rural community – Page 17 – Rural Tompkins County

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Truck Route – Part 1

The process of effecting change in Tompkins County policy decisions is like the law of diminishing returns – the more effort you make to move forward; the less real progress you make. The “best” results are achieved by doing nothing, and believing their conscience stultifying patter — and since unabashed self-praise is so au courant; there are less and less people who “walk the walk.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TRUCK ROUTE

There’s an old saying: “Where there’s smoke there’s fire”; but when you can see flames over the treetops; you don’t need a cautionary phrase to tell you there’s a conflagration – The only question is: Will anybody come to put it out?

The roads in and around the hamlet of Lansingville were quiet rural roads; named after the families that lived on them. What were once backwater roads to nowhere; have become major routes through nowhere; to everywhere – a series of intransigently unregulated short-cuts through a community that doesn’t matter to Tompkins County authorities.

In looking over the timeline narrative I’ve written for this chapter; I realize how tedious reading the repeated negative results may be for the reader — but I wanted readers to understand the frustration, effort, and lack of result that are the hallmarks of citizen-government interaction in Tompkins County. This chapter recounts only part of the efforts, and it’s only the first chapter in the story . . .

This is a good a place to start as any:

10/01/2019 – Email to a candidate running for the Lansing Town Board – Dear Ms. B**:

“I received your ‘Who do you want for your neighbor’ card in the mail and want to reach out to you — to rephrase your campaign slogan: Your representation can preserve rural Lansing . . . or not.

In this letter I would like to focus on something that you can do to help preserve the safety and quality of life in Lansing’s rural community — have the Lansing Town board request that Tompkins County exclude big trucks from Lansingville Road (CR155).”

The email continued with several pages of documented arguments explaining why these through-cutting trucks are destructive to the roadways and environment, and detrimental to the safety and quality of life of the rural community.

10/08/2019 – Email from County Legislator M** S**:

“A** sent me your email. I read over it, but need to again as there was a lot there. I also forwarded on to our county roads superintendent. His email is below:”

“M**-

Couple of quick thoughts:

Trucks using this road are likely Agriculture or local and there would be no way of limiting either.

If they are Through Haul Trucks I don’t understand why they would be using this road? Do you know of any reason?”

10/09/2019 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“Thank you for looking into this issue.

Here are a few of my quick thoughts on Mr. S**’s comments:

‘Trucks using this road are likely Agriculture or local and there would be no way of limiting either.’

As far as I can see, he has no basis either in fact or through observation of Lansingville Road for making that statement. I work at home in my studio, and I only have to turn my head [and the noise they make is definitely head turning] to have an unobstructed view of Lansingville Road. These are definitely not agricultural trucks. I can see the mounds of gravel in the back, and when traveling down Lansingville they have all three of the back axels down to carry the maximum weight these trucks are capable of.

‘If they are Through Haul Trucks I don’t understand why they would be using this road? Do you know of any reason?’

Once again, a puzzling reaction from Mr. S**. Why should the reason matter? Maybe it saves five seconds.

Maybe it would annoy people in Genoa if the trucks used Route 90. It could be, as the Cornell report finds, because of safety and weight issues.

Following these trucks through Lansingville Road, and other rural roads, to and from the job sites will quickly substantiate the facts.”

10/26/2019 – From County Legislator M** S**:

“J** S** tells me:

“I have researched the area and talked to highway officials in Lansing and they report there are no large through haul trucks utilizing Lansingville Road. What is using the road is as I thought, Agriculture Vehicles.”

11/13/2019 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“The attached shows seven different thru haul trucks [clearly none of these trucks are agricultural.] Note that in bottom right hand truck you can actually see the uncovered gravel.”

No response or acknowledgement of this email was ever received.

Throughout the winter, spring, and summer; a number of emails were sent to both Town and County authorities: detailing and documenting the deteriorating conditions, and the pressing need for implementing traffic management on the roads around and through Lansingville — these communications were almost never responded to; and never in any meaningful way.

In the fall of 2020; a new attempt was made to bring traffic management to our rural roads and establish a weight limit for non-agricultural through-cutting trucks. We reached out to our County Legislature representative, M** S**, to request that the County Highway Department place a 4-ton weight limit on non-local, through-cutting trucks.

12/03/2020 – From County Legislator M** S** – “This is what I got back from county highway”:

“You are correct the State decides on Reduced Speed Zones. The County places weight restrictions and can change centerline road striping.

Large truck wise. This issue has been going on for a while. The weight restrictions will only effect through traffic. Any agricultural or delivery activity will still have the ability to use the road. When we looked into this before on a complaint from Mr. Baird it was found to be Agriculture Trucks cutting the fields. Although they can make a mess of the road with mud, they would not be effected by a road posting

We can look at what exists as far a passing zones, etc and change accordingly next season. That said we are reluctant to change passing zones if we don’t see or are aware of some change in the area, ie. New Homes or businesses that change traffic flow or density in some way.

Please let me know if you have any questions.”

12/03/2020 – To County Legislator M** S** and Town Board member A** B**:

“That is a ludicrous assertion from J** S**; as anybody on Lansingville Road can tell you.

Lansingville Road continues to be a thru-cut route for commercial and industrial dump trucks, flatbeds and tractor trailers on a daily basis.

I sent you a montage of some of the dump trucks using Lansingville Road [taken on with an old digital camera], after J** made the last ‘agriculture only’ statement – and will reattach it.”

12/16/2020 – To County Legislator M** S** [to further address the “misidentification” explanation by County Highway Director J** S**]:

“I am well aware of which trucks are ‘Agriculture Trucks cutting the fields’; and which are not.

1. They are built different – made for carrying harvest crops, not stones. Gravel, etc. The sides are noticeably higher and different in conformation. [The very few old dump trucks used have plywood added to one side to allow them to be loaded with more by the combine harvester.] Their wheels/tires are made for heavy loads over softer fields.

2. I am familiar with most of the trucks that carry crops on Lansingville Road, and see them parked in the farmyards. Others have “W** Dairy” on the doors.

3. These “Ag Trucks” are only used at intervals to harvest crops; and can be seen and heard on neighboring fields at that time.

4. The most obvious reason: crop trucks are mounded/loaded well above the sides and are not tarped, so it’s plain which trucks are carrying crops, and which are not – you can’t miss seeing it.”

Just before the end of 2020: the Tompkins County Highway Department posted a number of through-truck weight limit signs around Lansingville — for “20 TONS”!

12/31/2020 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“Attached is my brother’s photo of the signage on Burdick Hill Road. [Speed limit 40 – Weight limit 4 tons; except local delivery – double yellow line/no passing]

We want nothing that Burdick Hill Road residents [and others] don’t already have — and with less reason.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

01/06/2021 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“The O’T**, A** C**, and other dump trucks have been roaring up and down Lansingville Road at speed all day – every day this week [untarped], along with flatbeds and other industrial traffic. Crazy, reckless drivers fill the road.

Have you made any progress in getting our traffic concerns addressed?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

01/11/2021 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“Farm tractors towing equipment pass by my window, slowly traveling up and down Lansingville Road; and O’T** and A** C** dump trucks roar by up and down Lansingville Road every weekday at more than twice the speed of these tractors . . . Blatant disregard for any traffic laws by thru-cutters is endemic in our hamlet — everyone now knows there is no law in Lansingville.

Can you please let us know what’s being done?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

01/21/2021 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“I was wondering; have you anything in process to help us in managing traffic on Lansingville Road?

It’s been over three weeks [since our December 29th meeting] and we haven’t heard anything.

My brother has been checking; and every other road with a posted weight limit specifies ‘4 TONS’ and a 2 ton axel weight.

My research shows that ‘20 TON’ weight limit signs are reserved for bridges, not roads.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

03/25/2021 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“Nothing has happened with the requested weight restrictions on thru-cutting trucks; the 20 TON sign is still up . . . and my recent emails to the Town and County have not even been acknowledged.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

03/30/2021 – Complaint Letter to: L** H**, Deputy County Administrator – Department of County Administration:

“Re: Tompkins County Highway Department

Dear Ms. H**:

I wish to complain in the strongest terms about the response of the Tompkins County Highway Department to our request for a weight limit restriction on non-local trucks.

Commercial and industrial trucks have been using Lansingville Road and the Hamlet of Lansingville as a thru-cut for development projects from BJs to the new Cargill Mine Shaft and the Salmon Creek Bridge work.

These trucks race through, sometimes hundreds of times a day; driving aggressively down the middle of the road, and routinely passing agricultural traffic on the double-yellow lines — creating a serious safety issue.

The repeated heavy-truck traffic is breaking down the narrow [20 wide] paved surface of the road relied upon by local farmers.

They also scour down the dirt and gravel shoulders to as much as several inches below the road surface; creating a dangerous lip for small cars and bicycles.

There is no hardship to the trucking companies; since Lansingville Road is paralleled by state highways on either side.

The County Highway Department Supervisor has the power to set weight limits on local roads; so we asked our County representative, M** S**, to forward our request to have a 4-TON weight limit set on non-local traffic for Lansingville Road.

He received the following response from County Highway Supervisor J** S**:

This statement was so at odds with reality that it took us aback. We sent photos of just a few of the many large non-agricultural trucks that are “utilizing Lansingville Road,” and sent them to M** S**.

There was no response from the County to our documentation; and at the end of December 2020; signs suddenly appeared on Lansingville Road setting a 20-TON limit on non-local traffic — this is 5 times the weight limit that the County has posted on any other local road. And it’s a sign that is usually reserved for bridges, not roads.

Residents are frustrated and angry at the County’s dismissive treatment of their request, and the apparent disregard shown for their safety; as well as restricting agricultural activity in a proposed agricultural zone located within a NYS Agricultural District.

How can you fix this?

We want nothing that the residents of many other local roads, like Burdick Hill Road, haven’t already have received without demur; and for far less cause.”

Enclosures (1): Photo of weight limit sign

04/14/2021 – Reply Letter from: L** H**, Deputy County Administrator – Department of County Administration:

“Dear Mr. Baird:

I received your complaint about the Tompkins County Highway Department and your request for a weight limit restriction on non-local trucks traveling on Lansingville Road.

I spoke with Highway Director J** S** about your concerns. The Highway Director is prohibited from posting roads based solely on citizens’ requests; rather there needs to be data indicating that damage to the road has occurred because of heavier loads.

In regard to Lasingville Road, Mr. S** posted the road at 20 tons to limit through traffic of large trucks. This came in part from your previous request for a weight restriction because the data did indicate that road is in poor shape, and the weight limit would help to prevent it from deteriorating faster. It’s important to note that agriculture vehicles and local deliveries are exempt from the posting. This exemption for agricultural vehicles and local deliveries would also be true of a 4 ton weight restriction.

In response to your concerns, and in an effort to better understand the situation, the Highway Department will conduct another traffic count on Lansingville Road in the coming weeks and will utilize this data for related decisions.”

04/18/2021 – Email from County Legislator M** S**:

“I know the administration is now looped into the issue on your road. I’m not sure there’s a solution. I’ll call J** again tomorrow on it.”

04/19/2021 – Follow-up letter to L** H**, Deputy County Administrator – Department of County Administration:

Re: Tompkins County Highway Department

“Dear Ms. H**:

Your letter of April 14, 2021 neither responds to, nor accounts for, the actions and assertions of Tompkins County Highway Department Director J** S**; which are the substance of our complaint:

1. It does not account for his denial of any non-agricultural large truck traffic on Lansingville Road in an email to County Legislator M** S**; in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

2. It does not substantiate his claim of research, or give the name of the Lansing Highway Department personnel this assertion is based on.

3. It does not account for the posting of a 20 TON weight limit without informing County Legislator M** S**; who was inquiring into this issue as an official County representative.

4. It does not account for the posted weight limit being five times the [4 TON] weight limit of every other sign posted locally to “limit through traffic of large trucks” — a 20 TON weight limit that would allow the continued high-volume through traffic of gravel trucks — truck traffic that Director J** S** asserts does not even exist.

The County’s actions and response do not in any way “maintain public confidence” or meet the needs of local residents. Your letter will be kept on file as documentation for future inquires.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

05/06/2021 – Email to Tompkins County legislators:

“I wish to complain in the strongest terms about the response of the Tompkins County Highway Department to our request for a weight limit restriction on non-local, non-agricultural trucks, and the handling of our complaint by Deputy County Administrator L** H**.

[Attached are the ethics complaint to Ms. H**, her response, and my follow up letter.]

All we asked for is what many other local roads already have — how did Burdick Hill Road, Cherry Road and many other local roads get a “4 Ton” weight limit? And why can’t we get it the same way?

All we get are obstructions on top of obstructions, deliberate misunderstandings, and answers to requests we never made.

The roads around Lansingville already have considerable large and heavy traffic in the tractors, trucks and agricultural equipment used in today’s consolidated farming activities — traffic that none of these other roads have.”

“The lack of transparency and inappropriate responses by the Highway Department and the Deputy County Administrator have no place in ethical government.

We look forward, hopefully, to the posting [and enforcement] of 4 ton limits for all non-agricultural thru-cutting trucks on the agricultural roads of our historic hamlet: Lansingville Road, Lockerby Hill Road, and Jerry Smith Road.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

05/11/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“Do you know if the County Legislators are going to do anything about the thru-cutting trucks . . ?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

05/18/2021 – Email to the Lansing Town Supervisor and the Lansing Town Board, with a request to take action and forward to all Lansing Ag Committee members, and to representative J** K** of NYS Dept. of Agriculture:

“Lansingville Road, Lockerby Hill Road, and Jerry Smith Road have been turned into some of the biggest unregulated high-speed shortcuts and industrial truck routes in Tompkins County [attached is a video of the everyday behavior of thru-cutting traffic on Lansingville, taking place on a curve with a double yellow line; this behavior is also common with dump trucks, tractor trailers, and even Lansing Town trucks.]

The ability to change this is up to you.

Some of us are trying to trying to make our roads a safe and lawful part of the rural community by establishing a 40 MPH speed limit, no passing, a 4-Ton weight limit on non-agricultural, non-local delivery trucks, and enforcement of these laws.

We approached M** S**, our County Representative, and asked him to request that the County Highway Dept. to put a 4-Ton weight limit for non-local deliveries on Lansingville Road. The troubling response by the County is documented in the attached.

County Legislators have, to this day, refused to investigate, explain, or even acknowledge any communication concerning the Highway Department’s and Deputy County Administrator’s actions, or admit that non-ag trucks use Lansingville Road.”

The email continued with additional arguments and points; and ended with a plea for them to get involved – “This is a chance to do good for everyone in the rural community.”

Attached were copies of the 3/30/21 complaint letter to the Deputy County Administrator, the 4/14/21 response from Deputy County Administrator, the 4/19/21 follow-up letter to the Deputy County Administrator, the text of the 5/6/21 email to the County Legislature, and a video clip of traffic on Lansingville Road from the previous day.

No response or acknowledgement was ever received from any of the parties.

05/20/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S** and Town Board member A** B**:

“Could you find out what requirements the residents of Burdick Hill Road, Cherry Road, and the other local roads fulfilled to get approval for their “4 Ton” weight limit postings?

I’m sure we can do the same.”

05/25/2021 – Email from Town Board member A** B**:

“Doug…I think this is a positive step to take to reduce large truck traffic.

M** [County Legislator]…Do you know who should be contacted?

A**”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

05/29/2021 – Email to Town Board member A** B**:

“I have letters and emails on this issue going back to 2018; and not a single thing has been done to remediate the situation. Are we being stonewalled? If so, why?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

06/01/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“Do you have any information yet on what requirements the residents of Burdick Hill Road, Cherry Road, and the other local roads fulfilled to get approval for their “4 Ton” weight limit postings?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

06/07/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“Is there anything of substance happening with the request to post a 4-Ton limit on thru-cutting trucks . . ?”

Video clips of dump trucks filled with crushed stone using the road that morning were attached.

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

06/09/2021 – Email to Town Board member A** B** [owner of a thousand acre dairy farm with permanent easement]:

“I don’t know what luck you have had in obtaining any sort of traffic management on our rural roads, but I haven’t. More than 4 years of factual and reasoned attempts have gotten me nothing but runarounds, and when I persisted; a stone wall of silence.”

“There are three areas in which I see a possible solution, if you are willing to help:

1. You can act on this issue with the Ag Committee and Town Board – both the Town and County approved the Lansing Ag Protection Plan that lists in its “Goals and Strategies to Preserve Farmland and Promote Agriculture” a number of recommendations; from “giving priority to farming” to “review traffic/speed limits/signage in agriculture areas to improve safety” and the “maintenance of roads & bridges – for heavy ag vehicles.”

2. J** K** . . . I was told by the Counsel’s Office that he is the contact for NYS Ag in this matter.

3. Help with a petition – once again, you have connections, locally and through the Ag Committee, to get “door to door” and email signatures to a petition. Attached is a sample of what I thought might be wanted.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

06/17/2021 – A letter and enclosures were sent to Attorney General Letitia James:

“Re: Tompkins County Government Misconduct

Dear Attorney General James:

I am writing you to request an investigation into the conduct of Tompkins County Highway Director J** S**, as well as the conduct of L** H**, Deputy County Administrator in her handling of an ethics investigation of Director S**’s actions, and the Tompkins County Legislature’s subsequent refusal to take appropriate steps to insure ethics and transparency in County government.”

The letter contained a detailed account of the actions of the parties named; and enclosed copies of the email response from the County Highway Director, the letter to the Deputy County Administrator, the response from Deputy County Administrator, and a photo of weight limit sign.

The Certified Mail receipt was dated June 21, 2021.

No response or acknowledgement of the letter was ever received.

06/23/2021 – Email to a neighboring town Superintendent of Public Works:

“We want to stop the through-cutting of large trucks. Lansingville Road has become a major route for industrial and commercial traffic from Cayuga County. During projects like the Cargill mine shaft there were hundreds of trucks going back and forth in a day with crushed stone. There are also tractor trailers, heavy equipment flatbeds, and cement mixers that uses Lansingville on a regular basis. There are no law enforcement patrols on Lansingville Road; and these trucks drive aggressively down the middle of the road and routinely pass tractors and farm equipment on the double yellow lines. This narrow road with only gravel shoulders is really taking a pounding as well. There are state highways on either side (34 & 34B) and no hardship or need to use Lansingville Road.

We want to fulfill all the requirements that other residents did and get the same protections.”

06/23/2021 – Email reply from the Superintendent of Public Works – Re: Requirements for a “4-ton” weight limit on non-local traffic:

“Residents don’t decide where signs are placed. Petitions hold no merit.

Roads are posted for other reasons.

Good luck”

07/05/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“I’m still trying every door on a thru-cutting weight limit on Lansingville’s roads” . . .

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

07/07/2021 – Email to All Tompkins County Legislators:

“We are still trying a to get 4-Ton weight limit for thru-cutting trucks on Lansingville’s roads; and want to find out how the residents of many other local roads were able to do this. We got this response from one government authority:

‘Residents don’t decide where signs are placed. Petitions hold no merit.

Roads are posted for other reasons.’

There cannot be a set policy; because there has never been any mention of a policy to date, so it must be decided by a group — who are the people who make this decision?

Even a minimal government transparency should allow citizens to find that out.”

Two months later – there was still no response from any Tompkins County Legislator.

Throughout the entire process, and in the face of irrefutable documentary evidence; the County has never changed their claim that these trucks do not even exist.

Once again; the County has given the cold-shoulder runaround to the real needs of the rural community – and they’re so comfortable in their power – they don’t even try to hide it.

The story continues in Part 2.

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “A rural county with 40,000 transients” Bumper sticker

Tompkins County: The students have no idea of what’s happening in the county; but County authorities and corporations have a good idea of how to use that ignorance – the power of representation to run the county like a private club; without any accountability. Tompkins County’s stratified community puts all power into the hands of its urban elite — and all burdens on the backs of the rural poor. It’s like having 40,000 convention guests; whose biggest concern is – “Is the ice machine working?”

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – The Map is not the Territory: The mapmakers are

Tompkins County policy making is a puzzle with thousands of pieces; all the same size, the same shape, and imprinted with the same design. No matter how many pieces you put together; the picture never changes — it just gets bigger.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY

The mapmakers are

Sometimes it can be little things that point the most clearly to misconduct and undue influence in government policy making.

Removed from the shadows of bureaucratic justification: each piece tells a story of the ethics and intent behind these public policies — who receives the benefits — and how that affects the life of the community.

In this chapter; I will use the legal definition of fraud to examine a map that was used to support far-reaching policy decisions, summarize the results of that examination and its disclosure

The map is the “Town of Lansing, N.Y. Agricultural Property” map displaying the legend: “Agricultural Exemptions 2016”. The source is “Tompkins County Assessment Dept, 2016” and it contains the seal and imprint of the “Tompkins County Planning Dept”.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. It can be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements:

(1) A false statement of a material fact

Nearly half of the land marked as “agricultural property” in this map is not owned by agricultural entities; and is only rented for agricultural use. Much of this property is residential or commercially owned and rented for a little tax relief – in a county that has one of the highest median property taxes in the United States.

Although the map purports to show “Agricultural Exemptions” – much of the land marked does not receive any agricultural exemption. For example: only 40% of my neighbor’s land received an agricultural exemption; but 100% was marked as receiving it in this map.

(2) Knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue

In a “clarification” email; the County’s Assessment Department admitted that they knowingly helped create a map misrepresenting the actual acreage receiving Agricultural Exemptions: “The intention of the map is to show the parcels that receive an agricultural exemption – it is not intended to show how much of each parcel receives an exemption.” Although this is clearly not the representation of this map; the Assessment Dept. still insisted: “The map is in fact correct.”

(3) Intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim

This map was used to support preferential agricultural policies for a handful of influential farmers, including the unilateral creation of an Agricultural Zone, to the exclusion and detriment of 95% of the existing rural community — an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact. This is an “afterthought” piece of supporting evidence; created and added after the town’s Agriculture Protection Plan was already approved – what it claims to be is clearly, knowingly, and admittedly, not a true representation.

(4) Justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement

This map is “signed off” on by both the County Assessment Dept. and the County Planning Dept.; it was included in the Town’s comprehensive plan, and was presented with those credentials as a factual representation. Residents were invited to place reliance on this map and approve the rezoning of half of the town from Rural/Agricultural to Agricultural only.

(5) Injury to the alleged victim as a result

This map was used by authorities to justify the enactment of restrictive policies against “non-farming” residents; further marginalizing the county’s rural poor — to promote Agriculture as the only preferred use of rural land, and to designate farmers as the sole and exclusive “stakeholders” in the rural community.

This map is included in the arguments of Town and County “representatives” who fostered citizen petitions to prevent the sale or rental of rural land for solar farms or for housing, and force highly-taxed rural landowners to sell cheaply to farmers; already the richest and most influential people in the community. The “consolidation” of rural land into the hands of ever-larger farming corporations; further enables the spread of “modern farming methods” that have been proven to cause “significant harm” to neighboring families.

A knowingly inaccurate map should neither have been created nor have been offered for inclusion in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan – a legal document that is described in NY Town Law as: “Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a town government.”

Additionally, whereas this map is offered as a proof of intent by the Town to protect land for continued agricultural use; the Town has sold the land that it rented for agriculture use to a housing developer — and a different Comprehensive Plan map shows that the Town plans to zone most of the agricultural land in the southern half of town for future residential and commercial development.

Just changing the legend and/or name of the map would only cover up the situation and retain any advantages that the misrepresentation has already given to the parties involved.

I sent these arguments in an email requesting that the County Legislature remove this map from its files and from any documents wherein it has been used, and to correct as much as possible the damage its use has caused.

Attachments included both the Agricultural Property map and the “clarification” email from the County Assessment Department.

There was no response or acknowledgement from any of the county’s 14 Legislators.

If it is ethics that give a government legitimacy; what does the County’s creation and continued use of this map represent?

The Town of Lansing’s 2016 Agricultural Property map is just one example of the deliberate misrepresentations that riddle the County’s planning agenda.

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “New York’s Agriculture Policy” Bumper sticker

New York refuses to disclose the serious health and financial risks of living near “modern farming methods”; or the risk of those “methods” moving in next to you.

New York refuses to disclose the extent of Agricultural pollution or meaningfully regulate its sources – while at the same time requiring the 3 of the 5 voting members of all “soil and water conservation committees” be from Agriculture.

New York refuses to disclose the externalized costs of Agriculture; bragging of their economic and tax benefits, while keeping quiet about programs like the Farmer’s School Tax Credit; that pays back Agricultural entities for 50 to 100 percent of their school taxes through levying additional state taxes on the residents.

“Urban Colonialism” paints a deliberately deceptive picture of modern Agriculture; while urban and suburban populations allow themselves to be convinced and placated – “it’s our food and it’s only those people who are complaining – they shouldn’t be living there anyway.”

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “Cornithaca County is so corrupt . . .” 9

“It’s a self-fulfilling sophistry.” In Tompkins County; every policy argument becomes true; because everything is controlled by the same people. It’s no surprise to residents that the fox not only guards the hen house; but also investigates the disappearances, and rules them to be “runaways.”

Tompkins County and Tammany Hall will examine the origins and credibility of the term “rural sprawl” and why it immediately replaced all mention of “urban sprawl” at every level of County planning and policy making — and its use in carving up rural towns for commercial exploitation.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Deadly Drift

Deadly Drift – Gone, but not forgotten – like a blight in the life of a tree – leaves a permanent mark in its growth. Every chapter in this book contains evidence that points in the same direction – evidence that cannot be refuted by facts – because there are no facts that contradict.

In these days: where “equitability” replaces equality, and any evil can be excused with the assurance of a greater goodness — our revered figures of human worth and equality are arranged like a jury of bobble heads: always nodding, but never allowed to speak.

And like the often cited “necessary evil,” or TDML’s “necessary” pollution; is the corruption and cronyism displayed in the pages of this book something that you’ve come to terms with? And if so; does that reflect your sophistication? Or your inhumanity?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DEADLY DRIFT

If there’s a law; and nobody enforces it: Does it actually exist?

Contrary to the media disclosures and quick condemnation that accompanies any health debilitating activity in our cities; the health and well-being of rural residents is of no importance to authorities, the media, or those who perpetrate the injury.

As you read this narrative; think about how differently these acts of misconduct would be treated if they occurred in a metropolitan or suburban setting.

This incident marked a turning point in my life. After many years of pursuing Rural Social Justice through public hearings, letters, speeches and chasing bureaucratic shadows within the law; I had cause to call on the regulatory and clear-cut legislative intent of County, State, and Federal authorities. This chapter recounts how these people “in a position of public trust” answered that call.

The narrative has been organized into a timeline for clarity; and the names have been withheld to keep the focus on their positions and public responsibilities. Everything is fully documented — it’s their actions that tell the story.

06/03/2017 – Day of the Herbicide Poisoning – mid-afternoon – my weather station was reading winds of 16-20 MPH

I was outside on my rider mower, when a high-clearance agricultural boom sprayer entered an adjoining field to the north and sped towards me; spraying me with a cloud of a chemicals.

[These agricultural boom sprayers are designed to ride through fields, above weeds and crops. A typical specification for one of these machines would be: 12 ft. high x 28 ft. long x 12 ft. wide without boom, and 90-120 ft. wide with boom extended. Weight 35,000 lbs. Road speed with boom folded 30-40 mph. Spray application speed with boom unfolded up to 25 mph. A large piece of equipment to use in an area only 300 feet wide.]

At the age of 66; my back stiffens up while seated on the mower and I was unable to get off and move quickly.

I could smell the chemicals as I breathed them in through my mouth and nose.

I immediately went inside and cleaned up and then called the dairy farmer who was renting that field from me to complain – he told me that Helena Chemical was spraying Roundup on that field.

A short time later I received a call from someone at Helena Chemical who informed me that they had spoken with the applicator, but they were rushing to spray before the rain came, and I should take off my clothes and shower — there was not even an apology.

Already cleaned up; with a beer and something to eat; I thought I had put the whole incident behind me.

06/04/2017 – Early Sunday morning

I became aware that I was standing in the middle of the bathroom vomiting all over myself, the toilet and the bathroom floor – and I didn’t even care – I remember getting down on my knees and pushing towels around the floor for a while to clean it up, and feeling completely disconnected from what I was doing – then I went back to bed for 24 hours. More than my stomach was outraged – I did not have a bowel-movement for a week afterwards.

I didn’t realize at the time how much my physical well-being affected my mental outlook: but after a week or so; my thoughts turned from my interior condition to the conditions of my herbicide poisoning.

06/17/2017 – Complaint

As I felt better; I grew angrier at being sprayed, and more worried about any long term effects.

In spite of advice from neighbors; I submitted a herbicide poisoning complaint to the NYSDEC through their website.

Recounting the incident online brought a number of emotions to the surface; but I tried to keep it a fair and accurate description of the events — it later became evident that I was the only one with that concern.

06/17/2017 – Herbicide poisoning investigated by NYSDEC

Two NYSDEC personnel showed up unannounced: one of them interviewed me while the other took photos outside. I was informed some weeks later that the investigation had been concluded and the case had been disposed; but that if I wanted to see the report; I would need to make a FOIL [Freedom of Information Law] request.

08/15/2017 – The records of the NYSDEC Herbicide Poisoning complaint and investigation are disclosed:

It was my fault.

Government oversight agendas make use of a standard set of fallback protocols to short-circuit complaints and maintain business as usual: Discredit the Person, Discredit the Facts, Discredit the Situation, and It’s Legal Anyway. See if you can spot them in this NYSDEC investigative report [names have been withheld, “***” represents redacted text]:

Complaint Form

Facts and Information provided by Complainant

The following information was received through the DEC website “Report an Environmental Violation Online” or sent directly by the complainant to an OPP dispatch mailbox:

Who Did It: Helena

What Occurred: 1 was mowing my lawn, when 1 noticed a large high-clearance ag sprayer racing down the adjacent field towards me. It passed me only a few feet [less than 30 ft.] away and covered me with a strong smelling cloud [I was down wind in a 20 mph wind according to my weather station.] I immediately went inside and tried to clean up, but there was nothing I could do about what 1 had already breathed in and absorbed through my nasal passages, and then called the farmer, J– C–, who was renting the land. Through the windows I could see the boom sprayer flying around the fields which surround my house on three sides. [There are dead patches in my lawn where overspray has killed the grass.] J– told me it was herbicide/”round-up’, and a short while later someone from Helena called and told me they had spoken with the applicator, but they were rushing to spray before the rain came, and I should take off my clothes and shower — there was not even an apology.

Early Sunday morning, the diarrhea started, followed by fairly severe vomiting a couple of hours later. It took over a week before my digestion seemed back to normal, but the anger still remains.

When Did It Occur: On Saturday, June 3, 2017 in the afternoon [around 3:00 pm]

County: Tompkins Municipality: Lansing

Location Or Address: ___ Lansingville Road

How Did It Occur: Reckless endangerment through arrogance and unsafe application of poison by licensed company.

Additional Details: I’m sure they’ll do it again — they’re protected by Ag Law.

Date of Submittal: 06/17/2007

On Saturday, June 17^th, at approximately 1500hrs, ECO E– and 1 met with *** at *** residence. A statement was received from

*** indicating that *** leases *** land. approximately 10.5 acres, to J– C– for agricultural work. *** stated that on June 3rd, specialized spraying farm equipment sprayed pesticides in a reckless manner by traveling at a high rate of speed, spraying in high winds (20mph from the North read from *** weather station), and by spraying past the cornfield, into *** |adjacent lawn. *** stated that *** was sprayed with the pesticide. and has been violently sick for the following week. *** contacted J– C– who said that the chemical was an herbicide, and *** was later contacted by Helena advising *** to remove *** contaminated clothes and shower if *** was sprayed. Overspray of herbicide was found on the south and east edge of the property.

Upon questioning, *** did not seek medical attention for the spraying and I advised *** to do so. *** did not provide an answer for why *** did not report the incident immediately. *** expressed *** views on farming and that| *** was politically active against farming.

06/25/2017 08:05:31

On Wednesday, June 21st, 2017, I visited the C– Farm located on L– H– Rd, T/Lansing. J– C– was on vacation, but a farm worker provided the details and contact information for A– M– at Helena Chemical. The farm also provided a basic map of pesticide application areas, but was not able to provide a lease for the ___ Lansingville Rd property. 1 contacted A– and he agreed to meet on Thursday.

On Wednesday. I visited *** as *** was able to find a copy of the lease of the the property Upon investigation of the lease, the lease provided no boundaries or physical descriptors, additionally *** stated that the lease covered 8.5 acres, but *** was leasing the remaining 2 acres on a verbal agreement with J– C–. The residence and leased farm land are all on one tax parcel. On this visit, I noticed other areas of *** Lawn had dead grass. And **** stated that *** had used roundup herbicide on his lawn.

07/15/2017 14:09:13

On Thursday, the 22nd, I met with A– M– of Helena Chemical, applicator # C___. A– had all required, paperwork and licenses. No previous violations with Helena Chemical. A– was aware of the complaint and disputed the wind speed and high speed of the tractor and stated that the tractors must travel at 12 mph as the dosage rate is fixed.

Helena Chemical was issued Warning No. 20910 for application of pesticide to non-target area, 6NYCRR 325.2(a)

The complainant was contacted via telephone and notified of the outcome of the investigation.

Case closed!

From negative statements intended to discredit my testimony: “*** did not seek medical attention” – “did not provide an answer for why” – “did not report the incident immediately”; to the ludicrous and false claim that I stated I had used roundup herbicide on my lawn, the whole report seems designed to give the impression that I am evasive, if not an outright liar, acting out of malice and hate. It’s a very interesting and revealing response from an NYSDEC investigation that did not even ascertain the wind speed at the time of a herbicide drift complaint.

After dismissing my poisoning; the report spends time quibbling about boundaries and leases. The boundaries were clearly demarked, and unchanged for 20 years

Killing a 3 or 4 foot wide swath of lawn against the strong north winds that were gusting that afternoon would require a boom spraying placement well inside the visible boundaries — a placement that is not consistent with the careful application of herbicide at a speed of “12 mph.”

At no point did the NYSDEC’s investigation document the actual weather conditions — instead, they merely noted that the applicator “disputed the wind speed”. The local NOAA weather station recorded winds of 13-16 MPH with wind gusts of 17 to 23 MPH during that time period – consistent with my own weather station readings. And as I found out later; these boom sprayers are equipped with wind gauges in order to monitor wind conditions while spraying; making it even more suspicious that no actual numbers ever appeared in the report.

The investigators never asked the applicator how, with an unobstructed view from an elevated, glass paneled operator’s cabin, he missed seeing me on a rider mower, and continued spraying; driving past me upwind at a distance of less than 50 feet.

And maybe the most egregious aspect; the NYSDEC investigation never made any mention of the restrictions and conditions of this chemical’s application under Federal law, or under their own regulatory oversight. The exact chemical brand name was never revealed; but the EPA registration document for “Glyphosate 41%” states:

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.

“Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application.”

“Wind – Drift potential is lowest between wind speeds of 2-10 mph.”

“Sensitive Areas – The pesticide must only be applied when the potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g. residential areas, bodies of water, known habitat for threatened or endangered species, non-target crops) is minimal (e.g. when wind is blowing away from the sensitive areas).”

Further research uncovered additional cautions from leading Agricultural colleges:

University of Minnesota Extension – When is it too Windy to Spray?

• “Always measure wind speed and direction before, during, and after the application. Always follow label information, but in general, wind speeds of 3 to 7 mph are preferable. Spray at low wind velocities (less than 10 mph).”

Perdue University Extension – Reducing Spray Drift from Glyphosate and Growth Regulator

• “Spray when the wind speeds are less than 10 MPH.”

• “Spray when the wind direction is away from sensitive areas”

Montana State University Extension – Avoiding Pesticide Drift

• “Spray when the wind speed is 10 mph wind or less.”

Michigan State University Extension

• “Professional pesticide applicators carry windspeed gauges to determine if windspeed are within acceptable limits There is no magic number for windspeed though ten miles per hour is a common rule of thumb as a limit for spraying.”

• “One the most important cautions on contact herbicide labels is avoid drift.”

University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Research & Extension – Mitigating Pesticide Spray Drift

• “Most labels recommend not applying pesticides when wind is gusty or speed is greater than 10 mph. It is recommended for applicators to regularly and accurately measure wind speed to ensure proper spray deposition.”

What was Helena Chemical’s motivation? It’s the date of the incident that provides an answer. Roundup is sprayed to kill all the vegetation in a field before the corn is planted; and June 3^rd is very late for Central New York. That spring was extremely wet, not just in the amount of rain, but in the frequency of showers. In “rushing to spray before the rain” and fulfil contracts within the short window of dry weather; Helena Chemical deliberately ignored government safety and application regulations.

The NYSDEC did not follow even the basic guidelines for an investigation, and never explored the reasons for the event or tried to identify the immediate and underlying causes.

After this door slamming result to my complaint; I posted the NYSDEC report in a detailed blog about my poisoning,

09/02/2017 – Deadly Drift – Emails were sent to the Tompkins County Legislators and the Lansing Town Board; requesting they review the material in the blog.

There was only one response; then no further communication. No action was ever taken.

While I investigated other Rural Social Justice issues; the need to make another attempt at resolving my own herbicide drift issue grew.

I requested local weather records from NOAA for the day of the incident, and took photos of the incident location from the adjoining field that demonstrated an unobstructed view of that location — even at ground level.

I researched label instructions and application regulations and guidelines from authoritative sources [some of which have already been noted.]

In recounting my poisoning incident to others, I found that incidents of herbicide drift and its effects were not uncommon in the community. While one resident mentioned seeing herbicide drifting onto clothes hung out to dry, another was unaware that herbicide had been sprayed and made no connection to the nausea and other symptoms that he experienced until later. Some spoke of the high rate of cancer in their family, and some agreed to come forward and testify.

The NYSDEC report was reviewed by G– V–, a laboratory and field scientist with twelve years of inspection experience with the NYS DOH and The Cortland County Health department, where he held the title of Environmental Laboratory Consultant and Sanitarian, respectively. He noted the following:

“The first being an investigative report should be FACTUAL, not INTERPETIVE, as in “Expressed views that was politically active against farming.” The second was the use of an exclamation point at the end of “case closed” which to me is highly unprofessional, and may be presenting a bias.”

My plan was to send an unignorable and fully documented account of the incident to authorities: persuading them to take action.

04/18/2019 – An Express Mail envelope containing the NYDEC Investigation Report, NOAA Climatological Data for the day, an Incident location photo, and a detailed letter describing the case and requesting their help was sent to County, State, and Federal representatives and oversight authorities by Certified Mail.

All of them either did not respond, responded flatly that they “had no authority” or it “did not fall under their jurisdiction” — or referred everything to the NYSDEC for a self-investigation of its own misconduct.

A letter from the Regional Director of the NYSDEC with results of that investigation was forwarded to me, with a cover letter, from my State Representative.

07/08/2019 – “Enclosed find a copy of the correspondence recently received from M– M–, Regional Director the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation . . . Although the Department’s response was not what you hoped for . . .”

The NYSDEC response ignored all the evidence while presenting unsubstantiated arguments for their position:

“DEC has reviewed this matter. For the reasons set forth below, DEC believes that the initial investigation in June 2017 was thorough and the decision not to pursue administrative or criminal enforcement against Helena was proper.”

“While it appears that the complainant would like stronger laws, the complaint about DEC’S investigation can only be answered from the perspective of the then current laws and regulations.”

The Regional Director even added the text of the regulation that “provides the requirements for use and application of pesticides” — but never explained why the then current regulations were inadequate, or provided any actual figures for the wind speed, pesticide drift, wind direction or proximity to human habitation needed to pursue regulatory enforcement.

The applicator’s compliance with Federal label instructions, and the contents of those instructions, was never mentioned. The points brought up by the DOH expert, and all other questions concerning the quality and intent of the original NYSDEC investigation, were never answered or even acknowledged.

The entire response did not include one fact that could be used to hold the Regional Director or the NYSDEC to account for their decisions.

08/01/2019 – A letter sent to my State Representative regarding the inadequacy of the NYSDEC response was not acknowledged.

11/18/2019 – An email follow up complaint to the EPA detailing the case and offering additional information was not acknowledged.

Another spring – I heard loud back-up “beeps” and looked out the window. A high wheel herbicide boom sprayer was carefully backing up, and then moving forward, in the small section of field next to where I was sprayed. This process was repeated for several minutes. It was the first time I had ever seen this behavior, or heard a back-up warning — then I looked across the street and saw someone photographing this display.

If only they had the same level of concern for the health and safety of rural residents.