18 July 2014
As pretty as the Yale Study is I am not sure it tells us
anything that we don’t already know about our island: dwindling year-round
population, rundown infrastructure, etc.
It offers some interesting thoughts on how the west end could be changed.
However, the conclusion that the only way
to change is through running our own government (becoming a village) and controlling our finances, does not
begin to address the complexity of this course of action, the time it will
take, the cost and how this can be accomplished.
I am very glad that certain people decided to do something
instead of repeating another study, however the Yale study’s presentation seems
to me more of marketing document, than a formal study. I am disappointed in the process being
overly top down and seemingly worked to a pre-existing conclusion. It is easy to take pot shots at the
study; focused and limited interviewing, not reaching out to other communities
that have become villages (incorporating) or became unincorporated within New
York (http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Local_Government_Handbook.pdf), limited options on housing and utility structure, etc. That said we should use the document as
starting point to address our issues within the governing structure that we already
have in place.
Over the past three years I have been involved with the Town
of Southold via the Sewer and Ferry Districts. These entities work through the municipal government, which
is slow, difficult to navigate, financially complex and at times very
frustrating. What I have learned
though, is that if you follow the “rules”, the Town is very helpful. This doesn’t mean that I think we get a
full value from taxes paid to Southold, but I learned that if we play well in
their sandbox they are willing to work with us.
I also believe that we have been our own worst enemy with
Southold. The attitude has often been to remain independent instead of making
Southold or our local entities accountable. So instead taking the time to work towards a solution all
too often we look to shortcuts and pass the hat around. Nice as this is, and actually amazing,
it may not be a sustainable business model.
The study also cites the Island Community Board (“ICB”) as a
proxy for local government. The
ICB’s mandate, or so I thought, was to bring the island’s groups and entities
together, liaise with Southold and to go further than the Civic
Association. Frankly I have been
sorely disappointed in the performance of the ICB. To me it should have extended an olive branch to Southold
and become a true democratic local body to work with the Town on island-based
issues. Instead it has remained
aloof from dealing with the Town and its constituents, has not followed its own
by-laws, shown very little strategic vision (outside of this initiative) and
failed to continue the practices that the Civic Association (publicizing annual
reports from the various island entities, etc.) did so well.
To me, and I strongly underline me, the island would not be
having this debate if the ICB had delivered on its promises, worked with the
Town and required accountability, both on island and with the Town. So before we start taking a wrecking
ball to what we have let’s clean up our own house.
My final comment is a recommendation that the ICB establish
two sections on Fishersisland.net. The first is to receive and publish
questions, comments and suggestions regarding the Yale study. The second would be to have a FAQ
section, i.e., a section that publishes questions and provides the Yale/ICB
responses.
Gordon S. Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment