By Michael Levy
Journal & Press
In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln wrote to his Secretary of War, Edward Stanton, with the following words, “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” And with that thought in mind, I wonder if we may be forsaking a better tomorrow for Washington County by not thinking about its future now.
I recently reviewed Washington County’s Economic Profile from the Center for Economic Growth. Feel free to compare for yourself statistics for Washington County with those of the other counties that comprise the Capital District and a less-than-ideal picture emerges. See: https://www.ceg.org/articles/capital-region-county-economic-profiles-2024/.
Washington County once relied on a few key industries (e.g., manufacturing, agriculture, and mining) for its economic well-being. These industries have declined or disappeared over time. Key industries that are no longer prominent include catheter manufacturing (largely vanished from this area due to globalization and the shift of production to other regions); paper mills (such as Essity) have closed due to shifts in the economy; and mining and quarrying output seems to be down a bit - perhaps due to a declining need for slate.
Limited recreational, cultural, and social activities make Washington County’s villages and towns less than appealing to younger people. I often joke with folks that I can walk the center line of Greenwich’s Main Street at 10 p.m. on a Saturday night and not worry about getting struck by traffic. To further this point, why does the restaurant and night scene in Schuylerville, only a few miles away from Greenwich, appear to be more vibrant?
While some may see the ruralness of this area as charming, there are features for growth that are desperately needed here- roads with more than two lanes, quality high-speed internet access, mass transportation, and abundant low-cost utilities. Likewise, a lack of quality educational and healthcare facilities (i.e., hospitals) makes this county less attractive to new arrivals. In one of the most agriculturally significant regions of New York State, why isn’t there a SUNY Agricultural College located here? Why isn’t there any post-secondary institution located here for that matter?
I know there may be some readers out there resistant to change. They want things to be like they “always have been.” However, times have changed, and Greenwich must adjust to a new reality. Innovation now will facilitate growth and allow us to adapt to new economic possibilities. Using Greenwich as an example, do any old-timers here believe that the Greenwich of today is as vibrant as was the Greenwich of 25, 50, or even 75 years ago? If so, please write in to this newspaper and provide rebuttal.
Addressing the challenges to bring forth a better future requires a multi-faceted approach, including strategic planning, investment in infrastructure and services, fostering a business-friendly environment, and promoting the town’s unique attributes to attract new residents and businesses.
That takes money. We all can agree that means a lot of money. But how do we do everything without raising taxes? Are state and federal grants the answer?
The strategy of seeking out grants, as well as other public funding opportunities is an important pathway to take. Grants can provide significant financial support for the various projects and initiatives needed in the future. But we need to understand that other towns and villages across New York State are also competing for these resources with everyone else. Can we make the argument that Cambridge (home of Pie à la Mode) is more deserving of a revitalization grant than the Chenango County village of Bainbridge (once the home for production of Elmer’s Glue)? Therefore, in addition to grants, we need to implement a combination of strategies, enhance revenue streams, and improve the county’s financial health without increasing the tax burden on our residents.
We need to attract new businesses and encourage local entrepreneurship which will expand the tax base and create new jobs. This can be achieved through incentives, marketing campaigns, and improving our local infrastructure. Excessive regulation and red tape which deters investment and entrepreneurship, must be eliminated as well.
How about a few creative partnerships with private companies for infrastructure projects or services which can bring in new revenue streams? Examples include developing real estate, creating recreational facilities, or improving transportation.
Why are we not seeing the influx of new residents who are affiliated with GlobalFoundries? Malta is a fairly easy commute from here. GlobalFoundries is building a second chip FAB plant, following a $1.5 billion grant awarded from the federal government earlier this year. According to Senator Chuck Schumer’s office, the company will make an additional estimated $11.6 billion investment over the next 10+ years. I believe that well over $10 billion has been invested already in Saratoga County. GlobalFoundries directly employs approximately 3,000 people at its Malta site, which includes company headquarters and the FAB 8 chip factory.
When was the last time there was a new residential housing development around these parts? There is no reason that Washington County should not be home to an even larger percentage of the Capital District’s workforce than presently. Try this someday. Head west across the Hudson River to observe residential construction that is happening all over Saratoga County and then wonder why such activity essentially ceases as you drive past Fort Hardy Park and over the Schuylerville bridge as you head east on Route 29.
By expanding the housing stock in Washington County, towns and villages will significantly enhance their tax bases and their overall financial health. And when the fixed costs of running the governments of Washington County are spread across more property owners, there is a good chance that individual taxes will not go up once improved services are instituted. New homes add to the tax base, generating this additional revenue from new property assessments. Construction and development will stimulate the local economy. More residents mean more customers and a greater demand for services and goods, all of which will boost local businesses and their profits. Sales tax revenue will also increase because of the increase in commerce.
I hereby issue a challenge to everyone in Washington County. Think about the ideas I have mentioned in this column. For a geographic area to thrive, it needs to look towards the future and not be locked into a vision of small-town pastoralism that may never have existed here. Please be open to embracing a vision that leads to a better future for us all, our children, and for their children too. Thing big and be bold! Everyone needs to take some responsibility to create the change needed. Take this random thought and feel free to own it!
Michael Levy is a retired government manager residing in Greenwich NY and is employed now as a technical consultant. He is also a Commercial Pilot and a Ham Radio operator.
I found this article interesting from the standpoint that many Greenwich citizens have actively fought any influx of industry or development in general in the town. The idea, which I've heard stated repeatedly, is that Greenwich has historically been only an agricultural community and should stay that way. The fact that agriculture and industry has historically existed side-by-side is often overlooked. In fact, Greenwich exists largely because of the factories that sprang up along the Battenkill, taking advantage of the water power it provided. While it is true most of these no longer exist, to say Greenwich never was an industrial town is false.
I was a member of the town planning board several decades ago. At that time, a proposal was presented to create an industrial park in Clark's Mills on a former industrial site. It centered around a trash burn plant, which would provide power for the industrial park. Trash burn plants at the time were a red flag topic, so for that reason alone there was understandably much opposition. But there were other industries ready to locate to this park if it came to fruition. If memory serves correct, one was a plywood manufacture. Opposition got pretty nasty, even reaching the point where some were publicly accusing the town supervisor at the time of having his hands in the pockets of the plywood manufacturer. Many of us on the town planning board had fingers pointed at us as well, not only in regards to this project but pretty much anything the concerned citizens opposed. That seemed to include most subdivisions of any type. It seemed that once people acquired their little piece of God's country, they didn't want any further development. They failed to recognize that the purpose of the planning board was not simply to deny subdivisions and stifle development, but to provide oversight and due diligence to make sure it was done correctly. The accusations and threats to planning board members were endless. At one point, an industrial subdivision, which was in reality only a technicality because the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) would not close on the funding for the already approved project to the existing Greenwich industry without subdividing the parcel affected by the grant, resulted a frivolous lawsuit against the town. The lawsuit contained easily verifiable false information and was thrown out of court. But the process still cost the Greenwich taxpayers $16k in legal fees before it was thrown out. Due to the accusations and threats against planning board members, eventually there was a mass exodus when nearly half of the planning board resigned.
Getting back to the proposed Clark's Mills industrial park, eventually the developers threw up their hands and decided Greenwich was not the place to be. They took their business elsewhere. The concerned citizens viewed this as a success story, ignoring the loss of potential jobs and tax revenue.
There has been similar opposition in years since. Consider the battles that ensued when Hannaford wanted to locate in Greenwich. It's surprising they didn't give up. I'd be willing to bet most of the opponents of the Greenwich Hannaford probably now shop there.
I understand the concerns. I grew up on a farm in Greenwich and have lived in this town for over 70 years. Where I live, I can remember when it was dirt roads and farms 1/2 mile apart with nothing in between. By the 80s we were seeing small farms lose their viability as machinery became too big to handle the small rocky fields and corporate farms overtook the small family farms. Today, there are many fields in which we used to plant crops and cut hay that are unrecognizable and have reverted back to forest. Some I brush hog to keep them in check. Either way, it is not viable agricultural land anymore. It's no wonder farmers sell off property for development. In many cases, that property is no longer an asset but a liability. So while many of us are nostalgic for the way things were, and hate to see these changes, the fact is change is inevitable.
Getting back to the original point about agriculture and industry in Greenwich, during the discourse in nearly every planning board meeting I attended, it was brought up "Greenwich is only an agricultural town, and it needs to stay that way". Again, not a true statement. While development needs to be well planned and executed, using that argument that Greenwich has always been agricultural, and void of industry, has no validity.
Micheal, you write "While some may see the ruralness of this area as charming, there are features for growth that are desperately needed here- roads with more than two lanes, quality high-speed internet access, mass transportation, and abundant low-cost utilities. " .. Sorry my friend, if I wanted to live where there are 4 lane highways I can move to Wilton, and guess what? No thanks. Mass transit for Greenwich is not something that has a reason for being, and the internet has changed the retail profile of every small town in America. When I came here in 1989 our down town was down trodden and now there are glimpses of life. There is no longer an Agway at the bottom of Main St. The milking machine store, the clothing store, the hardware store, all gone. The changes you propose might increase tax revenue but at what cost? I grew up in a town small in Westchester in a house my Dad bought for 18K. The property tax on that house is now 22K a year. The mantra that I grew up with was we need to GROW....So now, here, why? To increase for the sake of increasing is the mode of a cancer, To grow to meet a current demand is one thing, to change in anticipation of some sort of economic boon as yet to be defined is another. I like our population as it is, I like our rural nature, our two lane roads,
and wonder if the changes you outline would lead to lees tax burden on homeowners. It never seems to work out that way, more populous municipalities have higher tax rates, or am I wrong on this.