| One
Review Or Two?
The papers filed by Gerstman on behalf of CPC ask for release
of a draft DEC Unit Management Plan for expansion of their ski
area which has been referenced throughout the resort's DEIS as
well as by officials at Belleayre Mountain throughout the past
year. A request to DEC to inspect a copy of that plan under
the federal Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) on March 24 was
turned down in a May 21 letter from DEC, stating that, "staff
has determined that these records are intra-agency documents which
are not statistical or factual tabulations of data, instructions
to staff that affect the public, or final agency policy or determinations."
An appeal of that denial is pending.
In his motion to the DEC, Gerstman bases CPC's argument for access
to the Belleayre Mountain UMP on the fact that "extraordinary
circumstances are present due to the Commissioner's unique role
in evaluating the significant adverse environmental impacts of
two interdependent related actions, one of which is a DEC initiated
project."
Answering affirmations by both DEC and Crossroads deny any interdependence
between the projects.
Gerstman also cites clauses within state environmental law that
require the lead agency on environmental reviews, as DEC is in
the case of the Belleayre Resort, to evaluate "cumulative
impacts" of projects within close geographic proximity, common
impacts, and similar construction time-frames. Among evidence
cited are a series of local newspaper accounts of statements and
presentations made by Belleayre Mountain Ski Area Superintendent
Tony Lanza last winter regarding the expansion promised imminently
in the DEC's new UMP, and for which funding appears to be available
in the 2005 state budget. According to Gerstman's filing,
"the department staff are asking the Commissioner to ignore
her own department's actions which directly implicate the environmental
impacts associated with the project. Such a position is contrary
to the Commissioner's responsibility pursuant to the Environmental
Conservation Law.
Also quoted in the filing is Crossroads Ventures' DEIS, where
it states the developer's intention to "bring to fruition
the creation of a four season world-class Resort associated with
the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center as contemplated in the state
and regional planning studies over the last 40 years." Gerstman
also quotes the DEIS as saying "In order for the ski center
to truly function at the level of the proposed Resort (and not,
in fact, detract from the resort's marketing orientation), a major
redevelopment of the lodges and other supporting facilities should
be completed. Although the facility is currently state-owned,
the current management team appears to be aware that a major upgrade
will be necessary for the Ski Center to function in this regard."
As for the DEC's plans for its Ski Center, Gerstman quotes the
DEIS as stating that the unreleased UMP calls for increased snowmaking
capacity, adding parking spaces, expanding lodges, and constructing
new ski trails." Statements by Lanza over the last two years
record him stating similar things, while noting on several occasions
that the release of the UMP was imminent. Lanza was quoted in
this newspaper on January 22 of this year in fact, saying that
he was expecting the final UMP to be released to the public "within
60 days."
"DEC, in its dual role as lead agency for the project review
and the proponent of the BMSC expansion has acted contrary to
the interests of its mandate to protect and preserve the State's
natural resources by denying CPC access to the records in question,"
Gerstman summarizes. "It appears that DEC is seeking to avoid
the complications of a combined environmental assessment of the
two projects."
Additionally, Gerstman's filing includes an August 19, 2003 internal
memorandum from DEC Commissioner Erin Crotty, that appears to
formally adopt the new Belleayre Mountain expansion plans. According
to that document, "the UMP Amendment is consistent with the
State Constitution, the Environmental Conservation Law, rules,
regulations, and Department policy. The plan includes management
objectives for a projected management period and is hereby approved
and adopted."
As of press time, DEC had not returned phone calls requesting
comment on the Motion for Discovery filed by CPC. Answering Affirmations
filed both Crossroads and by DEC lead counsel and Assistant Regional
Attorney Carol Krebs seek denial of the discovery motion. A decision
by Judge Wissler is expected by the end of the month.
In other major developments at the hearings, the towns of Shandaken
and Middletown along with Delaware County, which all recently
passed a Coalition of Watershed Towns resolution indicating they
were not taking a position on the proposed Belleayre Resort project,
now appear to have reversed position, and are supporting the project's
developer in its effort to eliminate further discussion of alternatives
to the project as proposed, including reductions in its scale.
Arguing at last Thursday's hearings in opposition to the need
to consider alternative-build proposals, the attorney representing
all four entities above in the proceedings, Kevin Young of Young
Sommer, LLC, pointedly dropped any appearance of neutrality on
the project with an impassioned appeal to Judge Wissler on behalf
of developer Dean Gitter. Elaborating on a published letter he
read into the record from Delaware County Economic Development
Director Len Neil, Young said:
"We've looked at it, we've studied it, and we NEED a destination
resort∑Marriott and the big guys, they're not coming here,
" said Young. "So here's a person, he's local, and he's
willing to come here and he's willing to make a capital investment∑What
we look at is, is it a viable project? The way the applicant's
done it is the way we as an involved agency would want to see
it done."
The Marriott Corporation is one of several large resort companies
listed by Crossroads as a potential future operator and co-owner
of the project, should permits be granted for its construction.
Young's remarks came in the wake of a withering analysis of the
methodology used in the DEIS to assess the resort project's viability
as an investment by Columbia University professor and H,R &
A principal Dr. John Altshuler. Altshuler, who testified
on behalf of the Catskill Preservation Coalition, was a principal
author of the landmark 1998 study of the region commissioned by
the Catskill Watershed Corporation, and is widely regarded as
one of the leading economic development experts both nationally
and specifically on the Catskill region.
"The only way to rationally understand viability is to look
at the capital structure from the point of view of the people
who are actually providing the capital, which the current analysis
does not allow us to do," said Altshuler. "The form
of analysis is a different one than I would use or a different
one than I would accept∑ It's impossible to tell whether
(the project) is economically viable."
According to Altshuler, the "fundamentally circular"
logic in the DEIS concludes that "the only alternative
worth examining is to build a world-class golf destination",
a scenario he called "highly unusual" for a mountainous
2,000 acre property. Crossroad's own expert witness Eric
Baum of HVA International, who characterized Altshuler's analysis
as "an awesome job"; also described the resort
project as an "extraordinarily risky" investment whose
feasibility is "kind of marginal."
Altshuler also stressed the need to consider "lower build,
less capital intensive" alternatives because they "make
more sense" from the standpoint of viability, saying he didn't
think the DEIS "looked at (lower build) alternatives at all."
According to the Catskill Preservation Coalition, the DEIS' alternatives
analysis is deficient because it both fails to provide adequate
alternatives analysis, and it fails to take a "hard look"
at the issue as required under the state Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA.)
The Coalition of Watershed Towns, Delaware County, and the Towns
of Shandaken and Middletown also took a position mirroring that
of the developer, concerning the lack of any need to adjudicate
issues related to the project's effect on the character of its
host municipalities.
"Our position is that community character is not a proper
issue for adjudication" said Young's partner and co-counsel,
Jeff Baker, speaking for Shandaken and Middletown among his other
clients. Baker's conclusion, made last Wednesday, preceeded
by a day the extensive presentation on community character impacts
by Mary Kopaskie of Peter J. Smith & Associates, on behalf
of the Catskill Preservation Coalition. Kopaskie cited significant
data errors in the DEIS including incorrect population growth,
employment, and income data as well as omissions such as the failure
to include the impact of 15 heavy trucks per hour, 10 hours per
day for five years in its traffic projections. Kopaski's report
also took issue with a range of what she characterized as underreported
visual, noise, and land use impacts, socio-economic issues including
housing, job creation and salaries, and the need for local services
and other secondary growth impacts.
The issues conference resumes on June 18 at the Margaretville
fire house with further consideration of traffic issues.
Second
Round...
At Monday night's budget hearing, trustees
and administrators outlined their second proposal, which incorporates
cuts to administration and special education, made in response
to public complaints about expenditures in these areas. After
the meeting, trustee-elect David Patterson said that the board
was making progress in questioning costs and that, while he felt
there was room for improvement, he would vote for the new proposal.
Several parents continued to express frustration and skepticism
over administrators' responses to their questions, but the atmosphere
was subdued and the audience scantier, in comparison to the hearing
for the previous budget proposal.
Business administrator Chuck Snyder presented a detailed comparison
of Onteora's spending with the expenses of other Ulster County
school districts, all of which have lower per-pupil costs. The
break-down, which will be posted on the district's website, showed
that Onteora's comparatively highest expenditures are in the areas
of staff salaries and benefits, transportation, and special education.
High transportation costs were attributed to the large geographical
size of the district.
Addressing the special education costs, pupil personnel services
director Barbara Boyce said that when she began to implement inclusion
of special education students in mainstream classrooms, in response
to federal and state mandates in the late 1980's, parents of regular
students were concerned that the quality of their children's education
might suffer. In response, Boyce said, "I made a promise
that I would not Œdump' students. But it is cost-intensive."
Her model involves the use of consultant teachers to accompany
students with special needs in regular classrooms. She pointed
out that these teachers also help regular students in those classes
who have learning disabilities.
Trustee Kathy Hochman, a special education advocate, said her
experience in the region shows that Onteora's approach, while
more costly than those of other districts, results in a higher
rate of students with special needs obtaining Regents diplomas.
Administrators have planned, for next week's meeting, a presentation
comparing the performance of the Onteora's regular students with
those of other districts, suggesting that the higher teacher
salaries attract high-caliber staff, resulting in better test
scores and graduation rates for students.
Patterson, who campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility
and will take office in July, stated that although he didn't feel
the administration had justified the costs in detail, "I
believe the board is making the right strides and beginning to
ask specific questions regarding costs. We're not that far away
from a contingency budget. A lot of transitions are happening,
we'll have a new superintendent, and I'm coming onto the board.
I've asked a lot of questions from the podium, and I'll keep doing
it. We need a tourniquet, but they've put on a pretty good-sized
band-aid." When asked whether he would recommend that people
vote for the budget, he said "They should make a decision
based on how they feel." But he acknowledged that he would
vote in favor of the new proposal. "This is the first time
I've publicly told people how I'll vote on something. But to go
for a contingent budget is not a direction to take."
Superintendent Hal Rowe took on the issue of the West Hurley Elementary
School closing, saying that many parents have incorrectly quoted
the figure of $361,000 as the savings due to the closing, while
the number is actually considerably higher. Besides the savings
on a principal and support staff, the closing also eliminates
special area teachers (art, music, library, gym), special education
teachers, and academic intervention staff, for a total of $581,000.
Keeping the school open would involve an additional $100,000 for
the hiring of custodians to replace two retirees. He added that
the savings would be repeated year after year, as long as the
district is not operating the school. Hochman added that there
is also the possibility of revenue from renting out the building,
as the board intends to do.
Parents asked how much costs will be for renovating the Woodstock
Elementary School interior and parking area to accommodate the
influx of students from West Hurley, but Snyder said they have
not yet been determined, although discussions have begun in the
Facilities Committee. Parent Darlene Griffin asked where the money
will come from and whether the cost will negate the savings from
closing the West Hurley school. Snyder replied that the cost would
be a one-time expenditure, as opposed to the yearly savings for
the closure.
Griffin expressed anger over the lack of a finalized plan for
the allocation of space within the Woodstock school and over the
possibility that her child will be "taking Reading Recovery
in a closet with no windows." Board president Marino D'Orazio
reacted to her persistent questioning, saying the board merely
made the policy decisions and has no control over the details
of plans, which are implemented by administrators. He urged her
to contact the administrators for answers to her questions, and
she retorted that her calls are not generally returned.
Trustee Lev Flournoy announced that he would like to create a
committee to improve communication between the district and the
community, which he finds inadequate. Among suggestions for the
committee to consider will be distributing sheets of frequently
asked questions and their answers, as well as a system for soliciting
questions from the public.
The proposition to spend $133,500 for vehicles will again be on
the ballot, and transportation supervisor Mike Grehl said the
expenditure would actually save the district money, as the vehicles
would otherwise have to continue to be leased, a measure not requiring
voter approval. In addition, the state will reimburse 37∏
percent of the purchase cost. Rowe said if the proposition is
approved but the budget is defeated, the district would be forced
to purchase the vehicles out of the contingency budget, reducing
funds available for programs.
Rowe and Snyder described several reasons for the budget increase
that are out of the district's control, such as the 15 percent
hike in required contributions to the employee retirement program,
due to the poor performance of the stock market in recent years.
Health care costs are also rising, although trustee Neil Eisenberg
pointed out that the staff contracts negotiated this year involve
higher staff payments to health insurance. Governor Pataki is
proposing to increase the district's state aid by only $12,000
this year, "truly a pittance," said Rowe. D'Orazio observed
that the spending down of the reserve fund balance by a previous
board removed the cushion of emergency monies that could have
been used to reduce the tax levy. "The perception is that
we're mis-applying expenditures, but it's not easy and there is
no magic formula," he added. "I hope people who voted
against the budget realize we're all in this together. We're making
an effort to save as much money as possible in these difficult
times."
The polls will be open from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
June 22. Vote at your local elementary school.
Between
Two Rocks
Their pocket-reaching brethren of Woodstock
and Shandaken, who stand to profit by the stripping of reservoir
properties from the Olive tax rolls it would cause, are sighing
with anticipated relief.
The correct Jeopardy question for the above would be "What
is the Large Parcel Bill?" But a more pertinent question
might be "From whence?" How and why did the divisive
LPB legislation originate and what is it really meant to do?
One thing which becomes quickly apparent in addressing topics
like tax apportionment and equalization rates is the necessity
of keeping some
aspirin within easy reach as the numbers start to fly. You quickly
discover that even the experts will have a bottle of them in their
desk drawer. Another thing that pops out at you is a grim conviction
among property assessors that the New York State Office of Real
Property Services (ORPS) has a magic box filled with dark formulas
and tables which they feed numbers into and shake briskly to yield
the rates they distribute.
Michael Sommer, the assessor for Olive, isn't precisely sure of
how ORPS arrives at the rate figures they hand out but he is certain
of their RESULT in the case of the Ashokan Reservoir. The wide
disparity between ORPS evaluation of the New York City-owned reservoir
properties and the value placed on them by the appraisal experts
engaged by the town makes the tax equalization rates artificially
high.
This situation has led Shandaken supervisor Robert Cross and Woodstock
supervisor Jeremy Wilber to accuse Olive of "opportunistic
assessing methods" in a recent joint mailing. Wilber, in
another letter to Senator Bonacic and Assemblyman Cahill, claimed
that was "established" that Olive had a "practice
of assessing its reservoir property at a significantly higher
percentage of value than other property in the Town" which
resulted in lower school taxes for Olive homes than comparable
homes in his town.
Olive officials have pointed out that they have no say in the
percentage; that they are merely abiding by figures set by the
court in the judgment from a 1979 lawsuit between Olive and New
York City.
"Right now, ORPS is saying that the reservoir is worth approximately
$115
million," Sommer explains. "The town just spent a lot
of money defending a lawsuit and we have an appraisal that says
it's worth around $390, $400 million. When the state determines
an equalization rate, that (difference) works out to about 3%.
Now, if you look at the residential properties that
have sold in the last year and their percentages, you're looking
at .007%. Now, when you have to value the whole town, our equalization
rate is around 1.2% because you have to add in the 3% and the
.007%. When you shake it up in a box and it comes out with whatever
convoluted formula they use, it's 1.2%."
"Our equalization rate is artificially high because of that
big 3% in there," Sommer continues. "If the state said
the reservoir was worth closer to what we think it's worth- and
I firmly believe that it is UNDERassessed-and compared that number
to the ratio, the equalization rate would be around .0085% and
there'd be no need for the Large Parcel Bill."
Sommer said he wasn't going to beat up another state agency but
felt ORPS lacked the staff and resources to properly value multi-million
dollar properties and he believes that many of his colleagues
would agree. But, as long as the ORPS estimate of the reservoir
remains as far apart from the town's evaluation as it is, the
equalization rate will remain artificially high.
Another question arises when there are large yearly changes in
the evaluation of a large parcel. In fact, the specific circumstances
which triggered the drafting of the bill emerged from these recurrent
difficulties of up and down appraisals.
The sponsor of the bill, S6221A, Senator William Larkin, explained
the justification for the legislation in an attached memorandum:
"The main purpose of this bill is to reduce the wild swings
both up and down that occur for all assessed properties when a
municipality has a high value
property whose assessed evaluation is in flux from year to year."
"It was ORPS's observation that certain municipalities have
large parcels
which go up and down a lot as far as what their assessed value
is," explains attorney Steve Casscles, an aide in Senator
Larkin's office. "What was happening was that the town tax
for everyone else in the town was going inversely in the opposite
direction. So, if an assessment went down, say, 20%, then the
rest of the town would have their tax rates go up by 20%. So,
what they thought to do was take the large parcel out of it when
it came to developing assessed rate, then put it back in afterwards.
So, basically, you would know that your tax bills are about the
same as opposed to this wild fluctuation. It's a very technical
bill, statewide, but it was written so that people would not complain
that their rates are going up and down."
Casscles said that the bill was developed with parcels "like
Knolls Atomic
Power Laboratory in Niskayuna" in mind. He said he was uncertain
how the provisions applied to reservoirs.
"Generally, it's very large things compared to the rest of
the town," he elaborates. "But it was really things
like power plants, nuclear reactors, scientific research stations,
that kind of stuff. Things that were very valuable parcels."
Seemingly taken aback by the commotion it was causing in the Onteora
School District, Casscles began reciting various agencies that
the bill was circulated to for comments.
"When we got the bill, it sounded like an okay idea and I
had as many eyes
as possible look at this as possible to make sure it was done
correctly," he explains. "I'm a lawyer but that doesn't
mean I can do Security Exchange type of work. It's a highly detailed
kind of area. We had ORPS go over it. We sent it to the Town Assessors
Association; the Association of County Clerks; the Association
of Counties; (etc)..."
Michael Sommer observed that in the latest of New York City's
recurrent suits to protest Olive's appraisal of their properties,
the judge ruled that the City failed to prove that the property
was worth anything less than what Olive's assessment said it was
worth. The ruling essentially threw out a number of the City's
appraisal techniques as inappropriate but made no
attempt at an independent determination of value, leaving the
matter in a legal limbo of sorts.
"What the state says, with these big utility parcels, is
that they have to be valued by the 'cost' approach," Sommer
details. "They can't value it by using the market, as if
there were similar reservoirs for sale. You can't value it as
if NYC was a money-making agency like a private company such as
Central Hudson. You can't value it by using the income and expense
statement. I believe NY State law says you have to value that
reservoir using the 'replacement cost' method. If someone had
to get all those thousands of acres to assemble a parcel to engineer
it- which is the 'soft cost'- condemn the property and the rest
of it in order to replace that reservoir... That cost, minus depreciation,
plus the land, is how it should be valued by state law.
"I believe ORPS uses a 150 year straight line depreciation
standard- which
means the dam would collapse 150 years after it was built, without
repair, and there'd be no water in it. If that's the case and
it was built 100 years ago, it would be depreciated by 2/3 or,
say, if it cost $300 million to replace, it'd be worth $100 million.
But the industry standard is that these types of properties can
last 300, 400 or more years without doing anything to them because
that's the way they were built. But, also, the City was using
concrete costs from 1950, trying to trend up into today's standards
because you have to use current rates to find replacement costs
now.
"Another thing was the land value. The City was using the
land value of useless landlocked, backwoods mountain tops, what
have you, and the judge told the City's attorneys that they could
buy land at Love Canal for more than they put in their appraisal-
and you don't build reservoirs on mountain tops."
Asked why the Ashokan Reservoir, with a dollar value which certainly
does not fluctuate from year to year, was included under the large
parcel bill, Sommer replied "That's a good question."
THE COST & MARKET ANGLE
Tom Frui is the executive secretary of the NY State Association
of County
Directors of Real Property Tax Services, the organization which
wrote the large parcel bill.
"Any time you're talking about equalization rates, you should
get a headache," Frui observes, confirming my own evidence.
"The basic premise of an equalization rate is that the higher
it goes, the lower the market value of the town is. That's the
effect."
As you're wondering if raising Olive's market value will lead
to the posting of a "Favorite Limousine Service" on
the town's website like Woodstock has on theirs, you might ask
Frui how part of a city-owned water supply system falls under
the "wild swing" justification for the bill.
"I'll tell you why," Frui would answer. "Because
ORPS, over the years, has come up with different methodologies
to value these large properties- and this may be where Olive is
thinking- and probably more so with generating plants for electricity.
This is because, in the recent past, they went from the cost approach
to the market approach. Remembering that some of the properties
owned by these generating facilities are reservoirs and they're
using the water to create hydropower, what the state has done
has been to go in and look at it from the viewpoint that this
is property owned by an electric company- hydro plants that use
water, obviously, as a source of power to generate electricity."
Hmmm, the cost approach and the market approach again?
"What happened was, after deregulation, ORPS made a determination
that there 's now a market for these properties- whereas, under
real property tax law, it was always defined as 'specialty property'-
which meant that you could use the 'cost' approach and the cost
approach is generally the higher valued approach.
"ORPS made the determination, after deregulation, that there
was now a market but the NY State Assessors Association never
agreed with them on that," Frui continues. "We said
that there is no real true market because they were being forced
to sell these properties off under deregulation. So, there was
not a willing seller- willing buyer situation. We still felt that
they were still specialty properties but (ORPS) gets to do what
they want to
do, basically.
"So, they made that determination and what occurred was that
the values they were generating were under the income approach
and substantially less than
what the municipalities had under the cost approach. That created
that false high equalization rate."
For me, at least, the dawn was beginning to break and the parts
of the large parcel bill which didn't seem to fit were starting
to clarify. A year ago, a memorandum on the large parcel bill
sent to Olive supervisor Leifeld by ORPS director Dorothy Martin
used that language to illustrate its intent; "-if a town
contains a substantial power plant" and "disparities
among the non-plant properties."
"One of the areas that showed up was in Sullivan County,
in the towns of Highland and Lumberland- because it was a very
easy example to use," Frui elaborated. "Lumberland had
a hydro plant and the two towns made up about 90% of the Eldridge
School District. So, you could see the equalization rates changing
in each town. In one year, one town would get beat up and, in
another year, another town would get beat up- either Highland
or Lumberland. That was one of the easy examples to look at when
we were talking about the large parcel bill."
Tellingly, of the over 30 school districts, statewide, eligible
to exercise the large parcel option, the Eldridge School District
is the only one that has thus far chosen to do so.
In his recent book THE CORPORATION: The Pathological Pursuit of
Profit and Power, law professor Joel Bakan observes that "Regulations
are designed to
force corporations to internalize- i.e., pay for- costs they would
otherwise externalize onto society and the environment. When they
are effective and effectively enforced, they have the potential
to stop corporations from harming and exploiting individuals,
communities, and the environment. Deregulation is really a form
of DEDEMOCRATIZATION, as it denies 'the
people,' acting through their democratic representatives in government,
the only official political vehicle they currently have to control
corporate behavior."
Definitions of corporate behavior may at times suit the conduct
of the NYC
water bureaucracy but, right now, at its foundation, it is still
a system designed to distribute a public resource rather than
compete on the market with other supplies of water. Does the deregulation
of the electric industry logically extend to New York City's Department
of Environmental Protection?
On one of their websites, the NYC DEP acknowledges that the most
valuable
commodity they own upstate is not the land or the structures upon
it but the water, itself. They recognize that fresh water will
become increasingly valuable in the decades ahead and a great
storm is brewing worldwide as multinational corporations maneuver
to privatize the world's fresh water supplies and grassroots movements
struggle to establish public water as a basic human right. Battle
lines are forming.
Under the Giuliani administration, as the air was being sold off
to corporations under the Telecommunications Act, attempts were
made to privatize NYC's water system. The Mayor's plan was blocked
by a lawsuit filed by City Comptroller Alan Hevesi and the water
system has remained a public resource. Why then, it should be
asked, should it be subject to market values brought about by
deregulation in the power industry?
Just thought I'd ask...
Timewarp...
Although she's been dealing in antiques for more than 20 years,
Joyce started her website for vintage toys from the 1950's, 60's
and 70's in 1996, a year or so after the internet first began
to take off. "I had the antique center in the Phoenicia Plaza
for eight years, from '92 to 2000," she said. "In the
early days I used the website mostly to have people look at items
we had in the shop, and to leave bids for auctions."
In the years since however, it's evolved into something far more
specialized and "very sentimental."
"Toys are a big thing to our generation" says Joyce.
"When you reach 40 or so, a lot of times people want to relive
their memories of childhood, of simpler times. And for people
my age who grew up in the 50's and 60's, that was when the Saturday
morning cartoons started, filled with advertising for Mattell,
Marx, Remco, GI Joe, and Topper."
A native of Chichester who's family's been here since the early
1900's, Joyce recalls that TV reception wasn't so easy to come
by when she was a kid, but the grainy black and white images haven't
faded much for many of us. "We got one channel, Channel 6
out of Schenectady, and it took some work with the rabbit ears."
Joyce, who authored the definitive 1999 book on collectables from
the 1964-65 New York World's Fair, ended up specializing in vintage
toys as a result of purchasing the content of estates for her
antiques business. "Once we bought the contents of
a house in Kingston," she said. "and the biggest ticket
item we sold turned out to be Green Hornet game from 1966, which
brought $450. Two years ago I picked up a Hoppalong Cassidy candy
box from 1950, which sold on Ebay for $750."
"The internet, " says Joyce "has certainly opened
up a lot of doors for selling, even if it has killed a lot of
the retail antiques business." It is possible she says, to
sell just about anything on line, and she regularly does that,
typically bringing fifty or 60 parcels each week to the post office.
That doesn't however, include things like the occasional boat
or telephone booth, sold online as "pick-up only" items.
For Grant, the toy business isn't yet a full time job; for 20
years she's also operated the Dustbusters cleaning service in
the Woodstock-Shandaken- Kingston area, though she's currently
grooming a family member to take that one over. One bottom line
for Joyce is that the advantages of running an internet-based
business are hard to beat.
"There's no time clock but you do have to be disciplined,"
says Joyce. "You can work in your pajamas, and sometimes
you can have a big sale at three o'clock in the morning.
Winters are great - no travel - and the main thing is you're home
with your family. But you usually do have to invest a fair amount
of what I call outside time, which for me is either finding new
inventory or selling for other people. That's actually turned
out to be a pretty good business, and people are usually happy
with the results. I sort through things for people, photograph
them and write them up, sell them online, pack and ship, and I
only take a commission after something's sold. It's a lot of work
but it does make things really easy for people, and they're often
very surprised by the prices things can bring."
Another nice thing about selling this way says Joyce "is
that you learn that people tend to be really nice and really
considerate. In eight years of doing business online with people
all over the world, I've never had a phone call in the middle
of the night, or really had any kind of bad experience at all."
Could be that kind of history plus the pajama thing, might just
swing a few more of us into sustainable home-based business mode.
If Joyce's experience is any guide, might be worth a try.
|