The Myth of Being “Business Friendly”

The Myth of Being “Business Friendly”

Business development is likely to be a hot topic in this year’s election campaign with candidates continually reminding us of

• what they’ve done to make Yorktown’s “moribund” economy come alive, and
• future plans for encouraging even more business development as the key to reducing the tax burden on homeowners

As with most campaign rhetoric, what you’re likely to hear is an overly simplified version of reality plus exaggerated claims of successes and promises for the future.

Here’s a 2-part look at separating campaign spin from the facts.

Part I will look at

• What it means to be “business friendly”
• What the Town Board has done to become more “business friendly”

Part II will look at

• Assigning credit for the upswing in Yorktown’s economy
• The actual impact of the new businesses on your taxes

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Part I

What it means to be business “friendly” or “unfriendly”

Friendliness is in the eye of the beholder and the phrase can, and has been, easily manipulated to serve personal agendas. Some examples:

1. When the Planning Board fails to act on an application because the applicant hasn’t submitted the required basic planning documents, such as a survey and site plan, the applicant cries foul and accuses the Town of being “business unfriendly.” The reality is the Planning Board can’t approve what it doesn’t have.
2. The same is true when the Building Department may hold off issuing a building permit until the applicant’s architect or engineer submits all the documents required under the state building code. When a business owner complains about the delay, it’s all too easy for the consultant to tell the client, "It’s all the town’s fault."
3. When a business owner makes changes to his property without a building permit or an approved site plan, is the Town being business unfriendly when it issues a stop work order? Why bother having rules and regulations if they’re not enforced?
   
4. The Town often gets the blame when it seems to take forever for a new project to be approved. But the reality is sometimes the responsibility for the “slowness” lies with the applicant, not the Town. A case in point is the long awaited renovation of the JV Mall: After the Town Board approved the Mall’s requested changes in parking, landscape and signage requirements, it took the Mall’s development team eight months to submit an amended site plan, the first step in the approval process.

What has the Town Board done to become more “business friendly?”

As a candidate in 2011, Supervisor Grace railed against what he said were the town’s confiscatory, draconian and unreasonable land use regulations. “Simply put,” he said, “the town’s regulatory structure is such that no reasonable business person is willing to work in or with the town.” He went on to blame what he called the town’s “moribund” economy on its business unfriendly approach.

The Supervisor’s rhetoric notwithstanding, a review of the Town Board minutes, shows that the Supervisor and Town Board have initiated little in the way of regulatory reform and that their actions have not resulted, at least not to date, in a single new commercial development.

1. The only regulatory “easing” has been reducing the parking requirements in some commercial zones. But ironically, the change had absolutely no impact on any proposed new commercial developments or alterations, including the medical building and proposed new mixed use building at Lake Osceola and two restaurant expansions. The new parking requirements for the JV Mall were made at the request of the Mall.
2. A second regulatory change requiring all building plans be submitted electronically is a benefit to the town, not necessarily commercial applicants.
3. Two regulatory initiatives proposed by the Supervisor were dead on arrival: taking approval authority for commercial development away from the non-partisan Planning Board and giving it to the highly politicized Town Board, and allowing property owners to begin construction without an approved building permit.
4. Since January, 2012, the Town Board has approved six amendments to the zoning ordinance that have benefited specific existing businesses: allowing Funtime on Front Street to sell liquor; allowing the vacant lower level of the Staples Shopping Center (vacated by Best Plumbing)  to be used for a self-storage facility; permitting a helistop at IBM;, and the revised parking requirements for the JV Mall. The Board also approved zoning amendments to allow additional types of uses in two commercial zones, although the applicants requesting the changes never actually submitted applications for the new uses.
5. Since January, 2012, the Board voted to refer two commercial rezoning requests to the Planning Board for review but no action has been taken on either of them. One referral was actually rescinded one week after it was passed.
6. The Board eased the requirements for granting a Temporary Certificates of Occupancy. Two TCOs have been issued: One for Best Plumbing, issued in May 2013, will be converted to a regular CO when the infrastructure for the entire mixed use development is completed. The second TCO, issued for the Winery in February, 2012 and subsequently extended  expired in July, 2013. After 19 months, there is still no permanent CO.

The next time a candidate tells you how he’s made Yorktown more ‘business friendly,” ask him for specifics.

• What properties has he rezoned for commercial use?
• What site plans has he approved?
• Besides the parking amendments, what other regulatory changes have made Yorktown more “business friendly?”

There’s spin and there are the facts.  Just because the candidates believe their own spin, doesn’t mean you have to also.

(Stay tuned for Part II)

For more information about town issues, visit yorktownbettergovernment.org