Mutually Inclusive
We talked about values here last issue for a reason; to try and show that even at the national level, people share more basic values than they differ on. We think that’s even more true around here than it is nationally. There is, we think, a common set of values in our town and it’s about caring and respect for each other, history, tradition, but especially for the land. It’s something to be proud of and like most people we hope that in time, our town can build on it a brighter and more unified future than the past might suggest we can.
We’ve been through a rough public process in recent weeks.The good thing about our latest comp plan process is it’s over. The bad thing is a lot of people are upset over just about everything associated with it. So was it worth what it’s cost us? That’s for people to judge for themselves. A few years ago an earlier version of the plan ran into the same level of opposition this one did and was, without ceremony, dumped. This time in equally clear opposition to community sentiment, it’s been passed. It’s hard not to note the difference in ideas of public governance at work.
Back when that last plan was drafted there was an up-to-date and statistically accurate survey of what we wanted for the future. People in Shandaken said they wanted the town to grow but not change by developing a vibrant, hamlet-based economy that kept its small town feel. They wanted to feel safe, keep taxes low, and see infrastructure improvements but above all they wanted to protect the town’s rural character and its natural resources and scenic beauty. People also had clear ideas about what they did and didn’t want to see here, and we doubt much has changed since 2002. Had anyone really wanted to know the collective sentiment today, the town could have just put that survey in the mail again. So far as we know, the subject never came up.
Some people think our town’s shared goals and visions are adequately reflected in our newly adopted plan and perhaps they are. Others including us, have concerns that many subjects - the size of buildings for instance - have been carefully left out for specific effect. But our greater concerns are about the process by which the plan was adopted. Perhaps it was a bit one side or the other of lawful, we can’t readily tell which but we’re not looking to judge that. Our issues are more with the departure from the letter and the spirit of state law that mandates full and open community participation in formulating major planning documents like this. That we feel, isn’t what happened especially in recent months.
This difficult passage has taken us to the beginning of our biannual political season, normally our least pleasant one. But one thing that might help considerably this year is that for the first time ever our town has a Code of Fair Campaign Practices, approved unanimously by the town board in December 2003. Shandaken’s voluntary candidate’s code is a verbatim transcription of the one adopted by Montana, one of the most conservative states in the country. We think it’s a clear pledge of honesty and integrity for candidates seeking public office and we hope all candidates will sign and abide by it. Should any fail to do both, we would encourage people to view their candidacies and their words accordingly. This election, we would also encourage any Political Action Committees backing townwide candidates to file as such and disclose their contributors in a timely and lawful manner in accordance with state election law. And although we understand they can’t be compelled to do so, we would hope that registered PAC’s abide by the same standards of truthfulness as our candidates for office will soon be signing.
If these things happen, then we may in fact have a good campaign this fall, in which real issues are actually discussed on their merits, and the public dialogue is fueled by an exchange of ideas and views. If they don’t happen, then we’ll probably have a campaign much like last time in which those things become secondary to character attacks, whispering campaigns, and worse. We believe every candidate is capable of better, and we hope the public will hold them to a new and higher standard of responsibility for what they say, and for what they permit others to say on their behalf. If the candidates do this, we think some measure of trust in the process can begin to return. If they don’t, we’re back to the “crisis rhetoric” of loud voices and big typefaces proclaiming things that may or may not be remotely true.
Actual public governance is a responsibility very few people are willing to undertake, and we thank every candidate for stepping forth this summer. We also thank the members of all three Comp Plan committees for their work, and the many hundreds of people who sought successfully or unsuccessfully to contribute to the final effort and to earlier ones. This broad community participation across the full spectrum of opinion is an enormously hopeful sign that most of us care deeply about where we’re going together, even if we disagree. This is the way communities actually grow, and the tensions that often surface in the process aren’t unique to us. Yes, our problems do seem more stressful than most communities face. But that’s all the more reason to remind everyone respect is a 2-way street but it’s the only good way to the heart of town.