  |
|
|
|
|
G.R.I.P (Gardiner Residents for Individual Property Rights)
|
|
|
Letters from the Other Side
|
|
|
|
|
|
A unifying force for all ages
Gardiner is now a happening place.
It used to be one of those drive-thru towns, but now we have our own four-star restaurant-quality Village Grocers owned by
a Culinary Institute of America graduate and his baker-extraordinaire wife. We have Enthusiastic Spirits that makes you take
the curve more slowly. And there is the Red Rooster, Hi Ho, Blue Sky Ranch, the Mohonk Preserve at the other end of town,
Minnewaska State Park and our own portion of the rail trail. And there are probably so many other reasons that we should be
proud of our 150-plus-year-old town.
So it seems a no brainer that as part of the hamlet's revitalization we could find a uniting narrative in our support
for a state-of-the-art library. After all, here is the most creative opportunity to rise above individual needs and support
an institution that builds community, is above local politics and is a unifying force for all ages.
There's just one problem Annie, and that's the Library Board of Trustees is the entity with the
"individual need", and that is splitting, not building the community.
Library plans have been works in progress for over a decade and as
the library was poised to proceed, a "couple" of voices shockingly and accusingly arose. Where were these people during the
planning stages? Why didn't they attend the open library board meetings? Why didn't they approach the "more-than-approachable"
board members? I was shocked at their mean-spirited berating of the intentions of those who have worked so hard to bring this
gift of a library to the people of Gardiner. I would have thought they were talking about a high-use mall or an area lit by
stadium lighting. This "couple" of people accused the planners in a reprehensible way.
OK, lets start over. Yes, the
building has been "planned" for many years...but not in a manner that required "spot zoning" changes that would affect so
many residents. And, although it's not a "high-use mall", it will be a high use public building, with hopefully bright
enough lights so that people don't injure themselves. And, I think you'll find that more than a "couple" of people had
problems with what was being railroaded through the town law book.
Now I know that in Gardiner there is a vocal
group of what I think of as the "terrible twos." For me it is sad that some of my neighbors wake up each morning thinking
about how to get a gripe and how to find ways to thwart community-building projects. But I must say this attack on the library
came out of the blue.
Actually, the rezoning issue came out the blue, for the affected property owners.
Nowadays, we must find reasons
for community congruence and a library is the purest way to do that. In spite of all reassurances that they want the library,
this "couple" of people are pursuing a fight. I hope they can reconsider their tactics as some of their neighbors have. After
all, a hamlet is a hamlet and is a growing sort of a place. Soon, thanks to the hamlet revitalization committee, we will have
sidewalks. Imagine that. There could have been houses on the site with people driving around their property on ATV's or other
neighborly-or-not inconveniences. People choose where they want to live -- they know what is around them and what flies over
them and drives by them. Gardiner's Sand Hill Road, which backs up the hamlet, is not Guilford Road or South Mountain Road.
But there are many advantages to living in a hamlet. And one of those advantages is being able to walk to a beautiful and
welcoming library.
This is some of the most misguided thinking we've heard in a long time.
We can't even address most of this rhetoric. I guess the people on Sand Hill Road should have "known" that when when
bought their houses in a residential zoned area, that the town would rezone it someday for high use public buildings.
Let those people reconsider.
All the yearly sunset tables I've studied prove there won't be much headlight interference and for almost five months of the
year the library closes before we even have to use our car lights. We know there is no noise interference. We know that people
usually are gone from their houses for a good portion of the day so how would a library be an intrusion? And we know that
the state-of-the-art lighting all points down. Is it just that some people are litigious by nature or is it in this case,
by profession?
I guess you must be an expert on traffic patterns in that area of town.
However, I've personally been at many meetings at the current library (including Library Board of Trustee meetings) all of
which were at night, and most of which were at a time of year that you needed to use headlights. Bottom line is that
the property will be high use public building in a residential neighborhood. Maybe the library can relocate on North
Mountain Road, have their driveway go along your property line, and have their parking lot lights shine in your bedroom window?
We know how much you love the library, so you shouldn't mind at all.
Annie O'Neill
Gardiner
ON THE BACKS OF PROPERTY OWNERS
In a report released by the current New York state comptroller
in April 2006, New York state residents are paying the highest
property taxes in the country, increasing at triple the rate of inflation over the last five years. A six-year projection
shows a nearly $10 billion increase in local taxes if there are no changes in the current structure of funding public schools
on the backs of property owners.
Brought to you as a public service by Taxnightmare.org.
Tim Hunter
Gardiner
The above is a letter that was in the 12/13 issue of the
New Paltz Times. On one hand, we can sympathize with Mr. Hunter about the severe tax problem in New York State, and
we certainly do not debate that this press release was issued by the office of the New York comptroller, Mr Havasi.
However, we're confused as to exactly what Mr. Hunter, and in turn taxnightmare.org, would like us to DO about it.
Once again, the taxnightmare group likes to complain about the tax situation, especially
the school taxes, but they offer no solutions to the problem at all....absolutely none.
Which brings us to the following letter from a frequent contributor and complainer,
Doris Chorney.....
UNITE WITH TAXNIGHTMARE.COM
Gardiner and Marbletown are deeply divided over the
open space bond issue and for many it comes down to concerns about an increase in taxes. Well folks, if you're concerned about
taxes, why not oppose a really BIG one and unite with taxnightmare.com to demand an end to property taxes as the way to fund
schools? We in New York state pay the highest property tax in the nation. It's time the state took responsibility
for schools with a wealth-based tax. Make your feelings known to governor-elect Spitzer at: www.transitionny.com.
Here's a way for Democrats, Independents and Republicans to work together. Let's end taxes that are so
huge, they are driving many from their homes and from the state.
Doris Chorny
Gardiner
First off, Doris states that the primary concern of the folks who
voted against the bond issue is taxes, which just goes to show that she really doesn't understand what she is, or others are,
talkIng about. Yes, we are concerned about rising taxes, but we're more concerned about WHAT they are being raised for.
We are opposed to a tax increase to pay for unnecessary programs like paying to purchase property and development rights,
but we don't oppose taxes for schools.
And while I feel that Doris is trying to get us all to join in a group hug and sing "cumbaya"
in harmony, she is way off key in her thinking. She is making a very tenuous connection between the right thinkers
who voted against the bond issue, and the taxnightmare people who just don't want any taxes at all......and we don't want
to go there. Thanks for the invite Dories, but we can't go there because unlike you, we understand that the "State"
is really US....not some nameless bottomless pit of funding from some unknown source.
_____________________________________________________________________
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS Bill & Yvonne Allenson, Gardiner
What are you going to do for the next generation? On November 7th, opportunity knocks for the Town of Gardiner. The bond referendum
on the ballot provides an opportunity for the community to act proactively in open-space planning.
It's an opportunity for the government to have another $1.5 million in it's control, coming out of tax dollars for the next
20 or more years. This is hardly a positive legacy to leave for the next generation.....debt!
Such planning is critical to controlling growth, protecting the environment and preserving property values.
No, it's not critical!....we already have Open Space Zoning that will do all those things.
It has been well documented that open space costs taxpayers less than developing that space as residential real estate.
This is just pure fabrication, and it's not well documented for a town such as Gardiner with few paid services. This is just
more "spin" from the American Farmland Trust.
With development throughout the United States cementing over an area the size of the state of Delaware each year, communities
have argued, debated, proposed and passed bond referenda. In 2005 alone, there were 140 bond initiatives of which 111 passed.
Just because other towns can afford higher taxes, it doesn't mean we can or are will to.
While zoning techniques such as cluster housing and two-acre zoning are important, there are some sensitive areas where development
is best avoided,
Such as your back yard, or anywhere else in Gardiner?
The bond provides another tool in land preservation and, because it shows a community's commitment, allows the town to leverage
it to raise additional private and public funds.
If the Allensons want to show their commitment, then they are free to write checks to any one of the land trusts hovering
around our town like vultures.
The town would purchase development rights from a willing seller based on the recommendation of the Conservation Advisory
Council. Taxpayers would be assessed for the bond only after the town board approves the transaction.
Versus being assessed for it BEFORE the town borrows the money? What's your point? It's still higher taxes!
As residents of Gardiner for 38 years, we have seen, especially in recent years, the changes as subdivisions supplant open
space.
And as residents, we've seen in the last 4-5 years, almost 20% of the area of town be legislated and restricted to bar any
future habitation, at the expense of private landowners. We have seen property owners loose value of their lands because
of stricter zoning.
Growth is inevitable, but Gardiner voters have an opportunity to adopt measures to help control that growth.
The only thing this "measure" will do is to give the green light to the town board to borrow money that we will have to pay
back; it will do nothing, in itself, to control anything but our land.
We do not want to be one of those towns that waited too long to protect its quality of life. Invest in the future on November
7th. Vote "yes."
Enough already, just vote NO.
_____________________________________________________________________
GETTING TO YES Gioia
Shebar, Gardiner
Yes, Frank
(you lovely man), I agree with you 100 percent on political extremism (flattery will get you anywhere), and your work for
the CPTA - all kidding aside - was really interesting. However, people should keep in mind (like anybody cares), that I am
a pragmatic capitalist without an ounce of idealism in my ancient, Sicilian soul. Exactly when was it that you renounced your Marxist leanings, and burned your communist party card…in order
to become any kind of capitalist? If somebody is conspiring to cost me money - especially under the rubric of protecting private property rights -
I am going to get really bitchy (What a surprise!). Actually,
by voting no for the bond referendum you would be saving money, so you’ve been misinformed if anyone is telling you
differently.
The "No Bond"
bunch in Gardiner is courting a tax fiasco under their rallying cry of property rights... yet again. They're the folks who
opposed the "Save the Ridge" effort...remember? That STR effort prevented mega-development on the Ridge; and saved me a fortune
in new taxes which would have gone to service the gated community. On
the contrary, the gated community probably would have put much more tax money back into the community than they took out. But, alas, no one will ever know. However,
I am positive that the gated community would have cost the taxpayers much less than, say, Mohonk Preserve, which pays nothing
into the tax coffers of the town, but benefits mightily from tax supported services for their members/visitors.
The Awosting
developers couldn't promise me that their male buyers would submit to vasectomies. We’re trying to figure out when you were appointed as the child police, and newcomers to town had to report
their family status to you. Therefore
their "Probably No Children in the Rich-Only Development" rang hollow. The sex urge being what it is - even in the elderly
(Viagra, anyone?) - those rich guys and their much-younger wives would have been reproducing new little school taxes right
and left up in their Awosting gated aerie. Shame on you, and
you being a former teacher and all, complaining about school taxes and all.
Save The Ridge
paid dividends by preventing property tax increases that huge developments (no, buddy, not your two retirement/investment
houses) invariably bring. Yes, we’ll be reaping the
benefits of the State ownership for years. How do you think the State paid for
the preserve land, if not with tax dollars…..Monopoly money?
But the "no"
people are at it again!
I was alerted
by a sprinkling of "No Bond" lawn signs. Were a few movie buffs protesting the
new James Bond (a studly fellow).
Alas, the "No
Bond" signs were the "No to Everything Folks" hoisting their tattered flag of "property rights" to oppose a Gardiner bond
issue; a bond issue that would obviously save us from escalating taxes due to over-development. I know you don’t have any respect for property rights, since they are protected by our
Constitution, and you probably don’t have any respect for that as well.
I am, therefore,
now looking at the Gardiner Open Space Bond issue very favorably
. all
the more reason for folks to vote NO.
After consulting
my accountant, Junior (he's 67), I am willing to invest maybe fifty, a hundred bucks in taxes to help my neighbors keep their
land from big developers who throw together as many houses as possible, take their big profits and get the hell out of town.
That leaves you and me and McGee to pay the increased tab for roads, fire prevention, lawsuits, services and kids' schooling...that's
big taxes, honey - way more than the 50-100 bucks it takes to prevent it! Hmmmm….you keep harping shrilly on this topic, but we’ve not seen one piece of data to back up these
figures. In fact, the amount thrown around about the cost of the bond is totally
ficticious, as no one can possibly know the actual interest rate the town will be charged after having an audit.
The "No, No,
No" crowd - be they Republican or Democrat - have proven to be wildly, consistently and unrepentantly wrong. So vote "yes"
on the bond issue. No, actually (sorry, I used the N word again) you just
think that anyone not agreeing with you is wrong.
Furthermore,
rumor has it that after this "No Bond" push, they are going to morph into "Planet Pluto is So in the Solar System" in order
to prevent the Open Space Institute from buying Pluto. God help us... those lawn signs will say "PPISSS."
So - like me,
who hates taxes - vote "yes" on the Gardiner open space bond issue which Junior and I know will save you big bucks. As for the Pluto problem, frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn...unless it's going to affect my taxes.
|
|
END
THE EXTREMISM Hal Chorny, Gardiner
The
proposed bond issue for open space in Gardiner continues to draw heat from some of the Republicans. There is hysteria and
fear-mongering when serious discussion is needed. People need to hear the facts not fear tactics and phony scenarios depicting
a town government robbing everyone blind and sending us to the poorhouse.
Well, the "heat" as you so aptly put it, Hal, is actually
coming from many people in Gardiner, not just the Republicans. And the "hysteria and fear-mongering" that we've heard
has mostly been in letters to the editor from people like you who say that if we don't do something and do
it now then we'll be another Levittown or look like New Jersey or Westchester. Fact is, these are the very things
that do scare people, and that cannot ever happen in Gardiner even if we "do nothing" . GRIP has not put out
any "phony scenarios" and we apologize if our honesty and factual information have scared anyone. Also, we think that the
people of Gardiner are smart enough to get the information for themselves and to make up their own minds....we don't do it
for them.
The
bond issue is a modest proposal to ensure more open space in this period of intense growth and development. Sit down with
a responsible person from the open space committee and do the numbers. Check out what space would be kept open and judge how
important it is for you and the town. If the money and space calculations do not seem appropriate, less space and less money
might appeal to you. Suggest it to them.
Well, we've done many of the things you've suggested Hal,
but we don't agree with either the scope of the bond proposal, the open space plan or the "numbers" as presented by the Open
Space Committee. We have read the Open Space Plan thoroughly, and have presented well thought out responses to many
of the statements put out by that committee. If you want to see our version of the "FAQS", you can go to the respective
pages on Open Space Plan and Bond Referendum on this website.
Gardiner
needs good government and opinions from all sides. Extremism such as no taxes, no government and land ownership without rules
solve none of our problems. No one on the open space committee is dipping into your pockets. They are decent Gardiner residents,
who gave of their time to consider one of our problems and they have proposed a solution. Tell the loud and angry people to
please be quiet so that you can address the real issues.
We agree, Hal, which is why we created GRIP in the first place! However, to
accuse us of extremism is well, extreme. We have never, ever said that we want "no taxes, no government and land ownership
without rules"...and we challange you to show us where we did. Please stop putting out false statements like that.
As for the loud and angry people, I guess you only think they are that way if they happen to oppose your point of view.
_____________________________________________________________________
CALLING FOR A CALM, BIPARTISAN DISCUSSION- Philip
Ehrensaft, Gardiner
America's leadership in agricultural science and farm
exports was sparked by massive, path-breaking governmental initiatives, starting with the Land Grant Act passed by the Republicans
in 1862. Officially known as the Morrill Act, this legislation established our state agricultural universities, research stations
and extension services that funneled scientific knowledge into the hands of average farmers.
Minus these efforts, it's unlikely that America, even with our rich land base, would have created
the world's most productive agriculture. These highly successful initiatives also paid attention to the whole scope of creating
a new rural society: schools, power supplies, libraries, you name it. Thus it is both puzzling and appalling to endure Gardiner's
hard-right-wing mantra of vociferously opposing any government investments as inherently flawed, reckless expenditures. Their
mantra runs directly counter to the actual history of rural and small town America.
A mild initiative like the Gardiner town board's proposal for a modest bond to support further funding of preserving open
spaces hardly deserves such heated, misleading attacks.
First, we’d
like to thank Phil for taking the time to check out and read the GRIP website.
Next, we’re
not sure what all of the stuff about the Land Grant Act has to do with GRIP. And
saying that our “mantra runs directly counter to the actual history of rural and small town America”
is also puzzling to us, as we’re not sure exactly what you mean or why you are saying it. Maybe you could write us back
and explain.
We’re sorry
that you feel that by stating our position in clear, rational tones, and by speaking up at Town Board meetings and in the
press (and this website) is being a “heated, misleading attack”. We
happen to feel that as taxpayers, we are the ones on the defense, not the attack. And,
after all, we do still have the right of free speech in this country, even if our property rights are being eroded, so we’re
not sure why you feel so threatened. People should have the option to see both
sides of every issue and make up their own minds. We at GRIP happen to think
that the town’s proposal is neither “modest” nor “mild”.
And by the reaction of many others we heard at the Town Board meeting the other night, there are many others who agree
with us.
G.R.I.P.,
purportedly "designed to inform and support property owners and taxpayers in this town," is a thinly disguised PAC for the
hard-right wing of the Gardiner Republican Committee. The little town of Gardiner would be better served by a calm, bipartisan discussion
of the specific pluses and minuses of our town board's proposal. As a former chair of the Gardiner Democratic Committee, I
would hope that members of both parties could put the big national issues aside and focus on ensuring that a modest initiative
in one small town yields optimum results.
Purportedly, nothing,
Phil, that’s our mission. Thank you for pointing out that you are the former Gardiner Democratic Committee chair, which I’m sure makes you totally
non-partisan. It’s true that both Marion and I, founders of GRIP are registered
Republicans, but I think if you call the Chairman of the Gardiner Republican Committee, they would be surprised to learn that
they have a ‘PAC”. In fact, our supporters are from all parties
– Republican, Democratic, Conservative, and even many non-enrolled in any party!
We will try to keep politics out of GRIP if you’ll let us, and do the same.
As GRIP, we are
not concerned with “big national issues” except as they relate to private property rights in this country. In fact, we don’t care where you’re from or what your party persuasion’s
are, we champion the rights of anyone who cherishes their rights as given to them by our constitution.
_____________________________________________________________________
"I like the fact that Gardiner has farms, fields and woods. I think we all do. This is what distinguishes
our town from the densely packed towns in Westchester County. Yet the large private landowners face tremendous pressure to
"cash in" on their land. The taxes alone could drive us to sell our woods and farms to build more homes. If we do, taxes would
go up and our quality of life - including the quality of our air and water - would go down. Welcome to Westchester. "
The paragraph above was written by J. Kaufman of Gardiner,
who was trying to justify why the Bond Referendum should pass, and that taxpayers should cheerfully cough up more money for
open space preservation.
But wait...the reason he gives for putting large private landowners under pressure is taxes.
So, is J. Kaufman saying taxes are causing the problem, AND will fix the problem as well?
_____________________________________________________________________
The New Paltz Times carried a letter by Laurie Willow about Open Space. We think the objective of the letter was to try and
"correct" those of us who don't necessarily agree with her opinion. We'd like to present segments of Laurie's letter
below along with our own views after it.
A presentation concerning open space last Tuesday night at the Gardiner town board meeting kicked off the public forum. Lines
are being drawn as we speak. Attitudes are being formed and possibly set in stone - even before we are all thoroughly educated,
even before all the facts are available on which to base our decisions, even before all the information can be presented in
a way that speaks to all of our hopes and fears. So is it possible that we are drawing indelible lines and taking sides without
having all the facts before us? If not the facts, just what is driving the desire to take a premature stand?
We're a little confused about what you mean about "premature" Laurie. There were two issues on the agenda last
week at the town meeting. One was a presentation by the Open Space Committee and Behan Associates about the Open Space Plan.
The other was a public hearing about the Bond Referendum, which was voted on by the town board. I guess no one is supposed
to form an opinion until they've heard from all the "right" thinking people like you?
Could it be preconceived notions about what "open space" means and what the cost of it would be to all of us taxpayers
and large land owners, even though it has been shown over and over that it is residential development that drives our taxes
up consistently?
Sorry, Laurie, you're just flat out wrong. Nothing of the
sort has been shown "over and over" about Gardiner...it's just been mis-stated by people like you over and over. No one would
know more about residential development than you. We'll be happy to print the data backing up your statement if you give it
to us.
Yes, this bond would raise our taxes by under $60 a year. The fact is that residential development would raise our taxes much
more than that! Every house that is built costs more in services than the current tax base can provide. And we would lose
our open space as well.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, Laurie. The "$60" number is totally hypothetical, and is based on some average
assessed value at a made up interest rate. NO ONE knows what the cost of the loan will be....but it will cost, and that's
a fact. Again, Laurie, please stop making the statement about how residential property costs more...it just ain't so for
towns like Gardiner where we have few services.
Maybe if work together, we can come up with some options that will make everyone happy. It's worth a try.
Well, Laurie, that's the first right thing you've suggested.
Maybe if we stop growing government, stop creating spending and borrowing programs that will mortage Gardiner's future, end
restrictive zoning that paralyzes landowners, and just allow property owners to make their own decisions about their land,
...then maybe they can continue to prosper without having to sell out to developers like you, Laurie.
_____________________________________________________________________
Below is a letter written by Lew Eisenberg that appeared in the 8/24 New Paltz Times....attempting in a rather lame way to
explain how taxpayers won't have to pay for Awosting!
HAS GARDINER LOST TAX REVENUES SINCE THE STATE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE AWOSTING RESERVE?
In November, voters in the Town of Gardiner will decide whether to approve a $1.5 million bond in order to begin implementing
the town's Open Space Plan. This is the first bond referendum in Gardiner's history and, quite understandably, there has been
some confusion about the bond and what it can and can't do to help Gardiner preserve its rural character. I write to answer
a question that I have heard many times: has the town lost tax revenues since New York State became the owner of the former
Awosting Reserve property? Will residents' taxes be increased to make up for lost tax revenues?
The short answer to both these questions is no. The state pays exactly the same amount of taxes that the Awosting Reserve
partnership once did. There are no changes in the taxes paid by this property to the Town of Gardiner, Ulster County or the
school district. There are no new taxes for Gardinerites as result of this conservation project.
The only real change is that the property has been reclassified as 'State Owned Land;' the same tax rates still apply.
Not all questions raised about the direct and indirect consequences of funding Open Space preservation can be answered
as clearly as this. But it's a start. Let's keep asking intelligent questions on both sides of the issue. It's the only way
we can truly weigh the available options and assess the real costs of something so important to the welfare of us all.
Lewis Eisenberg
Chair,
Open Space Planning Committee
Gardiner
Of course, most of what Lew had to say is just not true. Of course taxpayers in Gardiner are negatively impacted....as pointed
out in a letter of rebuttal by Marion Kells as follows:
In the August 24 issue of the New Paltz Times, Lewis Eisenberg, co-chairman of the Gardiner Open Space Committee, "cleared
up" confusion about whether or not Gardiner taxpayers would suffer as a result of the state takeover of the Awosting
Reserve. He assured us that the state would now pay the same taxes once paid by the former owners.
Now, instead of private, new, real tax money coming in to Gardiner coffers, we will have a miraculous influx of "state"
money. And where, pray tell, does state money come from? Shake that magic money tree in Albany, and hear the groans of all
the state's taxpayers. The state creates no wealth, and can spread around only that which is sent in to them in the form of
taxes and fees.
A local tax and spend fan once said of a proposed Gardiner spending project, "Let the folks in Niagara Falls pay
for it". In other words, spread the grief around the state, and it will hardly be felt. Well, that might work if there
were only one state takeover occurring. But with localities rushing headlong into myriad projects which the "state"
will pay taxes for, the taxes we must all pay to cover it will just continue to rise.
So, it must be pointed out to Mr. Eisenberg, that, yes, the Gardiner taxpayers will feel the pinch from the loss of the
Awosting Reserve private taxes. It is hard to believe that he doesn't understand "the state will pay" bait and switch
routine which has been pulled on us so often.
Marion Kells, Gardiner
You said it, Marion. There's a whole lot that Lew has failed to make clear in his presentation of the open space plan/project
to taxpayers. We wonder if Lew ever sold used cars in a past life?
Enter content here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|