To the Editor:
I should have waited. I knew that Supervisor Peter Barber would have more to say on the subject of the State Appellate Court’s decision to overturn the findings of Judge Peter Lynch on the Rapp Road Development Project once The Altamont Enterprise released its coverage [“Guilderland and Pyramid win reversal of lower court decision — Costco can be built,” July 15, 2021].

Blaming the victim. It’s a time-honored strategy frequently employed by attorneys when they are trying to rebrand the commission of an egregious act that is indefensible. All there is left is to malign the character and manipulate the motivations of the aggrieved party to make the perpetrator appear less culpable.

I suppose that Supervisor Barber may have still been operating in litigator Barber mode when he dispatched his perspective on what this project means to conditions on Westmere Terrace and those of us who live here.  

Why yes, traffic problems have been an issue here, raised with the first expansion of Crossgates Mall in 1994. The traffic analysis that was conducted for this project states that those problems will amplify.

And yes, the suggestion of a bypass that would reconfigure this dead-end street to a thoroughfare was rejected then as it has been now. But here’s another mitigation strategy: Don’t compound the problem.

Also mandated in 1994 was the creation of a cul-de-sac at the end of Westmere Terrace, which would provide a boundary of seclusion and prevent encroachment from the expanding mall. Back then, it was recognized that residents had a right to be protected from development. And that the town had a duty to provide it, in conjunction with what may have been legally permissible.

But that was not under Supervisor Barber’s watch. What now is, is the projection that we are just being too picky to enact what would be helpful for us.

Trivializing security concerns. The study that accompanied our police-reform initiatives indicated that for the past years Crossgates Mall has generated at least half of the arrests that occur in our town. Creating a back door onto the street and a new route of accessibility, I wonder how much support there would be for that innovation if it were proposed to other neighborhoods?

Subverting the intended protective cul-de-sac. With a radiating access road, then it’s not exactly protective anymore, is it? Or for that matter an actual cul-de-sac, as in what had been defined in 1994 to be an enduring and requisite feature of the street.

Compromising the berm that will be the only boundary between Westmere Terrace and the apartment complex. Already completely insufficient in warding off the invasion of privacy from floors 3 to 5 of the apartment building overlooking the street, an access road means a break in what has been touted as the supreme mitigation barrier along the southern border.

The creation of an access road “limited to residents only” is just an approval away from becoming the thoroughfare proposed back in 1994. Oh wait, there will be assurances about that never happening.

Well, if assurances were worth anything we wouldn’t be having this discussion. An access road off of Westmere Terrace was the premier non-negotiable item on day one of hearing the proposal for this project.

Way back at the inception of our negotiations with Jim Soos, attorney and representative for Pyramid, the question was posed as to whether he would be in favor of this project being constructed at the end of his street. In a moment of genuineness that turned out to be a rarity in the engagements to come, his answer was, no.

From Supervisor Barber’s branding perspective, things would be so much better for Westmere Terrace if we’d only correctly exercised our options. Well, in truth the options are akin to picking a poison.

I would maintain that we do not deserve the poisoning. And providing a choice is not absolution from supporting the execution.

Iris Broyde

Guilderland

Editor’s note: Iris Broyde lives on Westmere Terrace.