OUR TOWN GOVERNMENT
By Carmel Resident Jerry
Ravnitzky
It took the discomforting sight of the Carmel Planning Board trying to
push through the 215 townhouses on the Airport property to get me interested in
our Town government.
This is what I have seen during the past few months.
- The
Town of Carmel Planning Board said they didn’t need to notify me and many
other people who would be directly affected and negatively impacted by the
planned townhouses because we didn’t live within 500 feet of the airport
property. Will they similarly
do the absolute minimum legal requirement in notifying town residents of
other official actions that will affect our health, welfare and quality of
life, not to mention our wallets? The
answer is obvious. The Planning
Board prefers to act in secrecy. The
Planning Board does not want residents to question their decisions or even
to provide input. Why would
they prefer to act in secrecy? The
only reasonable assumption is that they were representing the out of state
developer and not the residents of this community.
- By
looking at the town campaign financial disclosure documents, and from
speaking with knowledgeable local residents, I learned that the leaders of
the Planning Board were major fundraisers for the political party in power.
As such, they would be expected to solicit contributions from the
business people of the town. If
you were a businessperson who might have to appear before the Planning Board
some time and were approached for a contribution, would you refuse?
Obviously, there is an inherent conflict of interest in having active
political fundraisers serving on the Planning Board.
- When
there was a proposal to eliminate the Planning Board, the Town Board voted
against it. I can understand
why this town probably needs a Planning Board, but if the Town Board
appoints the Planning Board, I assume that the Town Board can replace them
with members who are impartial. I
wonder if the Town Board members might have been reluctant to fire those who
provide funds to their reelection campaigns.
While this may not be what actually occurred, it certainly presents
the appearance of impropriety and apparent conflict of interest.
- We
have some serious water and environmental problems in this town. That is why the Town Board finally agreed to a
moratorium on residential building. However,
they refused to provide a moratorium on commercial construction.
Wouldn’t commercial
construction also endanger our water supply?
Residents need to know that their wells will not run dry because of
imprudent over-expansion permitted by our town government.
- Some
communities that have imposed moratoria have had the moratoria challenged in court.
When a local resident, a professor of law, suggested
wording consistent with moratoria that have been successfully
defended in court, the Town Board summarily rejected the idea.
One town board member, who is not an expert in this field, even
expressed the opinion that no one would challenge it in court.
Is it wise to allow our town’s taxpayers and residents to take that
chance?
- The
Town Board is preparing to sign a contract to sell 19 acres of prime
commercial real estate in Carmel to a developer who wants to bring in a
major hotel and conference center. Yet
they do not want to let the people of Carmel know the value of the land they
intend to sell. There was an
appraisal conducted about five years ago, but none since. They claim that revealing this appraisal information to
the public would harm the contract negotiations. They know this is nonsense, and in fact the developer
has also indicated that he didn’t really care about the appraisal amount.
The Town Board also claims that the amount is just an opinion, when
they must know that the appraisal number is a fact, and a legally operative
fact, one of substantial importance to town residents and concerned
citizens. In this regard, the
Town Board, too, wants to operate in secrecy.
Why can’t the people of Carmel know what the property is worth?
Why can’t the people of Carmel give their opinion on whether they
want this property to be sold?
- Furthermore,
there is no guarantee that the property will be used as a hotel.
The Town Board and the developer say that this is the only feasible
land that can be used for a hotel in Carmel. If the hotel complex opts not
to come to Carmel, the land can be used by the developer for other purposes,
and perhaps for purposes not necessarily conducive to a healthy environment. And then, where would the hotel go in Carmel?
- About
25 residents of the Mahopac community of Rolling Green have been without
water for about three years. Shouldn’t
that be considered an emergency with the highest priority?
Where is our sense of community?
The Town Board said they are working on the problem and that there
should be water by the spring, since there are details that take a lot of
time. Would it have taken that
long to remedy this problem if a Town Board member lived in Rolling Green.
- The
Town Board has invited the television cameras to record and broadcast their
meetings but many of their deliberations involve technical terms not
familiar to many viewers. I
would like to suggest, if they really want open government, that they make
every effort to explain their deliberations in everyday language to
encourage more voter involvement. And
if they want TV viewers to understand what is being said, that they take the
modest steps needed to correct the terrible acoustics in the Town Hall
meeting room that often makes it difficult to follow what is said.
There is also no reason for the work sessions not to be televised,
especially since the public can attend in person.
- I
have attended several Town Board meetings and have been appalled by the
constant interruptions by two of the members.
They take a very patronizing and condescending attitude toward many
of the people who attend and/or speak at the meetings.
They even interrupt each other frequently.
There is consistent provocation by one board member of speakers who
disagree with him, resulting in shouting and accusations.
I always thought that town board members should show civility and
courtesy to their constituents, even when they disagree.
When citizens exercise their constitutional right to express their
opinions to their elected officials, they have a right to be treated fairly
and with respect.
- We
have representative government and if we feel that our representatives are
not acting in the best interests of the community, we can vote them out of
office. I suggest that all of
us look carefully at the voting (and courtesy) records of our elected
officials, and let them know that we not only care how they represent us,
but we will be watching how they represent us.
I
continue to hold out hope that regular scrutiny by a broad cross section of
Carmel residents will lead to greater openness by the Town Board and increased
responsiveness to citizen concerns.
Gerald
Ravnitzky