Letter to the Editor: Leishman Point
This past Monday night the Waddington Town Board met to discuss the results of a survey
conducted by Potsdam State University. The survey characterized by some as being
"slanted" created the forum for discussions regarding the disposition of the
land known as Leishman Point.
Back in the fall of last year the town board was asked to put on hold the sale of the
property while a group of concerned citizens explored alternative uses for the land. In an
effort to display their open-mindedness the board, agreed that additional time to explore
other options would be appropriate.
On Monday that same group of individuals came before the board to present their powerpoint
presentation highlighting the various alternatives for the use of the land. The plan
included a recreational vehicle park, a swimming pool, an amphitheater, residential
housing limited to approximately six sites and a convention center. Local artist Bob
Ritter was on hand to explain how the various locations on the 22-acre parcel might
accommodate the various ideas.
Supervisor Dalton and the Town Board to their credit, were extremely patient with all of
us in attendance. We were allowed the opportunity to speak and express our thoughts and
ideas without prejudice.
I have recently come under attack for being less than supportive of the group known as the
Waddington Revitalization Association and I feel compelled to respond to those
accusations.
I will start by saying that I think it is extremely important to gather as
much information as possible before making decisions. I think that it is incumbent upon
the board as well as their critics to do as much research as possible to support your
position regardless of its popularity.
I was outspoken this past week regarding the placement of planters (I referred to them as
barricades) on Main Street in the village. Unfortunately, my concern seemed to escape many
individuals, and subsequently I was viewed as being negative and against the group for
trying to spruce up Main Street.
I think most of you who know me are aware that I try very hard to improve on the property
that I have owned or currently own. It would therefore seem somewhat hypocritical for me
to speak out against any improvement regardless of the scope.
My concern was and will continue to be the fact that a manhole and a fire hydrant were
both compromised when the planters were constructed. I did not know initially, that the
Village Board had approved the placement and my reaction was that what appeared so obvious
to me had escaped the group of hard working individuals placing the blocks. I was
quick to point out this oversight but at no time was I informed that it would be temporary
and that it had the blessing of the Village Board.
When we buy homeowner insurance we are asked a series of questions that help to calculate
the amount of risk the insurance company might be exposed to. Our premiums are based on
that information. If you live in close proximity to the Fire Station you get a discount,
if you have a hydrant on or near your property you get a discount. The question I asked is
what if a fire were to occur on main street and the insurance company covering the
individual property was made aware that a hydrant they knew to exist were inaccessible?
Who would be responsible for the insured property? My guess was that it might be the
village. Right or wrong it should have been questioned before the planters were erected.
My friends, this should not be construed as negative rhetoric but rather responsible
planning on the part of all involved.
I fully expected at Monday's board meeting to hear what some of the ideas being tossed
around might cost the residents of Waddington. Instead I heard a repeat of the same idea
proposed last winter without any figures to defend the position of those who would have us
believe we should rethink the residential development.
It is entirely possible that some of the ideas presented might be feasible however when
you know that you can sell the property for over a million dollars and see revenue
generated every year in excess of $50,000 it behooves those who would have us consider
alternatives to give us something to compare it with.
I asked when the group convinced the Town Board to hold off on its
decision that they get real numbers to support their claims for alternative development.
It simply did not materialize on Monday.
Both the Town and Village together with the Waddington Revitalization Association seem
satisfied to rely on hindsight as opposed to foresight. I believe that if we all do our
homework the dialogue we might produce could stir some lively debate on the various
suggestions.
In closing while I am convinced that this has been a healthy discussion, lets not get
caught up in the "he said, she said" conversations that seem to preoccupy us and
let us challenge each other to think and be creative with good hard facts to support our
views. If we do the outcome might be very different.
Roger J. Sharlow
Originally published 07/20/2003
Ogdensburg Advance News
Used with permission