Thursday, January 22, 2009

Paving the Way to a New Planning Board

So is the Town Board intending on removing each and every environmentalist from the Planning Board?  If not, I think they need to take some time to prove otherwise.

Peter Muller was not reappointed to the Planning Board because he didn't fulfill the training requirements - four hours per year are needed to keep abreast of planning issues.  I find that interesting, mostly because it's not true.  I sat at the table with Peter during at least two, if not three, Biodiversity Assessment Training sessions given by Hudsonia.  Prior to beginning that ten-month project, Rachel Lagodka and David Jakim of the village ENCC asked the Town Planning Board to rule that those sessions would fulfill the training requirement, and we did.

Peter had to drop out of the project for some minor thing . . . oh, right, he had hip replacement surgery.  It's very likely that he failed to fill out the form confirming that he received sufficient training.  Are we so bureaucratic that we can't just ask the man?  I'm sure he would have filled out his paperwork.  Maybe Jeff Logan is still bitter about his write-in campaign and figures everyone needs to be held to an unyielding standard?  I hope not.

At the joint meeting of the town and village boards last night Rachel Lagodka asked about Peter, and Jane Ann Williams said that nothing had been decided yet.  Nothing decided?  Then why was Peter's name removed from the Planning Board member list?  Please don't insult my intelligence by saying that was an administrative error; Ken Wishnick is still listed as liaison so it's not like the page is updated aggressively.

I think this is a trend because of the way I was asked to give up my own seat.  Sure, I was honored when Terry Dungan asked me to consider moving to the village's planning board, but my concerns about the Crossroads project held me back.  It wasn't until Toni Hokanson asked me to switch that I decided to do so, because I was impressed at her willingness to give up a member to the village when it's really tough to find people willing to serve.  When I saw how quickly I was replaced with an obviously pro-development member I realized that my idealism was used against me, and I told Toni so.  I expect they'll find someone even worse to replace Peter.

Jonathan Wright's term is up next.  What will the reason be to get rid of this articulate and intelligent advocate of smart growth and green development principles?  Will they be willing to act like adults and talk about it in an open meeting, or will they again hide behind the closed doors of an executive session to make these decisions?

Town Board, consider yourself on notice.  I don't trust your motives.  I don't believe your words.  I don't think you feel you need to represent the community because all you have to do is take the Democratic caucus to guarantee reelection.

If that's the way you want it, fine.  I know that there are intelligent and talented people who care about this community.  If you want a fight at the caucus, you can have one.  I don't want any of the five of you to think for one second that your jobs are guaranteed, and if you continue to pull stunts like these I will work tirelessly to find the people to unseat you.


kt said...

dems fighting words. fyi - Kitty knew nothing of this at the meeting last night, it was the first she heard of it.

Terence said...

I know Kitty was unaware. I hope she'll work to undo the damage. Actions speak louder than words.

Anonymous said...

Hi Terence - you'll see that your link to the Planning Board now shows thatPeter Muller continues to serve andthat JeffLogan is correctly identified as the Town Board liaison to the Planning Board. Icalled Peter last week to let him know that he had been misinformed -he had never actually been removed - and I expect he will be reappointed at our next town board meeting. Someone out there misconstrued the term "not reappointed" to mean - "removed" and Peter was led to believe he had been removed. He wasn't. Kitty Brown

Terence said...

Kitty, thank you. All the information certainly made it easy for the wrong conclusion to be drawn.

Anonymous said...

Peter should be removed. He has preset ideas, doesn't listen to or fully consider others opinions and is an insult to people who are not on the same page as him.

Terence said...

This, good person, is why people are pressuring me to disable anonymous comments. I have no objection to you not wanting Peter on the Planning Board, but I do think you should be man enough to state your name. (Was it sexist of me to assume that only a man would be so cowardly?)