Polemic

Leading up to last night's Democratic caucus in New Paltz, I read so many polemics that I had to look the word it up make sure it really meant what I thought it did.  It did.  These attacks were lobbed at candidates I support, candidates I don't support, candidates I don't give a hoot about either way, and anyone perceived as having an opinion about anything, which could be inferred by as small an action as clicking a "like" button on Facebook.

This kind of communication accomplishes nothing of real value, of course.  In a community of this size, the people attacked regularly run into their attackers at My Market or Health-Carrot-Nutrition, making for awkward avoidance schemes.  Even if your candidates of choice win in an election, the wounds fester and lead to vengeance candidates being launched against them.

I am irritated to the point of ranting about this sort of thing, which any thoughtful person knows is a sure sign that I am as guilty as any of those there idiots.  It's irritating mostly because the people launching the attacks are desperate to shunt others into, well, "the other."  Two years ago some guy from Gardiner decided, based on my party registration alone, that I am a tool of planet-destroying evil, and still has no clue that I am a dirt-worshiping environmentalist who cares more about the environment than the majority of the present New Paltz Town Council.  He had to make me into the "other" because recognizing that people are complex makes polemics, and politics, harder.

What I'm waiting for is to be labeled part of the "Jason West cult" because I have, twice now, ripped into village board members known and unknown for nasty attacks.  Anyone who has mentioned the man's name around me in the last two years would quickly be disabused of that notion, or would be if their attack-mode brains could process more options than "yes" and "no."

I'm not the only target, and really I'm one of the least targets, but I'm an expert on me, so I'm the best example I have.  Of course, I spend less time pondering the impact of my words on others, so right now I'm going to rattle off a few thoughts that are decidedly not attacks.

• Tom Nyquist has busted his butt making the bird sanctuary a gem.  If you haven't visited, you should.
• I met Steve Auerbach for the first time last night.  He is thoughtful, well-spoken, and polite.
• Bill Mulcahy draws political cartoons better than anyone in New Paltz, and expresses his views brilliantly in that format.  The New Paltz Times should pay him to do so.
• If ever there is a serious threat to the environment, Susan Zimet is the kind of person I want in the trenches, because when there are battles and enemies and someone else calling the shots, no one can compare.
• Jason West's knowledge of history and law should be cherished for the treasure they are.
• Hector Rodriguez is an excellent parliamentarian.

Maybe we make out our neighbors to be pure evil because we feel bad voting against them otherwise, but we're grown-ups, and we live together.  Lying and polarizing is a short-term solution that makes for long-term problems.  Gossip and whisper campaigns are just as bad.  We need to recognize that all of our neighbors add something good to our community, and we need to be willing to look those neighbors in the eye and acknowledge when we don't agree.  

On Facebook, in the letters column, we are willing to speak our minds, but then we pretend that these aren't real life, and that those opinions we share have no impact.  They do.  If we would not say something to a person directly, we should not be typing it in a private email, or a public posting, or saying it to other people while clustered in the corner of our favorite wine bar.

New Paltz is a microcosm of this great nation of ours.  Let's try to remember that our community is filled with good, and that writing polemics is the very core of evil.

Woodland Ponds: A view from the Table

I haven't read the live blogging that went on during the Village Planning Board meeting last night, because I want to articulate my thoughts without being distracted by whatever excellent points my esteemed coblogger may have made.

Last night's meeting was long, hot, and complex. I'm grateful as many people showed up as did, and that as many of them stayed for the duration as did. I'm glad that Bill Mulcahy recorded most of it before he had to go, and that three Village Board members were in attendance.

I'm particularly thrilled with my colleague Linda Welles for doing such a fine job of expressing our frustrations. She told the Woodland Pond representatives that it's completely unfair to come to us for solutions to problems that were out there from day one, screaming about urgencey because they need to get people moved in next month or their funding will dry up. It's not only unfair to the Planning Board, it's terribly unfair to the people who have been planning on moving in to the facility.

I have found that the more aggressively an applicant wants to push forward with an agenda item, the more it makes me want to slow down and look more carefully at the information. Why are you pushing me to judgment? Is it because you just realized we meant it when we made you agree to these conditions, or is it because you're afraid if I look too closely that I will see things that may sway my decision in a direction you don't care for? Like Linda, I'm going to make my decision on the facts; but I for one won't be bullied into making that decision before I think the facts are all before me.

I found it incredibly refreshing that so many senior citizens were in attendance, but I regret that we don't have a public comment period at our meetings, because I really would have liked to have heard what they had to say. There were also many environmentalists in attendance, but they're quite good at making their views known to me. Since we don't have a public comment period, I would like to extend an invitation to people to comment here, email me, or call me to share their views. I want to know what people think, because that's my job. I won't put my full number here on the internet, but 9947 is all you really need to know to find me.

The chairman, Ray Curran, did a spectacular job of reminding the applicant that this urgency was created by circumstances unrelated to the Planning Board, and that the urgency doesn't mean we won't look at the issues as thoroughly as we would any other matter. In fact, I would go so far as to say he held their feet to the fire. He also controlled the meeting like a pro, keeping myself, the other members, and the applicant's representatives on point.

I wish the Woodland Pond Board would show up to the next meeting so I can meet these local folks and make sure that they know we aren't doing anything to hold up their approvals, and that any delays are simply related to the fact that the Planning Board has a job to do, and we owe it to the community to do the best job we can.

Was I invited to this party?

When I was approaching the age of 18, I was seriously thinking about how I would register myself to vote. I had grown up in a dyed-in-the-wool, old-school Republican household, but my older sister had outed herself to me as a Democrat a few years before. For the most part I found politics to be incredibly dull, but the way my father ranted at the evening news and my sister's passion for debate suggested there was more to it than my teenaged mind could yet comprehend.

Ultimately I opted to join no party, because it seemed like such a Big Deal to join either one. (I don't know if there simply were no other parties at the time, or if I was just ignorant of them; I knew that Anderson had run an impressive third campaign for the Presidency, but it never occurred to me that there were more options to choose from.) Even as a freshman in college I understood that a political party said something about your philosophy, and my own philosophy, that of a young man who hugged trees and hated everything else, didn't seem adequately represented.

I eventually joined a party and was quite content with it until I discovered it had a zillion different agendas that had nothing to do with my environmental positions. It was my fault for checking the box without doing my homework, and it actually served me well until it started fielding major candidates. I decided in the autumn that the party I was registered with had neither the power to accomplish anything of interest, nor the focus to accomplish much that I cared about, so I decided to change my registration to Republican.

Why Republican? Well, blame my father for that one - pretty much all my positive associations with the Republican brand come from him. Dad taught me that you don't solve problems by throwing money at them, that people need to live within their means without expecting a handout, and that we should have learned something from Prohibition before we started the War on Drugs. He believed that it's better to assume people are smart and ethical enough to make good decisions - but that you have to let them make bad decisions, too, without expectation of a handout from the government if you screw your life up.

The Republican party doesn't actually fit my own philosophy any better than the Green did, but it matches in different ways. I think the Green foreign policy platform is just as insane as the Republican energy policy. Truth is, there isn't a party out there that fits how I look at the world perfectly. From what I've read in this very blog, one either picks a party that fits one's philosophy or tries to mold one to that image. The former is impossible for me, and I don't care enough about politics to waste any effort on the latter. As my friends know, I expect to drift from party to party for the next couple of election cycles, seeing what different registrations feel like.

Of course, as long as I stick to New Paltz, my party affiliation is completely irrelevant. In fact, not only is mine irrelevant, I don't really care about anybody else's, either. People who are a party first and person next annoy me to no end. Political parties are a tool, and party loyalists lose track of that fact.

I've been actively lobbying a friend of mine to switch from a smaller party and become a Democrat for a few months now. My reasoning is that if, as I'm told, political decisions only get made in the Democratic caucus, that my friend, a politically active individual, should be in the thick of things trying to make changes. However I don't expect my advice to be heeded, because my friend doesn't wish to offend the head of the party by switching.

I understand that this isn't a big town, and people know each other, but are you going to political meetings to change the world or have drinks with friends? This is a college town - there are plenty of chances to have a drink with friends. I don't understand why someone would care about politics, and then associate emotions with it. Political activity is a tool that can accomplish many things, but so is a drill press - and I don't have a drink with my drill press.

Bill Mulcahy's letters to the editor suggest that so much is wrong in New Paltz because the Democrats control Town Hall. I sometimes agree with Bill's assessment of the problems, but I think it's because we elected five individuals that don't represent our interests. I don't care about their party affiliation, I care about who they are and what they do in the job. Yes, a party can suggest something about how a person would do a job if elected, but until I meet an honest politician I will think that party affiliation is an awfully speculative method of choosing a candidate.

I like the way the Village does it - parties really don't matter in those elections as much. I liked the last town council election even more - you can bet that every vote had thought put into it, if only to remember how to spell the candidate's name. I wonder if we can abolish petitions entirely in the Village and make all races entirely write-in campaigns? Sure would make the candidates work for every vote.

I know, if we did that we wouldn't get as many candidates that open doors for people, but hey, that's politics.

Bill Mulcahy has good points and bad about Channel 23

Bill Mulcahy wrote a letter about Public Access TV that was published in this week's New Paltz Times. Since Ulster Publishing doesn't keep pages on their website forever (and my email to publisher Geddy Sveikauskas clarify the policy has as yet not been responded to), I'll reproduce it here rather than linking to it:

Channel 23 is mired by 'censorship,' local politics

I was happy to read last week that Don Kerr is "working tirelessly" to end his "tyrannical rule" over our public access channel (Time Warner cable Channel 23) on weekends.

With all of Don's contributions to this community, like his being on the school board and his recent elevation to the chair of the school board's Facilities Committee (which deals with multi-million dollar contracts with construction contractors, engineers and architects), I don't know where he finds time to be the sole programmer of the public access channel on weekends.

Unfortunately, I cannot also praise the way the Public Access TV (PATV) Committee is being run by Don Kerr and his co-chairperson, village representative Andrea Russo.

For the last few years, I have been the main producer of non-governmental videos on Channel 23 and produce the only live public education show ("New Paltz News" - 7 p.m. on Fridays). You would think that would get me some appreciation from the Town Board and PATV committee co-chairpersons for the many public meetings, hearings and live shows that I have videotaped at my own expense.

Just the opposite is true. For example, when I videotaped the recent (Oct. 27) Public Access TV Committee meeting, I was treated with more than the usual hostility by the PATV co-chairpersons. They made a point of making me videotape the meeting from the public seating area. Shortly after the meeting began, Town Board member Kitty Brown ambled in and sat herself directly in front of my camera. She refused to move even after I asked her to. I took this to be a gesture of Kitty's contempt, not only for me, but also for the public who would be viewing the video.

When the public speaking time came around, I tried to ask questions about some public access TV issues. This apparently upset Don Kerr who angrily snarled: "This is public comment time, what is your comment?"

That's funny; I didn't know that the public comment time was supposed to be a one-sided monologue with no response from the committee members. I have also noticed a coolness from Don when I have showed up to videotape the school board's Facility Committee meetings. I would think that as PATV Committee co-chairperson Don would be happy for the public to be informed of this committee's activities. In my opinion, he isn't.

At the PATV meeting, Kitty expressed her anger about an excerpt from a town videotape of a New Paltz Police Commission meeting being re-aired. I had been asked to convert Nora Strano's videotape of the public speaking time to a DVD for Channel 23 broadcast.

Kitty's outrage by the airing of a public comment time of a Police Commission meeting once again shows what some of our politicians stand for; and that is secrecy, censorship and control of "public" access TV (and other committees) by them directly and through their politically-appointed cronies.

It's time for a change.

Bill Mulcahy

New Paltz

Bill is legitimately concerned with open meetings and public access television. His willingness to record a meeting for later broadcast truly is a service to the community.

However, I can't agree with everything he has to say.

• Public Comment. Generally, public meetings have a public comment period. This is a good thing. Some bodies, such as the Town Council, allow some leeway in this period, and will actually engage in a dialog with citizens that are commenting. This is not the norm, and it is not required. Such dialog could be disruptive to the flow of the meeting, making a long night unbearably longer for those elected officials or volunteers that are required to be there. Bill admits, and I can confirm, that he attempts to engage in such dialog without first determining if it's appropriate.
• Role of the cameraman. By volunteering to record a meeting, one has accepted the role of silent witness to the proceedings. Having a disembodied voice issue from behind the camera can be disorienting to the viewer, and having the camera spin around to give an extreme closeup of the cameraman can be downright disturbing. I would argue that a cameraman waives his or her right to even participate in public comment. Moreover, the cameraman is not a de facto participant in the proceedings themselves, and should exercise restraint when the urge to comment or ask questions manifests. Generally it is journalists who seeks such comment; those that bring along a camera arrange for someone else to operate it.
  
• Placement of Camera. If a meeting is not planned with a camera in mind, it can be difficult to find a place for it. A camera at the table must be turned to view each speaker, which can cause motion sickness in certain highly sensitive people that also own extremely large television sets. On the other hand, smaller cameras like most hobbyists own don't have the sound system to record at a great distance. Ultimately, the operator of the equipment should be willing to build bridges with the meeting's facilitators so the best location for all concerned can be selected.
  

I don't know much about the circumstances of airing sections of public comment from a public meeting, and I haven't seen the footage of Kitty "expressing outrage," but certainly Bill is correct that if a meeting is public, there's no reason to prevent its being recorded and broadcast.

I hope Bill continues to film public events, but I can understand if he's getting a frosty reception from time to time. There is a balance between recording the action and being part of it.

Crossroads Makes No Economic Sense

Crossroads at New Paltz is a heavily opposed 58-acre development slated for prime real estate just off of exit 18 on the New York State Thruway. It's a contentious parcel of land, having been the site of an historic fight against Wal-Mart in the 1990s. Crossroads is one of the primary reasons I invited Ira Margolis to write for this blog; I know he and I have differing views on this mixed-use development, and I know it would be a lot more fun around here if other viewpoints were represented. I'm still hopeful about Ira, but I digress.

I had ample opportunity to study this project during my year on the Town Planning Board, and certainly would have voted against it had I continued in that capacity. (The reasons I had for leaving would be best left for another post, perhaps closer to the 2009 elections.) My main reasons for disliking Crossroads were simple:

1. Economics.
2. Economics, and
3. Economics.

I won't deny that there are real environmental issues with this project, but they pale in comparison to the bad economic choices for the New Paltz community. Thank goodness we had a major economic crisis in this country that would throw this bad plan into sharp relief!

The Problem with a Consumer Economy
The United States is driven almost entirely by consumerism. A quarter of our GDP is driven by Christmas presents. Since World War II we have increasingly imported goods from elsewhere, because it's impossible to pay a decent wage and produce affordable product here (and one of these days I will have to talk about how unions have violated their trust and caused much of this meltdown, but again, that's a tangent for another day). We just don't make anything anymore.

Since we're so dependent on buying crap, we have gotten sucked more and more into a credit economy. No one waits to buy things until they have the money anymore. First houses, and then cars, became so costly that it seemed that borrowing was the only option. Of course now that credit is hard to come by, I'm praying that everyone will realize that, if you don't borrow the money, the prices will have to come down, since a big reason for that inflation was credit itself. It's very easy to by today's toys with tomorrow's money, at least as long as you expect to be making more money tomorrow.

Crossroads and Consumerism
So the direction of our country is towards a retail economy that can't be supported on a retail paycheck. Crossroads would bring that home to roost. New Paltz is already heavily tourist-dependent, with few opportunities to get a decent-paying job for skilled workers. The development as proposed would sacrifice one of our few chances to tilt that balance back, by giving up land that is zoned for light industrial use, and converting it into retail instead.

Mind you, there will be plenty of housing on this tract, but even the "affordable" section will be well beyond the price that one could expect an employee at, say, the Gap to afford for rent. The residents will go elsewhere to find jobs, and the employees will come from outside our community.

It just doesn't make sense in light of the flaws in our local and national economy, flaws which I have wondered about for years but many others are just now noticing. Toni Hokanson has argued that the plan would have been much worse under existing zoning, but I think that's a lousy way to govern. I like Toni and agree with many of her positions, but this one issue is going to ruin New Paltz if her defeatist attitude is allowed to hold sway. Reactive planning and zoning is exactly why Jonathan Wright has been arguing for a moratorium for years now - let's tell developers what makes sense for New Paltz first, so we don't have to consider one crappy plan after another. However, as I have found out myself, calls for a moratorium to allow us to plan intelligently fall upon deaf ears.