Apparently, the town/village consolidation study conducted by the Center for Governmental Research was intended as the local equivalent of a show trial in support of dissolving the village. It was to provide supporters of dissolution with a heavy stack of papers confirming the many presumed benefits of eliminating the Village of Cobleskill. That the study actually failed to provide any solid, compelling arguments for dissolution, and actually recommended becoming a city, seems to matter very little, if at all, to a majority of the Village Board who have chosen to selectively interpret the study and, with blinders firmly in place, feverishly rush toward dissolution of the village, as it always intended to in the first place.
To those of us who have followed village affairs closely over the past three years and have watched numerous developers unsuccessfully request village water service for projects located outside the village, it is obvious that this is the real impetus behind the push for consolidation. Village officials may attempt to throw sand in your eyes by telling you consolidation will save money and increase efficiency. But this is not true and THEY KNOW IT! The truth is, this attempt to consolidate the village into the town is essentially a smash-and-grab operation to plunder the village’s water and sewer services in order to fuel growth benefitting only a handful of developers.
Additionally, the move would consolidate all local planning and zoning functions in the hands of Republican-appointed members of the town planning board and zoning board of appeals. These people will be tripping over each other to accommodate companies like Lowes and the Shad Point mystery manufacturer. Dreams of a rebirth of Main Street would be just as shattered as the windows of the Newberry Square building.
The move to dissolve is currently being led by a three-person majority on the Board of Trustees consisting of ultra-conservative developer Mark Galasso, indicted felon Robert LaPietra (recently elected despite pending felony charges) and curiously enough Mayor Mike Sellers, a member of the Green Party who used to think that this community mattered.
When it comes to this issue, the Board of Trustees is operating in an ethical black hole. Both Mark Galasso and Bob LaPietra stand to benefit personally if the Village is dissolved. Almost two years ago Galasso requested that water service from the Warnerville Water District be extended to his company Lancaster Development, but that request was denied by the Village Board of Trustees. Does anyone here seriously think Roger Cohn and the Republicans on the Town Board will say no to Galasso or, for that matter, go out of their way to reconstitute the Village’s tighter planning and code enforcement regime? The latter of course being a prime source of Bob LaPietra’s headaches with regards to his illegally rented apartments.
But behind Galasso and LaPietra there is a handful of developers and bought politicians who want to get the village’s water flowing so that they can rev up development throughout the eastern half of the town.
Frankly, it would only be appropriate for Galasso to recuse himself from voting for consolidation given that his company, Lancaster Development, stands to benefit directly.
I would also like to know why Mayor Sellers is going along with this scheme which will only lead to unchecked development (read: sprawl) in the town causing Downtown Cobleskill to dry up that much faster. As a member of the Green Party you might think Sellers would want to encourage smart growth and sound development practices and stand up to blatant corruption and conflicts of interest in local government.
If Mayor Sellers doesn’t wake up to the brazen corruption underlying this consolidation scheme and distance himself from Galasso and LaPietra, village residents may wake up one morning to find that their community has been broken into and picked clean by thieves in the night.
Showing posts with label Consolidation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consolidation. Show all posts
Monday, February 9, 2009
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Schoharie County Board of Supervisors pushing expensive consolidation scheme
With everybody’s favorite new buzzwords being “consolidation” and “sharing services”, it seems like all the politicians want in on the game, apparently regardless of whether the consolidation of the services in question actually results in greater efficiency and thus less cost to the taxpayers. After all, if you consolidate services only to end up performing the same level of service for the same cost or a higher cost to taxpayers, that would just be...dumb, right?
For some inexplicable reason Schoharie County supervisors are considering switching to a county-wide property assessment system, which would relieve towns of the responsibility. The county Board of Supervisors just recently received a consultant’s report on consolidating property tax assessments. Despite the fact that the report’s three alternatives to the current town-based system would be more expensive, county supervisors seem largely in favor of centralizing the property tax assessment system.
The current system costs county taxpayers around $820,000 a year. Meanwhile, switching to any of the three proposed variations of the centralized assessment system would cost more than a million dollars. Now, if we’re going to switch to a more expensive system, there has to be some compelling reason. Like say, if having the county do assessments, we might actually save money in the long run by having more equitable assessments.
However, what reason is their for believing that a group of assessors at the county level is going to somehow better assess properties than the current town assessors? Could this be wishful thinking? In fact, switching to a county-wide assessment system could increase inequity. Larger towns who pay more taxes would end up subsidizing the smaller towns that pay less taxes. It would be a boon to smaller towns who would be relieved of a large expense, and a drag on larger towns who are carrying more of the county’s tax burden on account of their larger population.
I’m far from an expert on consolidating services, but I am pretty sure that the objective is to increase efficiency and save money. This proposal to consolidate property assessment at the county level would do just the opposite; it would drive up the cost of assessing property in Schoharie County.
It’s funny, because it’s not assessments that cause taxes to rise. In fact, it is just this kind of ineptitude and poor judgment that results in wasteful spending and unnecessary bureaucracy that actually results in higher taxes. For the board of supervisors, the additional costs would be a small price to pay for getting rid of the headache that property assessments have caused in certain towns. Pawning the whole assessment mess off on the county is probably the best hope people like John Barlow have of resolving the recurrent controversy.
However, in the end, obsessing over either property assessments or consolidating services is a distraction. If you want to increase efficiency and lower taxes (or free up money to be spent on more important things) get involved with your local school, town and county budgeting processes and fight the wasteful spending that is going on. Or, better yet, encourage responsible growth that builds the tax base but protects the quality of life.
For some inexplicable reason Schoharie County supervisors are considering switching to a county-wide property assessment system, which would relieve towns of the responsibility. The county Board of Supervisors just recently received a consultant’s report on consolidating property tax assessments. Despite the fact that the report’s three alternatives to the current town-based system would be more expensive, county supervisors seem largely in favor of centralizing the property tax assessment system.
The current system costs county taxpayers around $820,000 a year. Meanwhile, switching to any of the three proposed variations of the centralized assessment system would cost more than a million dollars. Now, if we’re going to switch to a more expensive system, there has to be some compelling reason. Like say, if having the county do assessments, we might actually save money in the long run by having more equitable assessments.
However, what reason is their for believing that a group of assessors at the county level is going to somehow better assess properties than the current town assessors? Could this be wishful thinking? In fact, switching to a county-wide assessment system could increase inequity. Larger towns who pay more taxes would end up subsidizing the smaller towns that pay less taxes. It would be a boon to smaller towns who would be relieved of a large expense, and a drag on larger towns who are carrying more of the county’s tax burden on account of their larger population.
I’m far from an expert on consolidating services, but I am pretty sure that the objective is to increase efficiency and save money. This proposal to consolidate property assessment at the county level would do just the opposite; it would drive up the cost of assessing property in Schoharie County.
It’s funny, because it’s not assessments that cause taxes to rise. In fact, it is just this kind of ineptitude and poor judgment that results in wasteful spending and unnecessary bureaucracy that actually results in higher taxes. For the board of supervisors, the additional costs would be a small price to pay for getting rid of the headache that property assessments have caused in certain towns. Pawning the whole assessment mess off on the county is probably the best hope people like John Barlow have of resolving the recurrent controversy.
However, in the end, obsessing over either property assessments or consolidating services is a distraction. If you want to increase efficiency and lower taxes (or free up money to be spent on more important things) get involved with your local school, town and county budgeting processes and fight the wasteful spending that is going on. Or, better yet, encourage responsible growth that builds the tax base but protects the quality of life.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The Case against Sharing Services
After reading “A Study of Shared Service Opportunities for the Village and Town of Cobleskill, NY” prepared by the Center for Governmental Research, I couldn’t help but notice an interesting point: if implemented, the ‘shared service opportunities’ recommended by CGR would seem to result in an annual savings less than the cost of this study. I'm not saying the study wasn't worth paying for (in fact it was paid for by a NY state grant), but I would like people to understand exactly how much is at stake here: It ain't much.
So what’s the rush? Mayor Sellers and Trustee Mark Galasso have both displayed an eagerness to dissolve the village that is not warranted and quite likely not supported by village residents. Since the CGR study only addressed potential savings, and ignored what village residents might lose in the process, I would like to shed light on this ignored aspect.
While the study repeatedly overstated the pennies to be saved by eliminating salaries and sharing equipment, there was virtually no acknowledgment of the benefits that village governments provide residents. Smaller, more intimate municipal units such as villages provide an important political space or political community that allow for expressions of local autonomy, community identity and face-to-face democracy. Many Village residents understandably value these things, making the imposition of consolidation seem highly questionable.
The CJR very vaguely alludes to the benefits of joint planning efforts by the Town and Village. But little is said of the fact that consolidation would eliminate the Village Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Scenic and Historic Preservation Board, thus eliminating a good chunk of Village residents’ political autonomy. Dissolving these boards costs Village residents the ability to control what happens closest to them and instead forces them to share this power with people who may have less of a connection to that immediate community.
These questions, which seem to fall outside the purview of the current discussion of the merits of consolidation, cast serious doubts on the wisdom of dissolving Cobleskill Village. Both Trustee Mark Galasso and Mayor Mike Sellers (Cobleskill’s oddest couple, to be sure) have been feverishly pushing consolidation. Galasso’s support for cannibalizing the Village can be explained by his own thirst for Village water and his support for unrestrained sprawl development. Mayor Sellers on the other hand should know better. Both of these individuals need to take a step back and consider the costs and not just the savings associated with consolidation.
To put it in terms I’m sure Mayor Sellers will understand, could a 21 year old member of the Green Party get elected to the top position in the Town of Cobleskill, where the Village’s center-left voters (including SUNY students) are sure to be completely drowned out by the Town’s Republican majority? Put simply, what’s the rush to eliminate the only constituency in Schoharie County capable of electing a progressive government? The point I’m making here is that the town and village ARE different, and that they are not separated by some imaginary line, but by significant demographic, economic, and political conditions.
Outside consultants and state bureaucrats all think consolidation is a great idea because it will result in greater efficiencies. But the benefits of village government are simply beyond the purview of these analyses. Cobleskill has done just fine with a village for the past 150 years. So can someone please explain this rush to get rid of the village in order to save a few pennies?
So what’s the rush? Mayor Sellers and Trustee Mark Galasso have both displayed an eagerness to dissolve the village that is not warranted and quite likely not supported by village residents. Since the CGR study only addressed potential savings, and ignored what village residents might lose in the process, I would like to shed light on this ignored aspect.
While the study repeatedly overstated the pennies to be saved by eliminating salaries and sharing equipment, there was virtually no acknowledgment of the benefits that village governments provide residents. Smaller, more intimate municipal units such as villages provide an important political space or political community that allow for expressions of local autonomy, community identity and face-to-face democracy. Many Village residents understandably value these things, making the imposition of consolidation seem highly questionable.
The CJR very vaguely alludes to the benefits of joint planning efforts by the Town and Village. But little is said of the fact that consolidation would eliminate the Village Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Scenic and Historic Preservation Board, thus eliminating a good chunk of Village residents’ political autonomy. Dissolving these boards costs Village residents the ability to control what happens closest to them and instead forces them to share this power with people who may have less of a connection to that immediate community.
These questions, which seem to fall outside the purview of the current discussion of the merits of consolidation, cast serious doubts on the wisdom of dissolving Cobleskill Village. Both Trustee Mark Galasso and Mayor Mike Sellers (Cobleskill’s oddest couple, to be sure) have been feverishly pushing consolidation. Galasso’s support for cannibalizing the Village can be explained by his own thirst for Village water and his support for unrestrained sprawl development. Mayor Sellers on the other hand should know better. Both of these individuals need to take a step back and consider the costs and not just the savings associated with consolidation.
To put it in terms I’m sure Mayor Sellers will understand, could a 21 year old member of the Green Party get elected to the top position in the Town of Cobleskill, where the Village’s center-left voters (including SUNY students) are sure to be completely drowned out by the Town’s Republican majority? Put simply, what’s the rush to eliminate the only constituency in Schoharie County capable of electing a progressive government? The point I’m making here is that the town and village ARE different, and that they are not separated by some imaginary line, but by significant demographic, economic, and political conditions.
Outside consultants and state bureaucrats all think consolidation is a great idea because it will result in greater efficiencies. But the benefits of village government are simply beyond the purview of these analyses. Cobleskill has done just fine with a village for the past 150 years. So can someone please explain this rush to get rid of the village in order to save a few pennies?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Village Limits
Apparently the Village of Cobleskill has once again paid thousands of dollars for a consultant to tell them something they could have learned just by reading this blog. Over the past several months, a private consulting group has been studying ways to reform municipal boundaries to improve efficiency and better provide services. It turns out that the Village has a lot to gain by scrapping its village status and re-incorporating as a city.
The consulting group claims that the Village could gain nearly 2 million dollars in sales tax revenue if it became a city. As Deputy Mayor MacKay rightly stated, this could eliminate the need for property taxes in the Village. Many of the county’s retail businesses are located within the Village boundaries. This would entitle the Village or a future city to a much greater share of sales tax revenues.
Though the sales tax revenue gain is perhaps the biggest reason to consider re-incorporation, there are plenty of other reasons as well. Remember that whole issue with the Town double-billing Village taxpayers? If Cobleskill were a city, this would no longer be an issue. The Town would not get any of a City of Cobleskill’s tax revenues. Becoming a City would also give Cobleskill representation on the County Board of Supervisors. The Village is currently represented by the Town Supervisor. Now, this is okay until Town-Village relations go sour. With Town and Village leaders at each others throats, can the Town Supervisor be relied upon to fairly represent the interests of the Village at the county level? If Cobleskill were a city, it would get its own supervisor to sit on the County Board and serve as an advocate.
If Cobleskill were a City it could re-invest any revenue windfall in revitalizing Main Street. Plus, it would have more of an incentive to do this, as it would directly reap the benefits of any extra sales tax revenue.
This is something the Village of Cobleskill should begin work on immediately. We don’t need to talk endlessly or pay another consultant another $50,000. Whatever steps need to be taken, let’s take them. Petitions need to be filed? A referendum vote needs to be set up? I’m willing to invest some time in this effort, is anyone else?
The consulting group claims that the Village could gain nearly 2 million dollars in sales tax revenue if it became a city. As Deputy Mayor MacKay rightly stated, this could eliminate the need for property taxes in the Village. Many of the county’s retail businesses are located within the Village boundaries. This would entitle the Village or a future city to a much greater share of sales tax revenues.
Though the sales tax revenue gain is perhaps the biggest reason to consider re-incorporation, there are plenty of other reasons as well. Remember that whole issue with the Town double-billing Village taxpayers? If Cobleskill were a city, this would no longer be an issue. The Town would not get any of a City of Cobleskill’s tax revenues. Becoming a City would also give Cobleskill representation on the County Board of Supervisors. The Village is currently represented by the Town Supervisor. Now, this is okay until Town-Village relations go sour. With Town and Village leaders at each others throats, can the Town Supervisor be relied upon to fairly represent the interests of the Village at the county level? If Cobleskill were a city, it would get its own supervisor to sit on the County Board and serve as an advocate.
If Cobleskill were a City it could re-invest any revenue windfall in revitalizing Main Street. Plus, it would have more of an incentive to do this, as it would directly reap the benefits of any extra sales tax revenue.
This is something the Village of Cobleskill should begin work on immediately. We don’t need to talk endlessly or pay another consultant another $50,000. Whatever steps need to be taken, let’s take them. Petitions need to be filed? A referendum vote needs to be set up? I’m willing to invest some time in this effort, is anyone else?
Monday, May 5, 2008
Water’s Edge
In 2005/2006 the newly elected Cobleskill Village Board (consisting of new members Mark Galasso, Sandy MacKay and Mayor Sellers) voted to rescind a deal to extend water and sewer lines to a Lowe’s development just outside the Village boundary. Since then, the question of how to extend to water and sewer services to developments outside the Village’s borders is one that has persistently troubled the community. Town of Cobleskill officials feel entitled to the services and take the Village’s stand as an intentional slap. County-wide, economic development proponents accuse the Village of hindering potential progress.
Yet the Village has maintained, largely at the insistence of Mayor Mike Sellers and Deputy Mayor Sandy MacKay, that developers wanting Village water and sewer services must be annexed by the Village in order to get Village services.
This is a quite sound policy for a number of reasons. First of all, the Village’s water and sewer system does not exist to subsidize development in other municipalities. Allowing developers in the Town to tap into these services will only hurt the Village in the long run. Providing these services makes it economically attractive to build outside the Village, depriving it of tax revenues. This hurts the Village by helping to drive business away from Downtown and by undermining its fiscal stability.
Therefore, the Village has said to developers: if you want Village services, become part of the Village. So far, two developments on Mineral Springs eager to tap into the Village’s water and sewer lines have gone for this. Annexation talks and procedures are more or less underway for both projects.
But now, the recent mystery company’s arrival and its demand for water and sewer hook-ups puts extra pressure on the Village’s policy. The company is interested in a 100-acre site in Shad Point, an area in the Town of Cobleskill near Crossroads Barn and the east end of Mineral Springs Rd. This area is almost two miles from the Village boundary. Who would be expected to pay for the installation of these water and sewer lines for this distance? I don’t think it will be the mystery company.
But the best part (at least for some) is that extending these lines out to Shad Point would mean bringing potential water and sewer services to all of the parcels along Route 7 and Mineral Springs Rd., the area most likely to see increased development pressure. Naturally, this would solve Lowe’s water problem. How many other developers would be waiting in the wings to start building up other parcels with strip malls and big boxes?
I wouldn’t want the Village to rule out selling water and service to this mystery company. However, I think its existing policy of requiring annexation should be upheld. Let this company apply for annexation to the Village. Then, any other property owner wishing to hook into the water and sewer lines will have that option (of annexation) as well.
Better yet, this provides the community with the ability to hold this company’s feet to the fire. Legally, the Town is not able to condition approvals and such on meeting certain ‘social requirements’ like paying a livable wage and maintaining a commitment to keep the amount of jobs promised for a fixed period of time. However, the Village could make these part of a “community benefits agreement” as a condition for extending Village water and sewer services. As the company is requesting an extra service that it is not in anyway legally entitled to, such an arrangement would be completely voluntary, a form of contract zoning.
Hopefully, the Village doesn’t bend to the temptation to throw money and favors at a company that promises jobs but offers no proof or other means of validating its intentions. The public has the right to demand fair treatment from this company and any others seeking to do business here. What is required is a Village Board with the audacity to stand up for this right. So far they have demonstrated a willingness to move in this direction. In order to keep the Village Board on track, those concerned about economic justice and fairness should continuously remind Village officials of their obligations to the community.
Yet the Village has maintained, largely at the insistence of Mayor Mike Sellers and Deputy Mayor Sandy MacKay, that developers wanting Village water and sewer services must be annexed by the Village in order to get Village services.
This is a quite sound policy for a number of reasons. First of all, the Village’s water and sewer system does not exist to subsidize development in other municipalities. Allowing developers in the Town to tap into these services will only hurt the Village in the long run. Providing these services makes it economically attractive to build outside the Village, depriving it of tax revenues. This hurts the Village by helping to drive business away from Downtown and by undermining its fiscal stability.
Therefore, the Village has said to developers: if you want Village services, become part of the Village. So far, two developments on Mineral Springs eager to tap into the Village’s water and sewer lines have gone for this. Annexation talks and procedures are more or less underway for both projects.
But now, the recent mystery company’s arrival and its demand for water and sewer hook-ups puts extra pressure on the Village’s policy. The company is interested in a 100-acre site in Shad Point, an area in the Town of Cobleskill near Crossroads Barn and the east end of Mineral Springs Rd. This area is almost two miles from the Village boundary. Who would be expected to pay for the installation of these water and sewer lines for this distance? I don’t think it will be the mystery company.
But the best part (at least for some) is that extending these lines out to Shad Point would mean bringing potential water and sewer services to all of the parcels along Route 7 and Mineral Springs Rd., the area most likely to see increased development pressure. Naturally, this would solve Lowe’s water problem. How many other developers would be waiting in the wings to start building up other parcels with strip malls and big boxes?
I wouldn’t want the Village to rule out selling water and service to this mystery company. However, I think its existing policy of requiring annexation should be upheld. Let this company apply for annexation to the Village. Then, any other property owner wishing to hook into the water and sewer lines will have that option (of annexation) as well.
Better yet, this provides the community with the ability to hold this company’s feet to the fire. Legally, the Town is not able to condition approvals and such on meeting certain ‘social requirements’ like paying a livable wage and maintaining a commitment to keep the amount of jobs promised for a fixed period of time. However, the Village could make these part of a “community benefits agreement” as a condition for extending Village water and sewer services. As the company is requesting an extra service that it is not in anyway legally entitled to, such an arrangement would be completely voluntary, a form of contract zoning.
Hopefully, the Village doesn’t bend to the temptation to throw money and favors at a company that promises jobs but offers no proof or other means of validating its intentions. The public has the right to demand fair treatment from this company and any others seeking to do business here. What is required is a Village Board with the audacity to stand up for this right. So far they have demonstrated a willingness to move in this direction. In order to keep the Village Board on track, those concerned about economic justice and fairness should continuously remind Village officials of their obligations to the community.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Donats Brow Development Needs Careful Site Planning
The Village of Cobleskill is in possession of a very critical piece of infrastructure (water and sewer lines) and a lot of developers want to tap into it. In my view, this gives the Village an incredible amount of bargaining power. But they don’t seem to be using it.
The Donats Brow development, consisting of a proposed 14 apartment buildings on Mineral Springs Road (across from the fmr. Guilford Mills plant) will be the largest residential project in the Village’s history. But the only reason the project is going to go ahead is because the Village and Town are (most likely) going to agree to the Village’s annexation of the land in question. The annexation means that the properties will be taxed by the Village AND that the developer gets water and sewer for the projects.
Now, I’m glad that the Village has insisted upon annexation in order to extend water and sewer lines to the development. However, the developer in this case, seems to be getting more than the Village out of the deal.
My biggest concerns have to do with the planning and zoning of this development. Have village officials taken any steps to ensure that this development is integrated with the rest of the Village? Has there been any concern for the long-term potential for development in that area?
There are two reasons to worry about this: first, what will be the negative unintended consequences of rapid development in this part of the community? Secondly, what opportunities are we missing out on by not planning this better?
To put this in perspective, let’s consider that this project calls for roughly 14 apartment buildings! This is essentially going to be a “village within a village”. What kind of open space will the project offer? Will the buildings be aesthetically well-conceived or the typical “build and run” model of apartment complexes? Why not go with a more grid-based “new Urbanist” design developing on the lot line and incorporating some commercial uses in the project? How will South Grand Street handle the increased traffic? Will their be sidewalks and bikeways connecting the project with the Village and the fairgrounds? These questions do not even take into account the potential for future growth in the area once water and sewer lines are set up. Remember as well, that this will be what travelers on I-88 see of Cobleskill.
How these questions are answered by developers depends to a large extent on how much they want access to Village infrastructure AND the degree to which Village officials are willing to hold developers’ feet to the fire.
Does Cobleskill have the capacity to both envision these changes and make them a reality? I think Mayor Sellers and Trustee MacKay have the Villages’ best interests at heart, but I don’t know if this community currently has the capacity to hold developers accountable to a deeper democratic agenda of participatory planning and sustainable development.
I think Mike Sellers, Rebecca Burgos-Thillet and co. need to begin building the “Community Matters” ballot line into a more substantial organization uniting activists in the county. Then and only then can you begin to mobilize people on issues ranging from increased apartment inspections, smart growth, downtown redevelopment and youth issues.
Until then, turn off the tap.
The Donats Brow development, consisting of a proposed 14 apartment buildings on Mineral Springs Road (across from the fmr. Guilford Mills plant) will be the largest residential project in the Village’s history. But the only reason the project is going to go ahead is because the Village and Town are (most likely) going to agree to the Village’s annexation of the land in question. The annexation means that the properties will be taxed by the Village AND that the developer gets water and sewer for the projects.
Now, I’m glad that the Village has insisted upon annexation in order to extend water and sewer lines to the development. However, the developer in this case, seems to be getting more than the Village out of the deal.
My biggest concerns have to do with the planning and zoning of this development. Have village officials taken any steps to ensure that this development is integrated with the rest of the Village? Has there been any concern for the long-term potential for development in that area?
There are two reasons to worry about this: first, what will be the negative unintended consequences of rapid development in this part of the community? Secondly, what opportunities are we missing out on by not planning this better?
To put this in perspective, let’s consider that this project calls for roughly 14 apartment buildings! This is essentially going to be a “village within a village”. What kind of open space will the project offer? Will the buildings be aesthetically well-conceived or the typical “build and run” model of apartment complexes? Why not go with a more grid-based “new Urbanist” design developing on the lot line and incorporating some commercial uses in the project? How will South Grand Street handle the increased traffic? Will their be sidewalks and bikeways connecting the project with the Village and the fairgrounds? These questions do not even take into account the potential for future growth in the area once water and sewer lines are set up. Remember as well, that this will be what travelers on I-88 see of Cobleskill.
How these questions are answered by developers depends to a large extent on how much they want access to Village infrastructure AND the degree to which Village officials are willing to hold developers’ feet to the fire.
Does Cobleskill have the capacity to both envision these changes and make them a reality? I think Mayor Sellers and Trustee MacKay have the Villages’ best interests at heart, but I don’t know if this community currently has the capacity to hold developers accountable to a deeper democratic agenda of participatory planning and sustainable development.
I think Mike Sellers, Rebecca Burgos-Thillet and co. need to begin building the “Community Matters” ballot line into a more substantial organization uniting activists in the county. Then and only then can you begin to mobilize people on issues ranging from increased apartment inspections, smart growth, downtown redevelopment and youth issues.
Until then, turn off the tap.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Cobleskill Town and Village Should Go Their Separate Ways
With many small towns abuzz with talk of “consolidation” and “sharing services” it may seem counter-intuitive to propose that Cobleskill’s Town and Village move further apart, but here’s why I think it would be better that way. No, I’m not proposing that we physically pick up the Village of Cobleskill and move it up to the Town of Carlisle. What I’m proposing is that the Village officially remove itself from the Town’s political jurisdiction by incorporating itself as the City of Cobleskill.
The Town and Village simply have too many irreconcilable differences to make consolidation a wise move for the Village. The Village needs to focus on reviving its downtown business district. The Town simply wants to use Village water and sewer services to develop more sprawl. The Village has a well-developed public infrastructure that it has invested in for decades (water, sewer, etc.). To simply allow the Town of Cobleskill to have the benefit of that investment is unfair to Village taxpayers and ratepayers. What’s more, it seems like the Village has a lot more to bring to the table here: a municipal water system, a sewer system and a police department for starters. What does the Town of Cobleskill have to “share” in exchange for these services?
The Times-Journal has sought to frame the issue in terms of eliminating duplication of services. In an editorial, the Times-Journal asks: “does Cobleskill need two offices, two sets of clerks, two planning boards, two heads of government and separate Town and Village boards to get daily duties accomplished”? The Times-Journal makes it sound like we’re talking about some vast legion of entrenched overpaid bureaucrats. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Planning and Zoning Boards are staffed by volunteers and cost taxpayers nothing. Therefore, reducing the number of planning boards and ZBAs from two to one would have a taxpayers savings of ZERO dollars! The Village Mayor’s office pays an $8,000 dollar a year salary. Haven’t you ever heard the saying: two heads are better than one? For that price, we could throw in a few more! Clerks make a little more, but perform a wide variety of functions. Cobleskill’s Village clerk is much more intimately aware of the Village’s processes and operations and can be a valuable asset, why get rid of that? Eliminate the Village boards (planning, zoning and Trustees) and you are ceding an incredible amount of community control to the Town of Cobleskill. Why? So greedy developers like the Galasso’s can pick the bones of the Village?
Why is it that most of the debate seems to focus the spotlight on the Village government as unnecessary when it is the Village that has made the investments to establish and maintain the services that the Town now wants access to? I’m not saying there should be no sharing of services, but let’s look at other options before we hand over the whole Village to the Town.
In my view, incorporation as a city is the right option for the Village of Cobleskill. First off, to those of you thinking that Cobleskill is too small to be a city, let me just say, there is no minimum population required for a community to incorporate as a city. In fact, if Cobleskill became a city, it would not be the smallest is New York State. The City of Sherrill has a population of 3,109. Cities like Little Falls, Salamanca and Mechanicville all have a population of around 5,000.
Incorporating as a city, would politically and legally remove the Village from the Town. Presently, Village taxpayers pay taxes to both the Village AND the Town. If the Village became a city, residents would no longer owe taxes to the Town. A similar level of services would still have to be provided, but now the Village/City would have more control over how that money was spent and how those services were provided. This of course would eliminate any potential discrepancies over how the Town budgets and spends “Town-inside-Village” revenue. The problem in Cobleskill is not necessarily duplication of services, but the de facto obligation of Village residents to fund services that they do not use. Even aside from the above-mentioned discrepancies, the Village has to be losing some money on the taxes its residents pay to the Town. We need to know exactly how much of the Village’s share of town taxes actually benefits Village taxpayers and how much doesn’t. If the Village could use this money to cut taxes or increase spending on Downtown development, this alternative must be explored.
The best part, however, is that the very idea of the Town losing Village tax revenue will change the bargaining balance of power between the Town and Village on a whole bunch of issues (at the very least).
At the county level, the Village/City would now get its own representation on the County Board of Supervisors who could in turn be an advocate for bringing county funds back to the Village. At present, the Village is represented at the County level by the Town Supervisor. Can this person be expected to adequately represent the interests of the Village when Town-Village relations go sour? This would allow for a better opportunity to direct a more appropriate share of the Village sales taxes (which are collected by the County) back to the Village itself. A County Supervisor representing solely the village/city of Cobleskill would be able to focus all of his or her time on bringing back county resources, as they would not serve simultaneously as a Town executive.
Downtown Cobleskill needs to be focusing on rehabilitating streets and facades and finding ways to bring back businesses. We should be looking for ways to empower the community to do this, not ways to cut its legs off and serve it up to another municipality.
Downtown Cobleskill is an entirely different animal than the Town of Cobleskill and requires (at the very least) a separate municipal corporation to provide for its needs and future development. I believe we should look into reincorporation as a city, and at the very least we should rule out dissolution or consolidation with the Town.
I’ll admit, I don’t have all the answers on this subject (in fact, I haven’t been able to find anyone who does), but it certainly warrants more attention and exploration than it received at the Village’s recent public meeting on the subject of consolidation and sharing services.
The Town and Village simply have too many irreconcilable differences to make consolidation a wise move for the Village. The Village needs to focus on reviving its downtown business district. The Town simply wants to use Village water and sewer services to develop more sprawl. The Village has a well-developed public infrastructure that it has invested in for decades (water, sewer, etc.). To simply allow the Town of Cobleskill to have the benefit of that investment is unfair to Village taxpayers and ratepayers. What’s more, it seems like the Village has a lot more to bring to the table here: a municipal water system, a sewer system and a police department for starters. What does the Town of Cobleskill have to “share” in exchange for these services?
The Times-Journal has sought to frame the issue in terms of eliminating duplication of services. In an editorial, the Times-Journal asks: “does Cobleskill need two offices, two sets of clerks, two planning boards, two heads of government and separate Town and Village boards to get daily duties accomplished”? The Times-Journal makes it sound like we’re talking about some vast legion of entrenched overpaid bureaucrats. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The Planning and Zoning Boards are staffed by volunteers and cost taxpayers nothing. Therefore, reducing the number of planning boards and ZBAs from two to one would have a taxpayers savings of ZERO dollars! The Village Mayor’s office pays an $8,000 dollar a year salary. Haven’t you ever heard the saying: two heads are better than one? For that price, we could throw in a few more! Clerks make a little more, but perform a wide variety of functions. Cobleskill’s Village clerk is much more intimately aware of the Village’s processes and operations and can be a valuable asset, why get rid of that? Eliminate the Village boards (planning, zoning and Trustees) and you are ceding an incredible amount of community control to the Town of Cobleskill. Why? So greedy developers like the Galasso’s can pick the bones of the Village?
Why is it that most of the debate seems to focus the spotlight on the Village government as unnecessary when it is the Village that has made the investments to establish and maintain the services that the Town now wants access to? I’m not saying there should be no sharing of services, but let’s look at other options before we hand over the whole Village to the Town.
In my view, incorporation as a city is the right option for the Village of Cobleskill. First off, to those of you thinking that Cobleskill is too small to be a city, let me just say, there is no minimum population required for a community to incorporate as a city. In fact, if Cobleskill became a city, it would not be the smallest is New York State. The City of Sherrill has a population of 3,109. Cities like Little Falls, Salamanca and Mechanicville all have a population of around 5,000.
Incorporating as a city, would politically and legally remove the Village from the Town. Presently, Village taxpayers pay taxes to both the Village AND the Town. If the Village became a city, residents would no longer owe taxes to the Town. A similar level of services would still have to be provided, but now the Village/City would have more control over how that money was spent and how those services were provided. This of course would eliminate any potential discrepancies over how the Town budgets and spends “Town-inside-Village” revenue. The problem in Cobleskill is not necessarily duplication of services, but the de facto obligation of Village residents to fund services that they do not use. Even aside from the above-mentioned discrepancies, the Village has to be losing some money on the taxes its residents pay to the Town. We need to know exactly how much of the Village’s share of town taxes actually benefits Village taxpayers and how much doesn’t. If the Village could use this money to cut taxes or increase spending on Downtown development, this alternative must be explored.
The best part, however, is that the very idea of the Town losing Village tax revenue will change the bargaining balance of power between the Town and Village on a whole bunch of issues (at the very least).
At the county level, the Village/City would now get its own representation on the County Board of Supervisors who could in turn be an advocate for bringing county funds back to the Village. At present, the Village is represented at the County level by the Town Supervisor. Can this person be expected to adequately represent the interests of the Village when Town-Village relations go sour? This would allow for a better opportunity to direct a more appropriate share of the Village sales taxes (which are collected by the County) back to the Village itself. A County Supervisor representing solely the village/city of Cobleskill would be able to focus all of his or her time on bringing back county resources, as they would not serve simultaneously as a Town executive.
Downtown Cobleskill needs to be focusing on rehabilitating streets and facades and finding ways to bring back businesses. We should be looking for ways to empower the community to do this, not ways to cut its legs off and serve it up to another municipality.
Downtown Cobleskill is an entirely different animal than the Town of Cobleskill and requires (at the very least) a separate municipal corporation to provide for its needs and future development. I believe we should look into reincorporation as a city, and at the very least we should rule out dissolution or consolidation with the Town.
I’ll admit, I don’t have all the answers on this subject (in fact, I haven’t been able to find anyone who does), but it certainly warrants more attention and exploration than it received at the Village’s recent public meeting on the subject of consolidation and sharing services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)