Letter from William Miller
Rebutting Mr. Homburger
Mr. Homburger raises important questions about protecting Otsego Lake in his “Partial Observer” column published July 2, 2026 [“Manocherian Plan Is Neither Financially Sound Nor Sustainable”] but his conclusion that the Manocherian proposal should simply be precluded is not supported by the planning process or the facts.
Everyone agrees that Otsego Lake is an extraordinary resource and that protecting our drinking water must remain a priority. Fortunately, New York has a rigorous environmental review process specifically designed to determine whether a project can proceed without causing unacceptable impacts. Through SEQRA, the proposal will undergo extensive review of groundwater, stormwater, wetlands, wildlife, traffic, and cumulative environmental effects. If studies identify problems, the Town of Springfield and Town of Otsego planning boards have the authority to require changes, impose conditions, or deny the project. That review should be allowed to proceed based on science and engineering rather than assumptions.
The proposal should also be viewed in the context of one of our region’s greatest challenges: housing. Otsego County has repeatedly identified the lack of housing as a major obstacle to attracting healthcare workers, teachers, young families, tourism employees and other members of our workforce. Local employers continue to struggle with recruitment because housing options are limited and increasingly unaffordable.
Projects of this scale are uncommon because very few landowners possess both the acreage and the financial resources necessary to undertake such a significant investment. If every proposal involving large parcels is discouraged before the environmental review is complete, we should not be surprised when housing shortages continue for another generation.
The suggestion that the property owner may simply be seeking approvals to increase the value of the land is speculative and should not influence public policy. Planning boards are charged with evaluating whether a proposal complies with applicable regulations and whether environmental impacts can be adequately addressed—not speculating about an applicant’s future business decisions.
Finally, it is difficult to reconcile calls for a moratorium on large subdivisions with the town’s own comprehensive plan, which recognizes the need for additional housing. Responsible growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. Our planning process exists to balance both objectives.
Rather than prejudging this proposal, we should allow the established review process to determine whether it can meet New York’s rigorous environmental standards while helping address one of our community’s most pressing needs.
William Miller
Springfield
As proposed, this scattered lot platting proposal would be a net loser for the towns in that it would convert several miles of seasonal roads that are not maintained in the winter, to roads that would have to be maintained by the towns – for an insufficient increase in property tax revenue. To offset their expenses, the towns would have to enter into an agreement with the landowners to pay for the cost of plowing, maintenance, and EMS service. Once those roads are paved, the town will have to maintain them. Given the slow absorption rate of new housing up in those remote woods, the towns could lose money for decades on this ill-conceived scheme. That is the “not-so-hidden” cost of such low density remote lot plattings