“Tompkins County: A college destination with the sort of moral compass that lands people a spot on American Greed.” If you lived here you would know. It’s become filled with the sort of people who see making a better world, and making things better for themselves as the same thing. People whose sense of entitlement takes a cut off the top – to the cheers of an imagined appreciative audience. Autocratic Rulers in a crumbling democracy. Laughable in their denials – deadly in their acts.
While “A cat can look at a king” – staring is not recommended. In so many ways; looking too fixedly, too openly, or for too long can drain nine lives quicker than a casino can drain your bank balance.
Not staring means not being noticed – it means putting more attention to what you’re stepping into than where you want to go – it means not getting too clear a look at what you don’t want to see; or shouldn’t.
When we mainly get by in life by not looking at anything or anyone too closely [including ourselves] – doing things “with your eyes wide open” may not be as smart as it sounds.
Environmental ethics used to mean making the right choices – today it’s just another sales mark. Picking up beer bottles on the beach. It’s too late for that.
If you voted to ban all fossil fuels, and made the next space station out of recycled plastic bottles – it would make no difference.
Environmental ethics is a choice — and when you let others make that choice for you; it’s their choice. In the future; if we’re forced to live in sealed cities: The elite will have the best of everything that’s left; and the poor will have . . . an answer to why we’re developing artificial intelligence?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?
Part 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
It’s ethics that gives a government legitimacy
There’s a big piece missing from the planning agenda in Tompkins County: What needs to be done about the environmental destruction caused by modern farming methods? — and in a not-so-surprising coincidence: this same issue is missing from the County’s Comp Plan as well.
The “Environment” section of the Comprehensive Plan holds up Agriculture as a model of stewardship and conservation; while suppressing any mention of the agricultural methods and regulatory exemptions that have made them the biggest polluters in Tompkins County — tiptoeing around their role in the impairment of our water resources and depletion of the ecosystem in a blatant example of cronyism and skewed environmental reporting.
The presentation of some of the arguments is a bit technical; the facts are unequivocal.
The County Comp Plan:
“Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet, and Sixmile Creek play a significant role in determining the quality of water in the southern basin of Cayuga Lake as they contribute approximately 40 percent of all the surface water entering the southern end of the lake.”
Comments:
Salmon Creek also enters the southern part of Cayuga Lake in Tompkins County and drains one of the three largest watersheds in the Cayuga basin.
“The watershed land uses range from the highly urban and forested Cayuga Inlet to the mostly agricultural Salmon Creek.”
Nutrient pollution from runoff and groundwater discharge “are relatively minor in the urbanized watershed but are much more significant in the two more agricultural watersheds, Fall Creek and Salmon Creek. The high contributions from groundwater in those watersheds, 55% and 72%, respectively, pose difficult challenges for management because only long-term changes in land use can reduce these loads.” — Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012
Salmon Creek is never mentioned in any of the Comprehensive Plan’s water quality discussions; and agricultural nutrient pollution is never mentioned at all.
The County Comp Plan:
“Most of the phosphorus that enters the southern end of Cayuga Lake is bound up with the sediment carried by Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet, and Sixmile Creek. This sediment is largely the result of stormwater runoff and erosion of stream banks.”
Comments:
Actually, the percentage of bioavailable particulate phosphorus [available nutrient for algae growth] measured in Salmon Creek was more than twice that of Fall Creek, and more than three times that of both Cayuga Inlet, and Six Mile Creek. [Phosphorus Bioavailabiltiy and Loads, Upstate Freshwater Institute, 10/22/2015]
The County Comp Plan:
“Impaired water bodies and their related pollutants, are published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The most recent list published in 2012 identified the southern end of Cayuga Lake as impaired by three pollutants: phosphorus, silt/sediment, and pathogens.”
Comments:
Phosphorus
“Mean annual TP [Total Phosphorus] load to Cayuga Lake is just under 100 Mg/year, of which 60 Mg/year is DP [Dissolved Phosphorus.] The largest source of both DP and TP is agricultural runoff, providing 45% of the DP and 47% of the TP. Urban runoff provides 13% of the TP but negligible DP. The largest urban TP source, at 8%, is high-density impervious residential land.” — Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012
Silt/sediment
The County’s Plan makes no mention of the wide-spread agricultural practice of “tiling” fields [installing subsurface drainage on the entire field]. Tiling will drain a field in minutes, rather than hours; not only causing water to flow into streams more quickly and allowing less water to replenish the groundwater, but increasing the flow of sediment and manure into Cayuga Lake’s tributaries.
Pathogens
The County’s Comp Plan makes no mention of agriculture as a source of pathogens.
“My results allow me to conclude that the most nutrient and pathogen pollution occurs after large rainstorm events, especially after manure has been applied to land for months with no precipitation events, and after manure application on frozen ground. These results support the findings from similar studies. I can also generalize that many of the soils from the field sites that I collected from had buildups of phosphorus, which likely contributed to the high concentrations of phosphorus in the runoff samples that I collected. I can also conclude that the manure pathogens that I examined for antibiotic resistance were resistant to high levels of ampicillin. This result further supports the severity of antibiotic resistance and the negative health effects and environmental effects that they can cause.” — “The Effects that Liquid and Solid Cattle Manure have on the Water Quality of Drainage Ditches in Putnam County, Ohio”, Bowling Green State University, Janelle Horstman, 2014
“Increased phosphorus levels were also detected after precipitation in the agriculturally impacted areas, and fecal coliform densities were much higher after precipitation. The strong correlation of turbidity, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform densities suggests a common source for these parameters. Elevated total phosphorus, turbidity, and fecal coliform densities are presumed to be the direct result of runoff from nearby tiled fields sprayed with liquid manure as reported by MDNRE in numerous previous waste discharge infractions by the CAFO farms in close proximity to our AI sites (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2003a, 2004b).” — “Antibiotic Resistance, Gene Transfer, and Water Quality Patterns Observed in Waterways near CAFO Farms and Wastewater Treatment Facilities” West; Liggit; Clemans & Francoeur, 2009
The “Point Source” Smokescreen
The County Comp Plan:
“New York State regulates pollution discharge into waters through its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit program, including the control of all point source discharges to surface waters. The program is designed to maintain water quality consistent with public health, public enjoyment of water bodies, protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, and industrial development in the state.”
Comments:
The County fails to mention that this program does not adequately regulate pollution from agricultural sources:
“The Clean Water Act provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for many discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. Through the primarily regulatory NPDES permitting program, significant improvements have been made to the quality of the country’s water bodies. However, the NPDES permitting program only applies to point sources discharges, thus most agricultural discharges are not subject to permitting or other federal regulatory control. Nonpoint sources, including those from agriculture, remain the most significant water quality challenge facing the nation. Moreover, the CWA’s exemption from section 404 permitting for normal farming practices continues to allow many wetlands to be degraded by agricultural activities. Because the CWA does not provide direct federal authority for regulating many agricultural sources of water pollution and wetlands degradation, the responsibility for addressing water quality degradation from agricultural activities has fallen largely to the states. To date, most programs designed to address agricultural water pollution have been voluntary or incentive-based programs designed to encourage farmers to implement best management practices. These programs have been only minimally successful, and agricultural pollution continues to be one of the most significant sources of water quality degradation in the United States, meaning that there is a need for a more comprehensive regulatory system to address the water impacts of farming.” — “Maintaining a Healthy Water Supply While Growing a Healthy Food Supply: Legal Tools for Cleaning Up Agricultural Water Pollution” Mary Jane Angelo, Professor of Law & Director, Environmental and Land Use Law Program University of Florida Levin College of Law
Stormwater Runoff and Flooding
The County Comp Plan:
“Increased stormwater runoff has a significant impact on floodplain management. As land area is converted to more urbanized uses, the amount of impervious surface associated with that land use generally increases, causing water to flow into streams more quickly and allowing less water to replenish the groundwater.”
Comments:
Once again, the County refuses to acknowledge agricultural sources as a problem. When the increased runoff from “tiled” farm fields: an opaque, strong smelling liquid blend of water, sediment and agricultural contaminants; began to overflow the ditch in front of my house and spread across my lawn — the County merely dug a bigger, deeper ditch and put in a larger culvert for my driveway. Tompkins County makes no effort to reduce the runoff from agricultural fields; they just continue digging bigger ditches.
Wetland Protection
The County Comp Plan:
“At the state level, NYSDEC regulates wetlands of at least 12.4 acres in size and smaller wetlands of unusual local importance. Taken together, these regulations have the effect of leaving responsibility for regulation of isolated wetlands of less than 12.4 acres to local governments. Identification and protection of these otherwise newly unregulated wetlands is a priority.”
Comments:
New York State Agricultural Law has a different priority for land use that allows “grazing and watering livestock, making reasonable use of water resources, harvesting natural products of the wetlands, selectively cutting timber, draining land or wetlands for growing agricultural products and otherwise engaging in the use of wetlands or other land for growing agricultural products,” thereby completely undercutting the authority of local government to protect these valuable resources.
Riparian Corridors
The County Comp Plan:
“Riparian corridors are the lands bordering streams and represent a transition zone from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. Maintaining lands adjacent to streams in their undeveloped state helps to support the natural functions associated with stream buffers, including protecting water quality, stabilizing stream banks and preventing erosion, trapping sediment and nutrients, improving floodwater retention and groundwater recharge, and shading stream channels in summer.”
“Providing vegetated buffers of at least 100 feet either side of stream banks, or 50 feet from intermittent streams, is critical in achieving water quality benefits”
Comments:
Unfortunately, New York State NRCS agricultural manure spreading standards for CAFOs requires only 35-foot setback, where the entire setback width is a vegetated buffer; and just a 15-foot setback with incorporation within 24 hours of application to be maintained between manure applications and surface waters and surface inlets.
Well Water
The County Comp Plan:
“The amount of available drinking water is primarily an issue in rural areas that obtain drinking water from groundwater. As more homes and businesses are built in these areas, they are supported by new wells withdrawing more water from groundwater supplies. In some parts of the county it has been observed that new wells noticeably decrease the supply of water in nearby wells.”
Comments:
While slamming rural families; the County’s Comp Plan deliberately ignores the massive negative impact that high water-use “farming practices,” especially those of CAFOs, are having on the county’s groundwater supply. One CAFO owner in Minnesota reported a well water use of 570,200,000 gallons in 2017. [The average unrestricted water use for a family of four is 320 to 400 gallons a day.]
While the County’s Comp Plan recommends that “Land uses and facilities that pose the greatest threats to groundwater should be located away from areas that contribute to drinking water supplies” — the Plan’s suppression of agricultural pollution as an environmental threat reveals an unannounced policy to exclude agriculture from any County restriction or regulation.
Climate Change – Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The County Comp Plan:
“While global energy and climate problems cannot be solved exclusively at the local level, and leadership is needed from global, federal, and state organizations, locally we can identify, plan for, and take steps to address these issues.”
“PRINCIPLE Tompkins County should be a place where the energy system meets community needs without contributing additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”
The Plan goes on to state:
“Emissions from residential, commercial, and industrial buildings together accounted for the largest proportion of community emissions and transportation accounted for more than a third of all community emissions.”
But finally admits:
“. . . it appears that it would be more accurate to use a much greater GWP for methane to reflect its extreme potency in the shorter duration when reductions will most help in limiting warming that may result in a cascade of uncontrollable negative impacts. Such an analysis of methane will likely be incorporated into future energy plans, and would primarily affect the waste and agriculture sectors, as they are currently the highest emitters of methane.”
Comments:
This admission that the “agricultural sector” is one of the “highest emitters of methane” – is the one and only time that the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the negative impact of any agricultural practice on either the residents or the environment; and then only that this “will likely be incorporated into future energy plans.”
The Town and City of Ithaca sit like spiders in the center of a web; with recent redistricting placing 8 of the 14 Legislative Districts at least partly within their borders.
The large student population [30% of the county’s total population] gives those legislators a great deal of power; but little accountability, from a constantly shifting youthful population with no history or permanent ties to the area, and no association with the county’s rural communities. This leaves county policy making vulnerable to the influence of corporate and corporately-controlled entities like Cornell University, and the Cornell Cooperative Extension.
The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan’s glaring refusal to acknowledge the reality of agricultural pollution in their reporting is clear evidence of this influence.
“Tompkins County” government is in the process of yet another legislative redistricting . . . and the Tompkins County Legislature will appoint the committee on reapportionment.
This piece will probably fit in before the County and Town of Lansing plans are examined.
Since these plans have no public oversight, and almost no public readership; they have ballooned into a dumpster’s worth of poorly supported arguments and misrepresented problems – gaining importance through the sheer weight of their endlessly insistent claims.
It’s not a question of “Cui Bono”; because the players are unfazed by the spotlight – but “Can anything be done to save the community?”
Is there anything left but the rot?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE PROBLEM
There is a public relations problem that comes pre-packaged with every Tompkins County government agenda: Why does every policy decision work to the benefit of Cornell University?
The “All of Us Together” concept of “Tompkins County” was created to mold the surrounding towns and villages into a pattern that is beneficial to Cornell’s corporate growth — it has no other purpose.
“Tompkins County” government doesn’t work with the people – it works with the corporations, the institutions, the politicians, bureaucrats, and special interests.
They are power brokers.
That’s why the county’s public policies are never decided in the public sector — it’s not a government of the people – it’s a government above the people.
“Tompkins County’s” decision making flow chart is a beautiful example of Vertical Integration: every stage of government action is integrated and controlled from the top.
It’s the very strength of this system that makes it so easy to spot – and once spotted; its methods of public “predation” can be studied:
Camouflage – Cornell moves everywhere among the shadows – policies are carried out by them, because of them, or in gratitude to them. Even when the “County” claims its concerns are with the people – Deferential nods are given to Cornell’s “importance”.
Media stories read like the handouts that they are; and if public opposition forces the reporting of a community or environmental outcry – the article always ends with rebuttals of those concerns; at length.
Deal making – as exampled by the Town of Lansing’s Comprehensive Plan and Agriculture Protection Plan: this once rural town was divided into two distinct land uses to appease the county’s powerful Development and Agricultural interests. Not only do both plans dovetail perfectly and express wholehearted support of each other as an important part of their own plan’s success — both were written by Cornell.
Credentials – every policy “push” releases a flood of credentials – even if they know nothing about the particular community or the needs of residents: they know exactly how to solve every problem — do what “Tompkins County” wants. [If you want to have career longevity.]
Beneficence – while I have never met a single resident or employee who believes that altruism plays a part in the University’s corporate agenda – their dictator-inspired “parades” and proclamations are a not-to-be-gainsaid part of Cornell’s “Sun King” persona.
Meaningless public participation – public participation is kept to a minimum: none. Tompkins County fosters rulership; not representation. At Lansing Town meetings the public cannot ask any questions; and are told they’re lucky to even be allowed to speak.
Power – Cornell is more than just a big frog in the small pond of Tompkins County – it’s a big frog that swallowed the county. Connected at all levels of government and business, even internationally; they are the controlling authority for every activity within the county.
On the workplace level there’s “Cornell Paranoia”: The fear of being associated with any thought, belief, or person that makes your superiors unhappy – even a social media link or the mention of a critical observation might get back to the hierarchy and result in your losing your job — it’s palace intrigue in a new millennium setting.
Stone walling – If you ask unwelcome questions, or persist in opposition – the County just shuts down; and refuses to communicate or acknowledge your existence. It’s a further proof of the power behind County government that they can do this and get away with it.
Enhancing Cornell’s power and profit is what Tompkins County government does — it’s what they are.
The reader may find this essay a bit “offhand” for the seriousness of the subject; but it’s intended to be descriptive of the situation, and not a rigorous examination.
It’s something to keep in mind when you’re presented with a bill of goods.
“Tompkins County steps on their fingers.” There is nothing accidental about the fallout from the County’s policies – or the people who it falls on. The strength of the circumstantial case is in the unanimity of the evidence – like iron filings in a magnetic field; they fall into a pattern that reveals the force that works upon them – unmistakably.
Being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Yes, rural Tompkins County for the past twenty years.
“Rural Colonization” This insight bypasses the text of this essay; and takes a turn directly into the heart of Tompkins County’s “ag ghetto” policy: Two days ago, on the afternoon of September 20th; a Medevac copter landed on my front lawn. First responders picked this location because they remembered using it for another Medevac pickup only four years before. [A 15-year old boy was thrown onto the pavement while riding standing on the trunk of a car.]
Tompkins County has refused to enforce any traffic laws on our rural road that has become a playground for reckless games, illegal vehicles, impaired drivers, and “any speed you want” short-cutters — no matter what is happening.
I sent an email [with a photo of the victim being loaded into the copter] to my Town Board rep, the Town Supervisor, the County Sheriff, and two County Legislators:
“This is the second time a Medevac Helicopter has landed on my lawn to transport a Lansingville road accident victim. Am I the only one who wants to stop this?” Two days later — silence is their only answer.
I can’t describe the sadness and anger I feel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?
Part 4
Rural Colonization
Definition of Urban Colonialism
1 : of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting control by a city over a rural area or people
2 : a policy advocating or based on such control
In trying to write about the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan [as with many other recent plans] I am confronted with the difficulty of untangling the mass of misrepresentations and lies that provide the underpinning for their policy agenda.
Just one Policy sentence may misrepresent the cause, current situation, the impact, the population, the intent, and the viability of the solution that the Plan proposes — making it almost impossible to get to the bottom of an issue; or even follow a single thread.
As a starting point for this essay; I searched for the word “rural” – and found it appeared 84 times in the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Grouping sentences where it appears; a pattern emerges:
“In rural areas the Plan envisions a working landscape of farms and forests providing products and jobs that support a strong rural economy – Rural economic activities may include businesses processing agricultural and forest products, and other small businesses appropriate to a rural setting – Employment choices for those interested in living and working in rural areas will include full- and part time farming, independent “homestead” lifestyles, entrepreneurship in agricultural and forest product processing, and at-home workers who want to live close to nature – Rural areas will gain economically from urban markets for food, wood products, and energy – Urban areas will have access to the natural beauty, outdoor recreation, and local food and energy provided by our rural landscape – working rural landscapes are preserved”
If this echoes the colonial policies of the 1700’s that enforced North America’s role as a provider of agricultural goods and raw materials [and a captive consumer of manufactured articles]; it’s no coincidence:
Ithaca is not a business center – it is THE Business Center for Tompkins County:
“The Downtown Ithaca Alliance works to maintain and develop downtown Ithaca as the county’s center for ‘banking and finance, business and professional offices, government and community services, downtown residences, and as a retail destination.’”
“The urban area will include the lively, active downtown and vibrant waterfront district of Ithaca, neighborhood centers serving nearby residents, and regional commercial centers that serve the needs of both urban and rural populations.”
“The urban center is the historic employment, retail, service, and government center for the surrounding region”
When the Town of Lansing requested NYSEG to supply a natural gas line needed to attract businesses – Tompkins County Legislators went to the State Capitol and lobbied to block any new natural gas use on environmental grounds. They succeeded.
Shortly thereafter; Cornell proposed building a 1,200 student living complex, powered by natural gas – it was approved without any demur by both the County Legislature and planning authorities.
Then what is the land use that County’s planners “envision” for rural towns like Lansing?
Colonial resettlement, of course:
“DEVELOPMENT FOCUS AREAS STRATEGY – This strategy identifies an urban center, five established nodes, two emerging nodes, and eight rural centers as the Development Focus Areas
COUNTY ROLE. It is envisioned in the future at least two-thirds of all new residential development would occur in the Development Focus Areas. Tompkins County’s role is three-fold in achieving this vision: providing support to municipalities as they undertake these activities; strongly advocating for appropriate types of development within Development Focus Areas and rural land uses outside of the focus areas; and addressing the intermunicipal aspects of implementation, such as providing public transit services to the focus areas, focusing infrastructure investment in the focus areas, and promoting efforts to provide strong pedestrian and bicycle connections between the focus areas and nearby existing developed areas.”
By “strongly advocating” the creation of satellite “mini-cities” for their urban workforce, surrounded by rich corporate Agribusinesses [employing tax-subsidized foreign “guest” workers] the County has radically altered the rural landscape – and left no place for the county’s rural residents:
“Tompkins County contains an uncommon mixture of spectacular natural features, a vibrant urban center, internationally renowned academic institutions, and a productive and attractive working landscape.”
With nearly 60 percent of rural residents calling unemployment a “critical” problem in a community needs assessment survey conducted by the United Way and Human Services Coalition of Tomkins County — The County’s planners propose no solution; nor see any need for one.
In the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan’s “vision for the future” – the already marginalized native rural community will no longer even exist.
Just as you can’t follow someone by walking in the opposite direction – you can’t achieve a greater good any other way than by adding more goodness. This is why Lincoln said; “Important principles may, and must, be inflexible.” – You can only break them by trying to twist them into another shape. It’s a broken world of broken principles; and they both need to be fixed. Now. Now or never.
And if you don’t hear the clock ticking — it’s because time has already run out.
Hypocritical? Of course – but there’s a workaround. In Tompkins County there’s a workaround for every self-serving act – if you’re important enough. And what profit-loving Agribusiness owner doesn’t love foreign “guest” workers — they live in owner supplied housing, available 24/7 – they work really hard [or they will be sent out of the country] – they don’t report violations [or they will be sent out of the country] – their pay is subsidized through State taxes – and as an added plus to the local economy – they send their money out of the country.
What do these owners say about the unemployed families down the road? They’re “lazy, shiftless, thieving, red-neck, racist, trailer trash . . .” Bigoted? Of course – but if you’re important enough . . .
So employ foreign, and tell everyone to “buy local” — profiting twice is “Tompkins County nice.”
“All the f**king surveys – where do they all come from.” Frequently they come from “why”? Tompkins County government has no need for surveys – except as a calming measure – so residents can feel listened to. It’s the public parking outside the impenetrable walls of privilege and bureaucracy. Meaningless public participation is the logo on every self-serving agenda in the county – a smudged, fifth generation copy that reveals the Legislature’s lack of concern with its appearance or legibility – they just don’t care. Do you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?
Part 3
“A lie that is half-truth is the darkest of all lies.” ― Alfred Tennyson
The only thing more indigestible than Tompkins County’s refusal to allow residents meaningful participation in County government; is the County’s pretense of enabling public participation. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan’s “Listening to Community Voices” is a laughably unconvincing cover story; dismissively penned by those who are unconcerned with whether you believe it or not.
From Kickoff Survey:
“Tompkins County needs YOUR INPUT to help develop the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Update.”
“The purpose of this survey is to gather input on what should be covered in the update to the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan.
However; the “ten elements already included in the Comprehensive Plan” by Tompkins County legislators, before the first community survey was even announced – are unchanged in the final document. The Comp Plan is a “revealed” document, not a participatory one.
The “kickoff survey” was a vague, generalized survey that used loaded terms like “Healthy Communities” to fish for results that would support policies that the County had already decided on. [Who wouldn’t vote for a healthy community?]
The two additional topic areas that were “identified” [from a list of thirteen possible choices supplied by the County] made no meaningful difference to the final County Plan.
“APPENDIX B – Public Comments and Responses” [not included in the Tompkins County Comp Plan document] shows how the County reacted to actual “Voices of the Community”:
Comments:
“Can there be a policy that prioritizes transportation investments for the ‘transportation insecure’ – especially low-income families with children in rural areas.”
“I think it’s important to pay attention to the needs of rural residents. In addition to fixed-route what is possible as a systematic approach to meeting public transit needs.”
The County responded with the following “substantive change”:
“Proposed Policy: Consider the needs of populations that are particularly challenged by transportation when developing systems and alternatives.”
Note that County policy will only “consider” the needs, rather than “meet” the needs – and they refuse to acknowledge that rural residents have special problems or needs by excluding the mention of “rural” from their policy statement. The tag line of “alternatives” is used to hide the County’s real policy agenda – that the rural disabled and elderly are forced to rely on friends and neighbors, try to book a volunteer driver, or pay for expensive taxi service — or somehow travel the miles to their “Ag Ghetto” border; and wait on the side of the road for a TCAT bus.
Tompkins County’s rural population pays the same County taxes at the same rate as the rest of the county; but does not receive services like transportation and law enforcement — this is blamed on “the high cost of rural service and constrained fiscal resources” by the County — while at the same time, in a neighboring community only a few miles away; the buses stop every few hundred feet – and at tax exempt Cornell University; with students who only pay the occasional sales tax — there are so many buses in service that I’m told that it’s very difficult to drive around the campus.
Comment:
“Overarching principle – looking out for rural landowners (Broaden the idea so people are as important as the rest of it.) All residents matter/ every resident matters.”
County response:
“A Foreword was added to explain how the principles, policies and actions of the Comprehensive Plan can contribute to a positive future for both urban and rural residents of the County.”
The Plan’s Foreword clearly shows that it is the principles, policies and actions of the County’s “vision” that are important – not the people. Tompkins County Legislators subordinate human worth to powerful interests and inflexible doctrine in every Comprehensive Plan policy.
Comments:
“The assumption that ‘planners’ can design and provide the most desirable lifestyle for the most people is pure hubris.”
“This document is nothing more or less than an attempt to have the government control everything.”
“The questions suggest their own answers, those planners want to hear. They are designed to steer the outcome into a pre-ordained mold, subordinating individual choices to government control.”
County response:
“Many residents of the County appreciate the vision presented in this plan but some fear that it can only be achieved by more regulation and what is perceived as increased intrusion by government into their lives. The Foreword explains how local regulation has a role to play but that the County does not have such direct regulatory authority over most areas addressed in the plan and the plan relies heavily on voluntary actions by individuals and organizations that the County may be able to collaborate with.”
There is no evidence to support the statement that “Many residents of the County appreciate the vision presented in this plan” — The overwhelming perception of residents is that Tompkins County government is corrupt and that there is no meaningful public participation: and with a new comprehensive plan “vision” that boldly announces where and how everyone should live — “increased intrusion by government into their lives” is anything but a “perception” for Tompkins County residents.
The plan’s thin excuse of policy “guidelines” does little to cloak the ambition that is revealed in the last sentence of their response – Tompkins County government has no intention of allowing any “plan” but their own.
Comment:
“Efforts to acquaint citizens with this plan which will, by design, touch each and every resident of Tompkins County are pitiful to non-existent. There were 4 meetings attended by a total of 70 individuals out of a Tompkins County population of 101,570.”
“In a survey to critique the TC Plan conducted in the fall of 2013 there were 915 responses of .9% of the county population. Of these, a large number [more than 25%] were from Participation in Government classes in four local high schools. The session with Planning Department officials I attended earlier this month in the TC Library also seemed poorly attended.
This is a laughable attempt at having an informed electorate. Yet, this plan will be voted on nevertheless.”
County response:
“Listening to Community Voices describes the considerable efforts to involve the public at three separate stages in preparing the Comprehensive Plan.”
In truth: very little effort was made to involve the public, and their comments and concerns had no impact of any substance on principles and policies already decided upon “in house.” The 915 survey responders did nothing more than choose which of the preselected “topic areas” were preferred [while the Planning Advisory Board made the actual choice] — it was participation on the level of “Do you want to have mac and cheese on Tuesday? Or Wednesday?”
And in what the County describes as “Another major public outreach effort” in the spring of 2014 – a total of “over 70 individuals” attended six meetings. [A pathetic number for any public meeting.]
The County’s Comprehensive Plan states that “the Department sent information and requests for input to a wide variety of email addresses” – but only mentions “local government officials, advisory board members, and previous commenters” — and by posting “information about the public meetings” to the “Department’s Facebook and Twitter accounts” – they would again reach the same limited group already involved.
Comments and questions were solicited at meetings of County advisory boards, Business and economic development groups, Local government groups, and undisclosed “Groups the Department has worked with over the years” — once more gathering input from the county’s power structure.
In spite of the obviously inadequate response from the public; no effort was made in the local media or community outreach to rectify this situation, or to solicit public approval of the Plan’s policy statements.
The legitimacy of Tompkins County’s “LISTENING TO COMMUNITY VOICES” pastiche of public participation is based solely on their own assertions that it is so.
Few residents were even aware that a new comprehensive plan was being prepared — and that was according to plan as well.
Even though it’s tempting to believe the County’s rhetoric that all local plans become the county plan – their every effort is exerted to ensure that the County’s plan becomes all local plans. To a hierarchical government that sees themselves as rulers and deciders – a foot in the door is only the first step to the head of the table.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?
Part 2
While the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan claims that it’s only a guide; and readily admits that “New York State clearly places land use authority in the hands of its towns, villages, and cities” – the reality of the County’s methods undercuts its pretentions of local community control and ethical good faith.
New York Town Law § 272-a – Legislative findings and intent:
“The legislature hereby finds and determines that: Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a town government is the authority and responsibility to undertake town comprehensive planning” and that town government should “assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed plan”
But the Tompkins County Comp Plan urges local municipalities renounce that duty and to deny citizens participation in planning:
“Often, local municipalities have a full workload simply addressing the important day-to-day issues of local concern. Planning at the county level can help municipal governments address key issues of concern that cross municipal boundaries”
In the face of the legislative intent set out in New York Town Law: How can the County ethically even make such a suggestion?
More and more; Tompkins County Legislators are taking an aggressive “hands on” approach to making their own “vision” – everyone’s reality:
Tompkins County Action Items Adopted: 2019
Action Item #1 “Undertake direct outreach and engagement with municipalities several times each year to identify opportunities to assist their implementation of projects that would directly promote the policies of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan”
Their own words and actions demonstrate the County’s intent to be much more than a “guide” – and are part of an ongoing attempt to coerce local municipalities into renouncing their lawful responsibilities — and to gather all power and control into the centrality of vested interests.