Unity?

Some have suggested this town has always been “unified” in the past, and that we have “always looked after our neighbors” until now. Then imply that we are not now unified because individuals are offering differing opinions which are judged to be “negativity”.

Perhaps true unity does not require everyone to have the same ideas and opinions, including experiences and/or observations of Town government?

Perhaps a “unified” community is more likely found where neighbors feel free and safe to offer differing opinions and enjoy free expression of the same, expecting and enjoying, an exchange of words, ideas and expressions that are received with validation, ears that hear and hearts that might imagine why another’s needs and desires might differ from their own?

Perhaps, If we were ever to be unified, it would arise out of taking a genuine interest in each other, and exercising more tolerance and love between differing lifestyles, social and financial needs and demographics, and across religions and historical backgrounds.

Believing that this town was ever “unified” is an idealistic view–but, perhaps, based on having limited acquaintance with only those who have had the same or similar opinions and objectives?

There are many with differing experiences than those that have had a ruling majority for some years. Yes, these may be in a minority, but their thoughts, feelings and experiences in this Town are real–and especially real, to them.

Many have not felt unity here, or that they are treated with equanimity or even civility.

Some have lived here not just for 10 or 25 years–or even 50 years but are surviving members of third or even fourth generations of a Springdale family, who have, in recent years, not felt accepted or valued in their own homesteads.

Instead, they have been made to feel that their endeavors to provide a livelihood for themselves and their families–and in some cases, allow next generations to remain in their ancestral Town, have been thwarted and dismissed for various reasons. For example, being labeled as backward, old, low budget or cheap, rundown, and using zoning laws like a sword un-uniformly welded, or because they just don’t like a proposal or want to see it from a high point on the hill.

Could this be just a backhanded way of dismissing the “village” that existed here, while claiming they are preserving it? Using language so many of the majority seem to use as an excuse to deny some village or cottage business in an old existing building but then, confusingly, allow a high budget business to be put in the same place without regard to adequate parking, the change in the surrounding view and environment, and un-evenhanded rulings. They may even use the excuse of questioning whether a proposed business is accessed directly from SR-9 or across a private road or not.

In at least one case, a road that has been used for decades in a public manner is now considered private? Was this assertion just to prevent a business proposal they didn’t like?

Why then, was it denied when it would have left open the huge space along the road, the older cottage with roof below the skyline, and a more gentle slope? Only to afterward allow a business in that same spot without consideration of the nature of the access road, or whether the density of the project allowed for adequate parking, and turning road claimed by the Town to be “private” into a burgeoning thorough faire? Or considering how this business might impact the road running through and accessing adjacent property owners? (In fact, telling them any liability arising from the road would be theirs?)

It does make one pause for a moment. How may a Town with a straight face claim a road is “private” when it deliberately filed legal documents with the County asserting the Town’s interest and declaring its public nature, (which the County accepted, duly filed, and immediately listed it as publicly owned and operated), asserted for years it was public, used that fact to settle several disputes, allocated budget funds to it, used it to implement utilities and other public infrastructure and services, was completely aware per its own legal advice that it had been used for decades as a public road–but then suddenly claimed it was “private”?

How many have been apprised that the Town has, quite frivolously, been engaging in defending this claim in a court of law for more than a year, compelling the expenditures of tens of thousands of dollars (including tax payor’s money), all the while ignoring the evidence of hundreds of documents to the contrary, a long history of public use, and the Town’s own history claiming it was public, and arguing that all adjacent owners of the road should have been impleaded into the lawsuit. When asked by a judge why, if the town believed this, they had not brought all the adjacent owners into the suit, replied that: [The Town] did not want the residents to have to bear the expense!

These are the same residents informed by the Town that the road maintenance and liability was not the Town’s, but theirs. And, that any associated expense would have to be borne by the adjacent property owners. This included the expense of any damage to “their” road caused by a flood over their properties, even one caused by the Town’s contractor breaking a watermain.

It would be interesting to know why the Town made these assertions (lies?) when its own attorney had advised them otherwise.

What is the reason for this subterfuge and reckless expenditure of money and resources?

(If the truth of this is questioned, a copy of a Judge’s signed order is available upon request and/or audio of the hearing.)

Just this single issue, calls into question the so-called transparency and integrity of our current mayor and administration, the un-even handling of individual projects and the use of public funds.

But one might ask themselves what else is the Town involved in that it is not being transparent about? What is being discussed in the “closed sessions” each month for imminent or existing lawsuits?

The Town makes a lot of money. Why is it so reluctant to maintain good public roads for health and safety? (Which is the very definition of a Town and its duties!)

Which also calls into questions what properties should a Town be buying and why? Is it truly legal for a Town to acquire property that has not already been designated for a public use and/or necessary infrastructure? (Like interconnected public access roads for healthy and safe ingress/egress and emergency access?)

This author is aware of one method properties have been acquired, which was fraudulently done, in that the Town claimed an imminent “condemnation” for vacant land (not legally subject to condemnation laws), and by claiming “imminent domain” over land with no intended public use as required by law! Most owners that gave up their land to these claims blindly and simply believed, without questioning, a Town that clearly had its own agenda–largely dictated by those in power with perhaps, good intentions because they love the open places of this place, but in the process hurt a lot of people in the absolute exercise of their beliefs to the exclusion of all others.

Is the platform of our Town government being used too freely to assert the ideals of some individuals and their agendas, instead of remaining in the framework of assessing and achieving the universally and accepted goals focused on health, safety, well being, a means of income and commerce, and a whole and healthy community that does not dismiss its obligations as a gateway to a public trust and a public that has rights here as well, and an economy that for a hundred years has been involved with and welcomed tourism?

Is it time this Town, with its wealth and power, should be more subject to neutral and wide ranging oversight and guidance by those with an ability to see the whole picture and not just the needs of a retired majority.