I am writing in response to the recent Enterprise article about the Adirondack Park Agency project to build their new headquarters in the village of Saranac Lake. A remarkable result occurred in response to the article. There were 117 unsolicited comments in response to the article. The total number of commenters was 117. Of that number, only two were in favor of the project, while 97 expressed opposition to the project or the Agency in general. Twenty-eight of the comments were “off topic.”

The number opposing the proposed relocation, 98 percent of those who sent comments as opposed to only two people in favor, is remarkable. It should give the Agency second thoughts about their plans to relocate to the village in favor of an on-site solution.

Most of the commentators were astounded by the $40 million price tag, especially given the fact that the on-site alternative was originally estimated to cost half that amount. Others showed dismay at the fact that the property would need to be leased from the village of Saranac Lake, burdening the Park Agency with long-term costs which could have easily been avoided by simply constructing the Agency offices in Ray Brook.

Other commentators expressed concern for the Agency and village priorities, expressing the need for additional low and middle-income housing in a setting where housing is sorely needed. Still others stressed the need to provide space for local businesses rather than to build an office building, which commentators stressed would have little effect on the local economy. Others asked the question why the Agency was intent on moving to another location away from their sister Agency at the Department of Environmental Conservation. Is the DEC planning a similar move, and, if not, why not? And why is the state of New York willing to spend over $40 million (and counting) for so little benefit to the community of Saranac Lake?

Examples of these comments include “NYS seems to have a bottomless pit of cash for projects like this. Better to lower taxes to make communities more affordable” and “Waste of taxpayer money . . . They don’t need that huge building for the APA” and “Why would this organization need 28,000 square feet” and “there needs to be a coordinated movement to make sure the APA, local, state political power players don’t push this project through … Stop the madness” and “Fiscal responsibility should come first. Quit wasting my money!” and “More needs to be done with the already dilapidated buildings in the village. We need more affordable housing… and to begin thinking about the elderly in this community,” and “Not Necessary! And a poor location. Stay in Ray Brook,” and “A shrine to government wasteful spending” and “WOW, I think the APA has done the impossible … create a topic that all the readers of the Enterprise can agree on” and “So absurd … $40 million?!! Are these tax dollars… the priorities or lack thereof blow my mind,” and “Why is New York State wasting money on Saranac Lake by building a building that isn’t necessary? … spend it on repairing our streets. Now that would be useful and needed for the people who live here,” and “Office for what … We need housing … This village is ridiculous,” and “Decreasing the visibility and accessibility of the Saranac Lake police department to increase the visibility and accessibility of the NYS Adirondack Park Agency seems a disservice to the village of Saranac Lake,” and “Fixing and remodeling the current (APA) building is the only sound financial answer.”

The APA plan, as presented in the article, calls for a brand new office structure plus the renovation of the old Paul Smiths Power & Light Building at 1-3 Main Street. The Power & Light Building would be renovated to serve as a greeting area for the public and people doing business with the APA, as well as for monthly APA meetings. The drawings seemed to ignore the limitations of the proposed construction site by not showing realistic parking spaces or the proposed location of the office building itself. Although conceptual in nature, you would have at least thought that whoever did the renditions would have wanted to show how these proposed structures would actually be located. The fact that parking in the area would be restricted to weekends does not adequately address how the area is being used by the public or how the area would be shared with APA’s existing vehicle fleet.

Thanks to the Enterprise for providing needed public input into the APA’s proposed relocation. You provide an invaluable service to public discussion, unlike the Adirondack Park Agency, which seemingly only wants to hear favorable comments on a very questionable proposal about the Agency’s proposed relocation.

­­– — —

Jim Connolly served as the Deputy Director for Planning at the Adirondack Park Agency. He resides in Lake Clear.