Can we afford Riverspace's vision?

Today I read an opinion piece written by Nyack resident JC Brotherhood in the Journal News. I don't necessarily agree every point he makes, but I think JC brings up some valid concerns.

The piece is in regards to Riverspace, a not-for-profit arts center in downtown Nyack. Riverspace which is a spin-off of Friends of the Nyacks, bought the failing Helen Hayes theater a few years back and wants to buy up adjoining land, and then tear down its building—which is nothing more than a local eyesore—and a nearby bank. In its place, the group intends on creating a block with old-style row buildings that match the existing architecture in the village. Within that area, they also plan to build two parking structures and a park. The whole project will be non-profit and exempt from taxes. It would be funded through grants, bonds, and public funds from the private sector, county, town, and perhaps the river villages. It should cost, in all, more than $100 million (I haven't seen real concrete numbers yet).

Needless to say, when taxpayers learn that they may foot a good part of the bill, the project becomes controversial.

Here's JC's take below the fold:

First there was the Helen Hayes Theater on Broadway in Nyack. Next came Helen Hayes Two on Main Street, which failed largely due to lack of interest. Now we have Riverspace Arts-Nyack Revitalization, which the developer-Riverspace board members want us to commit to without revealing what the final plans are or the real costs will be. This is a pretty standard sales tactic: real estate, used cars, you pick, get the mark to sign on the line before he really knows the price tag. Take the $27 million for a parking garage; is that before or after the bonding costs? See my point? Smoke and mirrors may work in the theater but beware when it's applied to real estate (or used cars).
It's just new rubber on old tires.

First, how much is 4 acres in downtown Nyack worth? Nobody seems to know (or more cynically, they know quite well, they just don't want to tell you). Second, what does it cost the taxpayers to "freeze revenues at current levels" in a village that can't pay for the maintenance of its existing infrastructure, (seen the sidewalks lately or the marina?) let alone pay for the additional infrastructure proposed by this "not-for-profit development"?

"Local and state elected officials have said they will support public financing and tax breaks for Riverspace because the long-term economic and cultural benefit will be worth the investment," according to a June 26 article, "Riverspace aims to remake downtown." OK, show me.

It is what Riverspace board member Josh Goldberg likes to call, "revenue neutral"; I ask, neutral for whom, exactly? Is it going to be neutral for the existing shops or tenants in the village who will essentially subsidize the new shops? Own your place or not, landlords will simply pass the increase through to the occupant. Frankly it's a race to the bottom when our politicians promise tax incentives when they know very well that it's a zero-sum game and the money still has to come from somewhere. I know one thing for sure, it won't be neutral for you or me.

The somewhere is the pocketbook of the lowly homeowner or tenant who is being offered nothing except the vague promise of higher property values and the attending higher tax bill. I'm just guessing here (why not? Everyone else is) but it will add between $400 and $600 to the average homeowners local tax bill.

Many of us are faced with the same dilemma, at this rate we can't afford to retire here and our kids can't afford to live here when they finish school.

I agree with many of Mr. Brotherhood's points. I am close to being taxed out of my house. And nobody is a bigger liberal or a lover of the arts than I am. I'd love to revitalize the area and have a wonderful venue for music and theater, but I've got to draw the line somewhere.

I get a 3.5 percent raise every year and it's eaten up by 8-percent tax increases, 30-percent food bill increases, and 200 percent gasoline price increases.

A lot of us aren't living on Easy Street anymore. I've talked to a lot of people around town and they're worried that if we don't find a way to cap or reduce our property taxes, they'll have to move away.

So what good is an arts center when residents that have saved and scraped away their whole adult lives to live here now have to leave? What is more important, the dozens or hundreds of homeowners that are on the verge of putting up "For Sale" signs or even "Foreclosure" signs or a non-profit experiment (experiment being the operative word) to further revitalize an already vital downtown?

I'm also not a big believer in mixing corporate, or even not-for-profit group interests with government interests. When you create such a mixture, you create an oligarchy. Quasi-public projects like Riverspace, would force us, as area residents, to give up some of our representative power and authority. What is essentially public policy would now be dictated by groups and boards that are not vetted by or rejected or approved by a Democratic process. In the end, we pay the taxes, but we don't decide how our tax dollars are used.

However, I think the concept of revitalizing that block is not a bad one and I think a flourishing arts center would be boon to local businesses, particularly area restaurants. That is, I like the pie, I just don't care much for how it's sliced.