Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is Sixth Ward Neighbors United?

A: Sixth Ward Neighbors United is a group of citizens of the Sixth Ward dedicated to protecting the interests of our community through advocacy, civic engagement, and responsible neighborhood planning. We work to ensure that Sixth Ward residents and property owners have a strong, unified voice in local decision-making, promote accountability in government and development, and safeguard the character, safety, and quality of life in the Sixth Ward to be as prosperous as that of greater Oneonta. By standing together, we strive to shape policies and projects that reflect the needs and values of our neighbors.

Q: What are your goals as a group regarding 164 River Street?

A: Our main goal is to guarantee that if a project proceeds at 164 River Street, it adheres to all standards and regulations put in place by law so that any development will provide safety for, and benefits to the residents of Solstice Commons, the Sixth Ward, and the City of Oneonta, ensuring the best outcomes for all. RSS has opted to move quickly in moving this project along, and we want to be certain that, like any careful driver, the Planning Commission should ‘stop’, look, and listen — moving forward only after all facts are clear.

There are still many unknowns surrounding this project, including what infrastructure upgrades may be required and how they will be funded, how it could affect the surrounding neighborhood, economy, and school systems, as well as any potential environmental impacts. For any community project to succeed, it is essential that residents are fully informed and provided with clear facts from both local government officials and project developers.

Q: Is it true that SWNU asked people to sign a petition to have the city shut down this project?

Q: You mention the lack of transparency from RSS, but on the City website there are a whole bunch of documents on the project.

Q: You mention lack of transparency from City Government, even though again, there is a lot of public information available.

Q: There is another Neighborhood group that seems to be supportive of the RSS development. What are your thoughts on that?

Q: We’ve heard that there was a meeting of ‘Sixth Ward Neighbors United’ where people were told not to voice differing opinions and if they were for the project, to not speak up; why?

A: This is false. The exact text from the petition can be found below. 197 residents signed this petition for more information and community engagement. This represents roughly 12.5% of the Sixth Ward. Signatures were gathered by only a few people walking door-to-door, less than a week before the Planning Commission meeting in September. We believe that the number would be higher with more time and better outreach to residents who work varied schedules or who prefer not to engage with door-to-door visitors. A copy of this petition was read into the minutes of the Planning Commission and should be on file with public records.

Petition Text:

“We, the residents and those that own property in the Sixth Ward, are petitioning the Planning Commission, the Common Council, the Mayor, City Administrator, and Code Enforcement Officer to not take any action on the newly proposed housing plan for the Solstice Commons at 164 River Street, Oneonta, NY. We are petitioning for a two-month moratorium on any action taken by the Planning Commission on the aforementioned project. This moratorium, of non-action, on said project would take effect immediately and will continue until the regularly scheduled meeting in November, there or about November 17th.

We, the undersigned, are further petitioning the City of Oneonta and Rehabilitation Support Services to hold four (4) neighborhood meetings within the Sixth Ward for those residents and property owners within the Sixth Ward. Two meetings should take place in October 2025, and two in November 2025, well in advance of any Planning Commission Meeting.

We, the undersigned, recognize that this project will affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the Sixth Ward Community.”

We've heard many questions about Sixth Ward Neighbors United, and to help answer them, we've created this Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. As more questions come up, we will try to address them here. If you have a question we might be able to answer, you can reach out to us at info@sixthward.org.

A: That is correct! The city planning board website has numerous documents about the RSS proposal and the required filing documents for the building site. In fact, there are several hundred pages of site plans and engineering drawings. But what you can’t get from a site plan is what the operational plan for this taxpayer-funded housing project looks like, or a timeline required by funding agencies. These are the details that concern Sixth Ward Neighbors United, and we feel that this is the information that is not presented, glossed over, or so high-level that it amounts to ‘trust us, we have your best interest in mind’, with no backup.

A: It is hard to say that the city government is not being transparent, because a lot of the government documents are posted on their ecode360 page, which houses official records. The transparency topic comes up because residents of the Sixth Ward were not made aware that this project was coming back to River Street. The city notified residents within 200 feet of the site, which barely covers one neighborhood block, that there was an upcoming Planning Commission Meeting to review an RSS proposal, but this notification was received a week before the official meeting, with no time for residents to prepare, since this was the first time they were hearing about the project. Residents outside the 200-foot line were not notified about the project plans. Instead, residents are hearing about it through the grapevine, rather than from their elected leaders, city government notification systems, or elsewhere. This lack of communication lowers trust in the organization and makes us dig a little further into what is going on.

Another item of note is that the city council mentions affordable housing as a priority for the city. Yet they voted down an RSS proposal to buy the ‘Old Ford Building’ lot at 27 Market Street by a 5-3 margin. RSS would have paid nearly $500,000 to the city and improved an empty lot that was once an abandoned structure. Instead, they have forced RSS’s hand to build on River Street in the only wooded lot left in the Sixth Ward. This also included altering the Market Street project plan, which was a low-income housing initiative with a communal/commercial space below. The River Street proposal is for 31 units of Severe Mental Illness and Supportive Housing, and 30 units for low-income housing. A vastly different project, and no longer a mixed-use concept. All while referring to it solely as ‘low-income housing,’ seemingly make it sound the same as the 27 Market Street project.

A: We fully support their right to make their voices heard. We are all doing what we feel supports the long-term success of Oneonta. They, too, are supporting what they believe is best for their community, and you can’t argue against that. The society we have is built on the foundational concept of making your voice heard, standing up for what you believe in, and accepting that, whatever the outcome, you continue to be a good steward of your neighborhood.

A: That assessment is misleading and false. The meeting referenced was a verbal invitation-only event. The Sixth Ward Neighbors United group asked those who we thought might have concerns about the project to come and voice those concerns. This meeting was not organized to host a public debate since this isn’t a voting topic, but to ensure any concerns about the project get representation in the Sixth Ward and at City Hall. This also includes stopping the project, as currently proposed, from proceeding under current filings without further review. When the meeting started, that intention was made clear, and we asked those who were in favor of the project not to speak up, as debate was not the intent of the meeting. We also said that all those in favor of the project were welcome to stay and listen to neighbors’ concerns and take from it what they will, as long as everyone remained civil. We’ve seen quotes from people who voiced concerns that day which were then attributed as an official view of the SWNU group. Unfortunately, that is not the case and only further spreads misinformation. In addition, a filter seems to have been placed on the content taken from that meeting, and only items perceived as ‘negative’ have been mentioned.