Remove YMCA sign in Radisson

— Per “Radisson Use and Maintenance Covenants,” Section 5.0 Advertising and Signs (RCA/ASC Sign Policy), the YMCA's sign on the "residential property" at the corner of Route 31 and Drakes landing, is and has been for years, a clear violation of Radisson Declaration, Article VI, Section 5, Advertising and Signs. This essentially states that “no commercial advertising of any type or for any purpose is authorized on any residential lot or RCA Common Property."

There is no room for interpretation, there is no vagueness, nor is there even a hint of ambiguity in the statement. So, why is it not being enforced with the YMCA? A fairly simple question, don't you think? You (the RCA Board of Directors) are in place to assure, among other things, fair and equal treatment and the "unbiased" enforcement of RCA covenants. So, again, it begs the question: why you are unable or unwilling to live up to your basic fundamental fiduciary duties owed to all property owners in Radisson? In other words, if you cannot individually or collectively function in an unbiased manner, perhaps it's time for another board of directors?

I personally find the YMCA sign in question to be offensive because it shows a callous disregard toward existing Radisson covenants by the YMCA, and I demand that it be removed immediately. If you cannot or will not take action on this long standing flagrant sign violation, I can only assume that it is "equally OK" for me or anyone else in Radisson to have similar sized signs in our front yards, advertising whatever we like. I'm fairly certain that even you (the RCA Board of Directors) realize that you would not have a proverbial "leg to stand on" in a court of law.

In closing, I would hope that at least one of you has the guts and basic integrity to go on record with a response. But then again, defending "indefensible behavior" is a pretty tough task.

James R. Kocik is a resident of Radisson in Lysander.

Vote on this Story by clicking on the Icon


silver_n_blue 4 years, 2 months ago


I am also a Radisson resident. I fully stand with you. Just let me know when I should put the signs up.


bviller 4 years, 2 months ago

I am also a Radisson resident and have wondered for a long time why that sign should be allowed on residential property. It is clearly stated in our Radisson covenants as a violation. I could put a large sign in front of my house advertising my business, but it is against the rules, so why should the RCA's friends be any different. The sign has to go. Thank you for speaking up!


jimk 4 years, 2 months ago

As a follow-up to my original letter, the RCA Board of Directors response along with my subsequent reply are copied below.

Dear Mr. Kocik,

Thank you for your email submission to the RCA Board of Directors. The Association has no authority over the jurisdiction of this property, which includes the approval or disapproval of the YMCA sign. The authoritative body for items related to this parcel remain under the jurisdiction of the Empire State Development Corp (ESDC).

If you wish to contact the ESDC in regards to this, please contact James Fayle, Regional Director, at 425-9110.


RCA Board of Directors

To the RCA Board of Directors,

Thank you for your reply to my concern. It begs the question however, as to why this one single piece of Radisson "residential property" now owned by the YMCA, is somehow "miraculously" free of, and protected from RCA covenants? At this stage, I can only logically assume this has not always been the case, and somehow changes took place, prior to the sale of the property to the YMCA by a previous RCA Director. For sure, had this parcel of land been sold to a developer for it's true intent (residential homes), all Radisson covenants involving commercial signage would still be enforceable! So why and how, has the YMCA been allowed to be an "exception?"

Obviously someone within the BOD must know the answers to these questions, and I can only wonder why your answer appears to be less than frank, candid and cooperative.


James R. Kocik


Sign in to comment