The final government center battle?

By Nathan Mayberg
GOSHEN — After months and years of arguments over the demolition of the government center, an Ulster County judge has appeared to have thwarted another attempt to stop the demolition.

On Wednesday, State Supreme Court Judge Christopher Cahill rejected an appeal by attorney Michael Sussman on behalf of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation and a local resident to stop the demolition as they challenge county's environmental review.

The foundation sought to preserve the government center, which was designed by the famed architect Paul Rudolph. Cahill did not explain his decision in a copy forwarded by Justin Rodriguez, spokesperson to Orange County Executive Steve Neuhaus.

At a hearing Tuesday in the Orange County Courthouse, Cahill listened to spirited arguments over whether the county followed the law when it planned its demolition. The county has borrowed $77 million to demolish and rebuild the center.

Attorney Michael Sussman represented Eugene Degan of Goshen and Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation founder and president Ernst Wagner. He had requested a temporary stop-work order while his arguments are heard. Cahill had previously ruled against Sussman's arguments (see sidebar).Cahill had originally delayed the demolition after that previous suit brought by Sussman to stop the demolition but ultimately ruled against him and his clients on that suit.

An evolving environmental review

Sussman's latest suit says the county made additional changes to the environmental review in May, following his earlier lawsuit.

Orange County, represented by attorney Hyun Chin Kim, said it was too late for Sussman to challenge the latest review. She also challenged whether the court had the authority to review Sussman's request for a restraining order, and challenged whether the plaintiffs had any standing to bring the suit. She said Sussman's arguments had been made before.

Some of her arguments brought a rebuke from Cahill, who insisted he had authority to review the restraining order request. He further said this case was new.

"This is about SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act)," Cahill said.

If the government center demolition project were delayed by the court, Kim argued, the state Office of Court Administration could sanction the county. Part of the government center renovation project involves new court space.

In addition, Kim said, the contractor for the project, Helmer-Cronin, has estimated that a delay could cost the county $94,000 a month more.

Holt Construction, which is managing the project, and Clark, Patterson and Lee have also forecasted additional costs if work was delayed.

Changing plansSussman further argued that retention ponds to capture stormwater runoff at the site had been removed from the county's plans.

Kim said this was because less than one acre of soil would be affected. But Sussman believes more will be affected, including greenery, trees, and growth adjacent to the parking lot not accounted for in the review.

He said the project review further violated environmental law by not considering alternatives to the demolition plan.

"We can't have a county that just doesn't follow the law," Sussman said.

Kim said the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) enforces penalities against violators.

Sussman said the DEC told him they hadn't received a site plan from the county, and he hasn't been able to get a copy himself. The county's claims about soil disturbance were made without a site plan, he said.

Meanwhile, Sussman submitted a letter to the court from the Boston-based DesignLab architects, in which president Robert Miklos explains his company's decision to leave the project last year.

Miklos accused the county and its main design firm, Clark, Patterson and Lee, of avoiding "the typical approvals process for a project of this type."

Kim called the letter a "contractor, subcontractor disagreement" over the diminished role accorded to DesignLab architects.

According to an attorney for the contractor, the government center's windows have been removed. Work on the roof was recently suspended while the Department of Labor conducts an investigation.

As the arguments concluded Wednesday, Cahill pressed the attorneys to show what irreparable harm would be done to the defendants if the government center were demolished.

There are other Paul Rudolph buildings in the country, Cahill said.

"There is no way to put the building back together" after it is demolished, Sussman said. "We're dealing with something that can not be replaced."