‘Lansingburgh Gateway Project’ draws concerns, questions from residents 7%

By Jesse Taylor9%

8/2/2026, 10:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Framing Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 12.6% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 741 faulty-reasoning hits from 736 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 16.7% and a BS Rank of 7% (26,607 of 28,461 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.50% of the article peer group.

LANSINGBURGH  The latest proposed plans for a new mixed-use complex where a now-closed Price Chopper and Burger King once operated were unveiled Tuesday, drawing skepticism and questions from some residents. 
The plans for the “Lansingburgh Gateway Project” currently include the construction of 192 one-to-three-bedroom apartments across three buildings, with about 11,000 total square feet of ground-floor commercial space, on a 6.2-acre parcel along the Hudson River at 851-867 Second Ave. 
Andrew Schrijver with Attic Labs, a development agency leading the project, provided residents with an update on their progress during a meeting at the Lansingburgh Boys and Girls Club. 
He fielded questions from residents about everything from rent and security to riverfront access and traffic impacts. 
Some raised concerns about what kind of pressure the influx of new people may place on the local Hannaford, one of the few grocery stores in the city. 
Victoria Cordi, a resident, asked Schrijver: “How much skin you got in this game?” 
Schrijver said his development company has injected a significant amount of money into the project. 
“I have no issue saying that at this present moment, we have deployed hundreds of thousands in this process,” Schrijver said. 
Schrijver estimates the cost of the project, including planning and development phases, could be $80 to $100 million. 
Asked for a breakdown of the funding, Schrijver said it is too early to say, as the project has not yet closed on financing. 
But he did say it was expected to be a mix of private and public funding. 
A payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement is being sought for the project, Schrijver added. 
Developers previously said they also intend to seek tax credits. 
He made a point to say the project is not supportive housing and there will be no on-site social service programs. 
The project is considered workforce housing under the current proposal and would be available only to those who earn 40 to 60% of the area median income, which, according to Schrijver, is $123,100 for a four-person household. 
More: ‘Gateway’ apartments, commercial space proposed for Lansingburgh Price Chopper plaza 
Rents would be set for the apartments based on a tenant’s income. 
For example, a resident living in a one-bedroom apartment earning 60% of the area median income would pay a rent of $1,385 per month. 
If approved as-is, the complex would include 92 one-bedroom units, 80 two-bedroom units and 20 three-bedroom units, and 91% of the apartments would be for residents earning 50 to 60% of the area median income, Schrijver said. 
The rent projections and apartment unit breakdowns have not been finalized. 
Troy City Councilor Phil DiLorenzo, District 1, said he has heard concerns from residents who worry that the new development could end up having a large draw on police and fire resources like the mixed-income Lion Factory Apartments down the street. 
Mayor Carmella Mantello previously told the Times Union that she had vetted the new project to ensure it would not rattle the community in the same way Lion Factory Apartments did. 
Regan Development, the owner of Lion Factory Apartments, could not be reached for a comment Saturday. 
At one point during the presentation, Schrijver emphasized that the project is not the Lion Factory and does not seek to create housing for a community “that will unduly burden city of Troy employees.” 
There are no plans to install a 24-hour security crew, but a “resident manager” will be present at the location and cameras will be placed throughout the site, Schrijver said. 
He also floated the idea of placing a gym in the complex, but said he is not yet sure what retailers will end up inhabiting the space. 
Kimberly Ashe-McPherson, president of the Lansingburgh Neighborhood Association and a former Troy city councilwoman, said Wednesday that she doesn’t think the project would be an asset for the community. 
Ashe-McPherson said she wants the waterfront to be developed in a way that attracts business from the river and is concerned about which businesses will end up occupying the commercial space. 
“This is a prime piece of property and it needs to be done right,” Ashe-McPherson said. 
Rockabill, a company handling the project’s financing, and AHC, the construction lead, are partnering with Attic Labs to complete the project. 
A timeline for the project aims to have a site plan approved in September, with construction beginning in August 2027 and ending around September 2029. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.2%Jesse Taylor: 1.5%Times Union: 2.2%Confirmation Bias4.2%This article: 2.2%Jesse Taylor: 0.5%Times Union: 0.7%Anchoring Bias2.2%This article: 12.6%Jesse Taylor: 1.7%Times Union: 1.8%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 10.6%Jesse Taylor: 1.5%Times Union: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic10.6%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Jesse Taylor: 1.4%Times Union: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias2.4%This article: 10.3%Jesse Taylor: 1.6%Times Union: 2.5%Framing Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.2%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.7%Status Quo Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Jesse Taylor: 1.7%Times Union: 1.4%Optimism Bias7.1%This article: 3.9%Jesse Taylor: 1.0%Times Union: 1.0%Pessimism Bias3.9%This article: 9.9%Jesse Taylor: 2.0%Times Union: 5.8%Negativity Bias9.9%This article: 2.9%Jesse Taylor: 1.7%Times Union: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.2%Times Union: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.4%Times Union: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.4%Times Union: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.3%Times Union: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.2%Times Union: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.2%Times Union: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Jesse Taylor: 1.1%Times Union: 0.5%Ad Hominem1.9%This article: 4.6%Jesse Taylor: 0.4%Times Union: 0.1%Straw Man4.6%This article: 4.2%Jesse Taylor: 0.8%Times Union: 1.7%Appeal to Authority4.2%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.6%Times Union: 0.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.5%Times Union: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 1.9%Times Union: 1.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 2.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.1%Times Union: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.6%Jesse Taylor: 0.3%Times Union: 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.3%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.6%Burden of Proof3.3%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.3%Times Union: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.3%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.8%Anecdotal3.3%This article: 4.6%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%No True Scotsman4.6%This article: 2.9%Jesse Taylor: 0.1%Times Union: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.7%Times Union: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 1.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jesse Taylor: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

736 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers63%attributed speech275writer words
Selected voice

Phil DiLorenzo

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words8.9% of attributed speech42% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.