Feature

Saving Main Street: A Conversation with Dave Porter & Chet Mirsky
Interview by Brian K. Mahoney Photo by Megan McQuade
Sidebars by Susan Piperato Sidebar Illustrations by Jacob Goble

Both Dave Porter, professor of politics and sociology at Empire State College, and Chet Mirsky, professor emeritus of clinical law at New York University, have been involved in social justice movements since the 1960s. For the past two decades, Porter and Mirsky have been monitoring, critiquing, and sometimes actively struggling against land-use decisions made by officials in the Hudson Valley. Their recent book, Megamall on the Hudson: Planning, Wal-Mart and Grassroots Resistance (Trafford, 2003), chronicles the proposed siting of a Wal-Mart in New Paltz in the early 1990s and the grassroots opposition by the local community that effectively blocked the development. I spoke with these author-activists earlier this year in Dave Porter's office in Highland about their book, the history of land-use planning in the past 50 years, and the possibilities for grassroots activism in the Mid-Hudson Valley.
—BKM

Brian K. Mahoney: Can you provide a context for the place we now find ourselves in, at the beginning of the 21st Century, with regard to development? What has been the history and logic of land-use in this country up to this time?

Chet Mirsky: One way of looking at it might be to ask yourself what happened to Dallas, Texas. Dallas was a very beautiful city and it was totally trashed by development: megastores, back-to-back housing, sort of cookie-cutter stores all next to each other. Whatever beauty was there is gone. In retrospect, you can get some objectivity about it, but at the time, it was all presented as the way of progress. Progress is usually the key word used to describe why development occurred. Think about Robert Moses, for example. What did he do? He said he was bringing progress to Long Island by building highways right through existing neighborhoods. That was seen then, in those terms, as progress. What wasn't seen, was the manipulation, and the politics that went on behind the scenes. So, for example, in Dallas, developers understood that if they were going to get what they wanted, they had to own City Hall lock, stock, and barrel. And they did that. In fact, they became the representatives at City Hall. They were the people on the planning boards, they were the people who made decisions about zoning, they themselves completely took over the town in that sense. And they profited from it. And I think that is paradigmatic of what happened to government in the last 25 years. For the most part, people have not been interested in local government. The default mechanism is: Who then is interested? And we found out that the people who are interested are the developers. And without the interest of the public and the oversight by the public, the conflict of interest is large, and you have what becomes Dallas, Texas, Paramus, New Jersey, Long Island—all these places around the country that look like, feel like, sprawl. Whatever environment that was there before is gone. The people who live there don't participate in local government and this is the way it's always been. This is what progress brought.

Dave Porter: On top of that dynamic, with the developers and the real estate and commercial interests taking over the local governments, there is a dynamic whereby the local municipalities are choked in their income base. Resources that could go toward enhancing quality of life in communities are instead devoted to the state government and the federal government. I think that's a major concern even if you're not lock-stepped with the developers. When you're in charge of municipal government, you still have this tremendous concern about providing resources for basic services. So there's a lot of pressure, even out of the best of intentions as a municipal administrator, to enhance commercial development especially. People used to look on all development as expanding the tax base, but residential development doesn't always pay for itself, usually it doesn't, especially because of school services. But that's a very important question. These types of pressures have made for a constant growth coalition dynamic.

BKM: I've heard it said many times, as an axiom, that you always want to be expanding the tax base. But you're saying that expanding the tax base doesn't pay for itself.

DP: Absolutely. I think it's the National Farmlands Trust that did a study on this, that's been repeated a number of times, showing that residential development does not pay for itself. It usually consumes at least fifty percent more resources than it generates from the residential tax base. And commercial depends on what kind of commerce, where it's located, and we figure, with regard to the Wal-Mart development we did a careful analysis and clearly there would be some additional taxes paid. But at the same time, because of its effect on cannibalizing existing commercial space, it would decrease the taxes that would be collected at those locations and increase infrastructure costs like road expansion.

CM: What you have is this balance between the natural environment and the need to raise the tax base.
BKM: Can you explain how the seqra [State Environmental Quality Review Act] process works?
DP: It's a regulatory mechanism. The model [of seqra] assumes that participatory democracy, grassroots participation, in the research process concerning the environmental impacts of any significant project will enhance tremendously the overall quality of the entire project. [seqra] was designed to look at it in a serious collaborative way. It's adding this whole other dimension to the consideration of what is good for a community.

CM: What this has meant is that any act that has a potential adverse environmental impact cannot be approved without it. What, in effect, it does is put all development on hold until an environmental analysis is done. What it is saying is, You can't go forward with development without this process. And in effect defines the environment as the first thing you care about once you have the diagram of a project, not the tax base. And that was a policy shift that occurred in the mid-'70s. [seqra was instituted in 1975.]

BKM: You write in your book that power politics are part and parcel of SEQRA. How do citizens exercise power in this process?

DP: Citizens are invited by the model; they're encouraged by dec guidelines and the seqra handbook, which describes in some detail what the process should be to contribute their own sense of what is environmentally significant and any particular kinds of insights with respect to the research project, both to determine whether there should be an eis, and what the agenda or scope of that should be. At a public hearing after the drafting of the eis, citizens are invited to contribute their reaction to that eis. So there is, by the model, a very significant role for citizens to play, and understanding that the most knowledgeable professional experts in technical scientific fields will not necessarily know the level of insight that local citizens have about particular environmental features that are being investigated. Experts may not know the area nearly as well as local citizens do. In addition to that, I think it's recognized that there are plenty of professional technicians and scientists who will testify as the person who pays the bill wants them to testify. So there needs to be a checking mechanism. It's not only individual citizens who can do that kind of analysis; they can hire there own experts to look at the material. Of course the lead agency [leading the seqra review], whether it's the local planning board or the dec, has ultimate responsibility and they have their own consultants. Usually the local municipalities hire people to be consultants who already are employed by developers, so it's kind of a contaminated process, in that respect.

BKM: How well, in reality, does seqra work to empower citizens?

CM: That's a question you could answer in two ways: empirically, or anecdotally. Empirically, seqra has declined in effectiveness over time through a coalition of factors; one might say collusion of factors. The courts have basically taken the position subsequent to seqra which has continually narrowed the statute. For example, where one would anticipate an Environmental Impact Statement or environmental review, the courts have provided ways of getting around that. The point here is that it is difficult to find anyone who the court will say has standing to attack lead agency decisions. For example: Let's say you and I were a local environmental organization chair and co-chair, and we represented a portion of the community. And we realized that this subdivision that was about to be built was going to destroy wetlands and significantly impact water quality. The chances of our being able to have standing, to raise that issue in court, is remote. Only those people who live in such proximity to the subdivision, such that they would suffer a unique harm different from the rest of us, such that it would suddenly be unsafe for them to walk out their door, only those people would be the ones now who would be able to attack any governmental decision on the environmental consequences of the subdivision. So the narrowing of the opportunity for public participation has been a terrible disservice to the intent of seqra.

BKM: That's the empirical view of seqra effectiveness. What of the anecdotal view?

CM: I think anecdotally you see what we saw last night in Gardiner [at a meeting for Save the Ridge, an organization against the proposed Awosting Reserve development], that people feel empowered, they want to be involved. They recognize that the statutory language, on its face, encourages them to do so—that everyone can participate and raise environmental concerns and that people whose community character might be destroyed are in a unique position to do that. And that community character issue is an environmental concern. Anecdotally, I would say that it is having an empowering effect when people realize what the statute enables them to do: to participate in the process of environmental issues, raising those issues, and having those reviewed. When you step back from this and ask, has this statute been effective over time, we see a significant decline in the number of Environmental Impact Statements from the time the statute was enacted until now. You don't see any instances in which there is a Disapproval Findings Statement after an environmental impact review has taken place. In fact, in New Paltz, the events described in our book were the first instance of Disapproval Findings for a large commercial project in the history of Ulster County.

BKM: Let's talk about Wal-Mart. How did you get involved in the campaign to keep Wal-Mart out of New Paltz?

DP: The last major proposal involving Wal-Mart was actually the seventh or eighth emanation of proposals for that particular turf. The previous ones in 1989 and 1990 had also included Wal-Mart. I don't think we were sophisticated then as to what all the implications of Wal-Mart were. We did have an analysis as part of our critique which we gave into the Planning Board at that point as to what kind of impact it would have commercially, but we didn't do as detailed an analysis as we did later on in the mid-'90s. What we discovered in 1993 was that there were similar struggles in other parts of the country. We read articles, we read materials that were presented by citizens in other locations like St. Albans, Vermont, and found out what processes they went through and what kinds of critiques they developed. The crucial thing was what the commercial devastation would be in the cannibalization process. We really gave that top emphasis in all of our critiques. You know, Wal-Mart never admitted they were part of this development publicly, and the developer, Columbia Development, never did either. But they did admit to a local business owner who wanted to put in a photo shop in the new shopping complex that, in fact, Wal-Mart was coming in and that they usually do have a photo facility, so he immediately was not interested. But he did talk directly with someone he knew at Columbia Development and had it confirmed that it was going to be Wal-Mart. And this was months even before a public hearing. They never admitted it, they always wanted to play it off as a discount department store to deflect the critiques. There is a kind of generic critique that you can make of those kinds of stores, but there is a special critique that you can make about Wal-Mart.

BKM: What is the basic critique of Wal-Mart? What happens when a Wal-Mart comes into a community?
CM: Wal-Mart is, as it claims, Main Street, USA. A forced Main Street. That is to say, it will be Main Street. Whatever was Main Street is no longer. In effect, Wal-Mart has declared war against Main Street and decided that they are going to replace Main Street. And that's what you have to principally understand about Wal-Mart and what makes Wal-Mart different from other megastores, like K-Mart and the other ones. They have a specific ideology about who they are. In effect it's saying that since the '50s, Main Street in this country has decayed. And there's truth to that. Wal-Mart is here to replace Main Street, what was Main Street, what was once vital. And again creating a way which would be acceptable to all people, and which would be available to all people. They're very positive about this in terms of their ideology. But in a sense they are declaring war against public space and what it means. They're there to make a dollar, nothing less and nothing more. So when this fellow called up and said, You know, I'd like to open a photo store in this shopping center, he immediately realized that wouldn't be worthwhile. Because Wal-Mart is Main Street, they have everything, every service possible, from investment counseling to optometry to food, whatever you would find on Main Street. It is the nation's largest retailer and it has such enormous buying power that those who would seek to resist it, that is to say, members of Main Street, owners of local stores, could not really sustain that kind of competition. Wal-Mart is capable of driving them out through pricing. So those Main Streets that were operative are put out of business by Wal-Mart.

BKM: You write that those who view land-use planning from a ecological perspective view much what was built in the past 50 years, quoting James Howard Kunstler, as depressing, brutal, ugly, unhealthy, and spiritually degrading the whole destructive, wasteful, toxic, agoraphobia-inducing spectacle that politicians proudly call growth. How do we as a society break this cycle of unregulated growth?
CM: What we're talking about is participating in local government. You have the opportunity to become involved and raise the issues. Don't sit back. More importantly, elect people who are going to be open to this, who are going to hear you and who aren't going to represent the developers. That's the only way it's going to change. Both sides know this. That's why we had somebody like Columbia Development [backers of the Wal-Mart plaza] getting defeated in New Paltz. Developers now know that if they come to New Paltz, they had better be concerned about the environmental impact of what they do, or they are not going to get it through. That's the way you change, and it has to start with participation of citizens at all levels, especially elections.

DP: And the political change is accompanied by a consciousness change. There has been a growing process in the last several decades as people have seen the effects of sprawl and become more aware generally of ecological issues. People are understanding that there is a trade-off between personal fulfillment through material advancement and appreciation of something like the Shawangunk Ridge, which cannot be duplicated and can be lost. And I also think understanding in a more sophisticated way how our quality of life is enhanced and maintained by the quality of life of non-human forms. It's a long process, and it has to be translated in some way into political forms.

BKM: In the conclusion of your book you paint a somewhat depressing picture when you describe the prospects of grassroots influencing the political process. You write that grassroots participatory democrats face not only a well-financed and politically-entrenched corporate state, but also popular opinion heavily-engineered every day in a thousand ways by government pronouncements, corporate propaganda, the media generally, consumerist culture, the cult of bureaucratic and scientific rationality, and sheer exhaustion to believe in free-market ideology and the legitimacy of those who dominate their existence. You further state: To attempt serious environmental protection within the present system is akin to seeking to improve conditions of slaves within the institution of slavery. Is the situation that bad?

CM: It is, in many ways. That isn't to say that there weren't slave rebellions. But resistance is difficult. If you think you re going to walk through [an environmental protection process] with rose colored glasses and you're going to stop the next Dallas, Texas from taking over your town because you have a strong belief system about what is proper, you re fooling yourself. I'll give you an example. Think about the town of Poughkeepsie. There was a point when there was a vibrant Main Street in the town of Poughkeepsie. And there was a project called the Poughkeepsie Galleria. The Poughkeepsie Galleria was going to be built by the Pyramid Company. Now, the Pyramid Company understood the politics of development. That is to say, when you build [the Galleria], you're going to destroy Main Street. In order to do that, you need to control the town of Poughkeepsie. So [Pyramid] put $800,000 into a local town board race in support of those candidates who said they were for the Poughkeepsie Galleria and against those candidates who were running as good planners. As a result, the people Pyramid paid to get elected were elected and they voted in favor of the Poughkeepsie Galleria. And it was the end of Main Street in Poughkeepsie. You have to be realistic that what you're dealing with here is not a bunch of first-graders. You're dealing with people who play hard ball and do what it takes to win. And if doing what it takes is illegal, as in Poughkeepsie, they'll figure out a way to get it done. What you're dealing with is an entrenched group of politicians—local politicians that need development as a way of sustaining themselves. And for an individual citizen or group of citizens to think that they are going to be able to withstand that successfully is looking at the world through rose-colored glasses.

DP: Obviously, we would not have written the book if we didn't think there was some possibility [for action]. It's not entirely gloomy. We do try to offer a step-by-step guide for people who want to use the seqra process. The potential is there. seqra is the single statute in the New York state system which allows the greatest potential for public input. So we wanted to show people how it was done but at the same time we realized that the actual success of the struggle in New Paltz was in part due to a variety of factors that we couldn't even anticipate. The system is basically stagnant, though there are some tools available to work within it. That contradiction is noted in our conclusion [to Megamall on the Hudson]. We have mixed minds about seqra. We support seqra, and those who go ahead and struggle against the things that are built in their communities through the seqra mechanism and other mechanisms, but at the same time, it is a very difficult system to influence.

SIDEBAR 1:
The Wal-Mart Effect

When a corporate developer like Wal-Mart comes to town, bad things tend to happen—not only visibly. Usually the largest losses are economic. The best way for a community to arm itself against a proposed development, says Dave Porter, is to research other communities that lost the fight against similar proposals and study the resulting developments' impacts on local economies. In the case of the New Paltz fight against Wal-Mart, the model of the community of St. Albans, Vermont, which failed to keep Wal-Mart out, was used. "Usually the developer gets tax rebates as part of the deal," Porter explains. "That allows them to have more benefits that end up undercutting smaller businesses in the area even further. With New Paltz, we found this out by looking at the Vermont case, and we got the support of downtown business associates and the Chamber of Commerce because they knew that it was critical economically to fight Wal-Mart."

Pay attention to "hidden" details that can easily be ignored: Will the proposed development require additional police and fire protection, or improvements to local highways, thus placing the burden of further municipal costs on local taxpayers? What will happen to buildings that will be abandoned in the wake of the project or as a result of the project's impact on local business? Will these buildings need rehabilitating? If so, who will pay for this?

Find an economic model in a similar community that failed in its fight against a similar development proposal, and study its economic impacts. Typically, says Porter, Wal-Mart "knocks out 20 percent of local businesses in its first year of operation, with an increasing amount of local businesses being lost in subsequent years as a ripple effect."

Study the proposed development's likely impact on the community's fiscal base, and don't take its supposed advantages for granted. For instance, says Porter, "One attraction of Wal-Mart is lower prices and more jobs, supposedly providing a better tax base for the community. The lower prices are mostly a myth. And if you look at it closely, you see that by wiping out local retailers, Wal-Mart means more jobs will be lost than gained. That means the fiscal base is not improved but is eroded."

Look at a proposal's economic impacts from all angles, including: any possible changes in property assessment values, tax base, and employment; projected sales from the proposed development compared to the sales rates of pre-existing stores and businesses; the proposed categories of retail compared with pre-existing ones; viability of pre-existing shopping centers and anchor stores.

Hire an economist to analyze the likely effects and to give expert testimony.

SIDEBAR 2:
Community Action

When faced with a proposal for development that is potentially threatening to local quality of life, a community needs to prepare itself before taking action. "Be conscious of the decision makers," says Dave Porter. "They are not an abstract body; they are real people who have been elected by the community to serve the community, and they live here beside you." In the end, he says, the success of community action depends upon the public's gaining familiarity with the details of the proposal, the relevant laws and regulations, and the officials involved. "Become as fully familiar as you can with the details of the proposal and those officials involved," Porter adds. "This way the public can learn to play a role in the decision-making process by listening to the comments of officials, and learning where they stand and what their interests are." Also, members of the public should not limit themselves to the project's most obvious impacts. As Porter points out, negative impacts can occur where they are least expected. For instance, in fighting Wal-Mart's coming to New Paltz, a traffic engineer found that not only would traffic pick up significantly in the village, causing pollution and traffic and parking problems, but that the increased traffic would cause local roads to have to be repaired at great expense to the taxpayer.

Become very familiar with the various pieces of local government: the town board, the planning and zoning boards, the central business association.

Research other communities' successful defeats of similar proposals and model your own fight after theirs.

Familiarize yourselves with all relevant laws and ordinances, local regulations, building and zoning codes, and seqra.

Get to know the official property files, and keep going back to check them. Note any additional documents or changes.

Attend every town, planning, and zoning meeting during which the proposal will be considered or discussed.

Retain an environmental expert to analyze the proposed development's impact on traffic rates, water and air quality, noise levels, soil quality, runoff, human population, and local plant and wildlife.

Contact the National Historic Trust in Washington, dc, in regard to its Main Street, usa program, which attempts to preserve the viability of Main Streets nationwide.