Because of Montgomery County’s go-it-alone attitude when it comes to solid waste removal, the Montgomery Otsego Schoharie Authority (MOSA) could cease to exist by 2014, less than six years from now. Luckily, the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors has begun soberly contemplating the implications of such a move. By far, the biggest concern of Supervisors is that without Montgomery County’s membership in the regional solid waste removal authority, it couldn’t rightfully be called “MOSA” (pronounced Moe-zuh).
Lacking the critical “M”, the authority now would be known as “OSA”. While OSA is certainly a memorable acronym, it clearly doesn’t quite roll off the tongue as mellifluously as MOSA does. Several supervisors mentioned the possibility of pronouncing it “O-S-A”, rather than as one word. But that drew complaints as sounding too non-distinctive and bureaucratic. I agree.
While the withdrawal of Montgomery County would be disastrous enough, there are also reports that Otsego County may follow suit. This would spell irreparable damage for the “MOSA” acronym. Without the “M” and “O” of Montgomery and Otsego counties respectively, MOSA would become “SA”, which can scarcely be considered an acronym! It’s only two letters, and its hard to see how they could be fashioned into a word that flows off the tongue as gracefully as “MOSA”.
I don’t know about Montgomery County and Otsego County, but I like to think that us folks in Schoharie County appreciate a good acronym when we see one. To Montgomery County officials opposed to renewing MOSA, I say, the next time you utter the word “MOSA”, know that it is the sweet sound of regional partnership and people working together. Montgomery County’s membership in “MOSA” is simply irreplaceable.
No really, I checked a map for counties that border Schoharie and there are no others that start with “M”.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Lying in the Weeds
An overgrown strip of tall grass in the village of Cobleskill’s East End has yielded a virtual bumper crop of material for critics of Village officials. The Times-Journal, eager to blow the slightest village misstep grossly out of proportion, has called it a “flashpoint” for the future direction of the Village. Letters to the editor offered a similar lament.
But as the weeds grew taller, Cobleskill supervisor Roger Cohn clearly saw an opportunity to make political hay out of the weedy median and gathered a few of his friends to help. In what was obviously a cheap political stunt, Cohn and several others decided to take matters into their own hands and remove the weeds themselves.
At the next village board meeting, trustees argued over who is actually responsible for the maintaining the median. Trustee Bill Gilmore angrily chastised Tom Fissell, the village’s highway superintendent, for not tending to the median. Trustee Mark Galasso cited a lack of planning on the part of the Village Board, and argued that officials should have budgeted money for median maintenance. Clearly, someone goofed.
Does that mean that there is a “leadership vacuum” in the village of Cobleskill as the Times-Journal editorialized (8-13-2008)? Not really, it just means that village officials made an honest mistake. What I find particularly troubling is the way in which the Cobleskill town supervisor opportunistically seized on this “honest mistake” for political expediency. Cohn could have easily called Mayor Sellers and the other trustees and asked them all to come out and weed the median. Instead, he called the Times-Journal to tell them of a photo opportunity.
This kind of realpolitik shows that Cobleskill town officials are interested not in working together with village officials but in embarrassing them. The problem is not with village officials, any random group of trustees is capable of making such an oversight. The problem is the mean-spirited hardball politics that people like Cohn are playing and that the Times-Journal is encouraging.
I’m glad that somebody took the time to weed out the tall grass. I just hope that the people of Cobleskill are able to weed out the naked political grandstanding.
But as the weeds grew taller, Cobleskill supervisor Roger Cohn clearly saw an opportunity to make political hay out of the weedy median and gathered a few of his friends to help. In what was obviously a cheap political stunt, Cohn and several others decided to take matters into their own hands and remove the weeds themselves.
At the next village board meeting, trustees argued over who is actually responsible for the maintaining the median. Trustee Bill Gilmore angrily chastised Tom Fissell, the village’s highway superintendent, for not tending to the median. Trustee Mark Galasso cited a lack of planning on the part of the Village Board, and argued that officials should have budgeted money for median maintenance. Clearly, someone goofed.
Does that mean that there is a “leadership vacuum” in the village of Cobleskill as the Times-Journal editorialized (8-13-2008)? Not really, it just means that village officials made an honest mistake. What I find particularly troubling is the way in which the Cobleskill town supervisor opportunistically seized on this “honest mistake” for political expediency. Cohn could have easily called Mayor Sellers and the other trustees and asked them all to come out and weed the median. Instead, he called the Times-Journal to tell them of a photo opportunity.
This kind of realpolitik shows that Cobleskill town officials are interested not in working together with village officials but in embarrassing them. The problem is not with village officials, any random group of trustees is capable of making such an oversight. The problem is the mean-spirited hardball politics that people like Cohn are playing and that the Times-Journal is encouraging.
I’m glad that somebody took the time to weed out the tall grass. I just hope that the people of Cobleskill are able to weed out the naked political grandstanding.
City Status Could Mean $ Without Hurting County
Instead of begging County Treasurer Bill Cherry for a bigger share of sales tax revenue, Schoharie County’s villages should strongly consider city status, not to demand a larger piece of the existing sales tax pie, but to make their own pie. In New York State, incorporated cities can do something that villages can’t: they can levy their own sales taxes.
Follow my math for a second. Currently, Schoharie County’s villages are asking for an additional five percent of the county sales tax take, about $700,000. What’s the total annual sales tax revenue then, about 14 million dollars? About sixty percent of that revenue is generated in the village of Cobleskill, right? Sixty percent of 14 million is 8.4 million. Let’s say our hypothetical city of Cobleskill decided to levy a 1% sales tax. Since the county’s current sales tax rate is four percent, the city of Cobleskill would get 1/4th of what is currently generated in the village of Cobleskill at the county rate, which would be about 2.1 million dollars.
That’s money that wouldn’t have anything to do with the County. It wouldn’t bust the County budget and it wouldn’t take anything away from taxpayers in Jefferson or Conesville or wherever. A city of Cobleskill could use this extra revenue to spruce up Main Street (which would ultimately help to generate more sales tax revenue which would stay in the community), or they could drastically lower property taxes. Either way, it’s a huge boon to Cobleskill, and potentially other county villages, that doesn’t take anything away from those dependent on existing sales tax revenue.
Follow my math for a second. Currently, Schoharie County’s villages are asking for an additional five percent of the county sales tax take, about $700,000. What’s the total annual sales tax revenue then, about 14 million dollars? About sixty percent of that revenue is generated in the village of Cobleskill, right? Sixty percent of 14 million is 8.4 million. Let’s say our hypothetical city of Cobleskill decided to levy a 1% sales tax. Since the county’s current sales tax rate is four percent, the city of Cobleskill would get 1/4th of what is currently generated in the village of Cobleskill at the county rate, which would be about 2.1 million dollars.
That’s money that wouldn’t have anything to do with the County. It wouldn’t bust the County budget and it wouldn’t take anything away from taxpayers in Jefferson or Conesville or wherever. A city of Cobleskill could use this extra revenue to spruce up Main Street (which would ultimately help to generate more sales tax revenue which would stay in the community), or they could drastically lower property taxes. Either way, it’s a huge boon to Cobleskill, and potentially other county villages, that doesn’t take anything away from those dependent on existing sales tax revenue.
Potholes as Traffic Calming Devices
In a stunning display of insight into the behavioral psychology of motorists, Middleburgh Town Highway Superintendent Dale Nunamann explained that “the smoother we make the roads, the faster they go”. This of course was in response to a series of complaints from residents of East Hill Road in the town of Middleburgh. It's true apparently, the smoother the town makes East Hill Road, the faster drivers want to go.
This is quite a dilemma. But I wonder if there is a solution that could not only spare the slow-moving pets of East Hill Road residents but also lower taxes and help the environment at the same time.
Let’s chew on Nunamann’s little nugget of wisdom for a moment. If people go faster when we make the roads smoother, let’s just not make the roads any smoother! Instead of constantly upgrading our county’s rural roads with pavement or blacktop, or some other petroleum-based product, let’s leave them as is: rough, gravelly, uneven and strewn with gaping potholes! Naturally, they should be minimally maintained so that they don’t cause damage to car tires (when driving at reasonable speeds of course). But it seems like it might be cheaper and safer all around to just have dirt roads remain dirt roads.
Think of the taxes rural towns could save on material and labor costs. Not to mention the environmental benefits of not using all those nasty petroleum-based materials for paving. Then there’s the safety and quality-of-life aspect: if don’t make the roads smoother people probably won’t drive as fast! Just ask Dale Nunamann, he’ll tell ya.
This is quite a dilemma. But I wonder if there is a solution that could not only spare the slow-moving pets of East Hill Road residents but also lower taxes and help the environment at the same time.
Let’s chew on Nunamann’s little nugget of wisdom for a moment. If people go faster when we make the roads smoother, let’s just not make the roads any smoother! Instead of constantly upgrading our county’s rural roads with pavement or blacktop, or some other petroleum-based product, let’s leave them as is: rough, gravelly, uneven and strewn with gaping potholes! Naturally, they should be minimally maintained so that they don’t cause damage to car tires (when driving at reasonable speeds of course). But it seems like it might be cheaper and safer all around to just have dirt roads remain dirt roads.
Think of the taxes rural towns could save on material and labor costs. Not to mention the environmental benefits of not using all those nasty petroleum-based materials for paving. Then there’s the safety and quality-of-life aspect: if don’t make the roads smoother people probably won’t drive as fast! Just ask Dale Nunamann, he’ll tell ya.
Richmondville Blew It
In a recent editorial, the Times-Journal criticized the anti-wind power group Schoharie Valley Watch for the tone of its attacks on Reunion Power and Richmondville Town officials. The Times-Journal had harsh words for SVW, calling the group “venomous”, “bitter”, and accusing the group of engaging in “slash and burn style” politics.
I believe that wind power is a critical resource, and we must exploit it to our best advantage. But when it comes to SVW’s criticism of town officials, you have to admit, they have a point. Over the past year, the town of Richmondville has given its critics (some of whom may be inflexible NIMBYs) more than enough ammunition. The secrecy, the stonewalling, the conflicts of interest on the zoning rewrite board, the firing of Kathleen Johnson; much of SVW criticism has indeed been over the top, but Richmondville officials have done more than enough to warrant it. There may not be anything wrong with any of this, but it has created an appearance of impropriety that anti-wind activists have seized on. SVW are gadflies and the way you handle gadflies is by absorbing their energies, co-opting them and challenging them to buy in rather than storm out. The last thing you do is hand them ammunition on a silver platter.
The real tragedy is that Richmondville could have had a meaningful discussion about how to make a contribution to alternative energy. Maybe Reunion could have sold wind-generated electricity to Richmondville Power and Light (I still would like to see that happen). But town officials have bungled this opportunity and played right into the hands of SVW and the NIMBYs.
SVW will complain, they will attack town officials, and they will probably file suit against the town. In the end, they will probably succeed in stopping Reunion Power. Though I supported the idea of a wind farm from the beginning, I feel no sense of loss at this inevitable result. If Reunion Power doesn’t build here, they will likely build somewhere else. The urgent need for renewable energy sources is simply too great. There’s plenty of wind in this state. Let the NIMBYs have their mountain.
I believe that wind power is a critical resource, and we must exploit it to our best advantage. But when it comes to SVW’s criticism of town officials, you have to admit, they have a point. Over the past year, the town of Richmondville has given its critics (some of whom may be inflexible NIMBYs) more than enough ammunition. The secrecy, the stonewalling, the conflicts of interest on the zoning rewrite board, the firing of Kathleen Johnson; much of SVW criticism has indeed been over the top, but Richmondville officials have done more than enough to warrant it. There may not be anything wrong with any of this, but it has created an appearance of impropriety that anti-wind activists have seized on. SVW are gadflies and the way you handle gadflies is by absorbing their energies, co-opting them and challenging them to buy in rather than storm out. The last thing you do is hand them ammunition on a silver platter.
The real tragedy is that Richmondville could have had a meaningful discussion about how to make a contribution to alternative energy. Maybe Reunion could have sold wind-generated electricity to Richmondville Power and Light (I still would like to see that happen). But town officials have bungled this opportunity and played right into the hands of SVW and the NIMBYs.
SVW will complain, they will attack town officials, and they will probably file suit against the town. In the end, they will probably succeed in stopping Reunion Power. Though I supported the idea of a wind farm from the beginning, I feel no sense of loss at this inevitable result. If Reunion Power doesn’t build here, they will likely build somewhere else. The urgent need for renewable energy sources is simply too great. There’s plenty of wind in this state. Let the NIMBYs have their mountain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)