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
20th 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
Fishers Island, NY
No comments:
Post a Comment