Analyzing the dynamics of participation in Saratoga Springs’ land-use politics: the case for the qualitative homevoter coalition

Analyzing the dynamics of participation in Saratoga Springs land-use politics: the case for the qualitative homevoter coalition

Matthew Barnes Senior Thesis

April 17th, 2015

Table of Contents

I. Introduction & Literature Review II. Saratoga SpringsIII. Research Design & MethodologiesIV. City Center Parking Garage

Case Summary Analysis Results Brief Discussion

V. Comprehensive Plan Case Summary Analysis Results Brief Discussion

VI. CasinoCase Summary Analysis Results Brief Discussion

VII. ParticipationOverview Analysis Results Brief Discussion

VIII. DiscussionIX. Conclusions & Further ResearchX. Bibliography

1 5 8 10 10 15 16 18 20 20 23 26 30 32 32 38 39 42 44 44 45 47 54 55 58 60

I. Introduction & Literature Review 1

I. Introduction & Literature Review

An elaborated, comprehensive picture of political participation in small cities

remains in many ways a mystery within political science. The vast majority of the

literature tends to examine only the major metropolitan areas, and the extent to which

those conclusions apply to small cities is unclear. For my research, I draw upon three

major development decisions within Saratoga Springs that each became quickly and

intensely contested, pitting the long-dominant growth interests against an insurgent

array of actors I argue deserve classification as a qualitative homevoter coalition

(QHVC). The literature reviewed below fails to adequately explain with strong

quantitative support who actively participates in local politics, on an individual level, and

has thus failed to recognize the key unifying elements that I believe support my

proposed classifier QHVC. These elements, I find, converge around civically engaged,

wealthy homeowners with fairly homogenous definitions of good, or smart growth,

i.e. an overriding concern for the quality of development, over and against the sheer

number or frequency of it. The proposed term is further evinced by the unique spatial

analyses I use in this paper, which I believe signify a new methodological approach to

discussing and understanding political participation.

Dahls seminal study of New Haven put forth the argument that no one class or

group dominates the political process, a phenomenon he believed crucial to inculcating

democratic values . In the time since the work has suffered criticism on both 1

methodological and substantive bases, and its conclusions, especially a half-century

Dahl, Robert A. "The City in the Future of Democracy." American Political Science Review 61, 1no. 04 (1967): 970.


later, arguably dont hold up to closer scrutiny . Harvey Molotch and John Logans later 2

work depicted a world of city politics that revolved around land use, and which was

driven by and for development interests, i.e. the growth-machine coalition . Land, he 3

observed, is not a static resource, but a commodity that confers wealth and power and

thus serves as a competitive arena for regional growth-oriented elites. These elites 4

possess a natural incentive to form coalitions in the pursuit of their development goals

and seek to bend the political process in their favor, often to the exclusion of other

interest groups . As such, land-use regulations like zoning become tools that privilege, 5

rather than constrain, growth-machine elites . 6

Throughout the following decades, growth-machine scholars have worked to

keep the theory in step with changing trends in land use, particularly with respect to the

emergence of strong coalitions working against the unmitigated development pursued

by the long-dominant growth coalition. These coalitions have been able to largely direct

the focus away from uninterrupted growth and in certain cases, bring about a higher

valuation of open space, the environment, and other previously undervalued aspects of

place. In Lees Conservation as a Territorial Ideology, she identifies a powerful

conservation coalition in the Charleston region of South Carolina that developed

Domhoff, G. William. "Who really Ruled in Dahl's New Haven?" 2005b, Available Online at: 2Www.Whorulesamerica.Net (Accessed March 30th, 2015). Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place Univ 3

of California Press, 2007. Molotch, Harvey. "The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place." 4

American Journal of Sociology (1976): 309-332. Ibid.5

Been, Vicki, Josiah Madar, and Simon McDonnell. "Urban LandUse Regulation: Are 6Homevoters Overtaking the Growth Machine?" Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 11, no. 2 (2014): 233.


growth-machine-style relationships, with local media and were thus able to generate

public opposition to a development deal that, according to Molotchs original theory,

should have easily succeeded . At the same time she points to another example 7

wherein the growth coalition co-opted conservationist tropes and incorporated

environmental rhetoric into their framing of a development project, a strategy that

proved key to their eventual success. In sum, the two cases demonstrate the

malleability of environmental symbols in contestation over development projects and

show the continued relevance of growth-machine theory to contemporary local politics,

even if its central predictions do not necessarily hold true . 8

In contrast, Wiliam Fischels homevoter hypothesis attributes the majority of the

political power to residents, who closely observe the local political process and take

action they perceive as necessary to preserve the value of their largest asset, their

home . Virtually all local government decisions stand to affect home value and/or quality 9

of life in some way, and because of the difficulty in predicting exact consequences,

homeowners are structurally encouraged to distrust any change. In one of his books,

Fischel gives an example of a man arguing against a change that, in and of itself, didnt

bear much significance: hes not worried about the likely, expected effect of the

development, which was benign. Hes worried about the variance (statistical, not legal)

in the outcome . Any development constituted a threat to the value of his home, even 10

Lee, Caroline W. "Conservation as a Territorial Ideology." City & Community 8, no. 3 (2009): 7302. Ibid 322.8

Fischel, William A. The Homevoter Hypothesis Harvard University Press, 2009.9

Ibid. 10


if it didnt bear a real likelihood of depressing home values. In other words, theyre

exceptionally risk-averse, and are better able to inject their concerns into the political

process than others. Homeowners, he explains, participate in land-use decisions at a

rate disproportionate to their numerical presence in a given community; theyre more

likely to attend school-board meetings, vote, and, drawing upon more recent work, are

more likely to be involved in nonprofessional organizations and otherwise engaged in

civic life . They also tend to be wealthier and, as observed within Saratoga Springs, 11

capable of resisting development they feel threatens their quality of life while giving

selective encouragement to that which affirms their sense of sustainability and other

smart growth principles . Their behavior has a significant impact on local politics, 12 13

and for the most part their preferences are reflected in policy decisions over and against

other interest groups, largely by virtue of their unmatched ability to consistently

represent themselves at various meetings of local government. The attributes listed

above, combined with my findings, support my argument that at least within Saratoga

Springs, homevoters have a particular vision of growth and act through an array of

organizations to effect their vision, and thus deserve classification as a qualitative

homevoter coalition (QHVC).

DiPasquale, Denise and Edward L. Glaeser. "Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners 11Better Citizens?" Journal of Urban Economics 45, no. 2 (1999): 383.

Ellickson, Robert C. "Suburban Growth Controls: An Economic and Legal Analysis." Yale Law 12Journal (1977): 385-511.

Knudson, Paul T. "Preservationists as Qualitative Growth Actors A Case Study of Saratoga 13Springs, New York." Humanity & Society 36, no. 4 (2012): 326-353.


II. Saratoga Springs

For mid-size cities with a strong developer class and wealthy residents theres a

persistent difficulty in predicting who possesses the advantage. The city of Saratoga

Springs is not exactly a suburb, the residential type most often applied to the homevoter

hypothesis, but nor is it a major urban area, where the growth machine is most often

expected to prevail . As of 2010 it had a population of 26,586 and exists within the 14

Albany-Schenectady-Troy Metropolitan Area, which as of the same year had a

population of 835,613. During the mid-19th century the city became a vacation

destination for wealthy industrialists, who believed the natural springs provided health

benefits, and amenities like the thoroughbred racetrack, Roosevelt Baths and Spa,

Yaddo arts community, and Skidmore College emerged as byproducts . Throughout the 15

second half of the twentieth century, middle-class residents began migrating to

Saratoga County in droves; between 1970 and 1980, the population increased by

26% . In consequence, the supply of housing vastly expanded and thus the long-stable 16

patterns of land-use began to change. Over the next few decades the aggressive

growth that had defined Saratoga receded, and between 2000 and 2010 the city

experienced a much more modest growth rate of 1.5%, from 26,186 to 26,586 . 17

Largely because of the aggressive residential development that characterized

Saratoga in the later 20th century, the availability of open space declined in the same

Kelleher, Christine A. and David Lowery. "Central City Size, Metropolitan Institutions and 14Political Participation." British Journal of Political Science 39, no. 01 (2009): 70.

Knudson, 332.15

Ibid.16

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2011. Retrieved March 5th, 2015 (http://www.census.gov).17


period. In 1986, the county planning board found only 25% of developable land

remained, and this trend continued apace through the end of the century . The 18

direction of development elicited concern from the public, and precipitated the desire for

the creation of a document to guide present and future land use decisions, a desire that

manifested in the establishment of the comprehensive plan process. After two years of

deliberation, the first iteration was released in 1987 to a mixed reaction on the part of

those voicing concerns over the citys development patterns, a group mostly constituted

by Democrats . In a city with a Republican mayor, majority position on City Council, 19

and majority representation across the population, the plan was approved despite their

objections. To better represent their interests, an organization emerged from the

opposition, the Saratoga Springs Open Space Project (OSP). A decade prior, some of

those involved in the OSP had founded the Saratoga Springs Historic Preservation

Foundation, a group still active in city land management that works to protect parts of

the city it believes possess historic value. The principal individuals from both the OSP

and Historic Preservation Foundation constituted an elite group of actors working to

exert qualitative influence on the growth of the city, or as described by Knudson,

functioned as qualitative growth actors . The moment marked a significant shift in the 20

disposition of city residents towards growth and evinced a newfound capacity to impact

the political process.

Responding to the concerns raised by these qualitative growth actors, the city

and county initiated efforts to curb aggressive development and halt the decay that had

Knudson, 332.18

Ibid, 333.19

Ibid, 335.20


come to define the downtown by the mid 1980s. Almost half of the retail space along the

main street, Broadway, was empty, and all signs seemed to point to the citys continuing

decline. Recognizing this, community members organized certain initiatives and lobbied

City Council in hopes of shifting the city trajectory. The City Center, which initially only

operated for approximately six months, was financed through the sale of bonds to local

residents in small denominations, and has since become a year-round event space. In

tandem with the mounting success of the City Center, Saratoga Springs has changed

significantly over the last several decades. In sharp contrast to years prior, retail along

Broadway is now a highly competitive market and just outside the city, the racetrack is

performing relatively well. During the 2015 six-week racing season, the Saratoga

County Industrial Development Agency found the track generated $237 million in

economic activity across the greater metropolitan area, and the city itself collected $6.8

million in taxes . Yet, the towns past weighs heavily on current residents, as became 21

clear from the interviews I conducted. Many referenced the poor economic conditions

that typified the late 20th century and were keen to communicate the importance of

historical context in motivating their opinions on growth, no matter which side they stood

on.

As such, Saratoga Springs remains driven heavily by tourism, and its land-use

decisions in part reflect this. Over the past decade the city has undergone a significant

demographic shift as new residents are overwhelmingly Democratic, with strongly held

values that place them in conflict with the more Republican heritage of the area. The

New Democrats, as theyre sometimes called, seem to have genuinely impacted local

Robert Camoin, Dan Stevens. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Saratoga Race 21Cource: 2014 Update: Saratoga County Industrial Development Agency, 2015.


development through newer organizations that in many ways channel the concerns of a

new set of actors I argue for classification as the qualitative homevoter coalition

(QHVC). Still, the penetration of these new actors vis-a-vis that of the growth coalition

remains opaque, as does a clear and nuanced understanding of their motivations.

Without evidence collected contemporaneously to the realtime unfolding of land-use

decisions, understanding the demographic makeup and values of these actors is

difficult.

III. Research Design & Methodologies

In recognition of this unfulfilled necessity, I set out to analyze the features of and

participants in Saratoga Springs land-use politics by utilizing several approaches to

examine the political process that surround three major development decisions. These

particular decisions practically guaranteed growth that in some form or another would

provide tax revenue, jobs, and augment the population. At the outset of each they were

considered essentially inevitable, and yet somehow either faltered or failed outright. To

explain why, I use several methodologies. Six semi-structured interviews were

conducted with residents that to various degrees either represented environmental/

conservationist interests, growth interests, had worked within city government, or were

some combination thereof. In order to identify interview candidates I used a combination

of snowball sampling, social media pages, and information from meeting observations.

For the six I was able to meet with, I developed my questions to largely focus on the

interviewees thoughts on mobilization, issue framing, and their broader goal of

influencing policy outcomes. The table below shows where the interviewees fall in terms

of their growth preferences.


To understand how these events unfolded I draw on newspaper accounts, which

I also interrogate longitudinally for patterns in the media coverage of them. Within the

narrow research time frame available, small-sample surveys were conducted at three

city government meetings, chosen because of their relevance to the particular topics

examined for this research. At these meetings observations were made on the

composition of the public comment participants, in part aided by agendas, minutes, and

webcasts hosted online. I also make use of data gathered by Bob Turners students

during the 2013 election cycle relating to both the mayoral campaign and the casino.

These polls, I believe, represent a significant methodological contribution to the

literature insofar as they provide uniquely quantitative insight into the patterns of

participation and political biases that manifest in local politics as they play out in real

time. A further contribution I believe significant are the mapping efforts I have

undertaken here to gain insight into the geospatial dimensions of local land-use.

Drawing on county assessor rolls, I show where the board members of various

organizations live within the city so as to better evaluate for any demographic patterns

of land-use actors that might exist.

QHVC Growth Machine

Charlie Samuels SAVE Saratoga Co-Founder

Kathleen Fyfe VP at Chamber of Commerce

Amy Durland VP of Sustainable Saratoga

Bill McTygue Former Public Works Commissioner

Colin Klepetar SAVE Saratoga Co-Founder

Todd Garafano President of the Chamber of Commerce

Mark Baker President of the City Center

IV. City Center Parking Garage 10

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV, i. Case Summary

Built in 1984, the Saratoga Springs City Center emergedat a time when the citys

downtown was struggling to maintain a critical mass of economic activity and the

businesses that lined the main road were leaving in droves.To finance the project the

City Council at the time raised sales taxes for a year and half, sold bonds, and used

insurance money from an old convention hall, efforts that in sum raised the five million

dollars necessary . Apublic authority was created, and a board of directors now 22

constitutes the Centers decision-making body. They hostnumerous events every year

andin 2012Mark Baker, the president, submitted a proposal to the City Council to

construct a 500-space parking garage . He argued that the existing 188-space lot, 23

used by multiple groups, was insufficient to meet thegrowingpressureoccasioned by

the additional activity . Because the land in question is city-owned, the City Center 24

proposed a twenty-year lease to the City Council . At the time, the proposal was 25

treated as an apolitical issue unlikely to trigger any kind of opposition; the Republican

MayorScott Johnson described it as an innovative project, and the council approved

the concept the same night Mark Baker proposed it . Moreover, the timeline he 26

delineated envisioned project completion by 2014.

Mark Baker, interview by Matthew Barnes. January 2015. 22

McCarty, Lucian. "Saratoga Springs City Center Proposes Parking Garage for Convention 23Center." The Saratogian, November 20th, 2012.

Ibid.24

Ibid.25

Ibid.26


After the initial proposal was submitted owners of a nearby restaurant, the

Mouzon House, began to express discontentment with certain aspects, particularly with

respect to the possibility that it could overshadow their building .The garage would fit 27

between the City Center and the restaurant, while still significantly above the latter

because of a sharp incline and additionally separated by York Street. Some features of

the restaurant rely on sun exposure, like the open deck, hanging gardens, and solar

panels, and thus the owners were concerned that they would become useless if the

garage cast too long and large a shadow. At the first City Council meeting following the

November 20th proposal, on December 15th, Mark Baker stated it would be set back

from the street by seventy feet, and thus would not overshadow the Mouzon House . In 28

October of 2013, a commissioner mentioned as an aside that: once the City Center

parking is built, parking wont be a long term issue, but otherwise the project didnt

become especially visible until the following May, in 2014, when the owners of the

Mouzon House sent out an emailarticulatingtheir issues with the structure . Therein, 29

they warned that theplan is being fast tracked without any community input, and

argued that as proposed it riskedblocking the Mouzon House from the street and

shading the gardens .30

The next month, the City Center released renderings of the project and

presented them at a City Council meeting. During the public comment, members of the

Grey, Jennie. "Mouzon House Owners Concerned Proposed City Center Parking Garage may 27Overshadow Restaurant." The Saratogian, December 15th, 2012,

Ibid.28

Ibid.29

Unknown. "Mouzon House Warns Against Adjacent 4-Story Garage." The Saratogian, May 3020th, 2014.


family that owns the Mouzon House spoke to express their points of contention, while

eachoffered that even so "they are not opposed to the parking garage . Moreover, 31

Baker put forth amarkedly protracted new timetable, with project completion refigured

for the summer of 2015, a full year later than originally stated. At the same meeting, he

submitted a formal request for the city to delegateto the City Center lead agency status

in the SEQRA review process, a request that was denied by way of a resolution that

instead opted to put forth the Planning Board as a viable candidate . The Mouzon 32

House owners and family members were again present, and during the public comment

period argued for the city to assume lead agency and highlighted something that hadnt

yet receivedmedia attention; that the City Center was aggressively pursuing the parking

structure in large part to acquire competitiveness against the incoming Racino,

something that at the time was still taken as an inevitability . Several days later, 33

Sustainable Saratoga expressed qualified support for the project, saying they

encouragethe project to move forward, albeit with atransparent process and design

principlesthat are cohesive with the citys current structure and design, with the

obvious implication that thus far such had been lacking . Meanwhile, Baker reiterated 34

thestructures role in help[ing] fulfill the constant need for parking .35

City Council of Saratoga Springs. Ciy Council Meeting Agenda. June 17th, 2014.31

"Planning Board Weighs Lead Role in Parking Garage Proposal." The Saratogian, July 5th, 322014.

City Council of Saratoga Springs. City Council Meeting Agenda. July 1st, 2014.33

Mineau, Lauren. Spa City Planning Board to Seek Lead Agency Status in Garage Project." 34The Saratogian, July 10th, 2014.

Ibid.35


In September a joint Planning Board and Design Review Commission meeting

was held to "begin the environmental impact review process, review the projects

applicationandcollect public comment . It proved to be the most contentiousand 36

well-attended meeting relating to the parking garage to date, with the Mouzon House

owners presenting a petition with three hundred signatures and various residents

participating in the public comment period to express concern or opposition. Following

the meeting, Mark Baker again revised his timelines, with construction now slated to

begin in early 2015, and included the caveat if approved at the joint meeting . At 37

another meeting a month later, the overall mood of the public comment period was

described as not supportive, and the Planning Board chairman stated the comments

resonated with him and noted the current design doesnt allow for future growth and

flexibility . At the following months meetingin November, the chairman argued the 38

structurewouldpose a moderate to large impact during the EIS review, and public

comment was againlargely opposed.

Even so, at the end of theSEQR process the Planning Board declared a

negative finding by a vote of 5-1, meaning they found the proposal posed no significant

environmental impact. The Mouzon House continued to oppose the project, while one

Planning Board member said they will thrive with this .Thedissenting vote was cast 39

Mineau, Lauren. Combined Land use Board Meeting Planned for City Center Garage 36Project." The Saratogian, September 16, 2014.

Ibid.37

Mineau, Lauren. Saratoga Springs City Center Parking Deck Plan Faces Opposition." The 38Saratogian, October 23, 2014.

Dimopolous, Thomas. The Morning Wire: Board OKs Saratoga Parking Garage - some 39Spaces Lost, Net Gain = 292 Spots." The Saratoga Wire, December 11th, 2014.


by the chairman, who had already expressed reservations, and at the meeting made

specific reference to the single-use nature of the project, as opposed to mixed-use,

stating that as such it was out of character with the surrounding properties . Withthe 40

conclusion of the SEQR the proposal moved to review by the Design Review

Commission (DRC) and the Zoning Board of Appeals (DBA),all still prior to discussion

by City Council.

In January of the following year, the City Centers legal counsel sought a zoning

variance for the parking structure from the ZBA, necessitated by the structures

interference with the Mouzon Houses solar access. The shadow it stood to cast on the

panels triggered zoning protections afforded to buildings that use them; speaking on the

issue, the attorney described the panels ashavingan inconsequential benefit for the

restaurant, and therefore an insufficient reason to block the proposal . Without the 41

variance, the City Center would be constrained to building a twenty-eight foot garage,

instead of seventy feet.Over the next several months, the ZBA repeatedly failed to

thoroughly review the application; at each meeting discussion transpiredwithout any

decisions.

Meanwhile, Sustainable Saratoga organized two successive speakers events in

late January. Both were experts and both discussed the value of introducing a

meteredsystem, whether based on time or money, something that either way Saratoga

Springs still lacks due to longstanding community support for free parking. The first

Mineau, Lauren. Saratoga Springs City Center Garage Plan Moves Forward." The 40Saratogian, December 11th, 2014.

Mineau, Lauren. Parking Forums Spark Discussion, City Center Garage Still Under Review." 41The Saratogian, January 23rd, 2015,


speaker, a Cornell professor and nationally recognized parking expert, was especially

insistent in arguing that often cities dont lack an adequate supply of parking, but rather

chronically mismanage it, and that building additional garages is an outdated mode of

addressing the problem. Both pointed to other cities, like Springfield, Massachusetts,

and Syracuse, New York, as examples of the costs of an overaggressive expansion of

the parking supply. The sum message cast doubt on the assumptions that City Center

leaders and even the general public otherwise treated as basic truths. While before

parking was seen as obviously insufficient, Sustainable Saratoga injected radically

different ideas into the mainstream discourse surrounding the project.

IV, ii. Analysis

At the October 22nd Planning Board meeting, I distributed a short, four-question

survey meant to assess the attendees opinions regarding a notional parking garages

importance to the City Center and Saratoga Springs, and the one specifically under

review that night. The likert-scale responses to each question are shown below, in

figures 1-4. For contextual purposes I include the average occupancy rate of the City

Center from its first year of operation to the present, set against limited data from Price

Waterhouse-Coopers reports on national trends in convention centers.


IV, iii. Results

Fig. 2 A New Parking Garage Will Bring More People Downtown to Shop (n=27, df=4)

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree

18.5%18.5%18.5%22.2%22.2%

Fig. 1 A New Parking Garage Is Necessary to Help The City Center Expand (n=27, df=4)


24.0%40.0%

12.0%4.0%20.0%

Fig. 3 There Are Not Enough Parking Spaces Downtown (n=27, df=4)


29.6%33.3%

7.4%7.4%22.2%


Across the first three questions, which aim to assess respondents views on the

state of parking within Saratoga Springs, theres a somewhat even distribution of

answers. Still, 64% feel that a parking garage is necessary for the City Centers

expansion, even though only 37% believe the structure would generate additional

economic activity downtown, against 44.8% who dont. In terms of the overall supply of

Fig. 5 Average City Center Occupancy Rates, 1984-2014

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Average City Center Occupancy Rate National Average 07-12

Fig. 4 The Proposed Parking Plan Being Discussed Tonight is an Acceptable Addition to Downtown (n=27, df=4)


18.5%0%3.7%11.1%

66.7%


parking downtown, a clear majority of 62.9% do agree its insufficient, while just 29.6%

are content. Despite the general dissatisfaction with parking in the city, an overwhelming

77.8% found the specific plan under review unacceptable. Within Figure 4, the answers

are noticeably polarized; 85.2% of answers are concentrated at either end of the

spectrum, although just under a quarter considered the plan acceptable. Those

surveyed agreed that in broad terms, Saratoga Springs supplies insufficient parking and

were even willing to say the City Centers successful expansion hinged on a new

parking garage, despite seeing no potential benefit for the downtown. Specific to the

garage proposed by the Center, however, they reacted strongly against it, feeling that

the project was unacceptable within the broader landscape of downtown.

IV, iv. Brief Discussion

The mostly homogenous response to the last survey question seems unlikely to

accurately reflect the opinion of the general public, and thus instead may indicate a

more narrowly focused group dominated the attendance that night. Given I surveyed

almost everyone in attendance, I believe the uniformity of responses to the last question

is significant, and speaks to the capacity of the QHVC to mobilize effectively. By many

metrics, the parking garage was initially considered a positive addition to downtown,

and the City Centers enormously successful record in its own right (Fig. 5) and

relationship to the overall economic boom of the city provided powerful testimony to the

assured value of its next stage of expansion. The Centers leaders could make a strong

case for the linkages between the downtowns resurgence and the success of the

Center, and framed the garage as part of a continuing strategy intrinsically linked to the

future viability of Saratogas core.


Not only did QHVC actors effectively represent themselves at the meeting above,

but took significant steps in contesting the narrative offered by the City Center. In

hosting the two expert speakers in quick succession and utilizing their networks to

ensure the attendance of city officials, Sustainable Saratoga shifted the discursive locus

to bring quasi-sacrosanct values of the city, like the provision of free parking, into

question. Indeed, Amy Durland articulated that the purpose of hosting things like the

parking forums was to try to change the thinking about how people see some ofthese

issues. They seem to have succeeded, as the interviewees who attended the speakers

events were clearly impacted by these ideas, and they brought them up several times.

Even Bill McTygue, who worked closely with developers during his tenure as a city

commissioner, explicitly mentioned the events and echoed many of the points made at

each. Specifically, he argued that a single-use structure like the one proposed by the

City Center was obsolete, that for smart-growth oriented communities, theyre just not

building stand-alone parking garages anymore.

The parameters of the conversation shifted dramatically between the initial

proposal in 2012 and the ZBAs rejection in late March. While opposition originated with

the Mouzon House, it quickly expanded and leadership shifted to actors more firmly

within the QHVC, with organizations like Sustainable Saratoga taking strategic action to

instrumentalize the proposal into an opportunity to reframe the discourse of

development and parking in the city. Certain ideas that sprung from the two experts

have now entered the mainstream, and thus may shape future decision making in

accordance with the preferences of the QHVC while simultaneously constraining the

growth machine.


V. Comprehensive Plan

V, i. Case Summary

Everyfive years, the city charter dictates city government revisit the Comprehensive

Plan", the document thatbroadly sets the direction thecity should take over the next

decade. In 2001, this process served to give the City Council with a planand a newer

iteration has failed to receive confirmation by City Council in the time since. In 2013 the

Republican then-Mayor Scott Johnson announced the formation of the committee

responsible for creating the new plan, and attracted subsequent criticism from

Democratic council members over the perceived lack of transparency and inclusion in

the formation process, resulting in what they alleged to be a committee unfairly

balanced toward development interests . By April the appointment process had been 42

agreed upon, and over the next two years the committee met nineteen times . Briefly, 43

in June of 2014, languageproposed for inclusion that could have allowed for

development within residential districtsspurred residents to appear at meetings and

voice their opposition, and in response the committee members quicklybacktracked . 44

Otherwise, the process unfolded fairly smoothly until their second-to-last meeting, at

which they discussed a newly proposed amendment that would allow Planned Unit

Developments within the citys greenbelt. The greenbelt was incorporated into the last

comprehensive plan and defined certain areas outside the city downtown as

McCarty, Lucian. "Mayor Completes Saratoga Springs Comprehensive Plan Committee, 42Council Democrats Say the Slate is DOA." The Saratogian, February 7th, 2013.

Dimopoulos, Thomas. "Awkward Position of Comp. Plan." The Saratoga Wire, January 23rd, 432015.

"PUD Resolution OKd; Measure Subject to Public Hearings, Final Action." The Saratogian, 44December 2nd, 2014,


Conservation Development Districts, which constrained high-density development

andserved to preserve Saratogas identity as a City in the Country .The amendment 45

was introducedand recommended by MJ Consulting, a firm hired as a partner in the

comprehensive planning process, and a divide quickly emerged between the developer

and homeowner interests within the committee . The former argued that enabling 46

PUDs within the CDDs provided an additional legal tool to the zoning boards and City

Council, and that it aligned with the extant city identity . The latter arguedthat by 47

refraining from continuing to prohibit PUD applications, it would become much more

difficult for the necessary citizen groups and government bodies to sufficiently organize

against the many requests that were sure to come,and that the caveats in the proposed

language were insufficient constraints . These arguments played out over the initial 48

meeting, both during public commentperiod and inter-member discussion, and resulted

in a 7-6 vote to include the language, a vote that roughly aligned with the party affiliation

of their respective appointers, i.e. the appointees of the former Republican Mayor Scott

Johnson and City Council member Skip Scirocco voted for PUDs, while the appointees

of Democrat City Council members voted against, with just two exceptions.

In sharp retort, City Council members on December 2nd unanimously passed a

preemptive resolution stating their opposition toallowing PUDs within the greenbelt . It 49

Webcast of November 17th Meeting. Comprehensive Plan Committee. City of Saratoga 45Springs, 2014.

Ibid.46

Ibid.47

Ibid.48

Dimopolous, Thomas. The Morning Wire: City Unanimously Approves Resolution to Protect 49Greenbelt from Development." The Saratoga Wire, December 3rd, 2014,


was a purely symbolic motionmeant to signify that in the event the language remained

in the committees final draft, it likely would be removed. The following day, the swing

vote" comprehensive plan committee memberpublished an op-ed in The Saratogian

explaining his reasonings for voting to allow PUDs . He argued that their prohibition at 50

the Comp Plan level overly restricts the City Council and denies them a full set of

tools . Several dayslater, two major development figures released a statement 51

referring to PUDs in a similar way, as a creative planning tool, but went further in

stating thatcontinuing to prohibit PUDs was a path of economic destruction and

continued sprawl, and calling Sustainable Saratoga a nogrowth crowd . The second 52

assertion was countered several weeks later in an op-ed by the organization, in which

they argued that they supported certain low-density development in the outer district . 53

At a public hearing on the comprehensive plan after the council meeting onDec 9th,

those in attendance largely spoke against the amendment, arguing that it would allow

sprawland ran counter to Saratogas identity, while the fewer supporters spoke on its

flexibility as a planning tool.

At the final Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting nine days later, the

committee voted to suspend operations and forward its materials to the City Council,

Totino, Jamin. "CPC Vice Chair Offers Explanation of PUD Vote." The Saratogian, December 503rd, 2014.

Ibid.51

Mineau, Lauren. "City Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Set for Tuesday." The Saratogian, 52December 7th, 2014, 2014

Moran, Harry. "Readers View: Support for Sustainability and Smart Land use." The 53Saratogian, January 16th, 2015,


including fifty-three unreviewed amendments . The particular approach taken by the 54

committee was unusual as they provided no formal recommendation, which obfuscated

the ensuing legal responsibilities of the City Council . Under normal circumstances the 55

City Council would be required to hold a public hearing on the plan within 90 days, but

instead was left unbound to any timeline . Nevertheless, it held the first of four public 56

hearings on February the 24th, at which certain council members appeared to

demonstrate newfound flexibility with respect to the amendments . In recognition of the 57

manifold negative associations that now accompanied the term PUDs, largely due to the

efforts of Sustainable Saratoga, the growth coalition proposed a more limited rezoning

they termed a resort overlay district, which would enable the Saratoga National golf

course to build a resort on their property. While for a time the new term seemed more

amenable to certain council members, the proposal was unanimously rejected at the

final workshop on April 14th . 58

V, ii. Analysis

Drawing on growth machine theory, one would predict that the development

coalitions interests would have significant or even majority representation on relevant

boards and committees. Moreover, the tightly organized coalition is predicted to be most

adept at mobilizing its members to attend meetings of city government because of the

Dimopoulos, Thomas. "Friday Wire: Comprehensive Plan Committee Punts November Draft 54to City Council." The Saratoga Wire, December 19th, 2014,

Ibid.55

Ibid.56

Mineau, Lauren. City Council Agrees on most of Comprehensive Plan Amendments." The 57Saratogian, February 25th, 2015.

Mineau, Lauren. City Council vetoes Saratoga National Golf Club resort plan. The 58Saratogian, April 14th, 2015.


strong incentive to look after and advance their financial interests . Insofar as the 59

Comprehensive Plan process, I found that the committees first iteration proposed by

the mayor was decidedly weighted towards the growth machine, and that the final

iteration produced by the City Councils protests did moderately diminish their

representation. To assess this, I grouped individuals employed by architectural firms,

realty firms, chambers of commerce, and other firms with a vested interested in

development together as part of the growth machine. Those who served on the boards

of organizations like Sustainable Saratoga I classified as part of the QHVC, and the few

to which it proved difficult to connect with either coalition were left as unaffiliated actors

(Fig.s 6,7).

In order to better understand the characteristics of those who attended certain

meetings of city government key to the Comprehensive Plan process, I distributed an

anonymous survey at the December 2nd City Council meeting and the December 9th

committee meeting. At the first, the City Council discussed PUDs in reaction to the

Comprehensive Plan committees recent vote to amend their working draft to allow for a

process by which developers could apply for PUDs within the outer district, and

ultimately passed a resolution articulating their opposition to the change. At the

comprehensive plan committee meeting a week later, members voted to table

discussion and forward all documents to the City Council, with the PUDs process

included. In the survey, I first asked whether the respondent owned or rented their

home, and for comparative purposes I show the proportion of homeowners and renters

within Saratoga Springs based on the 2010 US Census alongside the survey results

Been, et al. 233.59


(Fig. 8). Additionally, I asked how many meetings they had attended in the last year so

as to better understand how likely they were to have engaged with other issues, and if

they could be reasonably considered active in local politics (Fig. 9). Although the n value

changed significantly between the first and second meeting, the absolute number

present at each was roughly similar.

In conjunction with these preceding two questions, I asked a series of Likert-

scale questions to asses their views on the broader trajectory of development within the

city and with respect to PUDs, specifically (fig.s 10-13). For the December 9th meeting,

I revised the survey to include one additional question, intended to give a more explicit

indication of levels of support for one of the more high-profile QHVC-affiliated

organizations, Sustainable Saratoga (fig.14). I also recorded the public comment

periods at both meetings, and grouped those who participated based on whether their

comment dealt with PUDs and if so, whether they supported or opposed them (Tables

1,2).

Lastly, data taken from a 2013 survey of voters in the city-wide election is

displayed to illustrate the high saliency of open space across the electorate, for which it

ranks as the third-most important issue, behind only casino and taxes (fig. 15). The

casino was a particularly time-sensitive issue, so its arguable that its saliency has since

waned and taxes and open space are now most important issues to voters.


V, iii. Results

fig. 6 Final Committee

36%

14%

50%

Growth MachineUnaffiliatedQHVC

fig. 7 Johnson-Appointed

23%

8%69%

Growth MachineUnaffiliatedQHVC

Fig. 8 Do You Rent or Own?

12/2 City Council Meeting (N=45) 12/9 Comp. Plan Committee Meeting (N=26) City Proportion

64.3%

96.0%84.4%

Own

Fig. 9 In the past year, how many City Council or planning committee meetings have you attended?

Meetings attended0 1-2 3-5 6+

46.2%

19.2%30.8%

3.8%

37.8%

22.2%24.4%15.6%

12/2/15 City Council Meeting (N=45) 12/9/15 Comp. Plan Committee Meeting (N=24)


Fig. 10 Strong Planning Regulations are Necessary to Prevent Sprawl


62.5%

4.2%16.7%12.5%4.2%

90.0%

7.5%0.0%2.5%0.0%


Fig. 11 Development can be Managed Effectively to Encourage Tax Growth


25.0%37.5%

12.5%0.0%25.0%

55.6%

27.8%

11.1%0.0%5.6%


Fig. 12 Allowing PUDs in the greenbelt will diminish Saratogas City in the Country concept


54%

4%13%13%17%

88%

10%0%0%6%

December 2nd Planning Board Meeting (N=36)December 9th City Council Meeting (N=24)


Fig. 13 The Comp. Plan Committees proposal for PUDs is a reasonable compromise that balances the need to grow and preserve

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree12.5%12.5%16.7%12.5%

45.8%

13.2%0.0%7.9%5.3%

73.7%


Fig. 14 Are you a member or supporter in any way of Sustainable Saratoga?

Never Heard Of It No Yes

69.2%

19.2%11.5%

12/9/15 Comp. Plan Committee Meeting (N=26)

Table 2 12/2 Public Comment

Spoke on PUDS 19Against 19 100%For 0 0%

Spoke on Unrelated Topic 2 NASpoke Total 21 NA

Table 1 12/9 Public Comment

Spoke on PUDS 20Against 12 60%For 8 40%Of For, those affiliated with the growth machine

6 (75%)

Spoke on Unrelated Topic 3 NASpoke Total 23 NA


The picture that emerges from these surveys depicts the meetings attendees as

almost entirely homeowners who have attended a number of City Council or committee

meetings in the last year. Moreover, their politics appear heavily homogenized insofar

as the function and necessity of regulations to control sprawl, overall attitudes toward

PUDs, and opinions of the Comprehensive Plan committees specific proposal to allow

them. A relative degree of diversity of views did manifest in the responses shown in

Figure 11, especially at the December 9th meeting, with respondents appearing more

divided in their opinion of developments relationship to tax growth. In terms of

differences between the first and second meeting, it appears there was a greater

degree of homogenization among attendants of the former, relative to the latter. While

90% at the first strongly agreed insofar as the utility of strong planning regulations,

those at the second were somewhat less uniform, with only 63% indicating they strongly

agreed. This trend persists across the questions, too, with a more moderate cumulative

response at the second meeting recorded for each, and is additionally reflected in tables

Fig. 15 Voter Issue Saliency in 2013 City Election

0%

12.5%

25%

37.5%

50%

Issue CategoryCasino Taxes Preserving Open Space Transparency Crime Other

16%14%8%

13%

26%23%

9%7%12%

16%

23%

33%

Issue #1Issue #2


one and two, which show the substantive change in the public comments between the

two meetings. Even so, respondents still overwhelmingly identified as supporters or

members of Sustainable Saratoga, at 69%, in stark contrast to the 19.2% that

responded negatively (Fig. 14).

V, iv. Brief Discussion

Because the meeting on the 9th was known in advance to be the Comprehensive

Plan Committees last, and perhaps because of the City Councils resolution against

PUDs passed the week before, development interests attended in somewhat greater

number. While at the City Council meeting public comment had been uniformly

opposed, public comment was precisely balanced among those who spoke about

PUDs, largely because some of the citys dominant realtors, bankers, and businessman

appeared to express their support for the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan draft.

In a way the City Council meeting wasnt, this last committee meeting became highly

salient to developer interests; as Kathleen Fyfe of the Chamber of Commerce

mentioned in an interview in response to a question posed about these changes in

representation: [w]hen things really start to bubble up I think you can see a sway, and a

change. Still, assuming that the December 9th meeting acquired developer interest

absent at the first, they nevertheless failed to mobilize support even partially

comparable to their opposition. It appears that the homevoters who constitute the

QHVC possess an almost absolute organizational advantage in their capacity to

maintain a significant presence at meetings.

The classical advantage of the growth machine is their capacity to relentlessly

pursue their objectives, a characteristic widely observed and exemplified here by their


rapid transition from seeking to allow PUDs to introducing a resort overlay district.

Inside the political process it's assumed they hold the advantage, that they likely enjoy

greater access to policymakers and agenda-setters vis-a-vis citizen groups. Yet, QHVC

actors overwhelmingly pack city meetings with their constituents, which likely drives

down the significance of the growth machines historically unrivaled access. Nor is it

necessarily true that access remains so asymmetrical; as Amy Durland said: I think it's

fair to say that Sustainable Saratoga has very good access to any of the

commissioners. Thus, the QHVC arguably outmatched the growth machine not only 60

within the public arena, but throughout the dense political process that characterized the

drafting of the Comprehensive Plan.

Neither appear particularly representative of the broader population. 46% of

those surveyed during the 2013 election cycle listed taxes as either their first or second

priority, compared to the 26% that reported the same of open space. Set against the

70% of survey respondents at the December 9th meeting who identified as supporters

of Sustainable Saratoga, and the record of public comment at both, the discrepancy is

obvious. Combined with the similarly disproportionate presence of homeowners at both

meetings, figures eight through fourteen and tables one and two best describe the

somewhat narrower class represented at these meetings and almost certainly fail to

illustrate the values and opinions of a median citizen.

Interview with Amy Durland, by Matthew Barnes. Conducted Jan, 29th, 2015.60


VI. Casino

VI, i. Case Summary

At the beginning of 2012 in his State of the State Address, Cuomo argued for a

constitutional amendment to allow forfull-scale gaming in New York State, framing his

proposal as a bridge to close the budget gapand a necessary step to compete against

New Yorks neighbors, who had all already passed similar measures . A bill passed 61

both houses that year, but time constraints prevented a referendum, the second step

required in amending the State Constitution . Thus, in 2013, another bill was passed 62

just before the summer recessand astatewide referendum scheduled for

November .In its final form, the legislation allowed for four newcasinos distributed 63

across three regions,which were the Capital District-Saratoga region, the Hudson

Valley-Catskill area, and the Southern Catskills . Up until the November vote, 64

newspaper articles and other widely available references to the casino amendment

treated the likelihood of a siting within Saratoga Springs as an inevitability, given the

advantage provided by the extant racino and assumed high level of public support. An

article in The Saratogian, published in August, stated:Its believed that one would be

Post, Paul. "Gov. Cuomo Bets on Constitutional Amendment Legalizing Full-Scale Gambling 61in the Empire State: Area Lawmakers Want Details before Deciding Gaming Issue." The Saratogian, January 3rd, 2012.

Hill, Michael. "Analysis: Likelihood of Cuomo Getting 3 Upstate Casinos." The Saratogian, 62January 13th, 2013.

Hughes, Kyle. "State Legislature Approves Amendment that would Allow for Las Vegas-Style 63Gambling in New York; Voters to Decide on Measure in November." The Saratogian, June 22nd, 2013,

Ibid.64


locatedat Saratoga Casino & Raceway . By January of that year, SaratogaGaming & 65

Raceway had changed its nameto Saratoga Casino & Raceway and developed a $40

million expansion plan in anticipation of the amendments proposal and support of the

local community . In interviews, various officials most often framed their support as a 66

product of necessity, driven by the corollary threat of a casino siting in a nearby county

rather than within Saratoga .67

In the November 5th vote, voters approvedthe referendum statewide, thus

allowing the siting process to continue to unfold . Yet, in Saratoga Countyan unofficial 68

count numbered 25,488 againstand 21,956 in favor, along with four other Capital

Region counties . A greater portion, 57 percent, voted against the amendment within 69

Saratoga Springs. Such opposition didnt mark the end of the project within Saratoga

county, however, due to the formula used by the Gaming Commission to consider

applications weighting local impact and siting factors much more lightly (twenty

percent) than additional economic activityand business development (seventy

percent). Work force factors constituted ten percent of the Commissions evaluation.

Following the vote, various officials repeated that despitean apparent dearth of public

Post, Paul. Gov. Cuomo, Gambling Proponents Putting Casino Proposal on Top of Ballot." 65The Saratogian, August 15th, 2013

Post, Paul. "Saratoga is all-in: State Casino Legislation could be a Huge Win Or a Major Loss 66for Local Economy." The Saratogian, January 19th, 2013.

Ibid.67

Post, Paul. "Voters Statewide Approve Casino Gambling Amendment." The Saratogian, 68November 5th, 2013.

Ibid.69


support the project belonged within Saratoga Springs at least because of the threatof a

neighboring county developing one instead .70

Just two days later, two Saratoga Springs residents formed what came to be

known as Saratogians Against Vegas-Style Expansion, or SAVE Saratoga. The first

meeting was small in number, composed of what the two founders referred to as a

coregroup of eight to ten people .Colin Klepetar, who would be the spokesman for 7172

SAVE throughout its activity, had a history of involvement in Saratoga politics and grew

up in thearea. Several years prior he was part of a downtown transportation plan

committee, which submitted a proposal aimed at reshaping Saratogas downtown

transportation patterns to improveconditions for pedestrians and bikers, but was

rejected by the City Council .Charlie Samuels, the other original member, had just 73

recently come out of some other activism on my own, skateboard activism, and I had

just beat the city at that . On November 18th, SAVE held a meeting in the same room 74

used biweekly by the City Council inside City Hall, a venue they pursued as part of their

strategy to appear incredibly organized, and that holding their own meeting in such a

space would be a surprise andimpressive .At themeeting,a local newspaper 75

Ibid.70

Colin Klepetar, interview by Matthew Barnes, January 2015.71

Charlie Samuels, interview by Matthew Barnes, January 2015.72


Charlie Samuels, interview by Matthew Barnes, January 2015.74

Ibid.75


described that residents voiced concerns primarily centered around public safety,

property taxes, and the overall quality of life . 76

In reaction to the nascent and unexpected controversy, the County Chamber of

Commerce and and Convention and Tourism Bureau collaboratively organized a forum

a month after the vote. It was held in the City Center, the board and president of which

were deeply opposed to the event space that was a component to the casino

proposal . It drew almost 1000, and consisted of panelists mostly sourced from the 77

business community that held different opinions on the siting . SAVE Saratogawas not 78

given a panel seat, nor were representatives from Destination Saratoga, thepro-Casino

group engineered into creation by the Casino lobby following the vocal protests from

SAVE . Inwhat became an infamous moment, the casino paid for four charter buses to 79

transport members of Destination Saratoga to the forum, most of whom were

employees that reported the casino management had threatened the loss of hundreds

of jobs in the event a casino was sited in a neighboring county . As reported in the 80

Saratoga Wire, this warning served as amajormotivation for people to go to the

Monday night event,referring to the forum . The compositional differences quickly 81

became a talking point, one that many recall todayand which appears in numerous

Dimopolous, Thomas. Saratoga Residents Pack City Hall to Oppose Local Casino." The 76Saratoga Wire, November 19th, 2013.

Dimopoulos, Thomas. "Nearly 1,000 Attend Forum on Casino Gambling." The Saratoga Wire, 77December 17th, 2013.

Ibid.78

Ibid.79

Ibid.80

Ibid.81


articles, as well as interviews conducted for this research. As Mark Baker, President of

the City Center said:The oppositionas it appeared, was much more of a grassroots,

community, taxpayer, citizenry organizations [sic] .82

On the same election day that statewideapproved the casino amendment,

Saratoga Springs elected a newMayor on the Democrat ticket, Joanne Yepsen.Her first

City Council meeting fell on January 7th, andconsisted almost exclusively of debate

over the casino. The public comment period itself lasted 90minutes. According toan

article in The Saratogian, the composition of public commenters was dominated by

SAVE Saratoga, and the themes they expressed resonate with the notion of elite-level,

homevoter activism . As one SAVE-affiliated commenter said:Jobsare important, but 83

homes are more important . In retort, another point of division arose from 84

theDestination-affiliatedpeople in attendance, encapsulated in the Saratoga Wires

retelling of one womans comment that:chided them[SAVE] for being newcomers to

Saratoga . Many times over various actors mentioned the disputed reputation SAVE 85

acquired for being composed of new-to-the-area, carpetbagger-style members.

After several months of campaigning from both sides, the City

Councilunanimouslypassed a resolution during a March4th meeting that squarely

rejected a casino siting within the city limits . It was a complete reversal of a resolution 86

Mark Baker, interview by Matthew Barnes, January 2015.82

"Saratoga Springs Mayor: Residents Deserve Input on Casino Move." The Saratogian, 83January 8th, 2014.

Dimopoulos, Thomas. Saratoga City Council Meeting: You Say Casino, I Say Bologna." The 84Saratoga Wire, January 21st, 2014.

Ibid.85

McCarty, Lucian. "Casino Vote Unanimous, but the Take on what it Means is Not." The 86Saratogian, March 5th, 2014.


passed in 2012, which had welcomed the possibility of expanding theracino. 350

attended and the public comment period went on at length. The resolution itself included

language that drew on many of the points originally raised by members of SAVE,

particularly the concern over license transfers.The amendment, SAVE argued, gave

thecasino wide latitude inselling or transferring their gaming license withno opportunity

for city governments input. The implicit threat,as the resolution stipulated, was the

possible diminishing [of] the abilityof the Citys citizens to duly and democratically

shape thefuture of their own city . In turn, the city could well forfeit any capacity to 87

prevent the casino from further redirecting economic activity away from the downtown in

the event of further expansion or modification . The resolution signified a watershed 88

moment inthe trajectory of thecasino process, and a month later the mayor announced

that no more votes were planned regarding additional resolutions . Because the 89

Gaming Commission required an accompanying supportive resolution from the relevant

municipal government for every casino siting application, the mayors announcement

effectively signified the debate was over . It took many months for the Saratoga Casino 90

& Raceway to formally withdraw theirproposal, and just a day after the Commission

announced its three chosen sites, which included one in Schenectady.

City Council of Saratoga Springs. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga 87Springs, N.Y. (March 4th, 2014).

Ibid.88

Morris, Caitlin. "Saratoga Springs Mayor: No More Casino Votes Planned." The Saratogian, 89April 2nd, 2014.

Ibid.90


VI, ii. Analysis

The entire process had effectively ended prior to the initiation of my research,

and as such I mostly draw on work already assembled by Bob Turner. In 2013, he

distributed polls with the help of students to assess the saliency of the casino in the

concurrent election cycle and uncover the demographic profiles of voters. Shown below

are two charts that display poll respondents voter priorities (fig.s 16,17). The first

indicates relative differences between those that voted for Yepsen, the Democratic

candidate, and Sutton, the Republican candidate, while the second indicates which

issues functioned as primary or secondary priorities. I also include survey data from a

poll distributed at the inaugural SAVE Saratoga meeting in City Hall on November 18th,

2014 (fig.s 18-21). Additionally, I created a map of the results from the 2013

amendment vote, color-coded by district to indicate levels of support for or opposition to

the amendment (fig. 22). As points of reference, several main thoroughfares are

highlighted, which also serve to roughly divide the city along north/south and east/west

axes.


VI, iii. Results

Figure 17- What do the people of Saratoga Springs care about?

0%

12.5%

25%

37.5%

50%

Casino/Gambling Taxes Preserving Open Space Transparency Crime Other

16%14%

8%13%

26%23%

9%7%12%

16%

23%

33%

Issue #1Issue #2

Figure 16- Issue Saliency, Sutton v. Yepsen

0%

12.5%

25%

37.5%

50%

Transparency Urban Growth Casino Taxes EMS Crime Water Other

5%2%

13%

2%

21%24%

19%14%

10%2%

8%5%

28%

34%

9%5%

SuttonYepsen


Figure 18- Rate of Homeownership at SAVE Saratoga City Hall Forum v. Citywide Statistics (n=79)

11/18/13 Survey Citywide (2010 US Census Data)

64.3%

91.5% Own

Figure 19- How often have you visited Casinos or Racinos in the past year? (n=80)

0 1-3 4+3.8%

25.0%

71.3%

Figure 20- Building a casino in Saratoga Springs will hurt the public image of Saratoga Springs (n=82)


75.6%

14.6%1.2%4.9%3.7%


Figure 22)

Figure 21- Building a casino in Saratoga Springs will negatively affect the quality of life in Saratoga Springs (n=82)


86.6%

6.1%1.2%0.0%6.1%


Above all else, the casino was the most significant factor in voters determination

of whom to support, with 34% of Suttons supporters and 28% of Yepsens indicating

their candidates respective position on the issue was the principal reason for their

support (fig. 16). And when measured in a slightly different way, a full third of those

surveyed indicated that it was the most important issue to them (fig. 17). Like the

pattern observed from the data collected at the December 2nd City Council meeting and

December 9th Comprehensive Plan meeting, the rate of homeownership at the SAVE

Saratoga meeting was significantly greater than the citywide norm (fig. 18). Those in

attendance were highly unlikely to have been to a casino or racino themselves, and

their opinion of the likely impact from the casino reflect a distaste of and distrust for the

industry (fig. 19). From the map, only one district provided a distinctly affirmative vote

for the casino, with the majority either opposed or closely divided (fig. 22). The most

fervent opposition emanated from the center of the city, mostly on the northern side,

with more than 65% of the voting residents of districts eight, nine, and twelve not in

favor. Moreover, theres a clear divide on the east/west axis of Broadway. Eastern

districts were, overall, much more clearly opposed than the closely divided western

districts. Within the eastern half, the northern section harbored the most opposition, as

districts like eight, nine, four, and five all voted against the amendment by at least a ten

point margin.

VI, iv. Brief Discussion

The passive language that typified local articles written early about the

amendment and the possibility of siting within the city characterize the consensus

among certain groups, a consensus that treated the development of a casino in


Saratoga Springs as a foregone conclusion. In an interview, Colin Klepetar articulated

as much: everybody kept saying that it was a done deal . Purely based on the results 91

of the vote as it occurred within the city the assumption seems to have been premature,

since only one district out of twenty-five gave decisive support. Moreover, it figured as

the priority issue for a third of voters regardless of their political affiliation, trumping even

taxes and crime. While the surveys distributed at SAVE Saratogas meeting only speak

to the politics and demographic profiles of the groups supporters, they nevertheless

highlight certain characteristics that have appeared elsewhere, i.e. the inordinately high

rate of homeownership. That the vast majority of the respondents felt the casino stood

to negatively affect the citys image and quality of life further evinces the participants as

at least partially motivated by a concern for life within the city. And, by extension, a

concern for how the change represented by the construction of a casino stands to affect

their own quality of life and home value. Based on these circumstances its not entirely

unsurprising that such fervent opposition emerged in the form of SAVE Saratoga, and in

many ways the already well-established network of the QHVC undergirded the nascent

organization.

Both Colin Klepetar and Charlie Samuels had prior experience in some form of

activism, and Charlie had the additional resource of a career in journalism. According to

Colin, Sustainable Saratoga was instrumental to building SAVEs membership: they

were very helpful; thats how I got to know a lot of members. In turn these networks and

collective experience lent themselves to the success of SAVE, as they were able to

present themselves as the face of an organic, homegrown movement, and one that was



completely unified. Destination Saratoga members, in contrast, arrived to the forum in

charter buses and seemed mostly composed of raceway employees acting out of fear

for their own positions so much as endogenous support for the casino. That there were

divisions within the growth coalition only further disadvantaged them; the City Center

and other downtown businesses had no interest in allowing construction of another

space to compete against, and Mark Baker found himself allied with Sustainable

Saratoga and SAVE in consequence. And with the exception of the forum held at the

City Center, SAVE members appeared in far greater numbers at the relevant City

Council meetings and took great steps to appear incredibly organized, as Charlie

Samuels said, even more than we really were. Their efforts significantly shifted the

discourse surrounding the casino siting and ultimately led to the City Council resolution

against it.

VII. Participation

VII, i. Overview

The homevoter hypothesis predicts that participants in local politics are

disproportionately constituted by homevoters, who are motivated by the financial

incentive to influence the sphere of decisions they feel will impact the value of their

home, and to risk-averse residents that sphere looms large . In order to gain a picture 92

of the dynamics of representation in land-use politics, I made use of city and county

assessors roles to acquire the home addresses of board members of certain

organizations that often contribute to the discourse of local land-use. With the

addresses, I manually geocoded and then mapped them with the aid of ArcGIS Online.

Fischel, William A. Politics in a Dynamic View of Land-use Regulations: Of Interest Groups 92and Homevoters." The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 31, no. 4 (2005): 400.


A chart of these groups is shown in Table 3, grouped in accordance with their

perspective on development.

Table 3

To varying degrees these organizations played integral roles in the the

comprehensive plan process, the casino, and parking garage, and arguably represent

the keystone organizations of local land-use politics. As such, the homevoter hypothesis

would suggest that their board members and those who otherwise work for or with them

do not necessarily figure as an accurate picture of the citys various demographic

groups, but rather the somewhat smaller class of homevoters.

VI, ii. Analysis

Shown below are the maps that depict where these board members live within

Saratoga Springs, which were built with the help of ArcGIS Online, QGIS, Google Maps,

Adobe Photoshop, and Skidmores GIS Center. The dotted yellow lines represent the

city voting districts as of 2012. For analytical purposes, the maps boundaries are

constrained to the city limits, and the accompanying tables n values refers to those that

live within these limits. To divide the city into directional quadrants, I use the streets

highlighted on each map. In the first map (Figure 20), the selected environmental or

conservation organizations are shown, with maps of growth interests and city land use

Conservation Groups City Government Boards/Committees

Growth Interests

Sustainable Saratoga City Council Downtown Business Association

Saratoga PLAN Comprehensive Plan Committee City Center Board

Saratoga Historic Preservation Society

Zoning Board of Appeals Chamber of Commerce


boards and committees following. Like Figure 26, the last map shows all land-use

actors, with the addition of an overlay to indicate intra-city wealth distribution, based on

median household income from the 2010 US Census and organized by block group.

Additionally, charts are included to provide a numerical representation of each map, by

quadrant. To more comprehensively illustrate demographic patterns of civic

engagement in Saratoga Springs, I again draw on Bob Turners earlier survey data from

the 2013 election cycle. Below are charts displaying the percentage of homeowners

among respondents and their length of residence in the city. For comparative purposes I

include the overall proportion of homeownership in Saratoga Springs based on 2010 US

Census data.


VII, iii. Results

Figure 23)

Table 5- Conservation Groups E/W (n=23)

Section Number Percentage

East 17 73.9%Northeast 17 73.9%Southeast 0 0.0%

West 6 26.1%Northwest 5 21.7%Southwest 1 4.3%

Total 23 23 100.0% 100.0%

Table 4- Conservation Groups N/S (n=23)


North 22 95.7%Northeast 17 73.9%Northwest 5 21.7%

South 1 4.3%Southeast 0 0.0%Southwest 1 4.3%

Total 23 23 100.0% 100.0%


Figure 24)

Table 7- City Land Use Boards/Committes E/W (n=20)




Total 20 20 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6- City Land Use Boards/Committes N/S (n=20)




Total 20 20 100.0% 100.0%


Figure 25)

Table 9- Growth Interests E/W (n=20)




Total 20 20 100.0% 100.0%

Table 8- Growth Interests N/S (n=20)




Total 20 20 100.0% 100.0%


Figure 26)

Table 10- All N/S (n=63)Section Number Percentage



Total 63 63 100.0% 100.0%

Table 11- All E/W (n=63)Section Number Percentage



Total 63 63 100.0% 100.0%


Figure 27)

Table 12- All, with Median Household Income- N/S

Section Number Percentage Median Household Income

North 50 79% $61,338

NE 44 70% $75,401

NW 6 10% $47,275

South 13 21% $57,598

SE 5 8% $61,499

SW 8 13% $53,696

Total 63 63 100% 100% $59,468

Table 14- Median Income Differentials

East West North South

Household Income Averages $68,450 $50,486 $61,338 $57,598

Quadrants Difference $17,964 $3,740

Halves Difference $14,224

Table 13- All, with Median Household Income- E/W

Section Number Percentage Median Household Income

East 49 78% $68,450

NE 44 70% $75,401

SE 5 8% $61,499

West 14 22% $50,486

NW 6 10% $47,275

SW 8 13% $53,696

Total 63 63 100% 100% $59,468


Figure 28- Compiled Land-Use Actors (n=63)

City Sections

Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest12.7%7.9%9.5%

69.8%

Figure 29- Homeownership

Saratoga Saratoga Voters

85%

64.3%

Figure 30- Voter Length of Residence

1-10 Years 11-20 Years 21+ Years

55.9%

27.6%16.5%


More than any other organizational category, those active within conservation

groups live in the northern half of the city, and are especially concentrated in the

northeast quadrant (Fig. 23). Almost none live on the southern end of the city, with just

one in the southwest and no one in the southeast. Among the city land-use boards and

committees there is a slightly greater degree of diversity on the north/south axis, with

40% living in the southern half, and both quadrants therein are represented almost

equally (Fig. 24). Still, approximately 60% live on the northern side and again, especially

within the eastern quadrant. On the east/west axis, 70% live on the eastern half, and

just 30% live west of Broadway. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this pattern repeats among the

growth interests, and the difference again manifests more dramatically on an east/west

axis than north/south (Fig. 25). When viewed in aggregate those who participate in

some form or another in Saratoga Springs land-use politics live primarily in the northern

half of the city, within which they tend to cluster in the eastern section (Fig. 26). Indeed,

almost 80% of those within the city limits live within the northern half. Within this

residential group, 70% live in the eastern section. Just a quarter live in the southern half

of the city, with the fewest residing in the southeast quadrant, 7.9%. Dividing between

eastern and western halves, the pattern essentially repeats.

Figure 27 intersects median household income data with the distribution of land-

use actors, included to give meaning to the previously observed concentration patterns

beyond simple geospatial phenomena. The northeastern quadrant of the city is both the

region most populated by the board members of local land-use actors and whose

residents earn more, on average, than the other three. Between the wealthiest

quadrant, the northeast, and the poorest quadrant, the northwest, the difference is


about $18,000 in median income (table 14). Moreover the difference between the

eastern and western halves is greater than the difference between the northern and

southern, by about $14,000. Turning to the survey data, voters have overwhelmingly

lived in Saratoga for twenty-one years or more and own their home (fig.'s 29,30).

VI, iv. Brief Discussion

Although any conclusions from the geographic distributions shown in the maps of

the different interests may lack real weight given the low n values, the aggregate display

reflects the same patterns. Those who sit upon the boards of Saratogas keystone land-

use actors and live inside Saratoga Springs limits disproportionately reside in the

northeastern quadrant of the city. When these observations are combined with income

data taken from the 2010 US Census, it becomes apparent that the northeastern

quadrant is by far the wealthiest quarter of the city; the quadrant closest in income is the

southeast and still trails by about $14,000. While it stands to reason that wealthier

residents will tend to cluster and have the time and incentives necessary to serve on

these boards, I believe that 70% is nevertheless a stark imbalance. And similar to the

trends observed in previous sections, voters surveyed were significantly more likely to

own their home than would be expected based on citywide norms, and more than half

had lived in Saratoga for more than two decades. Combined with the dynamics of

engagement and income profile indicated by the maps, the characteristics of these

homevoters appear increasingly homogenous. In many ways the group shown above

represent an elite level of land-use actors united not so much by their politics as by the

location of their home and earnings.


In certain ways these patterns of participation surfaced during interviews for this

paper. While speaking on SAVE Saratogas relationship with Sustainable Saratoga,

Colin Keleptar mentioned that: [t]hey were very helpful; thats how I got to know a lot of

members, and added that when the PUDs issue emerged, Sustainable looked to SAVE

for reciprocal support. When asked about the relationships that exist between actors

operating within the local political arena, Charlie Samuels replied Everybody mingles.

Neither Colin nor Charlie pointed to the intersecting income-based patterns delineated

above, but both quotes speak to the broader notion of local land-use politics enacted by

a relatively narrow array of interests. Yet, at no point has this imbalance surfaced during

public comment or civic discourse. The bare fact of significant geospatial and income

imbalances has gone unrecognized within Saratoga Springs, and its likely this extends

beyond one city.

VIII. Discussion

Across all three cases presented above, homevoters working through

organizations like Sustainable Saratoga and SAVE Saratoga either completely halted or

seriously protracted them, each time defying the expectations of involved interests and

each time evincing their significant capacity to exert influence upon the processes by

which land is developed. Contrary to the expectations that the growth machine,

supported by greater resources, would have an endurance unmatched by citizen

activists, these QHVC-affiliated organizations in fact represented themselves in greater

number at most meetings. Nor did these particular meetings appear exceptional, given

the number of respondents who indicated theyd attended six or more meetings in the

past year. Much like Gerber & Philips found evidence that local actors, both developers


and interest groups, played a significant role in land use decision making, here it seems

a similar dynamic is at work . The political leanings expressed in the same surveys 93

show the attendants to have been highly sympathetic to quality-of-life concerns, while

the sum demographic profile is best characterized as almost exclusively homeowners,

70% of whom indicated they supported Sustainable Saratoga. These same concerns

surfaced in the surveys conducted at the SAVE Saratoga city hall meeting, wherein 86%

felt a casino threatened to negatively impact quality of life.

In short, then, the body of research shown above gives substantial credence to

the claim that homevoters act aggressively to protect their interests, and often succeed.

While a growth-coalition may at one time have held sway over Saratoga, environmental

movements who challenge the activities of land-based elites have been percolating

both across the country and within Saratoga Springs for some time now . The more 9495

visible activists tend to engage with more than one issue, and thus amass experience

and build networks much like the growth machine. Colin Klepetar and Charlie Samuels

both had prior experience in navigating local politics, and were lent significant support

by Sustainable Saratoga in their work against the casino. The experts brought to the city

to speak on parking met with City Council members through Sustainable Saratoga, and

many attended the public events as well. Indeed, city Mayor Joanne Yepsen was a

founding member of the organization, a fact that has no doubt lent credibility and weight

Gerber, Elisabeth R. and Justin H. Phillips. "Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group 93Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences." American Journal of Political Science 47, no. 4

Documents

Analyzing the dynamics of participation in Saratoga Springs’ land-use politics: the case for the qualitative homevoter coalition