The case against RUPCO

Dear Editor:

Should the Kingston Planning Board consider developer’s failures when reviewing a proposal? If yes, RUPCO’s Alms House plan should be denied. RUPCO’s failed projects: 1. Kirkland Hotel Promised: Two restaurants, a bar, a floor of commercial space, and “market-rate rental housing” with 39 permanent jobs generating over $12 million in wages.

Reality: No restaurants, no bar, two units at market rate, no $12 million in new wages, and real estate agents complain RUPCO knew nothing about restaurants, did not outfit the property properly, and set rent ridiculously high. 2. E Square Promised: A “mixed-use” project that would provide “affordable” apartments for those with “median incomes (80 to 120 percent of federal medians) to a “minimum of 20 percent” of the units. First floor to be for hi-tech “hub,” providing new jobs. Plus: chef-apprentice program for high school youths.

Reality: No high-tech hub, no chef-apprentice program for youths, 57 units of which 15.8 percent will be for median incomes defined now as only 90 percent federal medians, payment-in-lieu-of-taxes deal worth $5.5 million over 32 years. 3. Alms House Promised: “Affordable housing for seniors”

Reality: Per funding guidelines, housing will be for (i) homeless, (ii) below poverty level, (iii) with one of these conditions: bipolar, schizophrenia, substance abuse, etc. RUPCO has no experience in providing treatment to people with serious mental illnesses and has once again ventured into terrain with which it has no experience, just like the Kirkland.

Should the Planning Board consider these past failures?

Vincent Rua, Kingston