Report
From The Hearings
Around here we've certainly seen our share of public policy
being decided by questionable ways and means, and it's a subject
we end up addressing more than we'd like to. We think public
process is inherently good, but we also think it needs the
protection of being carefully watched. So today's beef
on the ways and means of public process: the Coalition of
Watershed Towns and its new role in the Belleayre Resort morass.
When the CWT filed for a seat at the project's hearings, the
reason it cited was their objections to the comments filed
by the City of New York, and the implications of those comments
for future development in the watershed. That was fine and
appropriate. The resolution they passed said they weren't
taking a position on the project, only that they wanted to
insure the City's input was limited to issues concerning water
quality. That's CWT's job, and over the years we've encouraged
them to serve that kind of oversight role on behalf of the
watershed towns.
OK. So the CWT resolution authorizing them to file was drafted
by their longtime counsel Jeff Baker : Another passed by Middletown
and Shandaken was drafted by his partner Kevin Young who's
long represented Delaware County. At the resort's first public
hearing back in January, various officials from that county
publicly voiced their support for it, though none said they'd
actually read the developer's proposal. It is of course, a
lot to read. Anyway the CWT was joined in its late filing
by Delaware County, the Town of Middletown, and, after an
emergency special meeting, the Town of Shandaken, whose planning
board initially filed to participate, then dropped out without
explanation. Fast forward to last week.
So Baker and Young now speak for Shandaken before the State,
and, through the CWT, they also speak for Olive, Denning,
and Hardenburgh. Of the other Ulster County watershed towns,
Marbletown said no thanks to their offer, and Woodstock's
yet to vote on it. But this is, in essence, what they've
said so far:
On behalf of our residents, we accept the developer's conclusion
that its project will have no significant effect on the character
of our communities. We consider this issue to require no further
consideration by the State, and we formally oppose its doing
so. We also see no reason to consider alternatives to the
project as proposed, such as any change in scale or reduction
in its size. We want it all. "We need a destination
resort."
Well, that's a position. We don't remember any of the town
governments involved voting to say any of those things, but
that's what their representatives have now said for us.
So for the CWT and for Shandaken, the position's shifted from
"we don't want the City looking at these issues"
to "we don't want anyone looking at these issues"
in less than a month. Things do change fast.
So how'd all this happen? How did authority conferred
by a vote to file for party status translate into authority
to take adversarial positions backing a private development
project using public money? We believe this is called The
Old Bait and Switch. To get a seat at the table, you swear
you have no position on a subject. Before the seat's warmed
up, presto, you've got all kinds of positions. Nah. C'mon,
you think. This is the 21st century. A couple of Albany lawyers
couldn't get away with that, could they? But these guys
are good with words and we're sure they'll come up with an
explanation.
If the CWT wants Jeff Baker to represent them to help reign
in the City on regulatory issues and protect our rights under
the MOA, that's fine. Like his former partner Dan Ruzow who
represents Crossroads and Marc Gerstman representing the Catskill
Preservation Coalition, Baker's one of the best SEQRA attorneys
in the state. If Delaware County and Middletown want Kevin
Young to make their case in support of the developer, that's
fine too, even if 85 percent of the project isn't in that
county or that town. But for Young or Baker to make the case
they have thus far on behalf of the residents of Shandaken,
Olive, Denning, or the rest of the Ulster County watershed,
that in our view is deceitful, because it doesn't reflect
positions taken by those town supervisors or boards, or the
people who elected them.
Nobody knows what, if anything, any of this will mean long-term,
and it is an early hand in what's likely to be a long poker
game. The point of the issues conference is to review the
developer's data on its merits, so an impartial judge can
decide which specific issues need to be further and more fully
explored. In general, we think more of that is better than
less, but those are calls the judge will make.
Thus far in the proceedings the City has kept a low profile,
and its role has not turned out to be as meaningful as it
will, no doubt, when issues clearly within the sphere of its
permitting authority come up. Also worth noting is that DEC
staff has sided with the developer on every one of the many
procedural issues that's arisen. Judge Wissler for his part,
has kept the proceedings as open and fair to all sides as
possible, a very positive sign that the process is working
as it's supposed to.
Still, there is the question as to why a party representing
municipal governments is using tax dollars from their citizens
to advocate for a developer seeking permits on behalf of some
of the largest hotel companies in the world. And we think
counsel for those governments owes them an explanation as
to why it's opposing on their behalf the adjudication of issues
like community character, alternatives, or whatever other
subjects they might seek to suppress in the future.
If CWT counsel secures resolutions authorizing the adversarial
positions they've taken from its member towns, then fine.
But we find that prospect improbable for a number of reasons.
Every party at these hearings has first-rate counsel, and
nobody understands the issues of propriety here better. We
think none of them should have to be reminded who they're
supposed to be working for.
