To the Editor:

This was my testimony Monday night at the Albany City Council meeting on the revised rezone of Sandidge Way.

Unlike my neighbors, I will not be commenting on the myriad of neighborhood issues involving this application: traffic, water, pedestrian safety, and diminished quality of life.

Instead, I want to focus on why we are here tonight.

The city of Albany is in the midst of writing a new zoning code. This is a once-in-a-generation undertaking, involving thousands of building lots in the city of Albany.  And, this work is not yet completed.

Yet tonight, on the eve of a national election and on a night that the council has just conducted a hearing on its city budget, we are here discussing, for the third time, a very specific street and a proposed rezone of that one street – Sandidge Way.

Why has Sandidge Way been extracted from the city’s master plan and why is this street and the developer associated with it being given special consideration?

Here are some facts about this application:

— The city council’s involvement in this application is a discretionary act and there are no statutory deadlines or requirements for you to act;

— The rezone application was not proposed by the city planner, but requested by the developer;

— This rezoning of Sandidge Way (formerly known as Loughlin Street) is named  in federal and state indictments regarding bid rigging and pay-to-play schemes, and appears to be a way of rescuing the developer from an ill-advised investment; and

— The Albany County Planning Board has disapproved this project.

So, why is this application even being considered? And why is the city council so interested in rezoning this street now?

Is it the illusion of revenues coming into the city’s coffers?

— If revenues are the reason, it is illusory at best!

— The developer has already publicly stated that they will be going to the city’s Industrial Development Agency, which will mean an exemption from sales and use taxes and the mortgage recording tax; as well as some level of relief in paying real property taxes over the next several years.

So a windfall of revenues is unrealistic at best!

More importantly, given the federal and state charges already announced, these limited revenues will be seen as ill-gotten gains by the city.

Has the city council explored the additional costs to the city from this project?

— Increased costs for police, fire, and emergency medical services?;

— Increased costs to the Albany city school system?

Why are the professional recommendations of the Albany County Planning Board not being considered

That board disapproved the original application based upon the impact on:  neighboring historic cemeteries; numerous issues with stormwater and wastewater; and the fact that Fuller Road is at capacity and cannot absorb several hundred additional cars.

The bottom line is that the council is not required to hear this rezone and could stop this process without any legal consequences — tonight.

It is very unsettling that the council would voluntarily proceed with the full knowledge of bid rigging, favoritism toward a developer, ill-gotten revenues, and substantial issues identified by professional planners.

Put it all together and you have solid reasons for rejecting this application.  I humbly and respectfully ask that the Albany City Council disapprove this application tonight!

Michael A. Lawler

Guilderland

Editor’s note: Michael A. Lawler lives at 4 Warren St. Warren Street is one block from Sandidge Way; both streets come off of Fuller Road. Warren Street is in the town of Guilderland; Sandidge Way is in the panhandle of Albany.