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 Springs
III. Research Design & Methodologies
IV. City Center Parking Garage
Case Summary
Analysis
Results
Brief Discussion
V. Comprehensive Plan
Case Summary
Analysis
Results
Brief Discussion
VI. Casino
Case Summary
Analysis
Results
Brief Discussion
VII. Participation
Overview
Analysis
Results
Brief Discussion
VIII. Discussion
IX. Conclusions & Further Research
X. 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

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 values1. In the time since the work has suffered criticism on both
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,
no. 04 (1967): 970.
later, arguably dont hold up to closer scrutiny2. Harvey Molotch and John Logans later
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 coalition3. Land, he
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.4 These elites
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 groups5. As such, land-use regulations like zoning become tools that privilege,
rather than constrain, growth-machine elites6.
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
2
Domhoff, G. William. "Who really Ruled in Dahl's New Haven?" 2005b, Available Online at:
Www.Whorulesamerica.Net (Accessed March 30th, 2015).
3
Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place Univ
of California Press, 2007.
4
Molotch, Harvey. "The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place."
American Journal of Sociology (1976): 309-332.
5
6
Ibid.
Been, Vicki, Josiah Madar, and Simon McDonnell. "Urban LandUse Regulation: Are
Homevoters 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 succeeded7. At the same time she points to another example
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 true8.
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
home9. Virtually all local government decisions stand to affect home value and/or quality
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 outcome10. Any development constituted a threat to the value of his home, even
Lee, Caroline W. "Conservation as a Territorial Ideology." City & Community 8, no. 3 (2009):
302.
8
Ibid 322.
Fischel, William A. The Homevoter Hypothesis Harvard University Press, 2009.
10
Ibid.
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 life11. They also tend to be wealthier and, as observed within Saratoga Springs,
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 principles12 13. Their behavior has a significant impact on local politics,
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).
11
DiPasquale, Denise and Edward L. Glaeser. "Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners
Better Citizens?" Journal of Urban Economics 45, no. 2 (1999): 383.
12
Ellickson, Robert C. "Suburban Growth Controls: An Economic and Legal Analysis." Yale Law
Journal (1977): 385-511.
13
Knudson, Paul T. "Preservationists as Qualitative Growth Actors A Case Study of Saratoga

Springs, 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 prevail14. As of 2010 it had a population of 26,586 and exists within the
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 byproducts15. Throughout the
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%16. In consequence, the supply of housing vastly expanded and thus the long-stable
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 26,58617.
Largely because of the aggressive residential development that characterized
Saratoga in the later 20th century, the availability of open space declined in the same
14
Kelleher, Christine A. and David Lowery. "Central City Size, Metropolitan Institutions and
Political Participation." British Journal of Political Science 39, no. 01 (2009): 70.
15
Knudson, 332.
16
Ibid.
17
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2011. Retrieved March 5th, 2015 (http://www.census.gov).
period. In 1986, the county planning board found only 25% of developable land
remained, and this trend continued apace through the end of the century18. The
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 Democrats19. In a city with a Republican mayor, majority position on City Council,
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 actors20. The moment marked a significant shift in the
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
18
Knudson, 332.
19
Ibid, 333.
20
Ibid, 335.
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 taxes21. Yet, the towns past weighs heavily on current residents, as became
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
21
Robert Camoin, Dan Stevens. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Saratoga Race
Cource: 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

QHVC
Growth Machine
Charlie Samuels
SAVE Saratoga CoFounder
Kathleen Fyfe
VP at Chamber of
Commerce
Amy Durland
VP of Sustainable
Saratoga
Bill McTygue
Former Public Works

Commissioner
Colin Klepetar
SAVE Saratoga CoFounder
Todd Garafano
President of the
Chamber of Commerce
Mark Baker
President of the City

Center
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.
10

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 necessary22. Apublic authority was created, and a board of directors now
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 garage23. He argued that the existing 188-space lot,
used by multiple groups, was insufficient to meet thegrowingpressureoccasioned by
the additional activity24. Because the land in question is city-owned, the City Center
proposed a twenty-year lease to the City Council25. At the time, the proposal was
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 it26. Moreover, the timeline he
delineated envisioned project completion by 2014.
22
Mark Baker, interview by Matthew Barnes. January 2015.
23
McCarty, Lucian. "Saratoga Springs City Center Proposes Parking Garage for Convention
Center." The Saratogian, November 20th, 2012.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
11
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 building27.The garage would fit
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 House28. In
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 structure29. Therein,
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 gardens30.
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
27
Grey, Jennie. "Mouzon House Owners Concerned Proposed City Center Parking Garage may
Overshadow Restaurant." The Saratogian, December 15th, 2012,
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
30
Unknown. "Mouzon House Warns Against Adjacent 4-Story Garage." The Saratogian, May
20th, 2014.
12
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 garage31. Moreover,
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 candidate32. The Mouzon
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 inevitability33. Several days later,
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 lacking34. Meanwhile, Baker reiterated
thestructures role in help[ing] fulfill the constant need for parking35.
31
City Council of Saratoga Springs. Ciy Council Meeting Agenda. June 17th, 2014.
32
"Planning Board Weighs Lead Role in Parking Garage Proposal." The Saratogian, July 5th,
2014.
33
City Council of Saratoga Springs. City Council Meeting Agenda. July 1st, 2014.
34
Mineau, Lauren. Spa City Planning Board to Seek Lead Agency Status in Garage Project."
The Saratogian, July 10th, 2014.
35
Ibid.
13
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 comment36. It proved to be the most contentiousand
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 meeting37. At
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
flexibility38. At the following months meetingin November, the chairman argued the
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 this39.Thedissenting vote was cast
36
Mineau, Lauren. Combined Land use Board Meeting Planned for City Center Garage
Project." The Saratogian, September 16, 2014.
37
Ibid.
38
Mineau, Lauren. Saratoga Springs City Center Parking Deck Plan Faces Opposition." The
Saratogian, October 23, 2014.
39
Dimopolous, Thomas. The Morning Wire: Board OKs Saratoga Parking Garage - some
Spaces Lost, Net Gain = 292 Spots." The Saratoga Wire, December 11th, 2014.
14
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 properties40. Withthe
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 proposal41. Without the
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
40
Mineau, Lauren. Saratoga Springs City Center Garage Plan Moves Forward." The
Saratogian, December 11th, 2014.
41
Mineau, Lauren. Parking Forums Spark Discussion, City Center Garage Still Under Review."
The Saratogian, January 23rd, 2015,
15
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.
16
IV, iii. Results
Fig. 1 A New Parking Garage Is Necessary to Help The City Center Expand
(n=27, df=4)
40.0%
20.0%
Strongly Disagree
24.0%
4.0%
12.0%
Somewhat Disagree
Neither
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Fig. 2 A New Parking Garage Will Bring More People Downtown to Shop (n=27,
df=4)
22.2%
22.2%
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree
18.5%
18.5%
18.5%
Neither
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Fig. 3 There Are Not Enough Parking Spaces Downtown (n=27, df=4)
33.3%
22.2%
7.4%
29.6%
7.4%
Neither
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
17
Fig. 4 The Proposed Parking Plan Being Discussed Tonight is an Acceptable

Addition to Downtown (n=27, df=4)
66.7%
11.1%
3.7%
0%
Neither
Somewhat Agree
18.5%
Strongly Agree
Fig. 5 Average City Center Occupancy Rates, 1984-2014

100.0%
Average City Center Occupancy Rate
National Average 07-12
75.0%
50.0%
25.0%
0.0%
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
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
18
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.
19
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.
20
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 interests42. By April the appointment process had been
agreed upon, and over the next two years the committee met nineteen times43. Briefly,
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 quicklybacktracked44.
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
42
McCarty, Lucian. "Mayor Completes Saratoga Springs Comprehensive Plan Committee,

Council Democrats Say the Slate is DOA." The Saratogian, February 7th, 2013.
43
Dimopoulos, Thomas. "Awkward Position of Comp. Plan." The Saratoga Wire, January 23rd,
2015.
44
"PUD Resolution OKd; Measure Subject to Public Hearings, Final Action." The Saratogian,
December 2nd, 2014,
21
Conservation Development Districts, which constrained high-density development

andserved to preserve Saratogas identity as a City in the Country45.The amendment
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 committee46. The former argued that enabling
PUDs within the CDDs provided an additional legal tool to the zoning boards and City
Council, and that it aligned with the extant city identity47. The latter arguedthat by
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 constraints48. These arguments played out over the initial
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 greenbelt49. It
45
Webcast of November 17th Meeting. Comprehensive Plan Committee. City of Saratoga

Springs, 2014.
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Dimopolous, Thomas. The Morning Wire: City Unanimously Approves Resolution to Protect
Greenbelt from Development." The Saratoga Wire, December 3rd, 2014,
22
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 PUDs50. He argued that their prohibition at
the Comp Plan level overly restricts the City Council and denies them a full set of
tools51. Several dayslater, two major development figures released a statement
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 crowd52. The second
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 district53.
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,
50
Totino, Jamin. "CPC Vice Chair Offers Explanation of PUD Vote." The Saratogian, December
3rd, 2014.
51
Ibid.
52
Mineau, Lauren. "City Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Set for Tuesday." The Saratogian,
December 7th, 2014, 2014
53
Moran, Harry. "Readers View: Support for Sustainability and Smart Land use." The
Saratogian, January 16th, 2015,
23
including fifty-three unreviewed amendments54. The particular approach taken by the

committee was unusual as they provided no formal recommendation, which obfuscated
the ensuing legal responsibilities of the City Council55. Under normal circumstances the
City Council would be required to hold a public hearing on the plan within 90 days, but
instead was left unbound to any timeline56. Nevertheless, it held the first of four public
hearings on February the 24th, at which certain council members appeared to
demonstrate newfound flexibility with respect to the amendments57. In recognition of the
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 14th58.
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
54
Dimopoulos, Thomas. "Friday Wire: Comprehensive Plan Committee Punts November Draft
to City Council." The Saratoga Wire, December 19th, 2014,
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
57
Mineau, Lauren. City Council Agrees on most of Comprehensive Plan Amendments." The
Saratogian, February 25th, 2015.
58
Mineau, Lauren. City Council vetoes Saratoga National Golf Club resort plan. The
Saratogian, April 14th, 2015.
24
strong incentive to look after and advance their financial interests59. Insofar as the
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
59
Been, et al. 233.
25
(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 Likertscale 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.
26
V, iii. Results
fig. 6 Final Committee
fig. 7 Johnson-Appointed
Growth Machine
Unaffiliated
QHVC
23%
36%
50%
8%
69%
14%
Growth Machine
Unaffiliated
QHVC
Fig. 8 Do You Rent or Own?
96.0%
Own
84.4%
64.3%
12/2 City Council Meeting (N=45) 12/9 Comp. Plan Committee Meeting (N=26)
City Proportion
Fig. 9 In the past year, how many City Council or planning committee meetings have
you attended?
12/2/15 City Council Meeting (N=45)
12/9/15 Comp. Plan Committee Meeting (N=24)
46.2%
24.4%
15.6%
37.8%
30.8%
22.2%
19.2%
3.8%
0
1-2
3-5
Meetings attended
6+
27
Fig. 10 Strong Planning Regulations are Necessary to Prevent Sprawl

90.0%
62.5%
0.0%
4.2%
Strongly Disagree
2.5% 12.5%
0.0%
Somewhat Disagree
16.7%
Neither
7.5%
4.2%
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Fig. 11 Development can be Managed Effectively to Encourage Tax Growth
55.6%
37.5%
27.8%
25.0%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
11.1% 12.5%
Neither
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Fig. 12 Allowing PUDs in the greenbelt will diminish Saratogas City in the Country concept
December 2nd Planning Board Meeting (N=36)
December 9th City Council Meeting (N=24)
88%
54%
6%
17%
0%
13%
0%
13%
Neither
10%
4%
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
28
Fig. 13 The Comp. Plan Committees proposal for PUDs is a reasonable compromise that balances the
need to grow and preserve
73.7%
45.8%
5.3% 12.5%
7.9%
16.7%
Neither
0.0% 12.5%
13.2% 12.5%
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Fig. 14 Are you a member or supporter in any way of Sustainable Saratoga?
69.2%
11.5%
Never Heard Of It
19.2%
No
Yes
Table 1 12/9 Public Comment

Spoke on PUDS
Against
12 60%
For
8 40%
Of For, those affiliated

with the growth machine
6 (75%)
Spoke on Unrelated Topic

Spoke Total
20
Table 2 12/2 Public Comment

Spoke on PUDS
3 NA
19
Against
23 NA
For
Spoke on Unrelated Topic
Spoke Total
19 100%
0
0%
2 NA
21 NA
29
Fig. 15 Voter Issue Saliency in 2013 City Election

50%
Issue #1
Issue #2
37.5%
33%
25%
23%
23%
26%
16%
12.5%
13%
8%
0%
Casino
Taxes
16%
14%
12%
Preserving Open Space Transparency
7%
Crime
9%
Other
Issue Category
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
30
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
31
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.60 Thus, the QHVC arguably outmatched the growth machine not only
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.
60
Interview with Amy Durland, by Matthew Barnes. Conducted Jan, 29th, 2015.
32
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 measures61. A bill passed
both houses that year, but time constraints prevented a referendum, the second step
required in amending the State Constitution62. Thus, in 2013, another bill was passed
just before the summer recessand astatewide referendum scheduled for
November63.In its final form, the legislation allowed for four newcasinos distributed
across three regions,which were the Capital District-Saratoga region, the Hudson
Valley-Catskill area, and the Southern Catskills64. Up until the November vote,
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
61
Post, Paul. "Gov. Cuomo Bets on Constitutional Amendment Legalizing Full-Scale Gambling
in the Empire State: Area Lawmakers Want Details before Deciding Gaming Issue." The
Saratogian, January 3rd, 2012.
62
Hill, Michael. "Analysis: Likelihood of Cuomo Getting 3 Upstate Casinos." The Saratogian,
January 13th, 2013.
63
Hughes, Kyle. "State Legislature Approves Amendment that would Allow for Las Vegas-Style
Gambling in New York; Voters to Decide on Measure in November." The Saratogian, June 22nd,
2013,
64
Ibid.
33
locatedat Saratoga Casino & Raceway65. By January of that year, SaratogaGaming &
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 community66. In interviews, various officials most often framed their support as a
product of necessity, driven by the corollary threat of a casino siting in a nearby county
rather than within Saratoga67.
In the November 5th vote, voters approvedthe referendum statewide, thus
allowing the siting process to continue to unfold68. Yet, in Saratoga Countyan unofficial
count numbered 25,488 againstand 21,956 in favor, along with four other Capital
Region counties69. A greater portion, 57 percent, voted against the amendment within
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
65
Post, Paul. Gov. Cuomo, Gambling Proponents Putting Casino Proposal on Top of Ballot."
The Saratogian, August 15th, 2013
66
Post, Paul. "Saratoga is all-in: State Casino Legislation could be a Huge Win Or a Major Loss
for Local Economy." The Saratogian, January 19th, 2013.
67
Ibid.
68
Post, Paul. "Voters Statewide Approve Casino Gambling Amendment." The Saratogian,
November 5th, 2013.
69
Ibid.
34
support the project belonged within Saratoga Springs at least because of the threatof a
neighboring county developing one instead70.
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 people7172.Colin Klepetar, who would be the spokesman for
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 Council73.Charlie Samuels, the other original member, had just
recently come out of some other activism on my own, skateboard activism, and I had
just beat the city at that74. On November 18th, SAVE held a meeting in the same room
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 andimpressive75.At themeeting,a local newspaper
70
Ibid.
71
Colin Klepetar, interview by Matthew Barnes, January 2015.
72
Charlie Samuels, interview by Matthew Barnes, January 2015.
73
74
Charlie Samuels, interview by Matthew Barnes, January 2015.
75
Ibid.
35
described that residents voiced concerns primarily centered around public safety,
property taxes, and the overall quality of life76.
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
proposal77. It drew almost 1000, and consisted of panelists mostly sourced from the
business community that held different opinions on the siting78. SAVE Saratogawas not
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
SAVE79. Inwhat became an infamous moment, the casino paid for four charter buses to
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 county80. As reported in the
Saratoga Wire, this warning served as amajormotivation for people to go to the
Monday night event,referring to the forum81. The compositional differences quickly
became a talking point, one that many recall todayand which appears in numerous
76
Dimopolous, Thomas. Saratoga Residents Pack City Hall to Oppose Local Casino." The
Saratoga Wire, November 19th, 2013.
77
Dimopoulos, Thomas. "Nearly 1,000 Attend Forum on Casino Gambling." The Saratoga Wire,
December 17th, 2013.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
36
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 activism83. As one SAVE-affiliated commenter said:Jobsare important, but
homes are more important84. In retort, another point of division arose from
theDestination-affiliatedpeople in attendance, encapsulated in the Saratoga Wires
retelling of one womans comment that:chided them[SAVE] for being newcomers to
Saratoga85. Many times over various actors mentioned the disputed reputation SAVE
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 limits86. It was a complete reversal of a resolution
82
Mark Baker, interview by Matthew Barnes, January 2015.
83
"Saratoga Springs Mayor: Residents Deserve Input on Casino Move." The Saratogian,
January 8th, 2014.
84
Dimopoulos, Thomas. Saratoga City Council Meeting: You Say Casino, I Say Bologna." The
Saratoga Wire, January 21st, 2014.
85
86
Ibid.
McCarty, Lucian. "Casino Vote Unanimous, but the Take on what it Means is Not." The
Saratogian, March 5th, 2014.
37
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 city87. In turn, the city could well forfeit any capacity to
prevent the casino from further redirecting economic activity away from the downtown in
the event of further expansion or modification88. The resolution signified a watershed
moment inthe trajectory of thecasino process, and a month later the mayor announced
that no more votes were planned regarding additional resolutions89. Because the
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 over90. It took many months for the Saratoga Casino
& Raceway to formally withdraw theirproposal, and just a day after the Commission
announced its three chosen sites, which included one in Schenectady.
87
City Council of Saratoga Springs. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga
Springs, N.Y. (March 4th, 2014).
88
Ibid.
89
Morris, Caitlin. "Saratoga Springs Mayor: No More Casino Votes Planned." The Saratogian,
April 2nd, 2014.
90
Ibid.
38
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.
39
VI, iii. Results
Figure 16- Issue Saliency, Sutton v. Yepsen

50%
Sutton
Yepsen
37.5%
34%
28%
25%
24%
21%
19%
12.5%
14%
13%
9%
5%
0%
10%
8%
5% 2%
Transparency Urban Growth
Casino
Taxes
EMS
5%
2% 2%
Crime
Water
Other
Figure 17- What do the people of Saratoga Springs care about?

50%
Issue #1
Issue #2
37.5%
33%
25%
26%
23%
23%
16%
12.5%
13%
12%
8%
0%
Casino/Gambling
Taxes
16%
14%
Preserving Open Space Transparency
7%
Crime
9%
Other
40
Figure 18- Rate of Homeownership at SAVE Saratoga City Hall Forum v. Citywide Statistics
(n=79)
Own
91.5%
64.3%
11/18/13 Survey
Citywide (2010 US Census Data)
Figure 19- How often have you visited Casinos or Racinos in the past year? (n=80)
71.3%
25.0%
3.8%
0
1-3
4+
Figure 20- Building a casino in Saratoga Springs will hurt the public image of Saratoga Springs
(n=82)
75.6%
3.7%
4.9%
1.2%
Neither
14.6%
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
41
Figure 21- Building a casino in Saratoga Springs will negatively affect the quality of life in
Saratoga Springs (n=82)
86.6%
6.1%
0.0%
Figure 22)
1.2%
6.1%
Neither
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
42
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
43
Saratoga Springs as a foregone conclusion. In an interview, Colin Klepetar articulated

as much: everybody kept saying that it was a done deal91. Purely based on the results
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
91
44
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 large92. In order to gain a picture
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.
92
Fischel, William A. Politics in a Dynamic View of Land-use Regulations: Of Interest Groups

and Homevoters." The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 31, no. 4 (2005): 400.
45
A chart of these groups is shown in Table 3, grouped in accordance with their

perspective on development.
Table 3
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
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
46
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.
47
VII, iii. Results
Figure 23)
Table 4- Conservation Groups N/S (n=23)

Section
Number
North
22
95.7%
Section
Number
East
Percentage
17
73.9%
Northeast
17
73.9%
Northeast
17
73.9%
Northwest
21.7%
Southeast
0.0%
South
Total
Percentage
Table 5- Conservation Groups E/W (n=23)
4.3%
West
26.1%
Southeast
0.0%
Northwest
21.7%
Southwest
4.3%
Southwest
4.3%
23 23 100.0% 100.0%
Total
23 23 100.0% 100.0%
48
Figure 24)
Table 6- City Land Use Boards/Committes N/S

(n=20)
Section
Number
North
12
60.0%
Section
Number
East
Percentage
14
70.0%
Northeast
11
55.0%
Northeast
11
55.0%
Northwest
5.0%
Southeast
15.0%
South
Total
Percentage
Table 7- City Land Use Boards/Committes E/W

(n=20)
40.0%
West
30.0%
Southeast
15.0%
Northwest
5.0%
Southwest
25.0%
Southwest
25.0%
20 20 100.0% 100.0%
Total
20 20 100.0%
100.0%
49
Figure 25)
Table 8- Growth Interests N/S (n=20)
Table 9- Growth Interests E/W (n=20)
Section
Section
Number
North
16
80.0%
Number
East
Percentage
18
90.0%
Northeast
16
80.0%
Northeast
16
80.0%
Northwest
0.0%
Southeast
10.0%
South
Total
Percentage
20.0%
West
10.0%
Southeast
10.0%
Northwest
0.0%
Southwest
10.0%
Southwest
10.0%
20 20 100.0% 100.0%
Total
20 20 100.0%
100.0%
50
Figure 26)
Table 10- All N/S (n=63)

Section
Number
North
Table 11- All E/W (n=63)
Percentage
50
79.4%
Section
Number
East
Percentage
49
77.8%
Northeast
44
69.8%
Northeast
44
69.8%
Northwest
9.5%
Southeast
7.9%
South
13
20.6%
West
14
22.2%
Southeast
7.9%
Northwest
9.5%
Southwest
12.7%
Southwest
12.7%
Total
63 63 100.0% 100.0%
Total
63 63 100.0% 100.0%
51
Figure 27)
Table 12- All, with Median Household Income- N/S

Section
Number
North
Percentage
50
Table 13- All, with Median Household Income- E/W
Median Household
Income
79%
Section
Number
$61,338 East
Percentage
49
Median Household
Income
78%
$68,450
NE
44
70%
$75,401
NE
44
70%
$75,401
NW
10%
$47,275
SE
8%
$61,499
South
13
21%
$57,598 West
14
22%
$50,486
SE
8%
$61,499
NW
10%
$47,275
SW
13%
$53,696
SW
13%
$53,696
100% 100%
$59,468
100% 100%
$59,468
Total
63
63
Total
63
63
Table 14- Median Income Differentials

East
Household Income Averages
Quadrants Difference
Halves Difference
$68,450
West
$50,486
$17,964
North
$61,338
South
$57,598
$3,740
$14,224
52
Figure 28- Compiled Land-Use Actors (n=63)
69.8%
Northeast
9.5%
7.9%
12.7%
Northwest
Southeast
Southwest
City Sections
Figure 29- Homeownership
85%
64.3%
Saratoga
Saratoga Voters
Figure 30- Voter Length of Residence
55.9%
27.6%
16.5%
1-10 Years
11-20 Years
21+ Years
53
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 landuse 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
54
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 landuse 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.
55
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
56
and interest groups, played a significant role in land use decision making, here it seems
a similar dynamic is at work93. The political leanings expressed in the same surveys
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 now9495. The more
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
93
Gerber, Elisabeth R. and Justin H. Phillips. "Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group
Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences." American Journal of
Political Science 47, no. 4 (2003): 627.
94
Jonas, Andrew EG and David Wilson. "The City as a Growth Machine: Critical Reflections
Two Decades Later." The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later 3,
no. 3 (1999): 3
95
Knudson, 349.
57
to the their efforts. In no way do Saratoga Springs politics operate by excluding QHVC
interests like Sustainable Saratoga and giving undue attention to the growth machine,
but rather arguably hew in the opposite direction, a pattern that has recently become
more widely documented in other cities969798. Moreover, the sum profile of the citys
land-use actors bears significant homogeneity in important ways, rendering those falling
either on the side of conservation or growth interests as somewhat indistinguishable.
The vast majority of those active in land-use politics and who reside within the city live
within the wealthiest quadrant, in the northeastern section, while very few live in the
other three.
Thus, the conflicts that emerge over land-use and which often pit groups like
Sustainable Saratoga against the growth machine cannot be accurately described as
especially imbalanced. As much as the careers of the growth machines constituent
members drive them to act insistently in their interests, so too does homeownership
drive a certain class of wealthier citizens to advance and protect their own. As
mentioned before, Amy Durland stated: I think its fair to say that Sustainable Saratoga
has very good access to any of the commissioners. Similarly, Charlie Samuels stated,
in reference to his relationship with a city councilperson: We were sort of friends
beforehand, and that helped a lot. The descriptive picture that emerges from the data
and interviews illustrates a kind of local politics not dominated by a class of developers
96
Schmidt, Stephan. "From Pro-Growth to Slow-Growth in Suburban New Jersey." Journal of

Planning Education and Research 27, no. 3 (2008): 309.
97
98
Jonas & Wilson, 4.
Thi Nguyen, Mai. "Why do Communities Mobilize Against Growth: Growth Pressures,
Community Status, Metropolitan Hierarchy, Or Strategic Interaction?" Journal of Urban Affairs
31, no. 1 (2009): 40.
58
who are asymmetrically capable of influencing the policy process, but rather fiercely
contested between the active homevoters working to maintain their quality of life and
the often countervailing interests of the growth machine.
IX. Conclusions & Further Research

Dominant narratives of growth and local politics often rely upon a David-andGoliath model, wherein powerful developers possess a significant advantage over and
against the average citizen. In wealthy cities like Saratoga Springs, newer research has
begun to show increased valuations of open space and a more selective approach to
growth, trends borne out by my findings99100. In all three cases, organizations composed
of almost entirely homeowners either, at the time of publication, stand a very good
chance or already have succeeded outright. The contribution I believe my work
represents is in its illustration of the actors involved in these land use policy outcomes.
Indeed, these outcomes do not necessarily represent the majority will of the public but
instead the product of intensive competition among a group of local elites.
Going forward, the research assembled here could stand improvement through a
more regularized, systematic approach to surveying and a mapping process that takes
a broader array of actors into account. Moreover it remains impossible to conclude how
these results and insights extend beyond Saratoga Springs, given the scarcity of work
that incorporates a similar methodology. In other cities the geospatial distribution of
land-use elites may be more even and the interests of homevoters mostly ignored,
although it seems unlikely. At the very least, this research perhaps casts doubt upon
99
Zhu & Zhang, 294.
100
Kelleher & Lowery, 68.
59
prevailing modes of interpreting the perennial conflict between the growth machine and
homevoters.
60
Bibliography
Been, Vicki, Josiah Madar, and Simon McDonnell. "Urban LandUse Regulation: Are
Homevoters Overtaking the Growth Machine?" Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 11, no. 2
(2014): 227-265.
City Council of Saratoga Springs. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga
Springs, N.Y.(March 4th, 2014, 2014).
. City Council Meeting Agenda. July 1st, 2014, 2014.
. City Council Meeting Agenda. June 17th, 2014, 2014.
Dahl, Robert A. "The City in the Future of Democracy." American Political Science Review 61,
no. 04 (1967): 953-970.
Dimopoulos, Thomas. "Awkward Position of Comp. Plan." The Saratoga Wire, January 23rd,
2015.
. "Friday Wire: Comprehensive Plan Committee Punts November Draft to City Council."
The Saratoga Wire, December 19th, 2014.
. Nearly 1,000 Attend Forum on Casino Gambling." The Saratoga Wire, December
17th, 2013.
. "Saratoga City Council Meeting: You Say Casino, I Say Bologna." The Saratoga Wire,
January 21st, 2014.
. "Saratoga Residents Pack City Hall to Oppose Local Casino." The Saratoga Wire,
November 19th, 2013.
. "The Morning Wire: Board OKs Saratoga Parking Garage - some Spaces Lost, Net Gain
= 292 Spots." The Saratoga Wire, December 11th, 2014.
. "The Morning Wire: City Unanimously Approves Resolution to Protect Greenbelt from
Development." The Saratoga Wire, December 3rd, 2014.
DiPasquale, Denise and Edward L. Glaeser. "Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners
Better Citizens?" Journal of Urban Economics 45, no. 2 (1999): 354-384.
Domhoff, G. William. "Who really Ruled in Dahl's New Haven?" 2005b, Available Online at:
Www.Whorulesamerica.Net (Accessed July 9, 2006) (2005).
Ellickson, Robert C. "Suburban Growth Controls: An Economic and Legal Analysis." Yale Law
Journal (1977): 385-511.
Fischel, William A. The Homevoter Hypothesis Harvard University Press, 2009.
61
. The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation,
School Finance, and Land-use Policies Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA, 2001.
. "Politics in a Dynamic View of Land-use Regulations: Of Interest Groups and
Homevoters." The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 31, no. 4 (2005): 397-403.
Gerber, Elisabeth R. and Justin H. Phillips. "Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group
Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences." American Journal of
Political Science 47, no. 4 (2003): 625-639.
Grey, Jennie. "Mouzon House Owners Concerned Proposed City Center Parking Garage may
Overshadow Restaurant." The Saratogian, December 15th, 2012.
Hill, Michael. "Analysis: Likelihood of Cuomo Getting 3 Upstate Casinos." The Saratogian,
January 13th, 2013.
Hughes, Kyle. "State Legislature Approves Amendment that would Allow for Las Vegas-Style
Gambling in New York; Voters to Decide on Measure in November." The Saratogian, June 22nd,
2013.
Jonas, Andrew EG and David Wilson. "The City as a Growth Machine: Critical Reflections Two
Decades Later." The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later 3, no. 3
(1999).
Kelleher, Christine A. and David Lowery. "Central City Size, Metropolitan Institutions and
Political Participation." British Journal of Political Science 39, no. 01 (2009): 59-92.
Knudson, Paul T. "Preservationists as Qualitative Growth Actors A Case Study of Saratoga
Springs, New York." Humanity & Society 36, no. 4 (2012): 326-353.
Lee, Caroline W. "Conservation as a Territorial Ideology." City & Community 8, no. 3 (2009):
301-328.
Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place Univ of
California Press, 2007.
McCarty, Lucian. "Casino Vote Unanimous, but the Take on what it Means is Not." The
Saratogian, March 5th, 2014.
. "Mayor Completes Saratoga Springs Comprehensive Plan Committee, Council
Democrats Say the Slate is DOA." The Saratogian, February 7th, 2013.
. "Saratoga Springs City Center Proposes Parking Garage for Convention Center." The
Saratogian, November 20th, 2012.
Mineau, Lauren. "City Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Set for Tuesday." The Saratogian,
December 7th, 2014.
62
. "City Council Agrees on most of Comprehensive Plan Amendments." The Saratogian,
February 25th, 2015.
. "Combined Land use Board Meeting Planned for City Center Garage Project." The
Saratogian, September 16, 2014.
. "Parking Forums Spark Discussion, City Center Garage Still Under Review." The
Saratogian, January 23rd, 2015
. "Planning Board Weighs Lead Role in Parking Garage Proposal." The Saratogian, July
5th, 2014, 2014.
. "PUD Resolution OKd; Measure Subject to Public Hearings, Final Action." The
Saratogian, December 2nd, 2014.
. "Saratoga Springs City Center Garage Plan Moves Forward." The Saratogian,
December 11th, 2014.
. "Saratoga Springs City Center Parking Deck Plan Faces Opposition." The Saratogian,
October 23, 2014
. "Spa City Planning Board to Seek Lead Agency Status in Garage Project." The
Saratogian, July 10th, 2014.
Molotch, Harvey. "The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place."
American Journal of Sociology (1976): 309-332.
Moran, Harry. "Readers View: Support for Sustainability and Smart Land use." The Saratogian,
January 16th, 2015.
Morris, Caitlin. "Saratoga Springs Mayor: No More Casino Votes Planned." The Saratogian,
April 2nd, 2014.
. "Saratoga Springs Mayor: Residents Deserve Input on Casino Move." The Saratogian,
January 8th, 2014.
Oliver, J. Eric, Shang E. Ha, and Zachary Callen. Local Elections and the Politics of Small-Scale
Democracy Princeton University Press, 2012.
Post, Paul. "Gov. Cuomo Bets on Constitutional Amendment Legalizing Full-Scale Gambling in
the Empire State: Area Lawmakers Want Details before Deciding Gaming Issue." The
Saratogian, January 3rd, 2012.
. "Gov. Cuomo, Gambling Proponents Putting Casino Proposal on Top of Ballot." The
Saratogian, August 15th, 2013.
. "Saratoga is all-in: State Casino Legislation could be a Huge Win Or a Major Loss for
Local Economy." The Saratogian, January 19th, 2013.
63
. "Voters Statewide Approve Casino Gambling Amendment." The Saratogian, November
5th, 2013.
Robert Camoin, Dan Stevens. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Saratoga Race
Cource: 2014 Update: Saratoga County Industrial Development Agency, 2015.
Schmidt, Stephan. "From Pro-Growth to Slow-Growth in Suburban New Jersey." Journal of
Planning Education and Research 27, no. 3 (2008): 306-318.
Thi Nguyen, Mai. "Why do Communities Mobilize Against Growth: Growth Pressures,
Community Status, Metropolitan Hierarchy, Or Strategic Interaction?" Journal of Urban Affairs
31, no. 1 (2009): 25-43.
Totino, Jamin. "CPC Vice Chair Offers Explanation of PUD Vote." The Saratogian, December
3rd, 2014.
Unknown. "Mouzon House Warns Against Adjacent 4-Story Garage." The Saratogian, May 20th,
2014.
Webcast of November 17th Meeting. Directed by Comprehensive Plan Committee. City of
Saratoga Springs, 2014.

Analyzing The Dynamics of Participation in Saratoga Springs' Land-Use Politics: The Case For The Qualitative Homevoter Coalition

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Analyzing The Dynamics of Participation in Saratoga Springs' Land-Use Politics: The Case For The Qualitative Homevoter Coalition

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Analyzing the dynamics of participation in Saratoga Springs land-use politics: the

case for the qualitative homevoter coalition

I. Introduction & Literature Review

I. Introduction & Literature Review

I. Introduction & Literature Review

I. Introduction & Literature Review

Fischel, William A. The Homevoter Hypothesis Harvard University Press, 2009.

I. Introduction & Literature Review

Knudson, Paul T. "Preservationists as Qualitative Growth Actors A Case Study of Saratoga

I. Introduction & Literature Review

II. Saratoga Springs

I. Introduction & Literature Review

I. Introduction & Literature Review

I. Introduction & Literature Review

III. Research Design & Methodologies

I. Introduction & Literature Review

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

SAVE Saratoga CoFounder

Former Public Works

SAVE Saratoga CoFounder

President of the City

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV. City Center Parking Garage

Mark Baker, interview by Matthew Barnes. January 2015.

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV. City Center Parking Garage

In September a joint Planning Board and Design Review Commission meeting

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV, ii. Analysis

IV. City Center Parking Garage

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree

IV. City Center Parking Garage

Fig. 4 The Proposed Parking Plan Being Discussed Tonight is an Acceptable

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

National Average 07-12

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV. City Center Parking Garage

McCarty, Lucian. "Mayor Completes Saratoga Springs Comprehensive Plan Committee,

IV. City Center Parking Garage

Conservation Development Districts, which constrained high-density development

Webcast of November 17th Meeting. Comprehensive Plan Committee. City of Saratoga

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV. City Center Parking Garage

including fifty-three unreviewed amendments54. The particular approach taken by the

IV. City Center Parking Garage

Been, et al. 233.

IV. City Center Parking Garage

IV. City Center Parking Garage

Fig. 8 Do You Rent or Own?

12/2/15 City Council Meeting (N=45)

12/9/15 Comp. Plan Committee Meeting (N=24)

IV. City Center Parking Garage

Fig. 10 Strong Planning Regulations are Necessary to Prevent Sprawl

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

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

12/2/15 City Council Meeting (N=36)

12/9/15 Comp. Plan Committee Meeting (N=24)

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree

IV. City Center Parking Garage