Two weeks ago, Trustee Olver called for the resignation of Fran Allen, one of Croton’s most distinguished citizens, from the chairmanship of the Waterfront Advisory Committee, because she allegedly didn’t follow the law. But according to the available minutes of the WAC’s meetings concerning bow hunting, it is clear that Trustee Olver is the one who doesn’t understand the laws under which the WAC operates. It seems from the minutes that Trustee Olver did not feel it was necessary to do a preliminary consistency review of the bow hunting law, since in his opinion, the law wasn’t going to change from the time of the WAC’s preliminary review until its final consistency review. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by that. After all, Trustee Olver recently demonstrated that he didn’t know what the Harmon Rezoning Law said either, when he insisted that it permitted the development of three-story office buildings. He only backed off when our Village Attorney told him he was wrong. In my opinion, this is only one of many similarities between the board’s handling of these two issues. Allow me to elaborate:
Many opponents of bow hunting have expressed strong dissatisfaction with what they perceive as this board’s presenting the bow hunting law as a fait accompli – a done deal, if you will. Several speakers have noted evidence of a predetermined outcome, such as the village’s having posted an application to participate in the program on the village’s website, and their scheduling of a proficiency exam well before any public hearing on the law.
Similarly, opponents of Harmon rezoning have also criticized this board for having presented the public with a predetermined outcome to deal with the issue of commercial revitalization of Harmon. An “ad hoc citizens committee” brought together by members of the board majority came up with the idea presented in the new law, and despite months of reasoned public opposition expressed at public meetings and in the newspaper, the board refused to alter its preconceived notion of what the proper solution was to the issue of revitalization of Harmon.
Now, with the bow hunting law, as well as then, with Harmon rezoning, this board justified its actions by telling the public that “doing nothing is not an option.” Somehow, in both cases, doing the wrong thing apparently became the most viable option.
Two weeks ago, when she was forced to publicly defend herself and her vote, Ms. Allen stated that she did not believe that the materials the WAC had been presented with contained appropriate factual information that supported the board’s conclusion to permit bow hunting of deer in the village. She noted that there was no way to independently verify the conclusions of the report because there were no footnotes or other supporting documentation. Similarly, opponents of Harmon rezoning have criticized the documents relied upon by the board to justify its rezoning choices, because, despite their volume, neither of the board’s two Environmental Assessment Forms, nor the studies underlying them, which were done by two different consultants, contained the information that would have permitted independent verification of the claims made by the board or the consultants it paid to support its preconceived idea of how to rezone Harmon.
Finally, one of the most basic problems inherent in both issues is that this board fails to understand that opposition to their proposed solutions does not mean the public fails to understand that a problem exists. It seems to me that one of the most potent arguments against the bow hunting law is that evidence from other similar hunting programs suggests that the board’s proposed solution will be ineffective in addressing the problem. This does not mean that the public does not perceive the problem. With regard to Harmon rezoning, opponents have not taken the position that commercial revitalization is unnecessary. Rather, opponents have criticized the board’s proposal as not simply ineffective, but counterproductive, as even the board’s own materials demonstrate that it is highly unlikely that the Harmon rezoning law will result in the creation of the beautiful "streetscape" image they used to sell this law to the public. According to the board’s own documents, achieving that result is, in fact, unrealistic, and in persisting in following in this course, the likely outcome is passage of a law that will actually prevent real revitalization from occurring.
I could go on, but I can see from the big red “silencer” in the front of the room that my time is almost up (added on the fly: and I certainly would not want to alarm the plainclothes officer on the other side of the room), so I will conclude by saying that I certainly hope, for all of our sake, that opponents of bow hunting are not similarly forced to resort to litigation to address this board’s disregard of well-grounded public opposition, as well as its disregard of substantive and procedural law. In fact, if this board would seriously consider Mr. Gingold’s proposal regarding the bow hunting law, I would call on the board to employ a similar solution regarding Harmon rezoning, and thereby take steps to seriously end the litigation currently pending.
