On Taking Responsibility
            To the surprise of many, it was a quiet candidates debate we had Sunday. Questions were varied and broad, answers were offered respectfully, and with a format permitting only brief responses and no direct exchanges, it wasn‚t really a debate but a question-and-answer session. To the relief of many, no accusations were leveled and no dark conspiracies framed. Regret was expressed about divisions in the community, some spoke of healing those divisions - a lovely idea -  and people left satisfied that everyone had been well and clearly heard.  In the candidates answers there was a fair amount of unanimity on the issues, more than perhaps some would have anticipated. Where there wasn't, the differences between the positions of the two slates were clear.
            There hasn't been much real news to report on the town race; the campaign thus far has been framed by opinion and plenty of it.  It's easy to forget that everything we read as paid ads, as letters-to-the-editor, and as editorials like this are all just somebody's point of view.  Some may be more or less informed than others, but they‚re all legitimate, and we all have a right to share those views with our neighbors. Newspapers of course provide space for opinion, but our real job is to report, to tell you what's happening. We try to do that by faithfully and fairly keeping news and opinion separate, as most newspapers do. But whatever the venue, news or opinion, we all have an obligation to be truthful in what we say, especially those running for office.
            In our editorials, we try to apply a measure of reason to the public dialogue, which in Shandaken often isn‚t very reasonable.  If our town has the reputation as the political Afghanistan of Ulster County ˆ factionalized and barely governable ˆ it's probably deserved.  Maybe some part of that is the rugged and occasionally cranky individualism of our mountain heritage. But in recent years most of us understand the dialogue‚s been dominated by a single issue; how we as a community feel about the prospect of potentially massive changes to our town. 
            Of course, we're all getting tired of hearing about Crossroads, but no one in Shandaken is so naïve they don‚t understand it‚s the real, the underlying issue in our town election.  "Ultimately" said CWC chair Alan Rosa recently, "the decisions will lay with the Town of Shandaken, which will be handled through the electoral process".  It doesn't get any more succinct than that, or come from a more knowledgeable source. Whatever you've read or heard, it's not the State or the City or some regulatory agency who'll decide whether or on what scale that project gets built.  It‚s us, the residents of Shandaken. That of course is why this election and control of our town board is so crucial to the developer, and so emotionally packed for people on both sides of the issue.  The good thing about that is at least everybody gets what's actually going on.  The bad thing is that things are tense, which isn't conducive to keeping perspective; big things can appear little and little things can appear big. The trick, if there is one, is to keep thinking critically about the "information" we're presented with.
            At Sunday's event the lines were drawn both nicely and clearly. Normally among the first to express distrust of regulatory agencies like DEC and DEP, Shandaken‚s Republican candidates seem content to let those agencies and their process "work" without any meaningful participation by those of us who live here, though one of the three GOP candidates did favor an "economic" study. Behind that "process" of course, is the widespread presumption that DEC, a state agency, will ultimately follow instructions from Governor Pataki's office with its close ties to Crossroads.  By contrast, the three Democratic candidates believe a town review of the project's local impact: fiscal analysis, tax implications, and traffic, secondary growth, and community character are all essential to the town‚s decision-making process. Make of it what you will, but the issue does clearly split on party lines.   
            It has of course been a highly charged election campaign, its tone set by the Citizens for Progress ads, which we think have set a new low-water mark for our town in truthfulness. But what troubles us so much isn't that, it's the issue of accountability, because those ads are the town's GOP campaign, and based on comments made Sunday, none of those candidates are willing to take the least responsibility for it. 
            That is an enormous failure of leadership, far more significant than whether "citizens" is or isn't an illegal PAC, or whether the purpose of the group was to create "plausibility deniability" for what it's doing by its candidates. We see nothing remotely plausible about that deniability. People seeking public office are responsible for what‚s said to get them elected, and failing to accept that responsibility isn't just disingenuous, it's transparently dishonest. That was a judgment call made by town‚s Republican leadership and it is what it is: terrible judgment. Compounding it, their candidates haven‚t disavowed a single piece of   'information' presented above their names, and actually appear to welcome it.
            We're not endorsing or not endorsing anyone here. We think people have enough common sense to know that just because something's said doesn't mean it's true, especially around election time. A lot's been said already, and a lot more probably will be between now and November 4. If we're thoughtful enough to ask ourselves who's saying what and why, it's unlikely the perspective we take into the voting booth will be off by very much, and our collective judgment will serve our community well. Please, plan on voting, whatever it takes. Not showing up to help chose your town's future isn't a good option.