There Is No Political Majority in Trumansburg
I went down to the Tompkins County Board of Elections this week, and picked up some fresh voter data to sift through. There is no specific code in the voter database for people who are residents of the Village of Trumansburg, so it took a little fiddling, but I found the following surprising information about the political affiliation of Trumansburg residents:
As of this week, there is no political majority in Trumansburg. Oh, the Democrats come awfully close, but they don’t quite make it. The Democrats have the most members in Trumansburg of any registered political party, at 49.7 percent, but being just under the 50 percent mark, that doesn’t constitute an actual majority. Republicans in Trumansburg make up 25.7 percent of registered voters. Voters registered with no political party at all make up 19.2 percent. The remaining 5.4 percent of registered voters come from a variety of small parties lines, like the Green Party or the Conservative Party.
Keep in mind that there is always a bit of a lag when it comes to voter registration. Last year, for example, I re-registered from Democrat to no political party, but that switch isn’t yet shown in the records.
Jonathan
Why have you never been seen in any town or village meetings?
and why has Rose Hilbert not volunteered her piece of property for the eminent domain for the skate park in Trumansburg?
She tells the public “there’s the door” after she gets what she wants from her participation in local government. She only joined local government apparently to get around a zoning ussue for her property on main street. So she should be willing to donate the most perfect piece of land in town for the skate park don’t you think? Or it can be taken by eminent Domain for such a public purpose. In fact now it can be taken for a private purpose according to the US supreme court. Thsi would be a perfect opportunity to show her civic mindedness for the community by such a gesture.
Barry–
I’m not quite sure why you are making personal challenges to Jonathan and Rose in this forum– but hope you will express your opinion about happenings, news and issues in Ulysses without making personal demands on others about what they should or should not do. Let’s be polite and neighborly, ok?
As far as use of eminent domain, you are a bit off on that in suggesting it might be used in the case of the proposed skateboard park– government can use eminent domain only in pursuit of a bona fide planning objective that serves a documented public purpose. Maybe that has happened and I missed it, but, I did not think that professional planning services or a plan document had been prepared or adopted (my bad if I was just not paying enough attention– I don’t live in the Village). Even then, almost all governments will work as hard as possible to exhaust all feasible alternatives before initiating an eminent domain procedure. You can read more about eminent domain and takings and redevelopment legislation after the Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo case at:
http://www.planning.org/policyconference/kelo.htm
Barry, that’s a strange question. Let me try to give an honest answer: Given that I have been to village and town meetings, I suppose the explanation must be that I was wearing my invisibility cloak.
Do you know what I look like Barry?
My bad
I guess it seems if Cornell can take over property and not pay taxes that should be due on it that anyone can do anything as they previous village board members contended.
There are all sorts of attacks on people like Doug Austic and Rod Ferrentino and Rordan Hart and any others which don’t agree with those writing this blog so why should I not be able to say what I think. Since Rose hilbert manipulated or worked around the laws of the state to get what she wanted then the quit the village that anything goes. and the eminent domain issue seemed appropriate in this instance. and her location is the most perfect one for a skate park.
So Jonathan, I guess I do not know what you look like aexcactly but In my own visits I do not recall ever seeing you at any meetings.
I have pretty much given up going to these comedies as they are too frustrating in their ridiculousness and content or straw men to obfuscate any actual progress. We will be seeing a similar thing in the Town with water district 5 as we saw with the water tower and the sidewalk project. Because of this nonsense we lose funding that could have been free to the local population. The water tower could have been paid by grants and the sidewalk project could have as well and water district 5 could have been also. These objectionists have lost this funding in many projects so far and continue to cause costs to rise for everyone by imaginary and misunderstood objections for no purpose except to block development. They have what they want in moving to Trumansburg and they would rather no one else benefit from these advantages that originally attracted them. Peculiar attitude for people as public servants
especially the prevention of allowing the water district plan to go forward to the map plan and report to get more specific information since it is already paid for and is the next logical step and the only wayt to learn if it truly is a feasible plan or the most feasible. We will never know what anyone really thinks unless the public knows what the proposal is. they have been kept out of the loop by three Town Board members conspiring with the village board which is now largely discredited as incompetent and counterproductive to everything. We have these same attitudes on the Town Board and the same fate is deserved for those members that befell some of the village board members. We can only hope. I suppose we could go to the trouble of a second lawsuit for non representation by not allowing a public project to come before the public. Things truly do need to change. When I voted for these democrats I was hoping for a positive difference. Things have deteriorated significantly in local government and those comments about Jonathan and Rose are simply observations of misinformation and self interest alone. This blog is useful for stating opinions whether people like them or not. There has been a lot of criticism of other opersons such as Dick Waite and others but I guess it is an unabashed one sided blog as most are wont to be.
Wait a minute, Barry, you say you have given up on going to the meetings, and then say you haven’t seen me there, even though you don’t know what I look like? Why did you make the comment at all? Just a shot in the dark?
It’s this kind of warped reasoning that leads me to question much of what you say. Keep on writing comments, Barry, but I encourage you to pause and consider what basis you have for your claims before writing them down.
OK, Barry–
I am understanding better that you are really frustrated. I am, at times, frustrated myself. I was trying to encourage you to be polite and neighborly in stating your opinions– I do suggest that we all try to do that (while of course recognizing that everybody sometimes gets mad, too, so, forgiving as need be).
I couldn’t agree with you more about there being not enough understanding of the basic issues– but I am not at all sure, as you seem to be, that it is due to conspiracies or on-purpose obfuscaton. I think, in fact, most of the local officials– including some of thse pushing expensive public works projects– are just in over their heads on technical stuff they don’t have the necessary training to understand well. I wish I wish I wish we would hire planning professionals to do this work instead of officials “do it yourselfing.” NOT engineers– in the realm of water systems for towns, for instance, engineers are the “plumbers,” while planners are the “architects.” If you want your town to work– the traffic and housing and industry as well as the social harmony AND the water…. don’t hire a plumber to do an architect’s job. If you do, don’t be surprised if there is discord and lawsuits.
It is REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, people get stuff wrong sometimes when they are not professionals– elected officials and public alike. Like, the possibility that you suggest that water district 5 could have been “free to the local population” through government grants. I think that, like your thoughts on eminent domain, this opinion is a little bit of knowledge about something, maybe mixed with some things you have heard from others, who also may not quite understand the details. And, I think it is inaccurate.
If ever there was a water district that deserved to be “free to the users” through grants, it was Jacksonville. Their good wells were polluted through no fault of their own. Marty Luster, a neighbor, was in the State Assembly to “facilitate.” There just AREN’T ANY STATE OR FEDERAL GRANTS TO PUT IN WATER DISTRICTS– that is why the Jacksonville district had to borrow the money, the same as any other district will. There has been a fair amount of argument about the RATE OF INTEREST that would be paid by water district customers on the money that they might borrow for this big public works project proposed. As I understand it, 0% loaned money can be obtained from NYS if incomes in the proposed district are below certain guidelines– otherwise, they (NYS) think people should pay the interest for their own city-type services (I know a lot of other country folk who agree with that priciple). One of the reasons that I think the proposed Water District 5 will not stand up to court challenge is that the route of the district was not based on where people needed or wanted public water service, but, rather, on where the incomes of people would qualify the town for the “hardship” low-interest rate. That makes the water-quality issues of people in some places more important than the water-quality issues of people in other places, due to their incomes– and that, I think, is discriminatory. Every citizen who wants public water should have the same right to consideration of their needs by their government, whether they or their neighbors are well-off or not. The state program is set up to help people pay if they need the help, not to dictate that public services should only go to places where people are not very well-off. That’s scamming the system set in place to help the less fortunate borrow money to improve their cities’ and towns’ services, to my way of thinking. And, my parents always taught me that “farming the government” was wrong, because, in the end, we all pay those state taxes.
There actually is a way that some Ulysses residents COULD get water services extended at no cost to the municipality or themselves, but, it involves a completely different approach– not government tax money. It is, however, a really typical approach in a lot of places. That is, to let housing developers extend water lines incrementally, and pay for them as a part of the development. I’m not saying that I advocate this approach necessarily for Ulysses, but, I don’t think we should rule it out. I think that we should look at the water needs and development patterns, and the plans for the whole town, and then decide where we do and don’t want to consider water districts– WITH the help of a disinterested, nonpartisan professional planner (consultant). No special treatment for anybody, nobody “more equal” than anybody else.
That would help a lot of us feel less frustrated. If we are a “city” enough town to have city water, we ought to be a “city” enough town for professional planning for it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of poor communication, half-understood ideas, and conflict and bad feelings…. and maybe even expensive lawsuits. This business of public water is an expensive and pretty permanent kind of decision. Currently, town and village officials, past and present, all seem to have their own version of the facts, and the public is full of rumors and misinformation and accusations of conspiracy and obfuscation and all the rest. No wonder folks are bickering.
Barry, are you a Trumansburg resident? My map shows you just outside of the village.
Barry, Since you seem to know so much about all this “free” money for all sorts of government projects, I really think you ought to share your knowledge with local government officials. Start disseminating some light instead of heat, if you know what I mean. Even Doug Austic was talking about 0% LOANS for WD5, so you probably ought to tell him about these grants, because I’m sure he’d like to make his case even stronger with free money. (Of course all that “free” money just comes from a different governmental source, which is funded by taxes on maybe a larger population… but the public is paying for it nonetheless…directly or indirectly!}
I don’t think that Krys Cail understanding of Water District 5 is accurate.
1. I would not hire an architect to build a water district because architects are about aesthetics. Most contractors will tell you that most architects don’t know anything about what makes buildings stand up and the architects plans are often changed in the process of actually erecting the building. A water district is meant to provide water inexpensively and efficiently to the largest possible number of people. Engineers do not design water districts that can not be added to once it becomes affordable. The present design of WD5 is a gravity feed system from WD3 into Ulysses and (when needed) Trumansburg.
2. State grants are available for water districts from the Environmental Facilities Corporation, the financial arm of the New York State Revolving Drinking Water Fund. Ulysses did not qualify for a grant because the median income in the town is much too high. Initially there was some hope for a grant because the ESF used to look at only the incomes of the folks in the water district itself. Last year they changed their criteria and insisted that the whole town be considered.
3. WD5 qualified for the zero-interest loan by solving a group of water problems. The three biggest sources of “points” were providing (a.) the state park with drinking water, (b.) the trailer park and Alpha House with sufficient pressure for fire protection and (c. ) the village of Trumansburg with a secondary source of drinking water.
4. Water districts are not social welfare projects. Their design is not primarily determined by income levels or other social factors. Affordability of the water district is strongly influenced by topography. Because the residents pay the cost of the district it is important to take topography into account and deliver a district that is less expensive to build while still solving the above-stated problems.
Bill,
I am a builder. I’ve worked with many architects, and several of them know quite a lot about what makes buildings stand up. Architects often rely on engineers for certain aspects of a design. Krys Cail was saying that a new water district ought to be designed by a planning professional. That planning professional would also consult with a different kind of engineer. The planing professional would also be well versed on the economics of the systems. This WD5 issue is over my head. I’m being asked to know all about pipes and pumps and feed rates, and grants and loans, and interest rates and future plans at Bolton Point, and NYS law, etc etc. I’ve got more important things to worry about. I’ll bet that there are planning professionals available that have worked these problems out for many communities like ours. They have the experience to get it right and save us a lot of trouble. I’m getting conflicting information from Lucia Tyler, Doug Austic, Bill Chaisson, and Don Ellis. It makes my brain hurt. I think Krys is right, it’s way past time to call in the planning professionals.
Thanks, Allen– that was a well-said synopsis.
Of course, I did not suggest an architect design the water system– that was an analogy. I ran a contracting company myself for many years (with my husband, who is now a Construction Manager for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services). Architects are not “mostly about aesthetics,” they make sure that all the parts and systems of a house are designed to work together. Professional planners, on the larger scale of town planning design, fill the same role– designing the parts and systems to work together. Not just the water in isolation– the water as it relates to the waste water disposal and the economics and the traffic and the housing development… In this town, we seem to have a lot of folks who are sure that they can do this without the training or experience (let alone talent). I think they must be either arrogant or ignorant, or some of each.
I have a Cornell masters’ degree in planning– with a 3.8 grade point average– and I don’t think I am qualified to do it (not enough experience). I have been getting information from town board members and Doug, as well as my grad school classes and professional trade association (American Planning Association). These sources do not all agree on pertinent “facts.”
I am quite certain that none of our elected officials has sufficient training and experience to “make all the parts and systems work together”. There is tremendous discord, misunderstanding, feelings of being tricked and/or slighted… and this is before the map plan is even done! To keep insisting on bulling forward when there are so many difficulties surfacing this early in the process is sheer folly. “Not working” is an understatement.
Doug did a remarkably good do-it-yourself job on the Town Hall (although licensed architect Peter Demjanec did help). He bit off way more than he could chew trying to site, design, fund and gain buy-in from village and town board and public for a major municipal services extension without any planning professionals to help, only engineers looking at nuts-and-bolts plumbing. In the end, we are not saving tax money by being cheap in hiring professional services– and we are experiencing lots of discord, too. Instead of paying for planning, we may end up paying for lawyering.
The social/political issues– Village and Town working together, most people in the Town seeing the expenditures on engineering services (fees for studies) as fair use of their tax dollars, not catering to special interests– are part of the job a planner does in working on a project of this kind. And, because they are not partisan or running for re-election or even local, it is easier for them to gain the trust of everyone involved, because they don’t represent a “side.”
We need a process for considering these issues that brings us together to cooperate, and be fair with one another. Not more accusations of “So and so’s understanding of water district 5 is inaccurate…”
I still think that the water district is primarily an engineering project. What exactly would a planner contribute to this project?
You can’t really say that a water district “ought” to serve this or that part of a town if it is simply not economical to do it. You may get water to them, but the technical inefficiencies that are engendered by the planner’s criteria will increase costs and decrease some the benefit.
There have been a lot of concerns regarding “development following water”. Are people suggesting that once municipal water is installed that a group of people will insist on changing the zoning ordinance to allow unwanted types of development?
And just what is the consensus as to what “unwanted types of development” might be?
I would welcome the introduction of municipal water to the town because it would be a step toward allowing for cluster housing. I disagree with the 2-acre minimum lot size in place now because it causes sprawl and it is also an impediment to agriculture. The large unused (residence is not much of use) parcels eat up valuable ag land.
The existing zoning seems to limit commercial development in most places in WD5. The exception is definitely the portion of Rt. 96 between the village line and Taughannock Creek. That is zoned business and light industrial and undoubtly could be developed more intensively than it right now.
Out in the rural residential areas agricultural processing is a permitted use in some places. I’d like to see that sort of thing come back to Ulysses. Economic activities such as creameries, grain mills, canneries and the like disappeared from the rural landscape after WWII when transportation by truck became really cheap and efficient. With fuel prices now relatively high, one factor that allowed centralization of agricultural processing activity has gone away. It would be nice to have those jobs come back to the rural towns.
Jonathan
We are not village residents by about a few hundred yards …. could be annexed I suppose but probably won’t be. I say I do not go to meetings anymore because They are a stupendous waste of time and energy with the total lack of any progress in anything constructive. As to Planners and Architects and Engineers I think planners are similar to Architects and some may even have some engineering knowledge.
A friend of mine is a professor of architecture and also practices. For this he is often roundly criticized because he practices. How fortunate those students are to have a glimpse of the “real world” in their professor. An unusual; situation, unfortunately, in most colleges. Often the other profs say it is not a vocational school but then this school should not be training engineers or architects or any other of those more tangible professionals. The connection of “professionals” to the real world is often very weak and the students reflect this in their performance after school.
My son, who incidentally works on the engineering of the computer systems that operate various water systems for municipalities as well as commercial ranging in size from small to 95 million gallons a day for their largest to date, tells me he cannot usually use Cornell or MIT engineers because they do not know how to do anything only the theory ….no idea which end of a screwdriver to use. Now granted these are engineers (plumbers to you)…. incredibly simplistic idea of engineering I think since they are often the ones who have to make things work that the salesmen ( professionals) have sold that will not work) But I digress. Anyway I think the WD 5 is well thought out and not designed only to fulfill financing details. it has been proposed to solve as many local water problems as can be done within reasonable local constraints. My objection is that three board members refuse to let the public see what is proposed for some reason. Doug Austic has always had the overall interests of the Town at heart as Town supervisor and that is why he has been generally supported by both political parties. It is not that he plays favorites but he does have a point of view. I think that he has been right from the get go on theWD5 and it should go on to the map plan and report to get more specific information regarding the way the thing is proposed now. But the public has never been allowed to see the plan because of these board members obfuscating. It borders on criminal to not represent the public as a public servant The Lawsuit launched against the village may also be appropriate for the town board. They have not been representing the public in their activities but only their own interests. This water district is to remedy immediate needs in the area not for a prolonged academic study that can be initiated for future water projects and for further development. WD5 should be at least presented to the public and The Map Plan and Report should be done now to get more realistic information including local needs and interests. It has been and still is stupid to block this thing while wasting money on witch hunting audits to try to get something on Austic. Which it didn’t find. Only that the company doing the Audit suggested doing one every year. I don’t suppose that is because they would like the nice 10 or 15 grand it costs the town and still probably would reveal nothing untoward.
I don’t think My son who happens to be an electrical engineer would think he was an electrician. and the engineers I know also might be quite offended to be considered a plumber. Plumbers make far more money.
One of the important objections of the three “obfuscating” Town Board members is that Supervisor Austic’s secret WD5 was conceptualized without reference to any of the significant zoning issues that are involved (e.g., the sprawl issue mentioned by Dr. Chaisson). That’s exactly what happens when planners aren’t involved in decisions that will have cascading impacts beyond the immediate issue being addressed. Of course, the problem with good planners is that they actually look closely at the consequences of things and won’t go along with a shoot first and ask questions later mentality. Unfortunately, particularly when it comes to Town-based issues that directly impact our Village, the current Town Supervisor has proven time and again that he couldn’t care less about the consequences of his actions. I’m delighted that the “obfuscating” three and our Village Board have been watching out for us. Our Town Supervisor clearly won’t.
Hmm
What terrible consequences have occurred because of Mr. Austic’s actions?
What “secret” plan was there for these objections to be so pronounced? The plan was formed well before the present Board was elected. Nothing secret about it until now when the public is not allowed to see the plan as it is. Perhaps those people involved should be the ones to decide. We have gotten over 100 names on a petition that are people in the proposed actual district but the Board doesn’t believe that. Those who signed are only the ones for the plan as far as they understand it and would like to go to the next step which would be to gain further information and more specifics as to what would be involved.
The next step would be the map plan and report which would answer all the questions that these folks ask. Why won’t they just authorize that move and find out some real figures to deal with instead of twisting imaginary issues to objections?
They are the ones keeping it a secret it would seem
they will not allow the public to see the plan without twisting and spinning the information first. Barton And Lodjudice are very reputable engineers and have done numerous water projects for state parks and other municipalities. If the purpose of this plan is to solve a few current water problems and within a gravity fed system then this is a reasonable alternative to start with Do the Map Plan and Report to find out more particulars then we can decide from there whether it is a worthwhile project for the town or not. Since nothing has been allowed to the public then they do not know what is involved and how to even evaluate it for themselves. Why keep it secret from the public concerned. It is actually supposed to be up to the public to decide whether the plan is good or not.
What are they afraid of in doing the map plan and report?
That would include some planning issues that have been used for obfuscatory purposes.
Richard,
Have you read the Ulysses zoning ordinance? It was written with the oversight of planner George Franz. It has the expectation of municipal water built into it. For example, you can’t build cluster housing or multi-unit dwellings unless you have municipal water to the lots.
Here’s the language from the “Multiple Resident District” article:
An RM–Multiple-Residence District may be established in any R2–Moderate-Density Residence or
H1–Hamlet District of the Town that is served by municipal water and shall be established by an
amendment to this Zoning Law by act of the Town Board,
This is all on-line at the town site under document downloads. The preliminary report by Barton & Loguidice is also available at the town offices, complete with a map that shows where the pipes are to go. You can compare it to the zoning map to see where the water is going and what development is permitted in each of the zones crossed or in those that are permitted to be established.
Where exactly is the potential for despoilation that people are talking about? I would like to see specific examples with references please?
Let’s stay on point here. I wasn’t talking about the zoning ordinance, I was talking about WD5 and the value of actual planning on a project like that. Right? What does George Franz’ partcipation in the Town’s zoning ordinance revision have to do with whether WD5 was conceptualized with the kind of vision a planner would have brought to the table? Surely you’re not saying that a professional planner was involved in our Supervisor’s secret WD5 project?
Also, I seem to recall that planners were brought into the Town’s very lengthy zoning revision process OVER the strong objections of our Supervisor who, guess what, didn’t think it would be worth it to include a professional in the process. Had you moved to the area yet when that was going on?
My point in bringing up the zoning ordinance is that the water district is being introduced into a town that already has a regulatory infrastructure that takes municipal water into account.
I have heard it said in public meetings and in private conversations that the present design of WD5 will cause unwanted development in Ulysses. My question is “How?” if the existing zoning ordinance expressly allows and forbids certain kinds of development already.
In the commercial zone along Rt. 96 where the Shursave is now, Seafuse already has village (municipal) water, so he can develop his property to the extent that the village water supply and the zoning ordinance of Ulysses allows him to. To that end he built a second Morton building and rented it to Palmer Pharmacy. I believe that he also owns the field between Palmer and Maguire where the cars are parked during Grassroots. What is to stop him from building on that with or without WD5?
Village water also goes to the Kinney and Auble owns the lot next to it too and can extend the main there if he so chooses. In other words development can happen there already with the village earning rate and a half by selling those businesses water.
WD5 will replace the village municipal water supply in that business district and in the rural residential permissive zones along the line out to the Hoffmire well and to the trailer park. It will give less expensive water to the people there. Since there is already municipal water there and it does not seem to have experienced rampant development, I’m a little confused by the “development follows water” argument in this context.
WD5 will, however, provided less expensive water with high pressure. These two features could arguably encourage development, but again, the existing zoning ordinance spells out what may and may not happen there.
If anyone believes that the existing zoning ordinance is too permissive or has other problems, then they should certainly address their concerns to the planning board and the comprehensive plan committee that is presently revising the town’s plan (which is the guiding philosophy for the zoning ordinance).
The town board is also working on revising the existing ordinance in certain areas that they believe need immediate attention. For example, no specifications exist in it right now to limit sign height in the town. Several other omissions or contradictions have already been fixed in the town board work sessions that are held on the last Monday of each month.
I have lived in Trumansburg since 2003. The revised zoning ordinance was ratified in 2005, but I believe they worked on it for quite some time, so, no, I did not witness the beginning of the process.
Calling the WD5 process “secret” is kind of strange. If you read the minutes (available on the web) of the town board meetings, Austic would ask the town board for permission to go ahead with a given set of steps. They would grant it. Months later he would come back with those steps completed and ask to go ahead with the next phase.
I understand the town board to be a “governing board”, not a “managing board”, which is to say that they are not really supposed to be involved in each little step in the development of a capital project like a water district. This is my understanding based on my reading of New York StateTown Law. I am not an attorney though.
It is the supervisor who has responsibility for the detailed management of the town. He gets paid a lot more than the councilpeople and is expected to spend more time on governance than they do.
Neither is it the supervisor’s responsibility to actually shape the scope and design of the water district. That was the job of the consulting engineers. In this case, Barton & Loguidice, who also designed WD3 and many, many other water districts around the state. If you go to their website, you will see that they also do planning. I kind of doubt that Eric Pond put together WD5 without consulting anyone else at the firm.
I have heard the argument that B&L just want to sell Ulysses the biggest project they can whether they need it or not. Given B&L prominence and success and longevity, it seems unlikely to me that they would employ such a transparently “get rich quick” approach and then be able to keep getting contracts.
What exactly would a second-opinion planner contribute to this process?
Were planners involved in the sidewalk project?
They seem to have missed few details such as safety in the streets and overall traffic movement through town. I realize that if traffic is moving it must be stopped so we can waste even more fuel in our ill planned, nationwide, transportation system . The blocking of visibility has made that intersection more dangerous now because no one can see in any direction as well as they could before . Now I suppose we will need a light to control and inhibit traffic.
now there is less parking and this will lead to businesses that were walkable to moving outside of town.
Were these oversights or undersights a result of poor planning?
or just tunnel vision. All the trees are gone in front of downtown and those were very nice appropriate trees for that street it now looks very naked and vulnerable. to sunlight and wind and so on. is this a result of planners?
engineers may have considered these issues more factually and adjusted the designs for those considerations. The sidewalks are pretty but they need them on South street and repair the ones throughout the village is more important to me. I would like to walk in town but mostly you have to walk in the streets. the side walk also should go to Suresave and to Kinney’s now. School children would not have to walk in the streets if the sidewalks were planned correctly. and priorities were considered such as public safety. Is this Planning? Or is it just one view forced into existence without much reasonable consideration of unintended consequences sometimes known as collateral damage.
With so many people who know so much with such certainty, it is not surprising that there is so much argument. Hard to read it all… Yes, it is surely true that our Town Supervisor happened to prefer to not hire professional planners for the Comprehensive Plan process or the zoning revision (I was there, on planning board for a full term plus a bit more before being appointed to full term). That, and a good deal of time-wasting argument that went with it, meant that the professional planners who were town residents, and volunteering their time, and other resident volunteers, spent over ten years fighting their government before getting the plans that Bill ultimately quotes in place… Less than ideal, surely, a lot of bad feeling as well as inefficient work… and, quite possibly, before Bill got to town… Not before George Franz did, though– I remember back before the Jacksonville water district was approved, talking with George about it when he was a planner for Town of Ithaca…. talking about the possibility of running the water lines from Ithaca rather than T-burg (Austic was not interested in that approach at the time…), and having George tell me that Ulysses had a lot of planning work to be done before that could be considered. I got busy, pitched in and did some, as I remember…. ultimately, Austic came around that time…
As far as the sidewalks– I thought they were done by landscape architects and traffic engineers? Not a village resident, am not sure if perhaps a poor job of planning was done. Don’t know. As with all professions, some people are better at some specialties in the business than others… have not had problems driving or parking in T-burg, other than typical construction inconvenience during the project.
Am somewhat confused by Bill’s strident advocacy– is that just here? As a journalist, do you try to have some objectivity and seeing both sides in your paper? don’t read it, so, sorry, don’t know. Maybe you don’t write on Town topics– went to a Town meeting last week– saw a couple of what appeared to be teens taking notes, maybe they write for the paper on Town topics? There were two members of the public there, and one Village Board member. One member of the public who supported the view of the 2 town board votes that favored moving forward immediately with the WD5 proposal, one member of the public who supported the 3 town board votes to not continue to bull ahead immediately (me). A LOT of angry yelling, interrupting of the women board members while they were speaking, and recriminations from the minority view-holders on the board.
I’m not going to endlessly defend why professional planners are useful in developing water districts, but will just point out that what planners try to do in these situations is to prevent the kind of nasty situation that has come into being here. It is very destructive to communities to have these kinds of situations. They (planners) also work to make sure that misinformation and disinformation (i.e., that there is only one route that can be engineered effectively to bring water to the State Park, that there is “a questionable water supply” in the Village, that Town Board members can be removed via lawsuit if people do not agree with their votes) is countered with accurate info from an objective source. We need that real bad.
But, go ahead, be stubborn, say you know everything and everybody else’s concerns are irrelevent if you must. At this point, it will just be gasoline on a very hot fire. Fires destroy things, they don’t help people build things together. I think it is time to listen better to all the residents of the Town and Village, not a select few who have monopolized the town’s time and money for quite a while, and not succeeded in getting a majority of residents or Town Board members to agree with them. “One view forced into existence without much reasonable consideration of unintended consequences” is exactly what good planning practice is supposed to prevent– and, with regard to public water lines in the Town of Ulysses, that “one view-forcing” is what we need to stop ASAP.
The point is that we need a FIRST opinion on the planning issues implicated by WD5. Are you seriously saying that because B&L “do” planning, WD5 was actually looked at with a planner’s eye? Come on, if you’re going to say something like that, you have to offer more evidence than “I kind of doubt that Eric Pond put together WD5 without consulting anyone else at the firm.” Really? The Town Supervisor who hired B&L has absolutely no interest in planning or in process — a fact that would not surprise anyone who had spent more than a few years observing his ends-oriented philosophy of governance.
The Supervisor’s head-long rush into this particular project, his continuing hyper-defensive reaction to legitimate questions, the openly strident and even threatening public comments coming from the interested beneficiaries, and our Supervisor’s long history of open disrespect for process and public input suggest to me that the Town is very smart to slow things down and to proceed with extreme caution. In fact, I think it would be a breach of fiduciary duty NOT to do so under the circumstances.
I heard the Town Board meeting was a big waste of time as usual and a comedy of the absurd once again, that one person pretty much monoloized the time with pro comments for the three non objective board memebers.
The public does not know what has been proposed because these board members will not let Mr. Austic send out the information as it exists. The twisted information these three publish in the papers is inaacurate and misleading information. It is a disservice to the whole community.
Why is it that these members refuse to let the public see what the actual plan is for WD5?
There is dissention because these Board Members refuse to involve the public in a public project. It is comical to go to meeting and listen to the babling filibusters of objections to the project before anyone really sees it. These people apparently think they are the emporers as elected and as such can make decisions without regard for the electorate. A friend of mine said she wanted to see some changes in the Town Board and voted for these clowns but did expect to have soem thing accomplished that would be good for the Town of Ulysses not just bobble everything to a standstill with nonsensical questions which would be answered by the map plan and report.
Vote for the project or vote it down. Why fool around with it endlessly?
First however present it to the public with out the twisted arguments and find out wehat they really want. But present it as a complete report to those in the public that will be responsible for the support and payment for it. It would enhance potable water supply for some of the Town and improve fire protection and at reasonable costs to the residents concerned. IT would solve a few immediate probnlems in the area by supplying Parks with water and supplying some residents outside but near the village. It is limited in scope partially because of Gravity. Water runs downhill and to distribute it you need to keep most of it near a consistent level. For example, those houses on the lake are about 600 feet lower than those in and around the village and require a substantial amount more engineering detail and cost. So this is a reasonable sytem step for immediate needs with low cost to gradually build a water infrastructure that can be helpful for a while.
PRESENT THE PLAN TO THE PUBLIC NOW AND GO AHEAD WITH THE MAP PLAN AND REPORT TO GET MORE SPECIFIC INFO.
It is a better use of Town money than the Audit and I think it would cost less for the map plan and report. DO IT!
This is silly. I asked a direct question: Why should another planner be involved in the WD5 design? The answer, as far as I could tell is “Because.”
The route that was chosen to the park was the least expensive one. The park water tank is on the north side of the gorge. The present design brings the waterline across the creek where the creek bed is glacial till. It is bedrock further down. The waterline would have to be hung from the bridge, which cheaper than blasting through bedrock (which is why they did it that way at Hector Street last year), but more expensive than trenching through unconsolidated till. There is till above the bedrock along Taughannock Falls Park Road between Rt. 96 and Jacksonville Road. Not much, but apparently enough.
This is engineering talk, I know. I suppose a planner would not want to go along that Park Road because it is a natural area. Lucia Tyler quite justifiably expressed concern about this at a town board meeting. She was worried that the municipal water would cause this scenic area to be further built up with residences. Austic argued that it couldn’t be under the present zoning ordinance. She remained unconvinced that that seems to be where it was left. That kind of stalemate happened all the time and continues to do so.
It would appear that some people trust the zoning ordinance to protect the appearance and feel of Ulysses and some people do not. No reasoned discussion based on mutual close examination of the text itself seems to have taken place. I find that frustrating. I believe that both sides (take note, BOTH sides) are ruled by their prejudices.
For example, Barry, I think that your criticisms of the Main Street project are largely unfounded. The trees on East Main Street were removed because they were root-bound and forcing themselves up out of the sidewalk. The new sidewalk are properly graded and the trees were well out of that grade and doomed. They will be replanted later this month. The parking is not significantly more limited than it used to be. Actual counts were done and the number of spots lost is less than the number that typically remain vacant at any given time. In addition, lines will be put down to mark actual spaces as soon as the state puts a finishing coast over the seams created by last fall’s construction. The addition of delimited parking spaces will, one hopes, reduce the rather creative approach to parking that one finds in this village.
In sum, I hear and read a lot of opinion in public meetings, in general conversation and on this blog that is backed up by more ideology than fact. It is destructive.
Richard
What about the planning on the sidewalk project?
was that result of planning?
Engineers are not limited to the math you know
they actually have to consider as many variables as they can in planning a project but unlike planners they have to consider it within the realms of posisiblities and probablilites. I know planners can come up with all sorts of ideas and often they cannot be built for some reason similar to architects who can design thingsa that will not stand. but the artwork is nice. Engenners can draw things that cannot be built as well look at some MC. Escher drawings sometime for such fantastic examples. I think Mr. Austic may have come to B&L becasue they are engineers that state parks uses often with a lot of success. We should not plan this to death. It solves some immediate problems in water distribution but not all of them forever of course
it is a logical small necessary step. Potable water and fire protection are rather important issues.
I guess it isn’t the water anyway.
It is Mr. Austic that thses folks try to oppose in any way they can. Is development within the village and example of planning at its finest? I am not very impressed with that result either. So much for obstructionist politics. It accomplishes nothing and costs more. planners can help and they can aslo hinder.
Present what we have to the public directly and find out what they think. Spend less than the witch-hunt audit cost for the map plan and report.
at least find out some facts instead of twisting everything aorund to the point of no one knows what the truth is about the issues of WD5.
Sorry Dr. C, you’re changing the focus yet again. Look back at your post. Here’s what you actually asked: “What exactly would a second-opinion planner contribute to this process?” It’s a direct question, true, but it doesn’t deserve a direct answer because it contains a glaringly false and biased premise. In fact, there hasn’t even been a first-opinion planner involved in this project and you know it (unless “I kind of doubt that Eric Pond put together WD5 without consulting anyone else at the firm†is really what you call a convincing argument that planners have looked hard at this). So, who is it who’s really more wrapped up in ideology than facts here? Your cagey question makes is pretty clear to me that you’re not nearly as pure as you want us to believe.
Here’s my position. Given the lack of any meaningful planning input, plus the Supervisor’s known aversion to process, the Supervisor’s suspiciously defensive reactions to legitimate questions raised by elected members of the Town and Village Boards, the shrill and down-right nasty commentary on these questions from those who will benefit directly from the Supervisor’s project, and the fact that the project will have direct consequences for both the Town and the Village that extend well beyond the engineering problem of delivery of water, I think our representatives are right to slow things down and ask whether this project really is in our long-term best interests. What are the supporters of the project afraid of? If it really is as innocuous as you say it is, they should have nothing at all to fear from some serious, thoughtful review by people who don’t have a direct personal interest in the outcome.
Oh, and you don’t read destructive opinions in the Free Press, Bill?
I’m rolling my eyes at that glaring omission.
I agree with Richard. Doug Austic and Rod Ferrentino have lost the trust of the public. Stalemate is best on a poorly-conceived and secretive project.
Sylvie,
I don’t write opinions in the newspaper. I’m a reporter.
It is a bit blinkered to believe that “the public” don’t trust Ferrentino and Austic. We shall truly see at election time in November. The village board recently found out who had lost the trust of the public.
Because no one was paying attention does not make a project secretive. And please remember that if the residents of this water district vote against it, then it dies. Just like that. The town board does not have the final say over water districts; the people who live in it and technically own and pay for all the infrastructure are the ones who decide. It is the law.
I have seen no fact-based statements that make a case for the current design being “poorly-conceived”. I have made explicit requests for arguments as to why this water district is bad and all I have gotten in responses like “planners should be involved” (when Barton and Loguidice does employ planners).
Richard,
By “ends oriented” style of governance I guess you mean that he doesn’t like to discuss how things should be done with enough different people.
OK. Granted. Austic is irascible and acerbic and does like to just get things done. His performance at the high school public forum was lamentable. He’s just not cut out for that kind of thing.
But as a reporter (and former academic) I have had to sit through a large number of meetings where there was an enormous amount of “discussion” and no decision making at all. To quote Marty Petrovic with regard to the village board: “I live on debate, but there are limits.”
Water districts are for people who have a direct personal interest in them. They provide the people in them with water. Comprehensive plans and zoning are to protect people from any negative repercussions from land use related to the use of municipal water. Ulysses has both a plan and an ordinance. I choose to believe in the wisdom of the people who wrote them.
A reporter, Bill? No. You’re a “reporter” who “reports” on organizations and meetings in which you are a participant, with conflicts of interest that run thick as Frontenac Creek during the spring melt off. Your “reporting” is laced with the bias and strong opinions you reveal here. A real reporter wouldn’t work like that. A “reporter” would.
Bill
On the sidewalk project I was mainly referring to the fact that now when getting out of a car after parking you are in traffic directly. The little Geegaws in the curb design are somewhat annoying and potential tire hazards. apparently these are similar calming devices as used in Ithaca. the best calming device Tithaca could use would be timed traffic lights for 30 mph or 35 and signs saying that and eventually even Ithaca drivers woiuld figure out that they don’t have to stop at every light and would be much more relaxed while traveling through town.
And back to Trumansburg sidewalks visiblity is far worse when driving through that intersection than it was.
Guess I jumped the gun on tree removel. Ok so they were root bound.
Richard, and Krys, etc.
why does the board keep the project a secret from the public?
Why can it not be presented directly to those people concerned?
WHY WHY WHY!!! Whayt is so bad?
Are they afraid they will like the idea after all?
Lets find out maybe their fears are completely unfounded.
Why not present the actual plan as it is to the public by mail?
Send the proposal in brief and the map to each person on the proposed WD 5 route. Maybe even a short questionaire as I have proposed in the past. Eric ponfd has used those that are ideally worded to find out peoples sentiments as to the project. Ask everyone on the Route. Then do the Map plan Report.
This is a no brainer to directly ask the public what they think of an existing plan. No one seems to touch this question of all those who comment here.
Why can’t the public be informed about this WD5?
Why is it kept a secret by those supposed board members?
Why can’t Mr. Austic send out information as it exists now?
The B&L plan as is.
The feds are going to create a water district for us themselves if it doesn’t happen soon. It will be “planned” as well as those post offices all over the place are.
Water districts are big deal these days in Fed.
I have covered the Chamber of Commerce (of which I am a member) and the comprehensive plan work (my wife is the chair of the committee). I don’t think I have covered them to excess nor attempted to present them in some unduly favorable light.
Most of the criticism that I have gotten on this blog has been in reference to my coverage of the town board, particularly the water district. I don’t have any vested interest in WD5. In fact, as a village resident I will probably see my water rates rise after it is built.
I have interviewed all the members of the town board (except Don Ellis, who has either not replied to my requests for interviews or replied tersely and too late to be included in a story)as often as I can get hold of them. All of them are busy professionals and I understand that it is difficult for them (1) to get back to me in a timely manner and (2) stay abreast of every detail of a given topic.
It is pretty clear to me that a majority of the contributors to this blog have a point of view that is heavily colored by political presumptions. Many of the things that I see stated here as “fact” here are either inaccurate or quite distorted by ideology.
Frankly, I have very much adopted “a plague on both your houses” perspective on both sides of the water district debate. For example, I don’t think Barry Hayes (who supports the district) is correct to say that the town board is keeping the details of the district secret. And I also don’t believe that Doug Austic kept the details of the district secret during its design phase.
There has been a complete lack of diplomacy on both sides of this debate, much of it grounded in personal feuds. Both village and town meetings are conducted with a deplorable lack of decorum, both among government officials and between the public and the officials.
I have done my level best to report the facts on the water district and every other local controversy. But when I report facts that some people don’t like and don’t want to hear, then they is dismissed as biased reporting.
Trumanburg/Ulysses is going to have to admit sometime soon that there is a cultural divide here. Our community is home to people who have very different ethical bases. On the one hand Jonathan Cook stated elsewhere on this blog that he simply does not believe in the existence of altruism. It is my sense that he is not alone in this belief. However, there are people who live here who would be scandalized by that statement.
People who believe in altruism and people who do not are going to approach civic life with very different presumptions.
Altruism is a Christian value, but it was once coherent with a sensible approach to life in a rural community. The interdependence that comes from small numbers of people, geographical isolation, the inherent cost and danger of much of the work leads to a sort of pragmatic altruism. [It was institutionalized into the agricultural 'communes' that served as the basis for the social democratic societies of Scandinavia.]
Technology and a changing economy has meant that this sort of practical altruism is no longer a necessity in rural communities like this one, but it is still a habit and a value for many people.
This doctrine clashes awkwardly with one that elevates self-interest to a primary position. There are people living here who think that anyone who professes altruism in any form is either a chump or is lying.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors’.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall
Bill writes, “On the one hand Jonathan Cook stated elsewhere on this blog that he simply does not believe in the existence of altruism” –
I think it’s more accurate to say that I don’t believe in the existence of absolute altruism – especially not the sort claimed by people running for public office who say that they’re going to be selfless servants to the people and listen to everyone without having an agenda.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that altruism is a Christian value, either. There are and have been plenty of non-Christian models of altruism in place. Christians didn’t invent the idea of people working together for common interest. Also, operationally, there are many examples of anti-altruistic activities by Christian groups in small rural communities.
People can work together in common interest, but I think it’s self-deluded at best and dishonest at worst for people to claim that they are only interested in helping the entire group, and not in helping themselves. As I see it, people are motivated by a complicated mix of self-interest and altruism. I’m more likely to trust people who acknowledge that complexity, and don’t try to tell me that they’re purely for the group.
Few points of self-defense: in a full-term plus an additional appointed year on the planning board, I can attest to having had quite a lot of experience with Supervisor Austic’s approach to water issues in the Town (including the Jacksonville district and the small, 3-house water district on DuBois Rd., as well as WD5). My assessment that there has been inadequate professional planning for public water in Ulysses is based on being very interested and involved with the issue since Marty Luster was Supervisor (ASK HIM, if you don’t believe me). Austic has at no time in my experience wanted to pay for any planning whatsoever, and has consistently tried to keep as much information as possible from the public and town officials, prefering to work directly between himself and engineers. Perhaps others have had a different experience, but, that is what I have found consistently.
As far as B&L having put planners on the project, I very much doubt that was within the contracted scope of work, due to what I have just outlined above. Perhaps, however, I’m wrong. If so, give me the name of the planner who worked on the project, and I’ll look them up in my APA directory, call them, and ask them about the work they did so I understand it better. But, I seriously doubt that work was ever undertaken– partly because there has never been any public participation, which is what planners do– gather and share information, and involve the public in decisionmaking so it is equitable and grounded in local needs and understanding.
As far as the last Town Board meeting, the characterization of what someone “heard” (unnamed person!) above is entirely false. I was there for the entire meeting, and a bit past the adjournment, too. No one member used significantly more air time than any other, although Don Ellis was speaking less than the other 4. Austic and Ferrantino had raised, angry yelling voices over about a ten-minute period of discussion of WD5. During the WD5 discussion, most times that the female town board members spoke, they were not able to complete what they were saying because they were interrupted by Austic, who would continue speaking with an increasing level of volume until he conversationally overpowered them. It seemed very aggressive. He did the same thing to me repeatedly when I spoke during the privilege of the floor period, arguing against points I was attempting to make as I was making them, interrupting me. When there was a comment period offered at the end of the meeting, and both citizen-observers elected to speak (Marcia Horn was also present, but was, at that time, a village trustee), he allowed the first speaker, who agreed with his position, to say her piece without interruption. When I spoke, he again repeatedly interrupted me– frustrated, I even noted out loud that it was happening a lot, and that perhaps interrupting women had become a habit. I think that I said that out of frustration– in fact, I think he only is verbally aggressive with women when they don’t obey him, not in all cases.
One issue that was very calmly and reasonably brought up yet again was that the town as a whole should have some voice in where public services are extended. To pick out a select group of town residents, and allow only them to vote on where water lines are extended, is not fair. It does not just involve them– because there are ways in which that governmental action will impact what happens in other parts of the town, too. That should have been reasonably considered first (as our Comprehensive Plan suggests), before engineering and financing a particular plan, but was not. The poor organization of tasks is not the fault of town board. It is a big task to do right, without professional help, and, in order to handle the whole thing on his own, Austic cut corners– the planning part that he never understood why it was important, anyway.
The “sore losers” who are angrily arguing that a minority of the town board should continue to bull and aggressively demand that the majority abandon their sincere best judgement and do what they want, because these people somehow know either the One Correct Thing about public works projects, or the “will of the people” better than the will expressed in the last election… well, what do you say? Who died and made you King? You folks are not convincing anybody by just getting more and more angry and strident. Time to start trying to compromise and work with the rest of us to do what is best for everyone.
With regard to the conduct of the town board: again, a plague on both their houses.
With regard to the “fairness” of who gets a say on the water district.
The residents of a water district own the infrastructure, which why they alone pay off the loan for the construction costs and then pay the operation and maintenance costs.
The town does not own the water district in any way, although they will often administrate it (and be paid for that service by the residents).
Because the residents will own it, they get to vote whether or not they wish to build it.
The flash point here is “who decides who is in the district and who is not in the district?”. Several here are saying that planners should decide. I will follow up on the question of whether planners employed by B&L were involved in the design of WD5.
My point, made earlier, is that when a planner deploys his/her profession’s criteria as the primary determinant of who and where is included in the district, they may or may not be taking into account the topography of the area, which will severely effect the cost of the project.
A water district is a compromise between cost and need. Each one is designed to be extended when the cost of that extension can be managed. For example, in Ulysses if a large artisanal pottery factory (like MacKenzie-Childs in Ledyard, Cayuga County) was built in a part of Ulysses without municipal water, then a large user like that could make it affordable to extend pipe into an area where it was formerly prohibitively expensive to do so.
Ok then
B& L have their own planners on staff and would probqbly consult them dunno if they have done so.
http://www.bartonandloguidice.com/
Always liked Robert Frost myself Bill brilliant insights.
It’s true I exaggerate things in the other direction seems to be a style these days in advocacy for anything…witness Imus or Rush or or Bull O’Reilly and any number of those guys.
Accuracy is not necessary except in Engineering that is why I think we Town Residents on the water district should each have in our hand the factual report of the WD5 plan to consider whether it is what we want or not and whether it is worthwhile to do it. But! The Town Board members refuse to allow this to happen. they have consistewntly twisted all information regarding this issue without any real facts such as the plan ityself in the hands of those who will pay for it and udse it.
We all pay for Schools for the general population but we do not necessairy benefit directly from those schools.
Why should we pay for them? My kids are done with schools. I don’t need em. But they are a benefit to society and to the community.
Same with a water district
wherever it starts it is a step and planning is always involved. How can anyone know whehther they are for or against someting when they have no idea what that something is?
Barry,
I don’t see how you can argue against the idea that we ALL benefit from the schools… unless you believe that you can afford to have a generation of uneducated, illiterate imbeciles taking care of you in your old age.
Explain to me how Water District 5 is the same.
Um. Barry was arguing in favor of paying for the schools. “I don’t need ‘em. But they are a benefit to society and to the community” means that he is agreeing to pay his school taxes.
However, I don’t really see the analogy between a school district and a water district. Only the people in the water district will pay for the water district. The rest of the town residents will not pay a dime.
It can be argued that they will pay indirectly in some way … if increased development leads to great wear and tear on the town roads, for example.
And of course the village is arguing that they will pay in three senses: 1) loss of rate-and-half revenue from the town residents in the permissive zones, 2) potential loss of tax base if the presence of water causes the town beyond the perimeter of the village to develop as sprawl and starve the village commerce and 3) the village will have to make an investment in infrastructure in the Town of Ithaca down the road in order to get a “full secondary source”, especially if the City of Ithaca does not opt to join Bolton Point.
But the direct costs are borne by the water users in the district. In this case the state park will pay the single largest share, followed by Bill Auble (for his trailer park), the Alpha House and then a couple hundred residents.
If the municipal water does things like make low-cost multi-unit housing possible in Ulysses (the current zoning ordinance insist that such development has municipal water), then you might increase the school population a little. Commercial development made possible by municipal water would also increase the tax base.
And we might become a lot more like Lansing. There’s a big tax base in Lansing, but where is the community?
Low-cost multi-unit housing? Where are the jobs to support those additional people? More development along route 96 to create them?
It really isn’t at all far fetched for people to link Water District 5 with development throughout the town. It also isn’t far fetched for people to observe that zoning restrictions can be changed to enable the worst kind of sprawl.
You don’t seem to think that we will suffer the same negative consequences of this sort of development. Maybe you’re right. I don’t think that the people who are concerned about development are so far out as you portray them as being. Drive throughout Upstate New York, and it’s easy to see how development can go wrong.
There are alternative ways to improve the tax base without increasing the population. One of the alternatives is to get smart and embrace new aspects of the economy that go beyond Main Street businesses and jobs as they have been envisioned in the past. New approaches can bring money to the people who are here, while continuing to attract creative people to join the community at a sustainable pace that doesn’t require, as the Onceler from the Lorax put it, biggering and biggering and biggering and biggering.
And um, Bill, I know what Barry was arguing. He was arguing that we all would benefit from Water District 5, just as we all benefit from public schools. As I suggested, I don’t see how the analogy works.
Lansing is not a realistic analog. (1) There is no counterpart to Trumansburg there. I.e., an historical commercial center with industry and retail. Lansing Village is a recent creation; a line drawn around Triphammer Mall and adjacent residential neighborhoods.
(2) Lansing (the part to which you refer) is immediately accessible to the Cornell campus without going through the City of Ithaca. (3) Sprawl occurred in South Lansing (North Lansing is still rural) because Ithaca (town and city) fought the box stores for years and they went to Lansing by default. Cohen, the mayor of Ithaca before Peterson, caved to lobbying and allowed Rt.13 to become what you see now.
Multi-unit low-cost housing. I believe I expressed my hope that municipal water would lead to light industrial or other non-retail economic development, thus giving local residents local jobs. Also, right now 30 percent of village residents commute Ithaca to work. I suspect the percentage is higher in the town. The housing could also be built on the bus route.
I agree that it is important to elect town board officials who will be watchdogs to the zoning ordinance. It should be a criteria in the nomination process.
Driving through upstate New York it is also easy to see why development happens where it does and doesn’t happen where … it doesn’t. Victor, New York is home to the Eastview Mall because it is right off the intersection between I-90 and I-490. Naples, New York looks much like it did 25 years ago because it is on the other side of the Bristol Hills from metro Rochester and not quite on Canandaigua Lake.
I also agree that increasing the population is not the best way to increase the tax base. I mentioned the housing because there is currently a county-wide initiative to increase low-cost housing and each town has explicitly asked to ‘pitch in’.
I mentioned mult-unit housing because the small footprint (compared to number of people housed) is preferable in an ag region.
Also the school population is projected to decline over the next 5 or 6 years to the point where parts of the campus may simply be shut down and programs slashed. Since families with children represent a shrinking percentage of the population, it seems necessary to have more people in order to have enough children to maintain a critical mass for high quality education. The other route proposed has been to consolidate the Trumansburg and South Seneca districts.
I don’t remember mentioning “Main Street businesses”. I would prefer the development of artisan industry and ag processing on the 50-100 employee scale. I offered MacKenzie-Childs as an example of the artisan industry. I offer the Stillions’ Pine Tree Farms in Interlaken as an example of the latter. They make wild bird food, using as much local grain as they can.
I agree that the analogy between the school district and the water district doesn’t work. I guess you were saying that while one can’t realistically argue against schools, one can realistically argue against the water district. I would not disagree with that.