03-29-09 - Last week, as the Columbia County Board of Supervisors pondered the multiple options available to close and relocate the Pine Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, county residents mobilized in opposition.

Life has not been easy for county elected officials recently, especially the board's chairman, Art Baer (R-Hillsdale). Coming under fire for the decision to relocate the Department of Social Services six miles outside the county seat, the board was picketed by sign-carrying protesters and had its deliberations scrutinized by the regional media—a radical change from the controlled and almost mundane work environment the board usually enjoys.

Although not named, DeVito's senior campus idea was one of six potential initiatives included in the economic development plan created by Baldwin Bell Green, a New York-based management consultant firm, and presented to county lawmakers in September. Under that initiative, BBG projected a "chain reaction" of economic development from the senior campus that would include $6 million in new business, the employment of 107 people, and an additional $450,000 in revenue flowing to the county coffers.

But the decision for county lawmakers is not a simple "yes" or "no" to DeVito and his plan. As of last week, the board's Pine Haven Committee has at least six options to consider before the facility's future is decided.

Those options include:

For many, however, the Pine Haven move poses the fundamental question of whether economic development should be to the detriment of any one city, town, or village, or if in these challenging economic times, one locality should suffer as the result of decisions made by its county government.

Public opposition to the DeVito plan has grown steadily since word of Pine Haven's potential closure leaked late last fall. In the first public meeting coordinated by the plan's opponents, more than 50 people gathered Sunday afternoon at the Philmont Community Center to ask questions and express their resistance to an idea they believe will sacrifice jobs and create significant hardship for Pine Haven residents, its employees, and especially the Village of Philmont. Supervisor James Keegan (R-Claverack) and Supervisor John Musall (D-Hudson1) were present for the discussion; both serve on the Pine Haven Committee.

According to Robin Andrews, one of the event's organizers and a proponent of building the new campus in Philmont, the meeting was set up as a way for people to air their grievances and to offer the opportunity for organizers to engage directly with the community, recruit people to sign petitions, and make information available with the idea the facts must be shared countywide. "This is not just an issue for Philmont, it affects much of the county," she said.

To date, Philmont resident Al Wassenhove has almost singlehandedly collected more than 2,200 petition signatures in opposition to the facility closure and relocation. The governing boards of the villages of Valatie, Philmont, and Chatham, the Town of Claverack, and the City of Hudson have passed resolutions in opposition to the home's closure and relocation. A similar resolution is currently pending with the Ghent Town Board.

Opposition to the proposal centers on several points, including:

Jobs Critics argue that although elected officials claim the existing Pine Haven jobs will be moved not lost, the relocation will wipe out the largest employer in town and as a consequence, many, if not all, village businesses will feel the impact. What's more, a large number of Pine Haven employees live in Philmont and rent their homes, so there is the strong likelihood that if the facility goes north, many of the employees will leave Philmont, too.

Infrastructure Philmont's existing water and sewer systems were built to accommodate Pine Haven, and, according to Andrews, the system is still well below capacity. The Village of Valatie does not have a water and sewer system that can accommodate Pine Haven.

Loss of revenue If Pine Haven goes, so does its $60,000 a year water and sewer payment to the village, which, according to Andrews, covers a substantial portion of the debt still owed for the construction of the water and sewer plant in the 1970s. Without Pine Haven to help, that sum
will have to be shared by the 400+ Philmont households, a substantial financial burden, she said.

"If they do this, they will be ripping the heart out of Philmont," Andrews said Sunday. On any given day, Pine Haven's employees support village businesses. "There's also the rescue squad," she said. "Without Pine Haven, they will lose 50 percent of their revenue. And then there's the empty building," she said.

"With that kind of loss in Philmont, what is the net gain [for the county], by putting the facility in Kinderhook?" Andrew asked.

Information provided this week by Pine Haven Administrator Art Proper supported some of Andrews' concerns and indicated that home residents and employees do "come from the same places in the county."

• Forty-four percent of the facility's 159 current employees live in Hudson and 19.5 percent reside in Philmont, while only 4 percent live in Kinderhook and Valatie.

• Among the 118 current residents: 43 percent are from Hudson, and 11 percent are from Philmont. (Eleven percent come from outside the county.) Only 1 percent call Valatie home. None of Pine Haven's current residents are from Kinderhook.

Current and past Pine Haven employees and county residents—many from Philmont—contributed comments and questions to the conversation on Sunday.