Letter to the Editor: Leishman Point
At a town meeting on June 9, the Waddington town board announced its plan to conduct a
survey to allow citizens to "voice their opinion" regarding the best use for
Leishman Point, a 22-acre parcel of land recently returned to the town by the New York
State Power Authority. The survey was to be conducted beginning June 16, and ending July
2. When asked what questions would be included in the survey, the board offered no
specific information.
The development of Leishman Point has been a controversial topic in the Town of Waddington
for quite some time, receiving a great deal of press in the last year, in particular, as
town officials proposed a plan to subdivide the property into 16 residential buildings
lots. The Waddington Redevelopment Association (WRA), a concerned group of local citizens
suggested that there may be alternative ways in which to develop land that could have an
even more significant impact on the town's tax base, as well as create local jobs. After a
great deal of research, WRA presented a number of ideas to the Town Board on Oct. 8,
immediately after which, a unanimous decision was made by the board to proceed with the
subdivision. On Nov. 12, this decision was reversed, and development was delayed until
spring, due to urgency from the community to explore other options.
Because the board placed no merit in WRA's financial projections, WRA hired (at its own
expense) a consulting team from Clarkson University to conduct an unbiased, independent
study to more closely examine six possible uses for Leishman Point, including the 16 lot,
residential subdivision. The Clarkson team presented its results at a well-attended WRA
meeting in April; however its conclusions, though professional and unbiased, were
essentially disregarded by the board. Also ignored were the results of a 2000 study
conducted by the Merwin Rural Services Institute, a study commissioned by the Board,
itself. In every professional study, the 16-lot subdivision yielded significantly less
financial benefit AND less community support than virtually any other development
proposal. Regardless, the town board continues to insist on the 16-lot, residential
subdivision, and continues to provide no data to validate its decision.
On Friday, I received a call from a woman who asked if I wanted to "voice my opinion
regarding the Leishman Point land." Surprised that the survey had apparently begun
early, I gladly cooperated. When this polite, young woman proceeded with her script, I
couldn't believe my ears:
"After considering all possibilities, and the advantages and disadvantages of each,
it has been expressed to the board that best use of Leishman Point is as 16 residential
buildings lots for sale," she said. "It became clear that in discussing the
return of this property over the years, the majority of citizens want it back on the tax
roll as soon as possible...Before proceeding any further, the board wants to know what you
think." A few more, undocumented (and largely inaccurate) facts were given, and then
the final question was asked, "Based on the (information) above, would you support
the town board's resolution for the development of 16 residential building lots on
Leishman Point?"
I was floored. This is not a "survey" at all. This is coercion. A survey offers
participants a CHOICE. This is propaganda aimed at unsuspecting citizens in an effort to
railroad them into supporting a proposal for which they've not been afforded the rightful
opportunity to consider other, viable options. As one of these citizens, I would like to
exercise my right to know (1) WHO or WHAT was the entity that "expressed" this
recommendation to the board? (2) More importantly, WHEN did the board EVER "consider
all possibilities?" (3) Which "majority of citizens" is the board referring
to, and what PROOF does it have that this is what they want? To the contrary, WRA has a
signed petition; the Merwin Study has the results from a communitywide survey. What proof
can the town board provide to support its claims?
As a resident who stays well-informed about community issues, I am unaware of a single
instance in which the town board has provided any substantiation to support its position
on Leishman Point. While WRA and Clarkson have both cited innumerable sources for their
projections, the town board, to my knowledge, has not produced one document, nor on
calculation to validate its unyielding petition for a 16 lot, residential subdivision on
Leishman Point. As a taxpaying resident, I have a right to know WHY my elected officials
believe that this is the best option for me and for my community. There is a rapidly
growing number of Waddington residents who also wish to exercise this right.
Indeed, it would be a shame to develop Leishman Point, a pristine parcel of waterfront
property, without SINCERE community input - after citizens have been presented with ALL
possible options. However, the more significant issue facing the community is not the
injudicious development of Leishman Point, rather the manner in which the town board has
commissioned a biased survey, withheld critical information from its citizens, and coerced
them into supporting its own, inexorable interests. Furthermore, I would like to know at
what public meeting this "survey" was approved, and how much it will cost
Waddington's taxpayers.
The New York State Local Government Handbook states that "All local officials have a
basic duty to assure that citizens have ways to participate actively and meaningfully in
local government affairs." While members of WRA are continually criticized for their
active community involvement, it is the community's more passive, peaceful residents who
suffer a greater injustice by being unsuspectingly manipulated for political gain.
In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere disappointment in the manner in which
the town board has continued to disregard the results of costly, professional studies, and
has proceed to spend yet more taxpayer money for a survey in which the results are
essentially predetermined to reflect its own interests. The subject matter is irrelevant;
the point is that this is not how local government should conduct a study that greatly
impacts its community. This survey is deceptive, and it discredits its citizens.
Furthermore, the money spent on this survey would be much better utilized by funding a
comprehensive community planning initiative - a process in which all citizens may
meaningfully participate in shaping future of their community.
Alicia Murphy
Town/Village of Waddington
Original Pub Date: 06/15/2003
Advance News
Used with permission