RE: The Altamont Convention Grounds

2001

My name is Edward (Ed) K. Williams. What you are about to read is the information I providedthe workers responsible for the Altamont convention grounds located right on US Route 20 in theTownship of Guilderland, which is about 15 miles west of downtown Albany, New York, USA. By way of background, I grew up across the road from the property in question, and attended preparations and conventions there for 59 years. I am extremely familiar with the buildings and operations of the grounds, and am also very experienced in the construction field, as for several years I've been a Construction Consultant to the general public.

During the last 30 years, the Town of Guilderland (Altamont,the rural delivery mailing address, isabout six miles from the convention grounds) has seen much expansion(especially in the form of shoppingcenters), so building authorities cannot "turn their head's" to theexplicit actions of smaller individuals likewas common in "The Old Days"... to be non-prejudiced, they must actimpartial and adhere closer to "theletter of the law," as would be understandable. Corporations (as is theGrounds), are given even less laxity than private properties. In1993-94, these stricter standards were emphasized, when I was asked todesign a custom new 5-stall garage with a breezeway and an upstairsapartment for the private family that now lives in my old homestead.

While some have had concerns for many years about certain safety issues at the Altamont convention, I, like many others, kept quiet 'for the sake of thekingdom'. For example, I knew that there were GROSS violations (especially fire risks, safety dangers, unauthorized (re)construction, and serious pollution potentialities) that were being kept "hidden" from the authorities. One concern in particular, is the close proximity of Watervliet Reservoir, a public drinking water source which borders the grounds. In due course, I felt it necessary as a professional in the construction trade, to bring to the attention of the responsible workers my concerns about these issues.

To that end, on January 1, 1998, in a visit with workers Charles Steffen and Bruce Shaw, several of these things were addressed. I found that my concerns however, fell on deaf ears.

What follows is my written statement and letter to the responsible workers, regarding these issues:

February/March 1998

To: Those Responsible:

 During my growing-up years, and forever afterward until
he died, my dad, repeatedly voiced his concerns (and often,
distress), about conditions prevalent on the Altamont
Convention Grounds, both to myself and many others. The
potential repercussions from questionable (and even illegal)
construction and safety concerns, were the prime and
motivation, as one could see serious ignorance of applicable
governing codes and laws, etc., around the premises. These
included numerous (and usually basic) building structural
framing details and code violations, hazardous storage,
seating that collapsed, easy accessibility to "restricted"
areas, and other situations where more immediate functional
needs took precedence over addressing adequate safety,
legal, moral, and perhaps other, responsibilities.
 "Back then" there was always the risk of accidents, but
only a comparatively minute possibility of any serious
repercussions. However, in "today's world", one must
demonstrate every effort to comply with the many laws
governing the actual situation taking place, wether the
project is building a new structure or converting older one,
or meeting an environmental or safety standard. Also, it
must be remembered that standards (and modifications
permitted) for personal dwellings, are decidedly different
than those required for other structures - especially where
concentrations of people are probable and where the public
may be present. Evidence of following safe practices,
monitoring off-limits areas, fire watch, extinguishing
equipment (and operational knowledge of it), and potential
evacuation provisions and procedures, etc., must considered
as well as the usual medical emergency support. It is also
well to remember that sometimes, lawsuits must be filed, in
order for some issues to be settled.

 As with my dad, I know that our industrial training and
responsibilities, plus our intimate knowledge of building
and business procedures and practices, enabled us to "see"
things that the unfamiliar would not be aware of. This
background, and experience in dealing with events as well as
various industrial, business and governmental "authorities",
made us very aware of the (possibly) severe penalties (to
say nothing of corrections costs) that can result when
accidents do happen: there are also "fines", and other
(possibly much more severe) charges that are levied from
neglect and/or avoidance of various laws. Such penalties can
go back several years to the codes, etc., in effect at the
time things were done. These are especially crucial where
the more than just the property owner may be involved.
Although many conditions are "grandfathered", in that
updating is not forced if there's no change in function or
use, this cannot be construed as a "blanket" fact: some new
laws may require immediate compliance (E.G.: buried tanks).

 Another very important fact, is that this property is
located within local runoff distance (few hundred feet) of a
public drinking water supply, which naturally, is monitored
constantly for chemistry, pollution, and who knows what
else. Because of such close proximity to this reservoir, and
with sampling capabilities detecting parts-per-billion or
perhaps finer, changes in runoff content are documented very
quickly, and could trigger detailed investigations; to say
nothing of what the eyes, nose, or suspicions, of some
casual observer might precipitate. The demise of the dairy
has considerably reduced livestock runoff (a "plus"), but
other substances such as fuel or sewage, could "ring bells"
in much smaller quantities.

 It must also be taken into account, that the current
construction-widening of the main road has removed some of
the vegetation "screening" that provided a degree of
privacy, so even existing structures are much less hidden to
passers-by and could be brought into question: any changes,
including excavation, machinery, building, or variation in
activities, certainly will be much more visible. Also, a
fact of today's world, is that sometimes the News Media
arrives at a location (possibly: "live"!) with, or even
before, any "authorities"! One wouldn't want to imagine what
this could mean, especially during Convention!

 My current function includes "coaching" various clients
on construction related activities, so in the industry, I am
considered a "Construction Professional" (and have had a
legal document drawn up accordingly). I have discussed my
concerns with two different Building Inspectors (including
the Town of Guilderland), and have been informed that since
I understand many of the problems, I may have some resultant
legal liability, if I don't inform those responsible of
these matters: therefore, the reason for this write-up. I
will try to categorize some of the specifics, but this
should not be construed by any means, as all-inclusive.

Building Codes:

 The law requires that before any renovations or new
construction is started, one must see if a permit is
required through discussion with the local town building
department. In Guilderland, there must also be "stamped"
drawings (by a Professional Engineer, who certifies not only
structural integrity, but also code-compliance of the design
and its application) if the project is of $10,000 in value
(not to be confused with cost!): smaller value projects
could require this also (hence the reason to check in
advance with the appropriate authorities), under certain
circumstances. It must be kept in mind that usually, Code
Enforcement officials must "sign off" (and may have to even
be present) at specific stages of most construction
projects, and that a "CO" (Certificate of Occupancy) must be
issued before the project can be legitimately used:
insurances could be nullified and legalities can be
compounded many times over, if such "paperwork" doesn't
exist: especially if such things as a fire or personal
injury occurred, even years later.

 Another important fact is that whenever the use/purpose
of a structure is changed, it must be updated to all current
codes governing its new use. For example, the recent
conversion of the garage to a year-around meeting room, was
supposed to have followed the above process. Minimums of
compliance would have necessitated all doors swinging
outward and sized for the exiting of a certain amount of
people simultaneously, even possibly relocated (especially
if the eventual use/layout were known). Also, combustion
sources would be contained in a separate fire-resistant room
(with its specific requirements!), maximum occupancy would
be limited to 15 sq. ft. per person, and exitways would have
to be lighted and free from all obstructions for certain
distances: escape routes (no vehicles parked close, etc.)
outside, and the inside never blocked with chairs, extension
leads, or anything else.

  Another example might be the conversion of the
apartment over the cookhouse to a sleeping dorm. It is
probable that the downstairs ceilings would have to be
covered with firecode sheetrock (possibly two layers) and
the furnace hot water heating separately enclosed as above,
an east-end fire escape needed, rooms would have to meet
egress codes, and maybe even the septic and leach field
changed significantly to accommodate the larger number of
users: handicap access might even be required! One should
never assume that no permits are needed, just because there
are no appreciable modifications to the outside of a
structure. Starting right, will help assure continuing and
ending right: a spiritual understanding that also applies to
such natural things.

 The recently relocated "campground" area and its
electrical "hookups", also have their own "running rules".
For example, was any attempt made to see what applicable
codes there were that governed such facilities and was this
done in advance of any actual work, were appropriate permits
requested / issued? Good intentions, improved connections,
and the obvious convenience of closeness, is no reason to
assume the liberty of making changes without complying with
the "rules" governing such projects. Simply put, such
liberties could be breaking the law, and might result in
undesirable consequences. As a driver of a car must comply
with the "rules of the road", so must construction projects
comply with the codes governing them: lack thereof could
also be as potentially disastrous!

The Trailers:

 The use of this type of "building" makes a lot of
sense, functionally, perhaps economically, and in the event
they had to be moved elsewhere. However, trailers imply
"temporary" and "portable", a rather difficult thing to
explain when they remain in one location all year around and
the "hookups" are obviously quite permanent in nature. Here
too, applicable codes must be addressed when making
conversions from their originally designed purpose, as well
as in the utility connections "to" and "from". Finally,
since the Town of Guilderland has had an ordinance governing
trailers for decades: permits and/or "variances", etc. are
usually required when they're used, and must be applied for
and granted for any such facilities before they can be
deemed acceptable. It's possible that these might be removed
very suddenly, under the "right" circumstances! Wheels for a
"foundation" instead of concrete, may affect the taxability
of a structure, but a different set of governing rules are
then applicable under these different circumstances.

Bench Seating::

 Every year it seems that at least two or three of the
wooden benches collapses with occupants. Although there have
seemingly been no serious injuries (mostly embarrassment to
those on them), continuing to use them without any changes,
could be very risky.

 At an absolute minimum, they should be individually set
up and functionally "tested" before they're used again.
Since the benches are capable of seating five people each,
and these people could average 200 lbs. apiece, it's likely
that the total weight could easily be 1000 lbs. of moving
people. Personnel safety is often governed with a "safety
factor" of four, or even five to one, meaning that if a
"test" were made, it would mean loading each set-up bench
with 4000 to 5000 pounds, hardly a practical solution, and
one that would surely have a high failure rate. Probably the
replacement with folding chairs or other manufactured
seating is the most practical, since these must comply with
acceptable standards.

 One can imagine a serious injury happening, perhaps a
lawsuit as a result (it may be required by an insurance
company), and having to say that it has happened regularly
and that nothing more was done about it than exchanging the
bench, and telling people to keep young children from under
the seats! In today's world, this would be considered as
negligence, and could incur grave repercussions. Something
must be done....soon!

Storage:

 Old machinery and hidden nooks and crannies attract
children and their naturally inquisitive minds. Perhaps some
standard "barrier" tapes and a couple announcements would
keep most away from the isolated exterior places where
machinery or other items are located, but one must be aware
that some will investigate no matter what the warnings. Of
concern is the high-piled "stuff" behind the "green curtain"
in the meeting shed: one would not want to imagine the
problems of a heavy, item such as an engine, tumbling from
several feet high onto benches and possibly people. Securing
the higher items stored here would be wise, and perhaps a
rigid "barrier" for the first few feet would dissuade the
younger curiosity seekers. Lowering the maximum pile height
at the near-edge would help too.

 The other prime area of concern, are the barns, and
what they contain. Most children are drawn to animals, but
many, especially those from city areas, have no idea or
comprehension of the weight or what else to expect around a
full-grown cow, for example. Preventive barriers seem
appropriate here.

 Another, but totally different storage concern, is the
potential need for a large volume of water as a backup for
rest room facilities, etc., and for the unlikely event of a
fire (a rather "safe" use of any clean underground tanks,
providing a suitable rust inhibitor, and possible other
stabilizers, are used). Pumps and hoses, not dependant
electric power, might be a safe bet too.

 Finally, the potential overflow of sewage and
wastewater must be adequately addressed: if it should
happen, where would it go and how would it be contained?
High volumes of soapy laundry and shower water have been the
most troublesome in the past...

Fuel Storage:

 Although this is primarily the responsibility of the
property owners, the seasonal addition of several hundred
vehicles, draws attention to the fact that this isn't just
an ordinary farm. Also, new laws draw a line at a total
on-site fuel storage capacity of "under 1101 gallons", and
requires that any place that exceeds such, must be
registered with the state and that the storage containers
must be tested routinely in accordance with governing laws.
This "capacity" includes the total of all holding facilities
on the property, even if they're not used - with special
attention given to underground tanks (for such storage to be
not included, they must be rendered useless - usually by
removal, or sometimes by "opening" them and after cleaning,
filling them full of soil: this to, is governed by law). For
example, if three buildings each had a 250 gallon fuel-oil
storage tank, and there was a 500 gallon storage vessel for
tractor fuel, the site capacity would be 1250 gallons: it
then must be registered with the appropriate State
organization(s), and the required testing done on a periodic
basis: there was no "grandfathering" of existing storage not
requiring compliance. Fines can be very expensive, and
removal of any "contaminated" soil likewise. It must be kept
in mind that such things frequently draws the attention of
the media, as well as "authorities". Here again, one cannot
overlook the very close proximity of the nearby reservoir: a
relatively small amount of oil would create a very
noticeable sheen on its surface, and though relatively
harmless, could draw undesired attention.

Liability:

 Although the risk may seem small and the needed time
short, in today's world the desirability of appropriate
insurance coverage cannot be ignored: potential costs and
litigation could produce dire consequences. One cannot
expect the relatively standard "Homeowners" type policy to
cover a gathering of several hundred people! Policies
available for certain types of "mass gatherings" would be
applicable, but these would undoubtedly include some of
their own audits of facilities and conditions of
acceptability before being issued. Fire protection equipment
(with people in all areas knowledgeable of using such),
clearly marked and lit exits, proper aisles, many of the
aforementioned conditions and who knows what else, would all
be factored in. Perhaps by starting with contacting a few
agents, it would help with arriving at some overall
guidelines, ideas of probable premium and "corrections"
costs, as well as an general "sense of direction".

Summary:

 In conclusion, it must be said that the local town has
been very tolerant over the years as the Convention has been
there for so long and hasn't "given them any problems".
However, the area isn't the same as it was thirty, or even
twenty, years ago (there was no Crossgates Mall then!), and
of necessity, town authorities must demonstrate no prejudice
in upholding laws, codes, and ordinances. Also, in the last
several years, many new laws have "been put on the books"
that local government had little to do with, and yet must
enforce - especially regarding anything to do with the
environment (such as fuel storage). My experience has been
that if one sincerely tries to work with the responsible
authorities "up front", and before anything is "cast in
concrete", they are more than willing to give the benefit of
any doubt, and even assist with practical and acceptable
solutions: it makes their job much easier and both parties
know what's expected before any action is taken. Conversely,
they may have to come down with a "heavy hand" if there's
any indication that unauthorized, and possibly covert,
things have already taken place. One must recognize today's
world for what it is, and act accordingly: most rules are
intended for our overall best benefit. It must be openly
demonstrated to all and in all things, that the Standards we
profess to uphold, are validated by complying with the
regulations, governing laws, and common sense, in everything
that is done - not just the things that are openly obvious
(Romans 13, V1-7; I Peter 2, V12-15; etc.).

- Edward K. Williams

Copies of this document were: Personally given to: Don Bixby (Responsible for preparations at Altamont) on Wed., July 15, 1998

Personally given to: Charles Steffen (Overseer, Northeast States) at Freedom NY on Fri., Aug. 7, 1998

Personally given to: Albert Knaggs (Minister, and uncle of the property dweller) on Fri., Oct., 22, 1999

Mailed to: Sam McCracken (Overseer of Virginia) on Mon., May 22, 2000 by Carl W.

Note: On Mon., June 12, 2000, suspicions were confirmed through public (NYS, DOS) records available on the Internet, that this was no longer property of private ownership, but a Corporation: KNAGGS OAKLAND REALTY INC.

Sent by Certified Mail, Ret. Rec. Req., on Monday Dec. 11, 2000. Receipt returned on Dec. 13th.

Mr. Charles Steffen 
% Peter Smith 
157 Parkhurst Road 
Gansevort, NY 12831-1404 

Dear Charles,

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I have had some requests that the 1998 Document I wrote and personally gave to you and Don Bixby that summer (and Albert in 1999) about my concerns at the Altamont Convention Grounds, be posted on several of the "Truth" Internet websites.

However, now that you have since stated publicly to the Media, that you "want to do what's right", perhaps we (Yes, ONLY you and I!) should have a one-on-one conversation at my home (and in front of the computer where necessary!), so that you will CLEARLY understand the exposure it would receive, once it was posted. Perhaps there are some comments that you would like to consider for inclusion with the posting, or maybe there are some CLEAR reasonings you would have as to why that it should NOT be "released" for posting at this time.... This will probably take several hours, so I'd suggest that you allocate the better part of a day, or likely more.. I shall expect an acknowledgment of this letter from you promptly, and that the resultant one-on-one "conference" will take place before December 28th 2000. If you choose to ignore this as you have other requests in the past, it will be interpreted as you giving your full consent and encouragement to proceed with the posting of the entire document on the "www" (WorldWideWeb), so the TRUE FACTS preceding this past summer's inspection by the local health and building authorities, will become openly known.

Also enclosed, is a copy of a 6-page Scriptural explanation of divorce, that hopefully, will enlighten your understandings of this issue, according to the Bible.

And yes, I am again coming to you BEFORE anything is actually posted, and giving you an opportunity to discuss things openly FIRST.... Surely this has NOT been the courtesy that you've afforded me!

With all sincerity, 
  (Signed) 
Ed Williams