Lawsuit, here we come!

The village board loves a law suit.  Makes me glad that my tax dollars are going to attorneys rather than, oh, building a new sewer system.

This time, it's about Mayor West's salary.  A brief recap on that subject:

In 2007, after unsuccessfully pushing to get his salary boosted to $40,000 a year, Jason West was ousted as mayor after making a name for himself nationwide.

Last year, the village board decided to give themselves raises, for a job well done.  Trustee Rhoads swears that any pay changes must be done at budget time, but she has yet to explain to me why none of the candidates the prior year had broached the subject.  That Rhoads suggested it was, in large part, why it went through.

This past April, West asked for another 5-digit increase, and instead, the board pulled the rug out from under him.  He must have forgotten that he's only ever gotten raises when someone else does the asking.  I think he'll remember that now.

I joined with others, mostly supporters of the mayor, in denouncing the pay cuts which, like the raises the year before, I feel were morally reprehensible.  Let the voters decide if you're worth some extra cash, or deserve a cut, by proposing the changes before the election.  If you want to change someone's pay during their term, it should require a referendum, I believe.

He may irritate as many people as he ensorcels, but West is a studied man, so it's no surprise he found documents suggesting that the pay cut was illegal.  The village attorney was asked to chime in and, not surprisingly, found cases to support the pay cut.  This is what happens when people write laws to their benefit:  elected officials cover their asses, instead of protecting their constituents.

Early this afternoon, I encouraged the board via email to seek another comptroller's opinion.  The ones West produced referred to town officials, and they need one specifically addressing villages.  And I suggested that they ask about pay raises, as well as cuts, because I certainly don't expect West to go there on his own.

Instead, in an executive session which did not include the mayor, they did nothing.  "I was told a majority of the Trustees would rather have a lawsuit," he reported on Facebook.

I am not at all surprised.  After all, I pleaded with the board, and the mayor, to get the DPW to dig me a trench for a new sewer line, after an illegally-approved subdivision led to a house being built on my old one.  I offered to pay the three grand for the plumber, and wanted the village to dig and fill in the trench.  Instead, they told me too bad, so sad, and my wife and I had to sue.  Rest assured, the entire debacle cost village taxpayers far more than it would have to simply fix the problem the village created, but some members of the board chose to act out of spite, rather than protect the community.

A "majority" of the board, if there were four in the room, means three votes, correct?  So who voted what, I wonder?  And will there be accounting of how much this childishness is costing us?

Resident scandal

Jason West, it turns out, lives across the street from the village he is tasked with running.  It's the latest chapter in the continuing story I like to call Game of Chairs, until I realize that I'm not funny enough to be making up names for things.

The drama does have all the elements of fun political fight, though:  a charismatic mayor who inspires strong feelings one way or the other, a cadre of retirees seeking a return to the glory days when they were in power, a district attorney on the case, dueling legal arguments, elected officials too focused on their dislike of each other to ever get around to governing . . . who likes popcorn?

I've never met Ms Danskin -- I wouldn't know who she was if she cut me off with a shopping cart in Stop & Shop.  I do know that she counts herself among a group of people who never forgave Mr West for winning his 2003 election, people who have sought ways to get rid of the guy ever since.  And he's practically gone out of his way to give them the chance, it seems:  breaking the law early in his first term, getting ousted after only one term, fighting consolidation with the town . . . and now, by leaving the village entirely, albeit "temporarily," in his words.

Residency requirements seem like they shouldn't be too tough to enforce, but once you ask lawyers to write the very laws they will one day argue in court, nothing is simple.  An attorney I was once friends with taught me that if you don't want to have to commit to something, put it in writing.  Simple laws could be simply enforced, but time and again we've seen that the residency requirements for elected officials are slippery.

• Brian Kimbiz wandered off for three months, justifying it by not taking pay, and the board found that booting him would be more trouble that it's worth.
• Stewart Glenn bought a new house in Gardiner, and rented an apartment in the one he sold until his term expired.
• Susan Zimet had her house for sale before she ever ran for her present stint as supervisor, and uses an apartment in the village to fulfill her residency requirement.

Common sense says that a person either lives here or doesn't, but common law is an entirely unrelated concept.  So the desire to chase after the mayor, when these other recent examples have been largely unchallenged, is clearly fueled by a dislike of the man or his policies.

Okay, I get that.  Mr West has described himself as impatient and short-tempered, qualities which have inspired no small number of allies to abandon him, at least temporarily.  I share those qualities with him, meaning that my clash with him was all but inevitable.  If you're a short-fused jerk in public office, you make enemies.  And if you make enemies of a landlord, and then move into a place outside of the village, expect your enemy to find out about it.

But the extra wrinkle here is the dimension of voter residency.  That's the part that actually got the Mr West targeted.  Voter law, says the village attorney, hinges on whether the relocation is temporary or not.  That's why we have absentee ballots, and mechanisms to allow homeless people to vote.  He signed candidate petitions, and voted, using his old Church Street address.  According to at least one attorney, that's okay.

On the other hand, we have the argument that using his old address is tantamount to fraud.  If and when he returns to a village address, it won't be that one, so isn't it a lie to claim he lived there when he didn't?

This is where we return to fun with attorneys, the game that everyone not wearing a Brooks Brothers suit loses.  West has, finally, retained his own counsel; based on past history and the mayor's current pay level I suspect it's a pro bono arrangement.  The village attorney is likely to continue to represent the village clerk and board, so he will probably be diverting some of his tax-funded time to this issue.  The district attorney's office, also paid for through taxes, will also be devoting energy to this investigation, which will surely take up the time of a judge or two along the way.

My guess is that, a year from now, we will know if Mr West will be allowed to complete his term of office or not.  What a utter waste of my tax dollars.

To Ms Danskin, Mrs Rhoads, Mr Dungan, and the many, many people who wish to see Jason West removed from office:  there is a tried-and-true mechanism to achieve your goal, called democracy.  Please use it.  I completely sympathize with your desire to get Mr West out of this village, and I understand that he keeps giving you opportunities to try again, but seriously, stop it.  This is wasting my money on a legal case that is by no means clear, because we keep letting lawyers write the laws.  I'm sorry you haven't gotten him out of office permanently, but if you'd find a decent candidate, I and many others would line up to help.  But don't grind my village government to a halt, and pick my pocket, because you don't like him.  Be a grown-up, and use the electoral process to unseat him.  If you can't get behind a single candidate in 2015, maybe it's time to find a new hobby.

A gadfly is not the same as a candidate

I'm a gadfly -- I poke, I question, I wonder about flaws in the New Paltz political class.  This is not a unique pastime, and plenty of people with a lot more smarts than yours truly have embraced the hobby.  Some, myself included, have even run for office in the hopes that we could speak truth to power from within the power base itself.  And that is where most local gadflies fall flat.

When you're a gadfly, by definition you focus on the negative.  What's the point of questioning something if it works and everyone is happy with it?  This is a dangerous mindset, because you only get noticed when you're complaining.  People in New Paltz mock the gadfly that they disagree with, or call him rude or bombastic, or stop returning his calls.  Some of us are well-qualified for the role because we're already rude and abrasive, but others have those traits thrust upon them.

Being a gadfly isn't a terrible basis for becoming a political candidate, but once you make the decision to run for office, New Paltz voters are pretty clear that they want you to switch gears.  Complaining about the opposition is nothing new, because at least 75% of the politically engaged citizens are doing that already.  Sure, a small sliver of people who hate your opponent will nod their heads and pull the lever on that basis alone, but New Paltz voters often want something more.

What they want is substance.  What is your vision for the office?  (Saying that you think having a "vision" for position X is a load of pretentious crap counts as a vision.)  Do you have any thoughts on the problems facing the incumbent?  (This is a popular question, but one I don't give much weight to, because armchair quarterbacks don't have enough information to make meaningful decisions.)  What do you feel the big challenges ahead are?  What attributes do you possess that will help you tackle these still-unknown issues?

Contrasting oneself to one's opponent is necessary, but it's part of a bigger package.  You can't sell yourself as the "everything sucks guy" and expect to win the votes of more than a couple score of curmudgeons.  Moreso than the country at large, people in this community are thoughtful and engaged.  In 2011 two candidates got lackluster returns largely because they focused too much on what was wrong with their opponent and not enough on succinctly summarizing their own assets.

There are always going to be people that cast a vote based on gut, or personal relationships, or the malleability of the candidate.  I'm not one of them; I've voted against friends and for people who are self-righteous jerks.  My personal feelings about you have little to do with your ability to serve the community.  My sense is that New Paltz has a lot higher percentage of folks who, like me, vote based on qualifications other than the ability to be a gadfly.

Resolving to do . . . SOMETHING

Hector Rodriguez must really be pining for the days when being minority whip of the Ulster County Legislature meant something.  He remembers when the legislative branch ran the show, before that pesky county charter gave a lot of that power to the newly-minted executive branch.  But rather than returning to grade-school social studies lessons to learn what representative are supposed to do (craft legislation, provide a check against the power of the executive), he's spending his time on "memorializing resolutions" designed to create headlines in an election year.

To be fair, most of what the legislature does these days is in the form of resolutions, and a good deal of them are of no legal consequence.  The best-publicized of these was February's anti-SAFE Act resolution, which drew a huge crowd and no small amount of criticism for spending taxpayer money on holding the hearing at UPAC, when Ulster County has no official role in gun-control policy.  That dog-and-pony show came fast on the heels of a Democrat-backed one supporting the new state law, which died a quick death.

Despite the fact that the gun-control resolution was the most expensive, not to mention most visible, in recent memory, there was some justification given for it.  The SAFE Act was passed, like so many state laws, in the dead of night and without any time for public input or meaningful debate.  Legislative Terry Bernardo claimed she wanted to give people a voice in that process, and a number of other counties in the state have done the same.  The people who showed up for that event largely derided anyone who supported stronger laws, even a woman whose son had been shot in the street, but they had their say.

But Mr. Rodriguez has taken politics to a new level of pointless, by crafting a resolution which calls for something which had already happened.  If his measure had passed committee and the full legislature, it would have resulted, I'm assuming, in a strongly-worded letter to the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency telling them to cut off tax breaks to Skate Time 209, owned by Chairman Bernardo and her husband, Len.

The IDA, I'm guessing, would have sent a letter back saying, "Do you read the papers?"

Background on the Bernardo/IDA kerfuffle

The IDA, the same body considering a payment in lieu of taxes for the Park Point project, granted tax breaks to Skate Time 209 back in 2004.  When Len Bernardo ran for county executive in 2007, Mike Hein ran him over the coals about not living up to the jobs promises made for the rink.  It was purely political, targeting just that one business, and it worked; Hein won the election.

Since then, for a variety of reasons including having a lot of free time during the recession and pressure from the state, the IDA has performed a review of every single active application to see if it's living up to expectations.  The Bernardos' business was one of those caught in the net.  IDA members say the rink promised 26 jobs, and the Bernardos say they "projected that many.  They also missed their filing deadline this year, so they aren't providing proper documentation.  TLB Enterprises, the actual corporation, was asked to voluntarily give back future savings of about $8,000 or have all of its remaining tax breaks cancelled.  The Bernardos rejected the offer and their tax breaks were yanked.

Litigation is almost certain, and the betting money is saying that the Bernardos will win in court, but lose in the court of public opinion.

So why this resolution?

Memorializing resolutions, as I've said, are always symbolic.  Our county legislature can't change state gun laws, or keep a mosque from being built somewhere in New York City, or even tell the IDA what to do.  If you agree with one, you say it's about sending a message.  If you disagree, you call it politics and say it's a waste of time.

In this particular case, the resolution is beyond pointless.  The IDA has already taken the action that Mr. Rodriguez is calling for.  What message are you trying to send, when it's a fait accompli?

It's simple:  no one on the streets of District 20 has a clue what Hector Rodriguez is doing to pull his paycheck, and he needs to bolster name recognition in advance of November.  Instead of studying the charter of learning what role a legislature is supposed to perform, he is opting for political masturbation.  There's nothing wrong with masturbation, but I'd prefer he not do it with taxpayer money.

Practice what you preach, please

As I have said before, opponents to consolidation have some good points despite the fact that some of them have their own agendas.  But despite this being a college town, apparently no one in this debate has a clue how to educate.

A letter to the New Paltz Times a couple of weeks ago put forth a beef with the process:  the writers would ask specific questions about the finances, and be told to watch the videos of the meetings if they wanted an answer.  It's not unreasonable to be irritated by that sort of response; it's lazy, it's obfuscatory, and it ignores the fact that residents who didn't have the time to attend those meetings aren't going to have the time to watch them, either.

On top of that, the New Paltz Government Efficiency Project site, which should be the central repository for all of this information, is "undergoing maintenance" as of this writing, and has been for days, if not longer.

I thought the solution to this overwhelming sea of data would be New Paltz Fact Check, the blog set up "in order to inform public discourse, policy, and decision making by providing factual, objective analysis of issues important to New Paltz," according to its about page.  But if there's analysis, objective or otherwise, I can't find it.

What I see instead is a vast number of links and documents, many of which wouldn't be available to the public otherwise.  Internal emails, commentary from a Facebook group, public comments, and letters to the editor all in one place.  It's useful to have all this information in front of me, but where's the analysis I was promised?

The problem of analysis, or lack thereof, plagues both camps during this debate.  Don't we have a college in New Paltz?  Aren't there tenured professors and licensed teachers packed thickly in our voter rolls?  Isn't there anyone willing to step up and walk the voting public through the numbers, rather than just expecting us to wade through gigabytes of data without context?

It's unacceptable to champion either viewpoint in this cause without providing meaningful education to the voters.  It's disingenuous for the "yes" camp to expect the public to support this initiative when largely we don't have the time to dig in to the mounds of data.  It's hypocritical for the "no" camp to complain about this lack of analysis, claim to do something about it, and then just add to the problem.

Voters in this community are getting the message that we aren't bright enough to comprehend this mammoth problem, but the truth is, we just don't have as much time on our hands as the volunteers and elected officials (not to mention the paid consultants) do to wrap our minds around it.

Here's an unambiguous request to any and all who are invested in the consolidation question:  don't insult the voting public, educate us.

No good idea goes unpunished

I first expressed support for unification in 2008 or thereabouts; I have always believed that simplifying our lives by having one less government to deal with made a tremendous amount of sense.

Of course, I wasn't factoring in the human element.

The egos and personalities which strut across the New Paltz stage make it damned near to impossible to come up with a solution that will work.  Much of the information put forth by the pro-unification factions is correct.  On the other hand, many of the concerns expressed by the keep-it-separate crowd are legitimate and should not be dismissed.  It's bloody hard to figure out what information to discuss when there are so many people pushing hidden agendas.

Does our mayor want to keep his job?  Of course!  He himself told me that the village is the largest entity he would be comfortable running, because he can "keep it all in my head," in his words.  He knows every drainage grate, he said to me, and couldn't imagine being an effective elected official on a scale where that's not possible.  So there's no question that Jason West is going to fight tooth and nail against consolidation.

But to suggest that West's information and arguments should be entirely discarded because he has an ulterior motive, or because he is arrogant and condescending, does not serve this community well.  Don't consider the source, just evaluate his rationale.

How about Susan Zimet?  She is unabashedly in support of a merger, and doesn't have any personal stake the way the rest of us do, because she doesn't even live here.  Succeeding in this drive will put a feather in her political cap and, in all likelihood, be used as evidence of her wonderfulness when she pursues higher office.  And pursue she shall:  Zimet has always been ambitious, and returned to town government more because the county legislature lost power in the charter government than out of a burning desire to clean house.

Does this make her positions on unification automatically worthless?  If you consider the source it does, but considering the source does not do justice to the information itself.  Like West, Zimet's talking points and actual data must be carefully looked at, whether you like her or not, whether you trust her or not.

There are other players, as well.  One group makes a logo to support a unified government, another group makes a parody, and suddenly people are talking about consulting attorneys over it.  That sort of talk is shameful, because involving attorneys in a neighborly disagreement squelches free speech.  Many of West's opponents (and Zimet's, to a lesser extent) have used the "fascist" label; the fact that the same people who call their opponents dictators seek to silence the opposition with litigation is sickening.

The fact that this process is inordinately complex makes me fear that no good will come of it.  If you want to ruin a good idea, create a committee to study it.  We created around ten committees, so I'm thinking we really wanted to make this idea unpalatable, or at least incomprehensible to anyone with a day job not dedicated to policy questions.

Unification should be simple.  In this iteration, it's been made anything but, and its supporters are trying to ram it through at breakneck speed without answering perfectly valid questions.  Unless something really big changes, and very soon, I think we would all be better off firing each and every one of our town and village board members and starting over once we've cleaned house.

Word to the wise

If I (or any New Paltz resident) asks for your campaign lawn sign and place it on my lawn, and then ask for a replacement when it goes missing, don't say to me, "I always assumed you were voting against me."

The cognitive dissonance of that statement is so very, very strong that I wonder how you can put your pants on in the morning, much less run a village.  March of 2015 cannot come soon enough.

Grow up and vote!

A New Paltz lawn decoration

I invited all the mayoral candidates to put a sign on my lawn.  Only one responded, and my wife saw the sign, but I never did.  By the time I stepped outside on Sunday, both our sign and the one across the street (for the same candidate) were gone.

This has happened before, and I warned the candidates of the possibility.  But I was expecting signs to go missing in the dark of night, when the students are crawling back to bed, and that they would be replaced with lawn decorations.  When I have invited businesses to put a sign on my lawn, that's usually what happens.  They disappear, either to be tossed into the undergrowth or to hang on a dorm room wall.

But these signs disappeared on a Sunday morning, when the alcohol which promotes mischief has moved on to creating stupor and hangovers.  My previous political sign took effort to remove, so I suspected foul play; this one was much easier to take, but I think it was more likely an opponent, not an admirer, who nicked it.

I guess over 200 years of being a college town takes its toll on the adults, too.  But I still love this town, despite the ninnies and cowards who share it with me.

My Rodriguez letter to the New Paltz Times

After writing about my initial reactions to Edgar Rodriguez' racism accusations I decided to dig deeper into the matter. I wrote a letter to the New Paltz Times about the subject, which I present here as well. I know that NPT has about a billion times' the readership of the Gadfly, but there's no reason to deprive to two or three who read here and not there. (I also hope this post lasts longer than the month or so they keep their letters online.)

As a white male, I realize that I'm not permitted to have an opinion which runs contrary to a claim of racism. So, I will allow others more qualified to speak on my behalf today.

Trustee Edgar Rodriguez made such claims at a recent Board of Education meeting. It's not the first time he's felt discriminated against; Rodriguez filed a suit against SUNY New Paltz in 1984 alleging the same. In that case, Rodriguez claimed that he was denied tenure because of his race, while the court felt that SUNY was consistent in requiring Mr. Rodriguez complete his Ph.D., like others are required to do, and so found no evidence of racial bias.

At the Board of Education meeting in question, after Trustee Rodriguez left, Trustee Daniel Torres thanked the district for the many opportunities he had received as a student and pointed out that he had, earlier that day, attended the Latino Leadership Luncheon at Marist College where he is a student. Trustee Torres, himself a Latino, apparently does not feel the same racial tensions as Trustee Rodriguez.

Racism is an ugly thing that should be addressed immediately and quashed completely wherever it is found. Still uglier is making a false claim of racism to cloud the issue of the middle school's renovation, because it gives bigots ammunition for hatred and devalues the experience of real victims.

I don't doubt that Trustee Rodriguez is presently getting a frosty reception from other board members, but perhaps he should apply Occam's Razor and discard other, more likely possibilities as to why, such as his battleground mentality and dissemination of incorrect information about the project to the public. I am glad that he is willing to express a minority view, but he should check his facts if he wants to have any credibility, and he certainly shouldn't assume racism just because he's not being listened to.

My next post will be on what I learned about the Undoing Racism course.

Where there's smoke . . .

About a month ago, the Village Planning Board reviewed an application for an unusual special use permit: two entrepreneurs want to turn the old Peak Performance building into a hookah and oxygen bar, combining the upscale tobacco scene of New York City with the purified oxygen venues popular in Los Angeles. A public hearing was set more than enough time in advance, and notice of the hearing was published in the local paper. The applicants didn't spring any last-minute information on the Board, and one could practically hear the crickets chirping at the meeting.

Last week the local paper covered the business, Zikibiki's, again as controvery finally stirred up.

Even with ventilator units, opponents of the hookah and oxygen bar are will worried about secondhand smoke, Prevention Connections Associate Director Heather Ohlson said.

Pity opponents weren't worried enough to show up at the public hearing, a vehicle designed to ensure that public concerns are addressed. In fact, member Thomas Rocco was very concerned about ventilation, and the Board required installation of a system which will be much more expensive than what the prevailing laws require.
Opponents are also suddenly concerned about the proximity to the Middle School - it's just a block away, and they feel this could encourage tobacco use among these impressionable youngsters in a way that the deli which sells cigarettes between the two locations doesn't.

On Zikibiki's Facebook group page, there are only a handful of comments. However, one comes from a teenage boy who asks "will this be the open to people of all ages, I would be very interested, but I'm 14."
For [Shari] Kanner that post alone proves that their point has merit. "There really is a concern about a 14-year-old smoking from a hookah."

Kanner may have been mollified if she spoken to the boy, like I did. Aaron Rudder is a New Paltz High School sophomore who speaks and writes eloquently, and plays several musical instruments. I asked Aaron about his comments on Zikibiki's page and his interest in the business. Turns out that Aaron has zero interest in using tobacco, ladies; he was asking because he's curious about the purified oxygen. Aaron points out on Zikibiki's group page that "according to New York State law, the only laws relating to tobacco, are that you cannot smoke indoors, and you must be 18 to purchase it" as opposed to an age restriction for admission, like bars use. His arguments are entirely in support of his interest in trying out the oxygen, something which took me about five minutes of work to determine.

When one puts together all the available information on this business, it's interesting to note that it appears the cart is driving the horse. A special use permit was approved, but the building itself still has a "for lease" sign in the window. This might be because there's no money yet to fund the project, as evidenced on the Facebook page, which is essentially a request for venture capital. A business selling tobacco near a school, but which doesn't have any money to mount a meaningful legal defense, is pretty low-hanging fruit to grab. Maybe if Susan Zimet had paid a fraction of that much of her attention to Woodland Pond, we'd have a senior community that wasn't a gigantic eyesore from ridge that draws most of New Paltz' tourist traffic.

People are asking why this went through so easily. Simply put, they followed the rules and didn't have a bunch of people lined up against them like the Main Course did. Public participation is vital to ensuring that a planning board makes the right decision for the community and within existing laws, and if no one raises a question it's much harder for the Planning Board to answer it.

Will the Village Board please show up?

We've got a fiscal crisis in our little village, and it's a really controversial one. Terry Dungan unilaterally issued a spending freeze to all departments, including our firefighters, which has caused all manner of to-do. The fire cuts have the Town Council screaming even as they slash things like the library and the YMCA funding for similar reasons. People are pointing fingers, assessing figures, and laying blame.

Well, today I have a special request for the Village Board. I'd like you to show up.

Erin Quinn reports this week that when a motion to modify the controversial spending freeze came up before the Village Board, one that would have permitted department heads to make important purchases with approval, it failed. Here's how the vote went:

• Terry Dungan: aye.
• Patrick O'Donnell: aye.
• Jean Gallucci: nay.
• Shari Osborn: unable to be found at the time of the vote.
• Brian Kimbiz: didn't even show up.

I don't have a problem with a vote for or against, as I assume that any vote cast was done with some thought. I do have a problem with a vote this important failing because two board members weren't around to vote.

Here's a news flash: we elected you, and pay you, to show up and meetings and vote. That is what you are supposed to do. I understand that things come up, but maybe it's time to reassess your priorities.

I don't think expecting 95% attendance at meetings would be unreasonable. Things come up, and sometimes they're actually more important than the residents of the village. Missing one meeting a year should cover emergencies. If your life is such that this is unduly burdensome . . . maybe it's time to resign.

It's a tough job, it's an underpaid job, and it's a job that makes you a target more than it makes you a hero - and you all knew that when you decided to run. Make a commitment to show up. This is a small enough village that I don't think it would be that tough to make a really, really tough attendance policy the law, but I would rather see you just do your jobs.

This isn't personal - or rather, it's very personal when the lives of the people you have pledged to represent take short shrift because you just couldn't make it to the meeting, or you were far too busy to attend the entire thing. No, I have seen other former board members pull the same stunts, and it's time to suck it up and do your jobs.

On behalf of the village, I"m begging you - don't miss another meeting. We trusted you with the job, please . . . do it.

Village Spending Freeze: End to Innovation?

It's a common pattern that is sad to watch: great strides toward more sustainable and environmentally-friendly practices are made during economic boom times, only to be all-but-undone when municipalities start cutting their budgets and freezing spending. Is that the fate for New Paltz Village?

Like every level of government, the Village of New Paltz is struggling with the realities of the current economy. Terry Dungan initiated a controversial spending freeze last month, and there can be no doubt that the fiscal crisis is at the root over bickering about the solar panels on Village Hall. It's funny how government officials act, isn't it? During boom times they spend like nobody ever loses money and during a crisis they think that no spending is okay ever. The rest of us have to budget for good times and bad, but governments somehow are allowed to act surprised no matter what happens.

So for the Village, this surprise manifests in ways like spending freezes and fights with the Town to get more money. Since we apparently never think of saving money when the economy is good, can we think about how to use innovation to save a little money in the long term now that times are tough? Many environmentally sound practices, like the 2005 solar panel installation, cost a bit of cash up front but provide environmental and economic benefits down the line - they save us money in the long run. Does it make sense to spend money during a freeze to save money later? Probably - I for one have no faith that our elected officials will plan for a rainy day during the next boom time, so why not now when we're thinking about how difficult things are?

I was looking at various ways that roads can create energy, and honestly I think forward-thinking isn't nearly enough to finance a solar road network or anything close to it. However, the idea of speed bumps that power street lights is actually pretty cool - they're almost certainly cheaper than a road, we use or could use speed bumps in various locations, and I'm guessing that there's a grant out there somewhere that could help us finance these things.

The question is, can our mayor and our town supervisor play nice with each other for awhile and look into some serious changes, or would they prefer to continue defending their fiefdoms and use that as an excuse for not doing something exceptional with their jobs?

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.

School Board should Fight for Real Tax Reform

What a mess our antiquated tax system has put upon our heads. People have been up in arms about high property taxes in New York, and then our state's unbalanced economy crashes because of a dependence on Wall Street "productivity" to sustain itself - or, I should say, to sustain the state's tax revenues. Now a governor that was pondering relief of those taxes is going to have to slash state aid to local governments and programs, including schools.

In truth, I never liked the property tax cap plan. You don't solve the problem by not letting school districts spend more money, even if things get more expensive. If you watch the New Paltz school board meetings, you'll quickly realize that much of what the district pays for is controlled by state mandates or ironclad union contracts over which they have little control (and which themselves are certainly worthy of a post). Controlling spending is definitely a good plan if you want to reduce taxes, but this is like reducing your kid's allowance by a buck a week but expecting him to pay for more expensive lunches anyway.

What I would like to see our local school board do is make a stink about the medieval system of taxation they're forced to follow - land has not been a useful measure of wealth for a couple of centuries, after all. David Dukler and friends should rally districts around the state to throw down the property tax system altogether, and replace it with something more equitable. Education is the responsibility of all of us, and should be paid for by all of us. We've heard louder and louder grousing about high taxes for years, and it's the job of our elected representatives to make sure Albany is really listening.

I'm terrified that as a senior citizen I'm going to want to vote down school budgets because I want to stay in my home, and that's a pretty crappy place to be. Governor Paterson's plan, though, is more than a bit shortsighted, and I'd like to see better.

Village Crosswalks Continue to be Dangerous

Does anyone else remember when we had signs in the middle of our village crosswalks reminding drivers that they have an obligation to yield to pedestrians? It's a frustrating issue that has gotten only marginal newspaper coverage. The signs were put out by the DPW and brought in at night by the police. Apparently they didn't want the job anymore, so it stopped happening.

I was a member of the Bicycle-Pedestrian Committee for its first year, and Alan Stout is being kind when he implies that they've only been trying to get those signs back since the summer. It's been high on their agenda since day one, and it boggles my mind that they have been thwarted for so long.

So here are the reasons I have been told about why we don't have signs to keep our citizens and shoppers safe as they cross various parts of Main Street:

• They must be brought in at night and the police doesn't have the manpower.
• Even though volunteers have been approached
• Even though the DOT will permit them to be out all night
• The DOT has to give permission before we can put them back
• The village board claims they sent in the request, but sitting around and waiting strains credibility when people have phones in their offices . . . how about calling to see if you can walk this one through?
  
• A town in Texas was found liable when a drunk driver hit a boulder that was in the middle of the road
• I don't want to embarrass the elected official who made the comparison between a plastic sign and a boulder in writing, but it's tempting
• They make it too difficult to turn for trucks
• They're plastic signs, remember?
• They cost too much to replace
• The cost about three hundred bucks apiece. How much are you willing to spend so senior citizens can feel safe crossing from Starbucks to P&G's?
• The village Department of Public Works is concerned about their plows
• Don't put them out in the snow.

If you're an elected official in the Town or Village, please remember that the police and DPW are your employees. If it is good for our community, go ahead and tell them to do it.

We really have too many fiefdoms represented to make this idea happen. Unification, anyone?

The New Paltz Town Budget

I haven't looked deeply at the tentative budget for the Town of New Paltz, being that those documents are longer than a DEIS and perhaps more boring, but I found a couple of interesting tidbits about it in recent news coverage. Both the Elting Memorial Library and Moriello Pool have lines that cause me to raise an eyebrow; in both cases, a lack of foresight leads to an annoying problem.

Elting Memorial Library

Ira Margolis complained about the ramp into the library at my first meeting as a member of the Village Planning Board. He was concerned that the configuration of the wheelchair ramp could lead a disabled person to take a serious tumble down the stairs, and he wanted the library to put in a gate to prevent it.

I can understand how that one was missed - until I heard him talk about it, it never occurred to me that it was a dangerous situation. However, it was clear as day the next time I walked up that ramp. I don't blame the library for building it as they did (it was compliant with ADA rules, after all), but I find the board's resistance to fixing it until now to be disingenuous. It was an honest screwup, but one that was pointed out quite some time ago. If the board had been forthcoming about this sincere (and dangerous) mistake, and made it known that they wanted to fix it, I think they could have found some folks willing to pitch in to make things right. Instead, they wait months and then ask the Town to make it right? I wish they hadn't tried to dodge the issue.

Moriello Pool

Okay, the question is should we allow people to barbecue there without paying to get into the pool? According to director Bill Russell, no way! He's pretty ticked off that the budget is proposing an employee to monitor a gate into the playground/picnic area so folks can enjoy those taxpayer-funded benefits without going into the pool. According to the Russell "feels the idea is a waste of taxpayer dollars because the playground was intended to be part of the Moriello Park and the public can use it throughout the year - except during the 12 when the pool was open."

Um, Bill? Can you explain to me how much barbecuing and playground activity you expect to happen the other 40 weeks a year? And whether or not it's true that the playground was intended be part of your fiefdom, Bill, did it occur to you that maybe those taxpayers whose interests you are so interested in defending should have been asked if they wanted it gated off in the first place?

Of course Toni Hokanson, defender of the majority, also feels that it's a bad idea to make facilities paid for all by accessible to all, using the same argument she uses when she tries to minimize the overwhelming public opposition to Crossroads. I'd be more willing to agree with Toni in this case if she had submitted these plans to the Town Planning Board for approval, but wait! that's not necessary for the town government to do! Good golly Miss Molly, they are not subject to their own laws!

Overall I expect that Toni prepared the best budget she could, and I'm not criticizing it. I'm just interested in the gaggle of previously-made bad decisions that this process brings to light.

Candidate Without a Clue

Voting this morning was interesting, to say the least. It was my first time voting in a general election since I moved into the Village of New Paltz, so I wasn't entirely sure where my polling place was.

I cruised over to the High School where I've voted in years past, and I was surprised when I parked in the front of the building where I always had previously. Not one sign, not one poll worker to indicate where voting occurred; the front doors were locked and the stern warnings that visitors should report to the main office were unaltered. I watched several other confused voters go through the same process before I went around the back. I found out that I now vote in the Middle School, but seeing the poor organization was instructive.

The Middle School had a clear sign on the door that voters needed to enter, and I had no trouble finding my way. Writing in my choice for Town Council was not at all difficult. As I was leaving through the same door, I found it being held open by a gentleman who was speaking to someone I could not see. I assumed that he was simply being thoughtless; like most municipal buildings, the Middle School is being heated already, and his holding the door open was wasting energy. As I left, though, I saw that the unnamed man was speaking to write-in candidate Jeff Logan, who was busily tying the door open. The sign that guided me into the polling place, I noted, was now obscured by the position of the door itself.

I waited for Mr. Logan to finish his conversation. "Isn't the heat on in the building?" I asked him.

He considered. "Yes, it is," he replied. He didn't look entirely sure why I would ask.

"My tax dollars are paying for that heat, and propping the door open is wasteful. If you're running for government office, you should consider that," I replied.

"Yes," he agreed. He made no effort to untie the door.

I am pleased that I chose not to vote for Mr. Logan, who has been running solely on the length of his residency. However, part of me hopes he wins. After all, it's much easier to be a gadfly if the politicians make it clear that they don't give a damn about their constituents.