June 4

 We have read the comments posted thus far. We have also read the Yale Study(not yet available in our library as of last Friday) and have never felt more disenfranchised from a place we have known for well over 50 years. We also agree that what has been offered up by The Lost Apostrophe  ( albeit anonymous ) and others are spot on and balanced in their response. Until further notice we will assume that those with fact based concerns and those who support the recommendations of the Yale Study are well meaning lovers of FI and want the best for generations to follow. In our view,however, the process thus far has been very disappointing. 

Jan and Peter Burr

Comments and a question on hiding behind a screen of anonymity - May 21

I have just read the the comments recently posted on the PO Bulletin Board and I would like to compliment the person who wrote them.  All of his/her points are well thought-out and extremely well-expressed.  Many of them I agree with.   I am disappointed, however, that whoever wrote them is unwilling to sign their name.  The entire focus of the Yale Study is the future of Fishers Island and if we are to have a meaningful public debate, individuals and groups need to make their views known without Comment s .  Again, I am writing these comments to an equally anonymous e-mail address — why can’t we have these ideas expressed on a PUBLIC website to which we can all contribute in a responsible way?  If anyone has anything meaningful and credible to say, they should be willing to sign their name……

Sara McLean, May 21, 2014

June 3, 2014 Post

June 3, 2014

To The Lost Apostrophe

Thank you for initiating this open forum for those of us who care deeply about the future of our island. You have touched on many of the weaknesses of the Yale study. I would like to add some additional thoughts.

Of concern is that the proposal we are being asked to support and vote for, is a plan that appears not to have been ‘reality tested’. I do not believe that the study authors have initiated any dialog with Southold nor spoken with Louisa, Pierce or the Ferry District who have worked frequently (quite constructively, I believe) with Southold. I believe that the authors have not spoken with any of the communities that switched to the village structure nor to any of the many villages (+/- 40) that found that structure financially untenable and reverted back. Island resident Jeanne Thatcher is the Mayor of a Long Island community and I believe that no one has spoken with her. No one from the study has to spoken with the actual island reverse commuters, business owners or families who have educated their children both on and off the island. Why not? Why are we being asked to support, financially and with our votes, a scheme that has little foundation in the actual fabric of Fishers Island life?

A principal concern of the proposed village structure is who would be eligible to run for Mayor and the four volunteer advisory positions? My understanding is that this would be the same population (island voter plus property owner or full-time resident) as the pool of people who are now eligible to be on the Waste Management and Ferry Commissions. What difference will the village structure make if we end up with the same population of decision makers? I understand that the proposal includes the idea of hiring a “Village Manager” who will somehow have the combined experience and wisdom of all the Southold professional resources we now have access to. However the Manager’s priorities will be dictated by the Mayor and four advisors who will be elected from our very limited population. The Ferry Commission can’t get five qualified people to fill the slots now. What difference will the proposed village structure make in the quality of decision making that we so badly need?

There are infrastructure issues on the island that are victims of long-term deferred maintenance or benign neglect – the water system and the ferry operation are but two. At some point these and more will require strong leadership, significant professional planning and community investment. Rather than addressing these fundamental and complicated issues, over the past couple of years, the efforts of the ICB have been fully focused on an ivory tower exercise with Yale rather than doing the hard work within the community and with Southold to prepare the island for the future.

The school is making great strides as apparently is Chris Finan with enhancing island internet capabilities. The Lighthouse Works is flourishing, as is the new Community Center restaurant. Good things are happening on our island. Yes, there certainly are ‘opportunities’ as well. We require a strong and community-unifying leader in an ICB or FICA structure who can address these issues within the context of our existing reality. It seems highly reckless to put our faith, money and votes in an ivory tower exercise believing that this will somehow make present and future challenges any easier or less costly.

PS: Will someone please compile a list of the island organizations that contribute to reimbursing the costs of the Yale study? It will be disappointing to learn that some of our donations will go to Yale rather than to the island community for which they were intended.

Yale Study: Sustaining Fishers Island 
March ’14 Working Draft

The Yale Urban Design Workshop has prepared the document titled Sustaining Fishers Island: A blueprint for protecting the future. This work is a result of a thorough study of Fishers Island including its unique considerations, assets and constraints, and through conversations with Fishers Island residents /stakeholders and Island Community Board (ICB) members representing different island organizations, and then further assessment of the island’s options. It contains recommended steps to address the long-standing and long-term issues of population, jobs, infrastructure and the present and future costs of Island living.

The Island Community Board (ICB) recently reviewed and accepted the working draft of the comprehensive work – the result of a 22-month process. The 122-page report published here begins with the Front Matter including acknowledgements, and the 6 Chapters: Introduction; Framing The Problem; Plan Methodology; Wrightville; Improving Infrastructure; and Getting It Done; as well as the Appendix.

http://fishersisland.net/yale-study-sustaining-fishers-island-report-march-2014/

YALE study – Comments received May 21, 2014

First, congratulations to whoever began this forum - it was desperately needed and should have been initiated by the ICB a long time ago. That it wasn’t strongly suggests an agenda more interested in executing a plan than having it properly vetted.

This brief piece will focus on the government aspects of the plan. The study recommends that FI become its own village in order to achieve “more control”, rebalance a perceived financial deficit between taxes paid and services rendered, and to somehow utilize the new found powers to enhance the local population. All three reasons are based on assumptions that can’t withstand scrutiny. Worse, if successful, the plan will invite some very unpleasant consequences.

While it is true that FI is subject to some irrelevant and inappropriate town laws and ordinances, it is also true that these are rarely, if ever enforced. It would be appropriate to characterize the Town’s posture to FI as being one of benign neglect. In the past it has generally deferred to the Island’s wishes whenever it is possible to do so. It has been responsive to the old Fishers Island Civic Association, and to requests that have been relayed by the island’s representative. At the same time it has supported island efforts to responsibly plan for the future by contributing and conducting various plans and studies. In all of these areas, the Town Board has acted in a restrained and measured way. In part this has been possible because they are removed. The distance ensures that they are personally divorced from issues and it provides a level of objectivity that is not often found in more local government. One can reasonably argue that FI enjoys the best of two worlds.

In contrast local FI politics have often been contentious and divisive. The smallness of the community promotes disagreements to descend to a personal level, and in turn decisions are often flavored by other influences. The resulting rancor is disagreeable, especially in a small resort community. Is it not preferable to leave the politics on the other side of the Race?

Government on all levels has become more complex. The growth of laws and regulations have accelerated, especially in the wake of 911. It is unrealistic to expect a tiny government body to keep pace with all the new mandates, and if it were attempted, the costs would be considerably greater than anticipated. Our tax districts have experienced such strain. Labor and safety issues have increasingly occupied their time and resources to the point where it has become increasingly difficult to attract volunteers to serve. Frequently these organizations discover that they are not in compliance with regulations that they were unaware of. If such is their experience, imagine the situation on a village level. The town government has the dual advantage of size and experience. The former allows for a specialization of expertise that cannot be afforded on a smaller level. The latter grants a greater time span in which to digest and evolve with the changes. It is simply not practical to expect the same from a small entity.

The history of NY hamlets converting to villages is interesting. It was relatively common in the first half or the 20^th century, much less so in the latter half. The more recent attempts have shown a high rate of recividism – strong evidence of how impractical it has become. I suspect that NY State requires a 500 resident minimum before allowing a village for these reasons. The plan’s recommendation that we creatively meet that threshold by persuading people to temporarily switch their residencies ignores good and valid justifications underpinning the requirement.

The so-called tax deficit is based on a study that purported to analyze revenue and expenses at the town level. This exercise is fraught with assumptions and arbitrary decisions. How does one prorate certain expenses? How does one account for services that are required, but not used? The innate difficulties in such an analysis are manifold, and it is extremely unlikely that an objective conclusion will result. A more constructive approach is to compare FI Town taxes to other comparable communities and to other FI expenses. In both cases our taxes appear to be one of the best bargains around. Since 1997 my taxes have increased about 50%. I am unaware of any other service or product that has inflated so little in the same time frame. Moreover, when compare to other communities my taxes are some of the lowest around. Even if there is a deficit between what is paid and what is received (which I believe there isn’t), I would much prefer to enjoy the relatively low expense than incur a higher tax by righting a perceived inequity.

Southold enjoys one of the highest bond ratings that a town can be awarded. It maintained this rating throughout the economic crisis, while surrounding towns struggled. This reflects an admirable and rare frugalness. It also confers benefits on the island. When our ferry district has to bond for a new boat or ramp, the cost of its debt is extremely low because it is backstopped by the Town’s rating. This, and numerous other hidden benefits will disappear with secession.

If FIDCO (or the ICB) is viewed as an example of village government, it would give one pause. For most of existence FIDCO’s historic performance was marked as an economic struggle. The 1929 crash and subsequent depression overwhelmed the Ferguson’s development effort, caused multiple bankruptcies and bailouts, and forced the sale of assets at an unfavorable time. The prosperity that underpinned the development initiative of the 1920’s did not return for about 60 years. Granted, a depression and a world war contributed, but it is also true that the island did not have enough depth to weather the storm. Converting to a village will present a similar exposure.

The island’s local population has suffered a prolonged and significant decline over the past 60 years. The causes of this decline are varied. At its peak the local population had been augmented by imported workers to serve the hotels, the army, and the development effort. That demand reversed with the closing of Fort Wright. Since, there has been a slow but steady decline as the population was balanced against the new economics. It has been aggravated by a general demographic change that has impacted all New England communities, especially the rural ones. The population is aging, and with it there is a general decline in career opportunities for the younger generation. Against this backdrop, it is inappropriate to blame the acts of the town for the decline, and similarly, unrealistic to expect village government to reverse it. Moreover, it is difficult if not impossible to point to any feature of town government as a contributory factor in that decline.

The Yale plan suggests changes that will dramatically change the Island. Its promises must be balanced by the potential attendant dangers and unforeseen consequences. In short it must be approached with the utmost caution and care.

Received and posted by The Lost Apostrophe

thelostapostrophe@gmail.com

Fishers Island, NY

May 20, 2014

The two most experienced 'reverse commuters' attended the Yale presentation and both signed up to participate in follow-up discussions. To date, neither one has been contacted.   These two can provide insights into the challenges faced by this situation.

May 20, 2014

It is hard to understand how non-profits and other organizations can be asked to contribute to a study after that study has been launched and completed.  These organizations were not given any input into the structure or content of the study nor were they given any indication that they would be asked to underwrite it.  It seems late in the game to be asking for funding and it puts these organizations in a tricky spot of reconciling their mission statements with this island wide initiative.