To the Editor:
Thank you for your editorial concerning the proposed Southside Oneonta Town Water District. Although this paper came out against the district and has devoted a disproportionate amount of space to a single City resident who vocally opposes it, I appreciate its coverage. The project has been supported by the other local newspaper and by groups as diverse as Sustainable Otsego and Citizens Voices. Unfortunately, your editorial and coverage has been based upon several incorrect facts and assumptions and made illogical conclusions. It is generous of the editorial to suggest that I should be a spokesperson on behalf of the Town Board but that is not my role. My job is not to advocate for the Board, or a party, or special interests but to advocate for the people. I support this project after much research and reflection about the needs of our residents and what will do the greatest good for the greatest number. Residents deserve accurate and thorough information to enable them now to decide.
The primary points of opposition made by this paper appear to be as follows: the project doesn’t create enough of the right kinds of jobs; it threatens the City of Oneonta; and it encourages irresponsible sprawl or “dumb growth.” First, I approach this project primarily as a necessary investment in infrastructure to assist our current residents and businesses on Southside and protect them from poor water quality and irregular quantity. It is not necessary to prove how many jobs this infrastructure project produces; the improvement is designed to provide a service and meet the needs of the people and will be paid for by those receiving the service. Incidentally though there will be jobs created and increased property values and tax base, as I’ve mentioned in a previous letter.
Next comes that always tricky issue of Town/City relations. It’s not a coincidence that much of the opposition comes from individuals with firmly held beliefs on this issue. Unfortunately, some still look at the City and Town as competitors for resources instead of partners in Greater Oneonta. We Town residents try to be good neighbors but object when some repeatedly insist that the Town cannot manage its own affairs and must be controlled by the City, whether it’s managing our water supplies or forcing unwelcome merger with the Town. Town residents choose to live here for a number of reasons including lower taxes and relative quality of life (recent Center City conflict has only confirmed this). The Town is encouraging responsible economic development and keeping taxes low. Our residents are reasonable to resist taking on all of the debts and liabilities of the City (including aging water infrastructure), especially given that they would gain little. The Town is open to increased cooperation but only if the City approaches it as an equal partner. Luckily, most people now realize, as Mayor Miller says, there is “one Oneonta” and we rise and fall together. We can have both a successful Main Street and Southside. Many of us grocery shop in the Town then go downtown for dinner or to buy a nice gift, book, shoes, etc. Main Street has survived its biggest challenges: the arrival of malls in the 60’s-80’s and the big box stores of the 90’s-00’s. Downtown has now found a perfect niche and is thriving with exciting plans for future development in the works.
Your editorial incorrectly claims that the City currently operates “the one water system.” Water is provided to Town residents currently in two ways: on the West End there is a partnership and the City sells water to Town residents at an increased rate. In the Angel Heights area, the Town provides water from its own well to Town residents. That district was created years ago to meet a need, just as Southside WD would be. The City and Town currently cooperate on water issues in the West End amicably and will continue to do so. Eventually there may be more inter-municipal cooperation, with multiple interconnects between Town and City systems. Although I would be open to a water authority covering both Town and City in the future if the numbers worked out, it’s unlikely that an extra layer of government would benefit anyone.
The final suggestion that the Town is encouraging unsustainable “dumb growth” is misguided. As your Editorial admits, Southside is “relatively compact”. The Town has ensured that the only highway commercial development in Town is in this compact space. Recently, the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommended that the Board adopt a zoning change that could essentially turn the Route 205/23 corridor into a second highway commercial strip. The Board removed this suggestion from the Plan in order to prevent unwanted sprawl and environmental harm. The Town now seeks to provide water to a compact, well defined area. This will encourage growth within that area but not beyond. The Town may share water with Davenport or any other outside user but it is under no obligation to do so. Fears of a Davenport “strip” are unfounded. Additionally, if the water district is created, I hope to pursue a much needed sidewalk district in the Southside, increasing pedestrian safety and sustainability. Biking and walking paths with links to parks are also potential outgrowths of the district. Haphazard development has been allowed in the Town too long and our efforts will encourage smart growth.
Finally, I object to the paper’s implication that the Board is forcing anything on residents. The Board has the ability to create the district on its own and then subject its formation to a permissive referendum. That is NOT the route the Board took. Instead we have secured a generous funding package, provided information to the community, and are assisting residents with petitioning. If too few property owners sign petitions, I will take that to be the will of the people and will not vote to approve the district. My goal over the past several months has been to educate residents to better equip them for this decision. You are always welcome to personally contact me at 607-222-1591 with questions or concerns. Although I believe it would be a historic missed opportunity if the residents’ petitions fail, as their elected advocate I will stand by their decision and look forward to continuing to serve them.
ANDREW STAMMEL
Oneonta Town
Board Member