Building a Coalition
1/19/06 Long before the Memorandum of Agreement between the City and its upstate watershed was drafted, the Coalition of Watershed Towns was created. A loose political confederation representing about 40 towns and villages and five counties, in the mid 90’s the CWT played a critical role in negotiating that historic agreement with DEP. And they did an extraordinary job, mitigating many of the most onerous land use restrictions initially proposed, and hammering out a settlement that’s as reasonable as could be hoped for. For that, we’ve long felt that all of us in the Catskills owed the organization our gratitude and our loyalty. Here at The Phoenicia Times we’ve long advocated both, but the Coalition hasn’t been making that easy of late.
We didn’t favor the final adoption of the MOA in January 1997, not because we didn’t believe in the necessity of the agreement but because we felt the compensation it provided the impacted towns was wholly inadequate. Our view on that hasn’t changed. What has changed is our perception of the CWT and its ability to faithfully and effectively represent a constituency that’s increasingly diverse and complex, and with a broader range of concerns than those limited to regulatory issues under the MOA.
Since those early, heady days of the Coalition’s emergence, there has been a tremendous continuity within its structure. Windham Supervisor Pat Meehan has run the group for over seven years. And of the two attorneys who did most of the heavy lifting in the mid-90’s, Jeff Baker still serves as its highly influential counsel while his former partner Dan Ruzow has moved on to represent developer Crossroads Ventures. Many of the original framers of the agreement have also continued to be involved in the issues of its implementation. What’s good about that is the depth and the collective memory they bring to the issues. What’s bad is that they find it unnecessary to check in with the people they represent, to see whether or not what they’re doing is what people actually want.
What’s apparent to us is that CWT has become sometimes (and selectively) confused about its purpose and function in regional affairs. Chartered as a watchdog over the MOA and the broader economic and social health of the watershed, for the past two years the organization also appears to have also taken on the role of semi-governmental advocate in support of Crossroads Ventures’ proposed Belleayre Resort project. And while Meehan and the board regularly assert they’ve never taken a position supporting it, the substance of their many legal filings and their counsel’s comments before the State’s presiding judge say otherwise. And they’ve been very clear as to why. As Baker said in 2004, “It’s our part to provide a counterweight to all the environmental groups that have lined up with the City and EPA against this project.”
As always, we appreciate Baker’s candor. But we just don’t think an organization made up of elected officials from fifty municipalities should be acting so as to be perceived as a lobbying group for a private developer representing an undisclosed resort chain. That’s not what public officials are supposed to do, and it’s a position that’s already cost the Coalition tremendous credibility. The price it’s paid is in skepticism from both its membership and the public that what it’s representing is really what’s in the best interests of all of them.
We think that’s unfortunate because the Coalition should and could be – just as it is with DEP - an incredibly effective advocate on a range of issues that directly impact our watershed communities. But that’s not how they’ve seen their role, which they’ve chosen instead to limit to watchdogging the MOA, except unfortunately, on matters relating to the Crossroads project. For years, without success, we’ve encouraged the organization to take a broader role with respect to regional and statewide initiatives of major potential significance here; property tax reform, assessment of public lands, and expansion of the Forest Tax Law to name a few. But the answer always comes back the same: we’re too busy with DEP to talk about anything else.
At this week’s CWT meeting, the group, wisely in our view, backed off from taking a position requested by Olive and Neversink on the applicability of the large parcel law to reservoir properties. The two towns, the only ones in the state negatively impacted by that provision of the law, made their case extremely well. On the other side so did Shandaken, effectively represented by Bob Cross, as did Woodstock, represented by four members of its town board. Although a final outcome was deferred, the writing on the wall’s clear; CWT won’t be touching the issue with a ten-foot pole. Nor would it be reasonable to expect them to weigh in on similar issues that might, like large parcel, literally pit the financial interests of one member town against another. Even had the Coalition opted to back Olive and Neversink’s position, the net impact would likely have been small. And we think the interests of our region are best served by political representation whose strength comes from its unity. We would rather see CWT live to fight another day than be torn apart by something like large parcel.
But we do think change is necessary for the Coalition to best serve all the people it hopes to represent. And to start with we’re not sure that 8 or 9 town supervisors, mostly from Delaware County, adequately represent the views of a changing five-county population with different issues and concerns. More input, especially from the public, is going to be needed if we’re going to bring our region together and effect change. And to survive and compete economically it’s going to take more creativity and resourcefulness than we’ve managed so far. It’s going to take new faces, more voices rather than less, and lots of sunshine into the back rooms of public process. CWT’s as good a place to start as any, maybe one of the best.
BP