Archive: Opinions

Even though the Lansing Town Board passed a resolution supporting a plan for the State to purchase about 500 acres of land from NYSEG for a state forest last month, eight residents spoke up at Wednesday's Town Board meeting.  One said he feared that the new board will rescind its support in January.  Despite the favorable vote it is clear that supporters of transforming the property into public natural land do not consider the battle won.

They may be justified in that belief.  The vote to support a state forest was split along party lines with the three Democrats strongly supporting new tourism initiatives in general and the idea of a state forest in particular and two Republicans voted no.  In January the balance of power will tip: three Republicans and two Democrats.

As someone who is excited about the idea of a town center, I have been frustrated by the argument that all progress should halt in Lansing until this happens or that happens.  At the moment the people who don't want action on a town center any time soon say we should wait for the comprehensive plan update to be completed.  That is certainly not a bad argument, but it ignores the fact that we already have a comprehensive plan in place that was updated seven years ago.  That isn't that long a time in the big picture of municipal life and development.

But they have a point.  Gathering data and updating future plans from time to time gives the Town a chance to make course corrections.  It bolsters our belief in the things we think townspeople believe, and it informs us on what we thought we believed but actually don't.

For example, over 90% of townspeople surveyed said they want to preserve Lansing's agricultural land, not just the people who live in the north of the town where the agricultural land is.  Wednesday's presentation of town survey results actually showed more agreement on a variety of issues facing the whole town that I think most of us expected.

I consider myself an avid indoorsman.  I don't much like hiking or even being outside where nature is.  My idea of birdwatching is viewing the bluebirds that followed Snow White around in the Disney film.  I love the majesty of nature.  I just don't want to actually be in it.  So if we get a state forest I probably will go there, but probably only once.  I just don't like gong to the same places mosquitoes like to go to.  But that Snow White thing makes me thnk having a state forest here would be... well, nice.

I also understand the notion of increasing the tax base in a way that mitigates out of control property taxes that threaten some residents' chances of affording to stay here.  In my mind it would have to be light industry, not residential, because that's what brings in more tax dollars than it demands in services.

So I really don't know what use I actually believe the Bell Station property should be put to.  I'm attracted to a forest.  I'm attracted to light industry.

Last month 20 of 25 speakers said they want the land preserved as a state forest.  This week eight speakers said they it.  You could argue (and one of the opponents did) that the proponents are better organized and more likely to speak up while a 'silent majority' may not agree.

But Wednesday's survey result presentation told a different story.  The survey polled a scientific random sample of town residents, and a Web-based version added 67 more voices to the mix that largely reinforced the telephone survey results.   86.4% of Lansing residents want to encourage tourism as an element of economic development in the town.  Townspeople are split approximately half and half on encouraging lakeside commercial development that would increase the tax base without demanding too much in town services.  90.6% want to preserve scenic and natural areas.

The Bell Station property includes about 2/5 agricultural land and the rest a unique natural area.  Whatever I personally think, it does look like Lansing has spoken.    On this issue it looks like the silent majority is the same as the vocal majority.

Earlier this year I wrote an editorial about Lansing becoming more political.  I used the phrase 'nasty politics'.  Democrats were furious with me.  They said they thought I was blaming them.  Republicans told me the same.  The journalist in me was kind of thrilled, because getting everyone on both sides riled up must have meant that I hit a nerve and there was some truth in the idea, which, by the way, I had gotten by talking to Republican and Democratic town officials.  Post-editorial they all insisted that nasty politics isn't happening here.

Maybe they meant that nasty isn't happening.  Yet in the past six months politics has been.  Votes on key issues including the 2014 budget have been split along party lines.  If the Republicans and Democrats who were mad at me (and those who were not, if there were any!) were correct the issue of a state forest on the Bell Station land may be the test that proves them right.

The survey is one of many ways the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee will gather opinions from people who live and work in Lansing.  But it is also the only statistically scientific piece.  Anecdotal evidence is very important, but scientific data theoretically gives the most accurate picture.

That means that a good 90% of Lansingites do support a state forest either because, unlike slug-like me, they love to be in nature.  Or maybe they think it's the right thing to do, or they want to increase tourist dollars coming into the town.  Whatever the reason, they want it.

If the new board decides to withdraw its support, I think it will prove my point about politics overwhelming the town government's ability to drive the Town's future along the lines of what townspeople want.  My preference is that those people who were so mad at me turn out to be the ones who were right.  While the final analysis is not done and the comprehensive plan update is not complete, the information gleaned from the survey paints a pretty clear picture.  Lansing wasn't not split on these issues of natural area preservation and encouraging tourism.  90% is a big percentage.

I want to be clear that I am not predicting that a Republican majority on the Town Board will overturn the resolution supporting a state forest.  All I am saying is that I saw people speak Wednesday who worry about that possibility including one who said so outright.  I can't imagine why the others spoke up if they didn't think the same thing because the November vote was in favor of what they wanted.  I am not saying that one side or the other thinks it doesn't make sense.

The measure of what the board does in cases like this should be townspeople's opinion.  Townspeople voted for our council people, but they also voted on the Town's future direction and growth in responding to the survey.  They responded to the survey because the council wanted to find out what they think.  So it makes sense to continue supporting a state forest.

Is the Town politically driven?  Ultimately the only thing that counts is the way the Town Board votes.  That will tell the story.

v9i48