|
Whetsel Protects Taxpayers and Preserves Open Space
Dear Editor:
I ask that Supervisor Sam Davis manage public meetings efficiently - or was it intentional that public comment begin at 11pm? Why is a public meeting closed for an hour while an employee interview is conducted? There is no acceptable reason. These and tedious matters of administration could be done in advance of the meeting or at another time.
Instead, those sitting on very uncomfortable chairs at town hall waited 4 hours for public commentary. I said I was grateful for the opportunity to speak, but that was before Councilman Ricci turned on a loud air conditioner to drown out my commentary and Councilman Tendy interjected with his views.
Councilmen Ricci and Tendy should refrain from interrupting public comment. Public comment is exclusively for the non-elected population. There should be rules of order. If questions are asked publicly, they can be submitted in writing to the Town Clerk and the Board should address them as an agenda item at the next meeting. Instead, it is an extended free-for-all in Putnam Valley with board members grandstanding and citizens grilling board members interminably. Supervisor Davis has lost control.
As for my commentary: Councilman Tendy may not want to hear that Wendy Whetsel was the front runner in opposition to multi-family "senior" housing, an excuse for developers to push high density projects. He may even suggest that there were other people in government - members of our planning board for example! protecting us.
The reality is that it took an Article 78 filed by Riverkeeper against the town of Putnam Valley and the advocacy of Wendy Whetsel to stop it for the moment. I believe you were on the board, Mr. Tendy. You should remember this. Mr.Davis was not actively involved.
Regardless of what has been done or not in the past, this town board should unite to support passing the Master Plan now and take steps to close some of the more disturbing loopholes in our current laws.
As for the recent Emerald Ridge decision, a letter to this paper suggests that a transfer tax on the sale of homes in Putnam Valley might be used to purchase the land off Marsh Hill Road. The belief was that this was a better way to obtain 31 acres than to negotiate as Councilwoman Whetsel has done.
While Councilwoman Whetsel supported passage of the Community Preservation Act, it is only one tool for land preservation. A 2% tax is levied on the buyer only on the portion of the home that exceeds the median price. The housing market is in a slump, how many homes will need to be sold to yield the purchase of that land and how much of that housing may be new construction? This presupposes that the developer is willing to sell the land in the first place. With a limited general fund and an aversion to litigation, I think the Councilwoman was being fiscally conscientious while working to protect taxpayers and preserve open space in Putnam Valley.
Mary Beth Becker
Putnam Valley
| 
