The Process

As most of our readers know, we’re into public process. We think there’s usually a right, or at least a good way to do things, and that how they’re done is important, because the outcome frequently hinges on it. In the Belleayre Resort’s SEQRA review, we’re looking at the Mother-Of-All-Processes, at least insofar as state law will ever come to effect the life of our community.
For the past several years, some politicians and those who talk like them have been using the phrase “I support the process” as a coded way of saying “I support the project.” We don’t fault those folks much for being less than direct about that, given the way a good portion of the local population seems to feel. And while some people are pleased with the project’s apparent forward movement, many also have real problems with what’s proposed, and anxieties about the process ahead. We’ve got some of both ourselves but we’ve also got some faith in the process. But because we realize that faith’s a leap, we also understand it may not turn out to be rational. Pending an epiphany of perfect democracy in action, we’re keeping open to the prospect that ultimately, a very good review will be done.
Plenty of people of course, have serious concerns with what Crossroads is proposing, and how it might impact the quality of life in the towns of the Route 28 corridor. Some concerns are specific, others perhaps less so, many relate to questions of scale, and some are based almost entirely on emotional issues. For now, every concern should be considered as valid. For what it’s worth, we don’t object to the project in principle. But we do have a lot of problems with the particulars, at least as the State’s now deemed the developer’s treatment of them “complete”. We’ll save those for another time though.
When Dean Gitter first announced the project after acquiring 9 percent of Shandaken’s private land for it, he asked the community for “a fair hearing and a fair shake.” He’s certainly gotten more than that from the state’s SEQRA process, because it’s designed to favor the interests of developers over their host communities. That’s the way the laws are written, and it’s too late to grouse, or at least grouse effectively about it. We do however have some serious concerns about DEC’s completeness determination, and about the larger question of how it’s handling its role as lead agency in the review. Based on a number of specific actions the agency’s taken, we think it’s been unusually accommodating to the developer and unusually uncritical of substantial aspects of its proposal. That proposal however has been under review for a long time. And so while we’re not surprised the draft’s finally been deemed “complete,” we are surprised they’ve taken that step without input from the project’s host towns, the City of New York, and other legally “involved agencies.” In doing so, the State has effectively blown off the City’s objections, and basically dumped the whole concept of a “coordinated” review. ‘Till now, that was generally understood as required under SEQRA law. We see it as a process problem, and we think, a serious one.
DEP says they’ve never been provided with adequate information to do the job they’re required to, in order for the DEIS to have been deemed “complete.” The Town of Shandaken is just beginning its review and certainly won’t have much to submit before February 17, the end of the newly announced Public Comment period, and the town’s only chance to file as a party to the project’s hearings process. Those things we assume are fine to those who “support the process”, if that indeed means minimizing or eliminating altogether municipal participation by “involved agencies”. It’s hard to say yet whether DEC’s new Uncoordinated Review concept is any more or less unprecedented than some of the other things it’s done to assist the developer. But there will be time enough to see. Given what’s apparently “complete” to DEC, full-blown hearings on a range of subjects are now virtually assured, and we’re unlikely to see even a first round of determinations from those hearings ‘till sometime in 2005. Meanwhile there’s the one and only “public comment” period, which is happening right now.
We strongly encourage people to come to the public hearings on January 14 and 15. We think everyone who wants should speak, and should hear for themselves what their neighbors are thinking. If you’re planning to submit a written comment ¯ we encourage everyone to do so ¯ remember that to DEC it’s not what you feel that matters, it’s the extent to which what you say either supports or challenges specific statements or conclusions in the data. One might also bear in mind that while the agency’s typically receptive to adjudicating or hearing detailed discussion of scientific or technical issues, it generally tries not to do so with socio-economic ones like local taxes, housing, growth patterns, community character… in other words, the basic things we’re trying to understand locally, and which to many, have been treated so superficially in the DEIS. So if, for example, statements like “the project will have no impact on community character” are troubling to you, those kinds of things might be useful to address. Considering that our local government may have limited involvement in the SEQRA process, what’s said and by how many during the public comment period is more important than ever. Written comments should go to: Alexander Chesluik,Jr, NYSDEC, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561-1620.
The point of the SEQRA process is to figure out whether or not, on balance, whatever’s proposed makes sense. We think it’s too early in the process to judge how well it’ll work in resolving some of the issues that still appear to need more information and good, objective, judgement calls. We’re pretty sure there’s no other choice but to try and make the process work for everyone in our communities, and we’re cautiously hopeful that it will, over time and with oversight, represent the public interest well.