Archive: Opinions

Since writing my column on the Hamilton Square development in Trumansburg, I've had the distinct and wonderful pleasure of more than a few people approach me in person, and by personal email, with very positive responses. It seems that the issue of housing in this affluent county is becoming a prominent part of the civic discussion, and for this many of us are thankful.

A few of my respondents felt I was a bit harsh in my characterizations of the anti's as "anti-practically everything", but most of the comments have noted the growing NIMBY-ism in certain communities in Tompkins County which needs to be combated by open-mindedness and positive civic engagement in the process of giving more citizens an opportunity to partake in our bounty.

This is not a give-away: it is an opportunity for hard working families and retired members of the community to partake. Seems to me that in an age of 'rights', that most of us could agree that if there are only a few really unquestionable (inalienable) rights in this 21st century, then food and a roof are right at the top of that very short list.

Another positive note is that apparently there is a strong FaceBook movement and petition in favor of this beautiful development in Trumansburg (to counter the protest movement among some villagers). Hundreds of signers and supporters have signed onto this 'pro' position. I was shown the FaceBook page by a friend (and someone who had posted my column on that Facebook page) and noted among the many 'postings' was Martha Robertson, the current Chair of the Tompkins County Legislature. She expressed support for "affordable housing", and of you may know that this was evidenced last year by her leadership of a committee looking into the housing crisis in the county.

But, may I posit, that supportive statements are not quite enough. We haven't heard or seen nearly enough pro-active and outright supportive statements AND actions on the part of the elected officials on this project. It is incumbent upon those elected officials to finally admit that a part of the housing crisis in Tompkins County is due to land usage regulations, restrictive zoning and, most importantly, taxation policies concerning housing and tax breaks for those developers who address the issue. We're not talking about a tax break in the city for 'affordable housing' which still leave a large portion of the renting population in the cold, unable to afford even those so-called 'affordable apartments'.

A builder/developer/landlord has an absolute right to expect a decent return on their investment, but when elected officials keep spending from the bottomless well of taxpayers' pockets, taxing at exorbitant levels, then the landlord has no choice but to continue to hike rents and push lower income county residents into substandard, overpriced homes, and quite often, out of the county where rents and taxation are more reasonable. If we have 'family friendly' as a local government buzzword, then we can expect action to address taxation as well as adequate housing. We hear 'live-able wage' come from our elected officials lips, but when we will we see REAL efforts 'live-able housing' as a guiding principle to everything the local governments consider. In other words, every action taken by village, town and county governments, asking the question while debating and voting "How will this vote affect rents and affordable housing in my district?"

---

I recently completed an interesting book entitled 'Miracle at Philadelphia', by Catherine Drinker Bowen, on the intricate details and debates (as well as personalities) of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Among one of the latter chapters was a breakdown of how the individual states debated and ratified the Constitution, which was no mean feat: it was highly controversial for many reasons, and more than a few delegates had refused to sign it, even left Philadelphia early, for various reasons.

Believe it or not, Massachusetts was not just a bellwether state (that hotbed of radicalism, so it seems just a few short years before the convention), but also a scene of acrimonious debate over whether to approve it or not. The final vote in the Mass legislature was tight: one hundred eighty seven ayes versus one hundred sixty eight noes, a margin of only nineteen votes.

What fascinated me was the attitude of the so-called 'losers'. They didn't go home in a huff to get their muskets and start a second revolution. Abraham White, a no voter, said he would go home and "do his utmost to induce his constituents to live in peace under the new constitution, and cheerfully submit to it." A Mr. Widgery (of the Maine province, a part of Massachusetts) said although he had opposed adoption, he "had been overruled by a majority of wise and understanding men. He would try to sow the seeds of union and peace among the people he represented, and endeavor to avoid protests."

To continue: "Several other prominent no voters rose one by one with pledges of good faith. They had been fairly beaten, fought like good soldiers, but, beaten, they would sit down contented, hoping the minority might be disappointed in their fears, and the majority reap the full fruition of the benefit they anticipate..." (Miracle at Philadelphia, Catherine Drinker Bowen, Little Brown and Co.,, 1966, pp. 190-191).

Considering the intransigence of both sides (depending on the issue at hand) in our current political stalemate (logjam??), and the "resist and refuse at all costs" by many members of our so-called Congress, I find historical wisdom and practicality almost soothing. But it also reminds me of a song line by Shawn Phillips from many years ago: "For the country is not run by the statesmen now, but by the gentry...".

Alas, might I venture to say, the gentry represent no one but themselves, and we the people are left holding the bag. I hear a violin being played inside the White House. A la Nero.

v14i4