Co-chairs:
Tim and Laura Smith (672-4656)
Members: David Bolevice, Robert Charron, Dwight David, Aaron Perry
The goal is to get the Philmont vote out by getting to know the voters and becoming responsive to their concerns. Our plan is for each committee member to maintain contact with a small group of voters on a regular basis throughout the year. We hope to open a dialogue on issues of local importance, and encourage voters to get involved in the process.
The Democrats for Claverack 2005 campaign maintained a headquarters on 104 Main Street in Philmont which was staffed nearly every day from noon till 7pm. A weekly listening program called What's On Your Mind? was held there on Wednesday evenings.
Of interest :
Philmont in the news (see especially public statements made concerning Summit Heights proposal, January 2006)
Philmont calendarCommentary:
by Christopher
H. Reed
59 Main St., Philmont, NY 12565
(518) 672-7743
chr@capital.net
The following is one of many troubling details emerging out of the current approval process for the Summit Heights development proposal. I hope that more Philmont residents and interested others will be moved to demand better practices from our officials, especially on an issue of this magnitude and complexity.
At the public hearing on May 24, Philmont resident Christopher Hoppe, a licensed civil engineer, presented to the Village Board an alternate conception for the Summit Heights development that would have located stormwater detention ponds within the development's footprint. This presentation, which later made the front page of the Register-Star, undercut the developer's contention that there were no alternatives to invading the conservation easement area to provide the mandated ponds. Hoppe's presentation provoked an attempt by the developer's engineer to rebut Hoppe's points in a follow-up article. In that article, Hoppe was given a chance to respond. Hoppe suggested that alternatives were possible if the will is there and that the Village engineer had thus far failed to provide adequate review of the developer's proposal.
At the same time, the developer's engineer sent a detailed letter of rebuttal to all Village Board and Planning officials. When Hoppe learned about the letter's existence, his wife attempted to obtain a copy from the Village office but was denied. The Village deputy secretary cited the Village attorney as authority for withholding documents for a given time period under the Freedom of Information Act.
On the evening of June 13 when the Village Board was to vote on amending the conservation easement, the developer's engineer was given a third chance to rebut Hoppe's points by reading his letter aloud. Under the rules laid out by the Board, no member of the audience was allowed to respond.
I learned subsequently that Chris Hoppe was prepared to counter the developer's arguments point by point. The fact that the developer's engineer was given the last word and a knowledgeable Village resident was denied the opportunity to study the letter before the meeting is one of many instances of how skewed in favor of the developer Philmont's review process has been. The consequence for the Village is that our decision makers have not only taken the developer's positions at face value but they have also impeded efforts by their own constituents to provide other viewpoints. The likelihood has thereby been increased that unwanted impacts from the development will remain unconsidered at the stage when mitigation and creative alternatives are still possible.
Later in the week, I reached Bob Freeman of the Committee on Open Government (518-474-2518) at the New York Department of State. When I described the situation and Chris Hoppe's denied request, Freeman said, "That's ridiculous." The Freedom of Information Law, which was clarified as recently as early May, is meant to accelerate access to government documents. The 20 day period cited by the Village representative is intended as an outer limit for compliance not the minimum.
I called Freeman again to ask specifically whether the ongoing Article 78 against the Planning Board justified the Village's denying Chris Hoppe's request to obtain a copy immediately of the letter from the developer's engineer. Freeman said absolutely no, even if Hoppe were a party to the lawsuit which he is not. This is a case where citizens not knowing their rights relative to the Freedom of Information Law only puts us at further disadvantage.
For future reference, the Committee is an excellent resource for issues of transparency in government at all levels. For further information, consult their website at http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/coogwww.html.
The U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) can be accessed at http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm. Also consult http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/foil.html#who.
