A SLAPP In New Hartford???

The OD reports tonight that New Hartford is considering filing a civil lawsuit -- discussed at a Town Board meeting in executive session this week. Although officials refused to reveal the target(s) of the potential lawsuit, the article mentions that the co-founders of Concerned Citizens for Honest and Open Government had found themselves locked out of Board meetings and that one of them had been accused by the Town Supervisor of screaming at a town employee. The juxtaposition of this information suggests that Mr. Wiatr and Ms. Lawrence may be the Town's targets.

While the Town alleges that employees have been intimidated, the Town admitted in an earlier OD article that "public safety was not in jeopardy." It is clear from Ms. Lawrence's blogpost "Using Scare Tactics," however, that it was she who felt intimidated.

Concerned Citizens has been in the forefront of getting New Hartford information out to the taxpayers and voters and exposing the workings of Town government, sometimes with embarrassing effectiveness. They forced public votes on issues that the Town Board rubber-stamped when they had a petition drive that successfully placed several bonding proposals on the ballot. They used legal processes when necessary to get the Town to "do the right thing," such as when they filed a Notice of Claim against the Stormwater Group, which forced its meetings to be opened to the public after a year behind closed doors.

In sum, Concerned Citizens has been a royal pain in New Hartford's governmental butt. . . But they were clearly working for the people, not themselves, because there is no personal gain from their activities.

The same cannot be said for Town Government. Meetings continue to be held behind closed doors, deals that appear to favor private interests continue to be made . . . and now retaliation may be in the offing.

If the Town files suit against these individuals, it would be a SLAPP -- A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- per Wikipedia:

. . . a lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.

According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."

Is that what the Town of New Hartford is proposing to do? That would not be just a SLAPP against Concerned Citizens, it would be a slap against every Town resident.


4/24/09 Update: Looks like Concerned Citizens won't be backed down.

Just Say No In New Hartford (3) . . .

Just a reminder . . . 2.10.2009 [TODAY] is the vote, Noon to 8PM. . . . Vote NO on the bonding proposition.

For more info check these prior posts: Just say No, Just Say No (2) ;
Cathy's NH Online posts: Tomorrow is the Day, The More You Know, Mr. Reed You're Killing Us, Special Voting Machines, Tangled Web
And this post on UticaSux.com

J U S T * S A Y * N O ! ! ! ! !

Just Say No In New Hartford (2) . . .

It is interesting how next week's proposition only mentions "improvements to Woods Highway in the New Hartford Business Park" as the object of the proposed bonding . . . .



. . . while the Town Board's resolution talks about many other improvements including curbs, gutters, landscaping and other improvements located in or near the NHBP . . .



So just how much are the taxpayers going to subsidize this private endeavor?

J U S T * S A Y * N O ! ! ! ! !

Just Say No In New Hartford . . .

February 10 is approaching, and New Hartfordians have an opportunity to cast their vote on bonding for the New Hartford Business Park. . . . Please . . .

JUST SAY NO . . .

• to more roads, water and sewer lines to maintain . .
• to more area to police, more area to cover with fire protection
• to more traffic, congestion and noise . . .
• to reductions in agricultural land, wildlife habitat, open space, and orchards

JUST SAY NO to Urban Sprawl

JUST SAY NO to 'Bait and Switch' . . .

• When the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hartford Business Park was issued in 1999, it was promoted as a site for industrial use, for "new high-technology industries" intended to "meet the economic needs of the entire region . . ." Instead, we are getting more office buildings and a hotel . . . things that the region already has plenty of.

JUST SAY NO to SEQRA Violations . . .

• The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hartford Business Park did NOT include the site of "The Hartford" office building. The FEIS was never amended.

JUST SAY NO . . . to the government playing favorites

• This office building gets a subsidy but others in the region do not . . .
  

JUST SAY NO. . .

• to the real estate developers, national chains, lobbyists, and public finance lawyers who are the only ones that really benefit from this project.

JUST SAY NO . . . for your neighbors' sake . . .

• New Hartford is a wealthy community. When financial incentives "are used in healthy and prosperous communities the regional effect may be to destabilize the fiscal health of neighboring areas."

JUST SAY NO . . . for your own sake, to preserve what you moved to New Hartford for.

JUST SAY NO . . . to arrogant public officials who will force a tax increase down your throat if you vote down their plan.

The wrongness of this plan and the manner in which it is being advanced is symptomatic of the way this entire region is governed, which is for the benefit of special interests. The taxpayers will continue to be ignored, put upon, robbed and stepped on by our local leaders -- and the region will continue to decline -- unless we put a stop to them.

J U S T * S A Y * N O ! ! ! ! !

Cathy at NH Online Blog has a lot more reasons for voters to Just Say NO.

New Hartford Moves . . . And a Questionable Statement

Hans Arnold is stepping down as Planning Board Chairman. This is too bad for New Hartford. A long time public servant in the truest sense of the word, Mr. Arnold was always open to discussion on issues, and understood how the planning process should work.

Supervisor Reed's statement in the story is a bit confusing, however.

“You've got to realize these developers are out to do their projects and we've got to protect the good interest of the town,” Reed said. “We want development, but we don't want urban sprawl and uncontrolled development.”

I think people will find Mr. Reed hard to believe because urban sprawl is exactly what we've got ... and the Town seems to bend over backwards to accommodate developers.

How is the approval of the New Hartford Business Park and arranging to finance associated road construction NOT fostering sprawl? Local government is reducing the developer's cost of doing business, giving him an economic advantage over his competitors. It then would become advantageous for prospective tenants to go to this developer's development, because the taxpayers are subsidizing the project. That will attract economic activity from elsewhere in the area, and move it to this heretofore undeveloped land . . . THAT'S SPRAWL.

As far as protecting the town's interests, that is what an Environmental Impact Statement is for -- so the decisionmakers and the public know what the project's impact on them will be. It must be pointed out that the current New Hartford Business Park is not the manufacturing business park that was proposed and subjected to SEQRA review and a final Environmental Impact Statement in the late 1990s. Development for manufacturing would likely be more acceptable to people than the development of more office buildings and a hotel -- things which are not in short supply regionally. From that perspective, no Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hartford Business Park -- as it is being implemented now -- was ever done. Furthermore, the site of "the Hartford" itself was never made part of the Environmental Impact Statement, as noted last September.

Without a proper Environmental Impact Statement, the "good interest of the town"cannot be protected.

Vote "Yes" . . . or Take a Hike?

This was a stunning headline: New Hartford residents' choice: Vote 'yes' or face tax hike.

A special election set for Tuesday, Feb. 10, will give town residents their first chance to vote on funding for roadway improvements at and around the New Hartford Business Park. . . .

Last April, the Town Board committed Town residents to fund road improvements for a private developer at the NHBP, using short-term borrowing to get around the requirement of putting the matter up for a vote before making the commitment. But that will result in a steep tax hike in 5 years if the voters do not approve long term financing before then. The public, apparently, will be repeatedly subjected to vote on this matter until it either approves the funding, or the tax hike goes into effect.

Certified public accountant Frank Basile, whose firm FJ Basile, CPAs, PC, acts as a financial consultant for the town, said a bond anticipation note was used because it provides greater flexibility during the planning and construction phase of a new development. . .

As far as deciding whether money is spent, voters choose a town supervisor and board members to make decisions on their behalf, Basile said. Without the PILOT agreement, The Hartford would have moved elsewhere, he said.

“That is why it is so important for the taxpayers to fully understand the concept of the PILOT agreement and that the bond debt service will not be a burden or a cost to the town taxpayers,” Basile said. “If the taxpayers vote in favor of the 15-year serial bond, the payment of the related debt service will cost the taxpayers nothing as originally designed.”

We, the taxpayers, fully understand what is going on, Mr. Basile, and don't need you, our overpaid consultant who is part of the problem, to lecture us on what we should approve or not approve.

Private interests, including accountants and realtors and developers and their EDGE enablers, have hijacked local government to suck money from the taxpayers' pockets and put it into their own. It is irrelevant that there may be no net cost to taxpayers if they go along with the scheme (and everything works out as planned) -- although there will be increased costs related to the "sprawl" that is being created.

The real issue, the one that will be voted upon (although the proposition will be couched in terms of "funding") is whether Government should be used to further private interests.

The fact that voters will be going to the polls with a financial gun to their heads means that, quite simply, New Hartford Town government has become corrupt.

Getting Their Way . . .

Interesting reading in the Rome Sentinel for New Hartford residents.  Among the list of grants from the Community Foundation of Herkimer and Oneida Counties (nee the "Utica Foundation").

• $10,000 for the New Hartford Central School Foundation to purchase land in New Hartford that will be developed into Higby Park.

"Higby Park" was previously blogged about. I guess the "powers that be" have already decided that the NH taxpayers need a new park shoved down their throats. . . . Although a grant will purchase the land, you can be sure that the NH taxpayers will have to develop it, maintain it, and staff it.... more infrastructure to be maintained by a Town that is not growing population-wise, and a region that is shrinking and has older parks that could probably use some sprucing up. 

.    .    . 

This is reminiscent of the NH Town Library . . . a truly beautiful facility that is well-used, was pushed through with sizeable donations from very well-meaning people, but which is now a significant drain on the Town Taxpayers...

Meanwhile, the historic and architecturally significant Utica Public Library, which is conveniently located for the entire region (being less than 4 miles from the NH Town Library and actually easier to get to for some Town residents), is relatively dated, being short of money. . . .

From a regional perspective, the NH Town Library was an unneeded indulgence. The money spent would have benefitted more people if it were spent on the Utica facility ... This is an example of the waste of public resources caused by our "Balkan States" form of local government.

A Tale of Two Women . . .

Two women worked overtime in public employment.  One was paid for the overtime, but is now being made to give her pay back.  The other was not paid, but now will be paid. 

September 21, 2008 Observer-Dispatch: Sheriff owes explanation on overtime.

A recent state report revealed an exempt employee of the Oneida County Sheriff’s Office made $20,000 in overtime hours during a 22-month period. . . . 

Picente said county officials are trying to determine whether Battelene will have to give the money back. 

The answer to that is pretty simple: Yes, she does. . . .

December 26, 2008 Observer-Dispatch: Government must watch all spending

New Hartford government must strictly monitor overtime paid to its employees and make sure any accrued hours are awarded in a timely fashion.

This was not the case recently when the town decided to shell out $71,544 in unpaid overtime to town bookkeeper Carol Fairbrother for the hours she worked from 2002 to 2007.

. . . This is no reflection on Fairbrother, who worked the hours and rightfully should be compensated . . . 

Why the difference in treatment between these two women?  Neither are professionals. If Ms. Fairbrother "worked the hours and rightfully should be compensated,"  is Ms. Battelene, who presumably worked her hours, not also "rightfully" to be compensated for them? Why is Ms. Battelene less deserving? The differences are not explained, although the label "exempt" seems to come into play. Ms. Battelene was classified as an "exempt" employee and a state audit found her not entitled to overtime.  

Ms. Fairbrother? We do not know her status and, curiously, no one seems to be asking (which seems par for the course with the OD when it comes to New Hartford). The breaking story suggests that she, too, might be exempt because the Town felt it necessary to institute a new policy for non-union employees.  Since a state audit found Ms. Battelene liable to return her pay, would not an inquiry to the State Comptroller's office have been de rigeur regarding Ms. Fairbrother? 

A red flag is raised by the Town's handling of Ms. Fairbrother's situation. Why did Supervisor Reed feel it necessary to go to Hancock and Estabrook for an opinion on whether or not Ms. Fairbrother was entitled to overtime? Aside from the state comptroller, Mr. Reed and Mr. Payne could have asked the town attorney, Mr. Green, for advice. This is not a terribly complicated issue to research, and Mr. Green should know how the Town operates . . . or is THAT the problem? Going to an "outsider" for an "impartial" expert opinion is an old trick some lawyers like to play when the "regularly retained" expert knows too much . . . . By retaining an outsider for an opinion, the "facts" upon which the opinion may be based can be carefully screened to produce the desired opinion.  I am not saying that this is what happened, but the Town's failure to produce an opinion of its own counsel, or ask for a state opinion, reasonably raises the possibility. 

Another red flag is raised by the lack of inquiry of prior town supervisors. Did they ask for the overtime to be put in?  What was their understanding regarding pay for overtime? This information is conspicuously absent.

Another red flag is raised by Ms. Fairbrother's pay rate of $31.32/hr for her regular duties. Of the 3870 people holding the Bookkeeper classification in the Mohawk Valley region per NYSDOL statistics, mean pay is $30,280, median is $29,460 and experienced is $34,420. Ms. Fairbrother's pay work's out to about $57,000! That is over $20K more than an "expernienced" bookeeper. That is also about $2K above what an experienced Executive Secretary in the Mohawk Valley makes. . . . which makes her sound "exempt."

It's funny how the Town "Bookeeper's" story sounds like the Sheriff's Secretary's story . . . but the treatment of the situation by government officials . . . and by the OD . . .  is entirely opposite! There is clearly a lot more to this story than the public is being told.

Figured It Out in NH . . .

It struck me as a bit odd that the New Hartford Town Board held its recent meeting in New York Mills, a village that straddles the Town line. I could not remember when the last time that happened was.

It seemed even odder considering that N.Y. Mills residents feel that New Hartford only takes money from them, giving nothing in return. NYM residents pay NYM for their services . . . Anything provided by the Town is an unneeded duplication. NYM has its own parks, its own police, its own fire department, its own library, its own Clerk, its own Assessor, its own Court, does its own planning, takes care of its own storm water problems, etc. etc.. So why should NYM residents pay for new Town offices?

Was the New Hartford Town Board taking a bold step to open the lines of communication with NYM residents, going where the opposition would be most likely, to explain to them how they would benefit from a new New Hartford Town Building? From that perspective, one could be impressed with the Town Board's action!

The impression quickly wears off when one considers the impact of the Town's proposal on the OTHER village lying within the town: the Village of New Hartford.

If this project is approved:

1. The Town subsidy to the Village for using the Village's Butler Hall would likely end. (A financial hit to the Village.)
2. The Village of New Hartford would have a significant piece of property removed from its tax rolls. (Another financial hit.)
3. A certain criminal element would be brought into the Village when court is in session, only steps away from popular spots such as Cavallos, Georgios, and Peters Cornucopia. (A triple whammey).

The Town Board could not have held its meeting in the New Hartford Village Hall without these issues sticking out like sore thumbs . . . and without the ABSENCE of Village officials from the meeting being embarrassingly apparent. In that environment, a NYM venue for the meeting would be a cakewalk.

Figured it out!

Dropped Vowels and Local Cultural Literacy . . .

Today's OD had a good editorial that I generally agree with: Dropping vowels can be funny, but negativity is nothing to laugh about. (Is it just me, or has the OD started to put a bit more meat in its articles since Mr. Kieta took over as editor?) After poking fun at some of our regional quirks, Joe told us what we needed to hear -- all the more credible by the fact that it was coming from a non-local.

Quirks aside, there’s a lot to love about this part of Upstate New York. . . .

Joe then ticks off a long list of things that all to many of us take for granted. He then concludes,

Sure, the winters are bitterly cold and snowy, the economy is moribund and the politicians too often are inept. But despite all of the bad, there’s a quality of life here that can’t be denied.

I just wish more of you would realize it. The negative attitude is a big turn-off to newcomers, and it damages the area’s future.

Great editorial! . . I could not agree more . . . but the comments about the dropped vowels nagged at the back of my mind for some reason . . . I read them again . . .

I always snicker when servers at the area’s excellent Italian-American restaurants drop the endings of the names of key ingredients, as if there’s a phonetic butcher wielding a razor-sharp cleaver in the kitchen.

Prosciutto ham morphs into “prishoot.” Did the “-to” get sliced into the trash?

"Snicker?" Since when is Joe Kieta an expert on Italian pronunciation? He would be right if he were speaking Bolognese, Roman, or Milanese Italian . . . but dropped final vowels are perfectly acceptable when speaking Neopolitan, Foggian or Barese Italian. Dropped vowels are normal in the Mezzogiorno, the formerly poor part of Italy where most Utica Italian-American families originated -- as normal as the drawl in the southern USA speech. Snickering at dropped vowels in Italy would be construed as a put down, reflective of class differences between the north and south.

Snickering at dropped vowels in Utica is construed the same way ... reflective of a long simmering class schism between Utica and New Hartford (not to mention ethnic bias) that seems to be taking far too long to go away. Was the snickering a put down?

In the end, I'm giving Mr. Kieta the benefit of the doubt. His remark about snickering is probably the result of local cultural illiteracy, intended in jest as a way to fit in. After all, he told us that he is from Cleveland, via California (so what would he know about local sensitivities) and is of Polish and Sicilian ancestry (so what would he know about Italian?)(nudge nudge wink wink).

Joe, your main point is well taken . . . Hopefully the other remarks were truly well intended, and not an indication that you have adopted the attitude of some of the people you work with. That attitude is the root of much of the negativity you complain of.

Rearranging Deck Chairs . . .

Ha, ha, ha . . . At least we can look at the situation for its entertainment value . . .

St. Elizabeth Medical Center is considering buying the office building at 4401 Middle Settlement Road after The Hartford Financial Services Group moves out. . . .

Because it is a nonprofit health-care provider, St. Elizabeth does not pay property tax on the buildings it owns, Scholefield said. That would be true of the building if they purchased it.

Town Supervisor Earle Reed acknowledged the lost tax revenue could hurt.

New Hartford and Oneida County have bent over backwards to encourage "growth," but what they've accomplished is like rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship: simply moving economic activity from one part of our depressed region to another.

This story is a good illustration of how foolish Town, County and EDGE policies have been and how short-sighted their leaders are.

Not only will there be no jobs coming into the area, but taxpayers will now be on the hook to construct and maintain more public infrastructure at the NH Business Park while having LESS tax revenue coming in to support it!

Way to go, guys and gals!

Supporting School Selfishness . . .

Interesting article this morning about outgoing New Hartford School Superintendent Daniel Gilligan.

If there ever was a need to fold governance of school districts into their local municipalities (like it already is in Syracuse, Buffalo and other large school districts), Mr. Gilligan's activities demonstrate it.

Mr. Gilligan only looks at things from the perspective of how much money can he get for his school district . . . while being blind to the broader ramifications of what he is promoting. Presumably the New Hartford School Board suffers from the same myopia since they seem to have bought into the rhetoric.

Expansion of the tax base to bring in more revenue is a double-edged sword: It also increases costs. Perhaps the school district will not see increased costs, but the town and region will. Mr. Gilligan promotes development on greenfields -- previously undeveloped land. Extension of water and sewer lines and roads costs money. Snowplowing and maintenance cost money. Then with the new commercial activity comes crime . . . requiring more police ... writing more tickets . . . to justify a new courthouse. More structures require more fire protection . . . etc. etc.

Of course, there is the environmental degradation that accompanies more development. People may be victimized by storm water runoff. Traffic, noise and congestion will increase. Landscapes will be destroyed.

I won't even try to discuss what all this "development" in New Hartford does to adjoining communities in our region of declining population. Let's just say that "neighborliness" -- concern for how the region is affected -- isn't even on Mr. Gilligan's radar screen -- and the deck-chairs are being rearranged on a sinking ship.

Many of the reasons why people chose to move to New Hartford are going to be destroyed . . . and the region will face higher costs and negative economic pressures . . . all so that Mr. Gilligan and his followers can have more money to play with.

Schools are only one part of the community . . . School leaders should focus on their part, the task of educating, and refrain from asking for things that affect the other parts.

If school leaders want to make decisions that have broader regional implications, then maybe the time has come for consolidation of school districts and municipal governments into one regional government . . . Then activist school superintendents like Mr. Gilligan will be unable to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Did "The Hartford" Fall Thru a Crack?

It looks like some things got overlooked in the rush for so-called "economic development" (a/k/a "sprawl") in the Town of New Hartford... overlooked by the Town, the NH School District, the County, and the State.

The picture on the left comes from the November, 1999, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the New Hartford Business Park. The plan on the right was drawn last fall for "The Hartford" development.

Notice anything different between the two?

"The Hartford," the proposed hotel, and two nearby buildings appear to be located outside the "area of study" of the 1999 FEIS... located in what is identified as an "orchard." Since review of Planning Board minutes (as well as other correspondence) makes clear that the Town is relying on the 1999 FEIS to satisfy its obligations under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), it certainly appears that "The Hartford," which is virtually complete, has been constructed without the proper environmental review.

Failure to comply with SEQRA renders void any permits that may have been given. Such failures have resulted in closure orders elsewhere. (use your library card to view)

New Hartford seems to have a serious problem on its hands.

Update: The story gets even more convoluted: Hartford Insurance Job Guaranty Questionable...

840 Intersection -- the People and the Process . . .

This story just seems to get better and better ... The Hartford (not to be confused with New Hartford) issued different statements:

First, company spokesman Tom Hambrick said the company was committed to New Hartford and had no plans to leave the town – whether it gets the intersection or not — and that the company was more interested in getting a traffic light at the intersection of Seneca Turnpike and Woods Highway.

“The only intersection that was in the discussion for us was Route 5 and Woods Highway,” he said. “That was an issue for the safety of our employees.”

Hours later, however, Hambrick called to revise the statement, saying that after discussion with other company employees who are involved with the plan, the Route 840 intersection was more important than he initially stated.

This is interesting because the Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hartford Business Park was finalized in 1999, long before Route 840 was built. On a map it only suggests a "possible interchange" with the planned new state highway that is now 840. The traffic analysis, however, focused on the Seneca Tpk - Woods Hwy intersection. This seems to confirm Mr. Hambrick's initial statement.

Adler forwarded a copy of the contract between his group and the builder, the Ryan Cos., which was acting as an agent for The Hartford. The contract stipulates the extension of Woods Highway and a light at an intersection of Woods Highway and Judd Road (Route 840).

The contents of a contract between Mr. Adler and the Ryan Cos. is irrelevant where the State and Town are concerned. Mr. Adler cannot bind the State or the Town. And Mr. Adler, Mr. Nordland, Mr. Shamma, and Mr. Reed are or should be sophisticated enough to know that mere statements from public officials are insufficient to bind the State and/or local municipalities to any particular course of action. There are processes and procedures in place that must be followed in order to take valid actions . . . not the least of which are those of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which require that the environmental impacts of a project be studied before a binding committment can be made. Any decision without compliance with SEQR is "void ab initio." So the idea that the State and Locality have somehow committed to this intersection is just nonsense.

The DOT currently is finishing design plans for the intersection – which would be built with an exit ramp to the right for cars traveling west on Route 840 as opposed to a left turning lane. The exit ramp then would lead back into the intersection and toward the Woods Highway extension.

For those plans to be completed, the town must finish a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and deliver it to the DOT.

When design plans are finished, they will be considered for final state approval later this month in Albany, Shamma said. That approval is likely.

Mr. Shamma cannot validly say that approval is likely. He is putting the cart before the horse. The EIS must come first.

DOT knows full well that SEQRA requires that alternatives be considered, and that adverse environmental impacts must be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable... DOT knows that a full interchange is practicable for this location because it has stated as such. The fact that the Town does not want to pay for such . . . or is unwilling to demand Fees In Lieu of Mitigation from the developer to pay for such is irrelevant.

And a public meeting?

Reed agreed and said there would be one such meeting, probably after the project is bonded later this month.

We live in Dogpatch County folks . . . Where process, procedure, and the people be damned. Where private deals by supposedly educated people who behave like yokels reign.

Dept. of Transportation - A Study in Contrasts

Representatives of the NYS Department of Transportation held a public information meeting yesterday to discuss the replacement of a culvert on Route 291 in Marcy. Per the story in last week's Sentinel:

The engineers will discuss the project objectives and provide an opportunity for residents, business owners and interested persons to voice their concerns. Input received at the meeting will be used during the design of the project to address the needs of the community.

Meanwhile today there was an "emergency meeting" at the Department of Transportation between DOT, Town of New Hartford officials, and a developer, over a new intersection -- an intersection in what was supposed to be a limited access road and a major commuter route to Syracuse -- that the DOT has already designed to accommodate a developer . . .

DOT bends over backward to bring the public into the design process for a culvert in a minor state highway . . . but designed the intersection of a major commuter route with no public input whatsoever.

DOT: Serving the people . . . or private interests?

Another 840 Intersection? 2

The insiders, self-dealers, and media-enablers are circling the wagons!

The deal that will move The Hartford insurance company to a newly built office park off Woods Highway could fall apart if an intersection near the site is not built.

That was the message Wednesday from Daniel Gilligan, the New Hartford Central School District superintendent, and Earle Reed, the town’s supervisor.

Now we citizens and taxpayers are told that the proposed 840 intersection is "key" to the plan. WE are threatened -- by a School Superintendent, no less -- that The Hartford is going to move if WE do not support a new intersection on Route 840.

I'm ready to call these officials' bluff . . . and if such, indeed, induces "The Hartford" to move elsewhere, then The Hartford would be telling us that they don't really care about the sensibilities or preferences of the residents of the Town of New Hartford or the people of the region. Frankly, I cannot imagine The Hartford feeling that way, but if they do, then, really, what is lost? Another corporate citizen that takes advantage of the taxpayer? We could do with fewer of those.

Sen. Griffo arranges an "emergency meeting" today between New Hartford and DOT officials. Why the exclusive guest list? Perhaps to enable more "horse trading"? Arm twisting? Perhaps to hide veiled threats of political or legal repercussions to the state officials who have reasons for disapproving the plan?

I'm not going to repeat what is wrong with this plan because I've already stated my piece. But today's article disgusts me and drives home all that is wrong with government in Oneida County.

It makes clear that local officials promise more than they have the authority to deliver, make deals behind closed doors, use government and the taxpayers' purse to benefit private interests, have no use for the public being part of the process, and that we have a State Senator who has no problem with this.

To her credit, Mrs. Destito is correct on this issue, particularly her view that the public has been improperly excluded.

Wasteful Spending 2

As a followup to Friday's Wasteful Spending re the New Hartford Town Court, head over to NH Online and read "All rise ... the court is now in session" and click on the links.

Does Joe Taxpayer feel like he is being manipulated?

Wasteful Spending . . .

New Hartford Town officials again insist on shoving a new court house down the taxpayers' throats after taxpayers already rejected the idea.

“The town recognized that with the growth of New Hartford over the years, the facilities we had were inadequate,” Yagey said. “We needed more room.”

But the Town's population is not growing!

As the town’s regional popularity as a retail center has grown, so have the number of people who show up in traffic and criminal court, said William Virkler, who’s been a town justice for nine years.

And who allowed -- even cheered -- the Town's "regional" popularity as a retail center? It was NOT the residents who are now expected to come up with money. They were looking for the quiet suburban life, but that was taken from them. Bad choices by greedy/ambitious Town fathers and their developer friends have brought about urban sprawl, the cost of which is now coming due.

Since the Town created a problem for itself by deciding to be the "regional" shopping mecca, how about taking a "regional" approach to the solution:

Enter into a sharing agreement with the City of Utica to use its court house.

City court generally operates during days, Town Court in the evenings. Such an arrangement could benefit both Town and City taxpayers... and maybe pave the way for more consolidation in the future.

Another 840 Intersection?

There is so much wrong with this whole situation . . .

1) Route 840 does not need another intersection to slow things down.

The DOT also does not consider an intersection the best solution, said Stephen Zywiak, regional design engineer for the DOT. But the department is acting at the request of the Town of New Hartford.

I don't understand the DOT. It insists on ramming the Arterial through west Utica, disrupting what's left of the existing street grid and making the adjoining areas (which already have the infrastructure necessary for development) virtually undevelopable, but is ready to allow grade crossings on what was supposed to be a limited access highway in New Hartford to encourage development.

Acting at the request of the Town is Bullcrap. Route 840 was put through undeveloped land. It is a route commuters use to get to the Thruway to go to Syracuse. New Hartford had the obligation to ensure that no additional burden would be placed on 840 BEFORE approving the Business Park project. An additional access point should never have been expected.

2) New Hartford residents should not be made to pay to construct an intersection for a private development. The residents don't need this development. It is the ambition of a private businessman.

3) Article VIII Section 1 of the State Constitution is being violated. It states

No  county,  city, town, village or school district shall
give or loan any money or property to or in aid of  any  individual,  or
private  corporation  or  association, or private undertaking . . . .

4) The NH School District has no right to agree to this scheme. The school board's powers are exclusively conferred by the State Education Law. There is nothing in the Ed Law that authorizes school boards to enter into agreements to achieve non-education related purposes.

5) It promotes urban sprawl. This is another area that the Town will have to service with police, fire protection and road maintenance. Meanwhile, orchards and open space, amenities that attracted people to live in New Hartford, are being lost -- with Town and County governments cheer leading!

6) It promotes urban decay. There are plenty of other places available in the region where the Hartford and the other facilities could have located . . . places where services are already in place, but are not being used. The Boserts, Washington Courts, and Bendix sites in Utica come immediately to mind, all of which are located more central to the regional population and already have good road access. If there is a market in the region for the facilities they could have been encouraged to locate in these areas rather than on a greenfield ... but no one tried.

7) It is closed government in operation again!

“Everybody would love to have a bridge,” New Hartford Central School District Superintendent Daniel Gilligan said. “But if it can’t be a bridge, it’s got to be an intersection and the reason is a commitment was made to the 650 employees of the Hartford insurance company.” . . .

The business park is being developed by the New Hartford Office Group LLC, an affiliate of the Syracuse-based Cameron Group LLC. Lawrence Adler, a principal in both, has said access to state Route 840 was part of the deal with The Hartford, which will open in November.

Commitments? Deals? When and how were these done? How can a Town (or, worse, a school district) commit access to a state highway?

Will someone please tell me why a school superintendent thinks it is his job to make a commitment to a private business for a road?

This is all starting to sound like Dogpatch County: side-bar "deals" and "understandings" to serve private interests -- where things will go wrong -- and where the taxpayer gets hosed.

New Hartford Cover Up!

I'm not going to even try to blog on this topic, because NH Online has done an outstanding job, except to say that Town residents should be very concerned about the operation of their government . . . and to give you the links.. . .

• Cover-up in the Town of New Hartford - Part 3
• A Cover-up in New Hartford...Part 2
• A cover-up in the Town of New Hartford...say it isn't so!