websites like smallmart.org and livingeconomies.org are good places to start. Willits, California, a community that's similar in some ways to Greater Cornwall, has an interesting website- willitseconomiclocalization.org. Again, it may be described by some as "California Dreamin'", but there's some useful information there.

John Wenz

John Wenz,

Re: The Master Plan

"The Question of why it got bogged-down? gets too political for my taste in this discussion."

Sorry but it is political like it or not. I don't like it either but it is what it is. As I've said before I consider Joe Gross a friend, but nothing progressive will ever happen regarding becoming a vibrant village again, in my opinion, as long as he is mayor. . So as distasteful as it is one must choose between one who choose's progress to one who will choose to leave everything status quo. I don't post this easily but since we decided to make this our home till our 3rd graders are finished High School I figure I'll add my voice. Go visit Storm King Adventure Tours. Do you like it? Does the Mayor? Have you eaten in The River Bank? Isn't it Great? Does the Mayor think so? Some people want no change. That is fine with me as everyone can have their own opinion. I do feel this thread though has much to do with the election on the 18th. Good Luck

Pat Welch

charlie Ruso,

I signed my post Pat Welch which is my name. If you have no idea what I'm talking about perhaps you should read the entire thread.

BTW, ever hear of run on sentences? Perhaps you have celebrated St. Patrick's Day before your post?

I suggest a little thought before posting something so INANE.

Pat Welch

If anybody's still paying attention, I submit that this discussion was not focused on the Village election campaign and ought not be discontinued merely because the election's been held.

I join in congratulating all the election winners, as well as all of those who petitioned and campaigned for office. The discussions the campaign stimulated were constructive and timely. We ought not put them on the shelf now.

Besides, for the reasons Mr. Trella observed above and in view of the election outcome, I don't believe the election fairly can be interpreted as a Village referendum on business or development.

A thoughtful discussion on the direction of the Village and the implications of the choices we now make is absolutely essential to the finalization of a coherent Master Plan.

Jon Chase
Cornwall-on-Hudson

I agree Jon. I hope the interest goes beyond the elections and that we manage to keep the engagement of the residents in the discussion going forward. Although - I am a little at a loss as to how to do this. What is going to happen with the Master Plan at this point? Will a new comittee be instituted to pick up the plan where it was left off? Or will it sit by the side for another couple years?

Mayor Gross called my house prior to the election to talk to me about several of my questions and points here on this site. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to return his call due to work pressures over the last few weeks.

My personal take on all of this is that there IS a good balance to be struck here. That use of the water front SHOULD be a combination of natural beauty and opportunities for residents AND visitors to interact with the river and its beauty as John Wenz has worked towards.

I think what tends to happen in these discussions is that the "extremes" are used to characterize folks and devolve into ideological debates. That does NOT serve us well.

Thanks to all who have engaged in thoughtful discourse here. Let's keep it going and carry it to the Village Hall.

Regards,
Chuck Trella