A Better Path for Kingston Business Park

Kingston needs housing. But we don’t need to blast into a hillside, carve new roads through forest, strain our water system, and hand a giant blank check to a master developer in the name of “solving” the housing crisis.

I’m not opposing housing for the sake of it, and I’m not making simple NIMBY arguments. I’m opposing this specific oversized project and offering smaller, concrete solutions that add homes without selling out Kingston.

What the Current Plan Really Does

Based on the City’s own consultant study, the current concept for the Business Park would:

  • Build up to 600 housing units in a brand-new, dense “district” on more than 100 acres.
  • Cut new internal roads and branches into steep, forested hillsides instead of working within the existing road system.
  • Rely on a pumped water system (not gravity) with long-term maintenance and electricity costs baked in forever.
  • Increase peak-hour traffic on nearby streets like Ulster/3rd Ave by almost seven times what residents see today.
  • Layer in new parking structures, massed buildings, and grading on land that was never meant to be a full new neighborhood.

That’s not modest infill. That’s a mega-project that permanently changes the scale and feel of this side of Kingston.

Lines in the Sand

If we’re going to talk about redeveloping the Business Park, we need clear limits that protect Kingston’s character, finances, and environment. Here are mine:

  • No PILOTs. No tax abatements. No subsidies. If a developer wants to build, they should pay their fair share. Homeowners and small businesses should not subsidize a project this large.
  • Smaller scale, matched to existing neighborhoods. Building forms and height should look like Kingston, not a dropped-in city from somewhere else.
  • No new roads punched into the forest. Work within the existing access road and already-cleared areas. If it only “works” by carving new roads and cutting into ridges, it’s the wrong project.
  • No expansion of the Ulster/3rd Ave entrance for large-scale residential traffic. That street was never meant to absorb a 7x jump in peak-hour trips.
  • No large housing clusters above the gravity-pressure water zone without a real 50-year cost analysis. We should not lock ourselves into a permanent pumped-water headache.
  • Affordability tied to Kingston incomes, not inflated regional AMI. “Pro-housing” that prices out the people who live and work here is not a solution.

These are not abstract complaints. They’re guardrails that keep us from making an expensive, irreversible mistake.

A Smaller, Smarter Alternative

If the City truly wants to add housing at the Business Park without wrecking the hillside or overloading our systems, there is a better path:

  1. Limit development to already-cleared or gently sloped areas.
    Focus on the existing road, current clearings, and the flattest terrain. No new switchbacks, no deep cuts, no ridge-top experiments.
  2. Cap the total square footage and unit count.
    Stay closer to the scale of the original Business Park footprint and the surrounding neighborhoods, not the maximum theoretical density.
  3. Build homes that Kingston workers can actually live in.
    Prioritize smaller buildings, duplexes, townhouses, and cottage courts. Require a large share of units to be affordable using local income data, not just county-wide AMI.
  4. Protect most of the forest as real conservation land.
    Use the Conservation Village concept to lock in long-term open space, habitat, and trail connections—not just pocket parks wrapped in marketing language.
  5. Make the project stand on its own financially.
    No PILOT, no break from school taxes, no shifting infrastructure costs onto everyone else. If it can’t work without giveaways, it doesn’t work.

That’s the difference between saying “not in my backyard” and saying “not like this, not at this scale, and not on the backs of Kingston residents.”

Not Just Against Something Be For Something Better

I’m not asking Kingston to freeze in time. I’m asking us to be honest about the costs, the risks, and the scale of what’s being proposed and to demand a version that adds homes without turning a unique hillside and forest into a speculative district we’ll regret.

We can support housing, protect our environment, respect our neighborhoods, and say no to a mega-project that doesn’t fit Kingston. Those ideas are not in conflict unless we let developers and distant incentives convince us otherwise.

– Dustin Bryant