To the Editor:

I am writing to voice some concerns regarding the latest change in what is occurring with Crossgates/Releasco et al and the building of the Costco retail warehouse. We are all aware of how contentious and lengthy this process has been and for good reason.

This project has undergone an extensive public and legal review process by local press outlets including The Altamont Enterprise and the Times Union. A critical component of the proposed Costco development has been the involvement of the Guilderland Industrial Development Agency.

During IDA discussions — specifically noted in a meeting, by IDA board member Paul Pastore — one key question raised was whether the project would move forward without the financial incentives requested from the IDA, including sales tax and other relief. [“Neighbors sue to stop Costco, Pyramid says it won’t build without tax breaks,” The Altamont Enterprise, June 1, 2023].

This is not a minor point. If public resources in the form of tax relief are to be allocated, there must be clear, enforceable benefits for the town and its residents in return.

At the March 25 meeting of the IDA, Crossgates/Releasco et al dropped their request for financial assistance from the IDA, with no explanation as stated by Mr. [Christopher] Canada, [attorney for the IDA], and Mr. [Donald] Csaposs, [chief executive officer of the Guilderland IDA]. [“Pyramid turns down IDA tax break for Costco,” The Altamont Enterprise, March 27, 2025].

Among the stated benefits associated with IDA support were assurances that the developer and Costco would use local tradespeople and companies during the build-out process. These commitments are crucial.

If financial assistance is provided, it must be contingent upon fulfilling such assurances — not just as informal promises but as formal obligations with accountability mechanisms. At the present time, with the agreement being dropped by the developer, the conditions that should have been adhered to are no longer required.

With the very pointed question by Mr. Pastore and the response that the project would not move forward unless they received the requested financial support leaves us not only speechless, but also angry. Why the anger? Let’s discuss:

At the public hearings on May 31, 2023, the IDA was to decide whether or not to allow the taking of the public roads by eminent domain and selling the property to the developer so this project could move forward as well as granting financial assistance in the form of sales-tax relief and mortgage-recording Tax relief.

There was a choice about how the town could have handled the turning over of the roads to this corporation. The town could have had this decided by the public at the voter polls in what is known as a permissive referendum.

This means that the residents of the town would be able to vote “yes” or “no” in selling the property under the roads to Crossgates/Releasco et al. The town chose not to do this because, we believe, the town did not want to take the chance that the public could possibly vote against this, meaning that the project could not move forward. 

With the statement made by Crossgates et al that they needed the financial assistance in order to move forward, this was one way they could ensure that there was no further opposition. The IDA ultimately granted their request for taking the roads by eminent domain and granting tax relief, with the guidelines shown in the Camoin Report.

On April 1, the Times Union had on the front page this article: “Big Costco check buys small house.” Essentially what happened is that the last holdout for these properties sold a house that was purchased for about $200,000 about 10 years for over $1 million dollars. Let that sink in!

For a corporation that claimed it could not move forward unless it had tax breaks and eminent domain protections by the town, can now decline any assistance and pay over $1,000,000 for a home that is not worth even a quarter of what was paid for it. 

We say bravo to the property owner, but a huge shame on you Crossgates/Releasco et al!  Let’s be clear: Costco did not buy this property; Crossgates/Releasco et al did! Costco is leasing the land in a build-to-suit with a 25-year lease that began several years ago. We are not privy to the lease agreement.

What essentially has happened is that, not only were the town residents duped by corporate America, but the town boards as well. Are we all that dumb?

Clearly, the residents and organizations who spoke against this project were and are not. The town boards — they are blinded by the false statements made by this corporation and the belief that this was going to help our community.

Let’s further discuss this:

— 1. There are no promises that any of the construction jobs or jobs at the Costco will be supported by any Guilderland residents because there is no requirement to do so;

— 2. Crossgates/Releasco et al lied to the town residents and lied to the town boards by claiming that they needed the provisions of tax relief and roads taken by eminent domain (through condemnation by the town) in order to have their project approved.

Do we honestly believe they really needed the relief? Absolutely not!

This town was so enthralled with just over $115,000 in increased tax revenue that it was and is blinded by what is really going on. Wake up! These businesses/corporations are not our friends! They have no other interest other than getting what they want at almost any price;

— 3. The town, in its infinite wisdom, did not give the residents of our town any say about the condemnation or eminent domain issue with the roads in question when they could have. This is a blatant disregard for what residents should be consulted about.

This shows that our town boards are more interested in what corporate America can do for them (take advantage comes to mind) rather than supporting and listening to their constituents! Is that what we want?  I think not

— 4. At the present time, the town of Guilderland will be permanently changed by all of this. What is of interest and of note, is that this is not shown anywhere in our comprehensive plan review — given that this horrific development forever changes our town and how we do business and changes our way of life in Guilderland.

So, what is the town going to do about this? The traffic is already a problem and, quite frankly, the road diet that was constructed to abate the traffic at Crossgates Mall over the Christmas holidays did not abate the traffic significantly. Ask anyone who tried to get in and out of there for the two months of shopping at the mall.

Do we honestly believe that there will be no problems with traffic on Western Avenue with this new development? Could Costco have changed its traffic pattern to mitigate the traffic on Western by not allowing in and out on/off Western and allowing ingress and egress only from the mall roads? Yes; did anyone ask?

I doubt it. Why not? The Guilderland Coalition for Responsible Growth asked and was told it would need to go through another review by the planning/zoning boards and it was too complicated;

— 5. The benefit to Crossgates/Releasco et al was that the roads were taken by eminent domain at the request of Crossgates/Releasco et al. Based on this, they realized a benefit to their corporation at the expense of the town.

So how do we go about ensuring that the town is remunerated for this action? What was the cost? Now what? Do laborers who are hired at less-than-prevailing wage have a case? What about the jobs that should be given to our town residents that are not?

How do we prove this? What is the loss to the town and its residents? How do we as residents recoup this injustice and cost to us? Do we sue? Isn’t this a violation of the rights of the residents for this injustice?

— 6. All of this is a little too late, but we have valuable lessons to be learned here. Our town boards should not be swayed by the false promises of corporations or big businesses with their fake and false promises. We have been duped one too many times.

It is about time that our elected officials listen and support their constituents when it comes to major changes to our town.

Point: Foundry Road [“‘It’s a work in progress’: Foundry Square allowed to proceed,” The Altamont Enterprise, Jan. 9, 2025]. Why in the world would you give a conditional approval? We all know and understand that the town board will be bullied into accepting what is proposed.

For the business to give the ultimatum of a conditional approval vs. leaving the property vacant and an eyesore is nothing but bullying. This must stop.

We need to put our foot down, and if our town board members cannot learn to say no, then we need to vote them out and vote in those who will not settle for less than what residents want and who they represent.

We have been fooled one too many times. We should not be fooled again.

Robyn Gray, Chairwoman, Guilderland, Coalition for Responsible Growth

Editor’s note: Grace Wu, Brian Truong, and Tsz Keung Eng are all listed on the deed for 8 Rielton Court, which was purchased on Feb. 26, 2025 by Pyramid LLC Guilderland Devco for $1.15 million. All of the houses in the neighborhood bought up by Pyramid were purchased for well over market value. In 2011, Pyramid started boarding up the houses it had bought, making the neighborhood untenable for remaining residents.