The Partial Observer by Elayne Mosher Campoli and Cecelia Walsh-Russo
27 Market Street: Are We as Welcoming as We Would Like To Be?
Everyday Oneontans can agree on shared values like supporting a vibrant, thriving downtown and businesses to be successful; we value families, children, young people, and providing dignity for the evolving needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities. We view Oneonta as a special place and value being a welcoming community. Conversations and transparency about issues like city finances or our shared built environment are crucial to everyone.
Too often, however, we have found that our public discussions have been tinged with a lack of trust and the circulation of misinformation building up alongside accusations of divisiveness. We believe as elected officials that underlying our differences should be a shared belief that we are together in our struggles and in our joy, that we are invested collectively even during moments where, as community members, we may find ourselves debating points with significant disagreement.
Countries and communities that enjoy high levels of social trust enjoy a shared belief that those who represent them as elected officials and those employed in the public sector do so for the betterment of their community. Those same communities report high levels of daily happiness. Sadly, as social trust has diminished in the U.S., those in elected office and in the public sector now report increasing rates of harassment and threats of violence. As our national government has been undermined so, too, have our local politics increasingly disintegrated into negative circulation of rumors and misinformation.
As chairs of the city’s Budget Review and Finance committees, respectively, we are dismayed by recent comments provided by our colleague on the state of city finances and budget, the role of the finance director and mischaracterization of the role of the Common Council in city budgetary decision-making. Our colleague’s remarks lacked vital context and understanding and, most importantly, crucial evidence to support the claims made. The 2025 budgetary process was a lengthy, protracted and at times deeply challenging decision-making process. The nuance and complexity of dealing with a looming deficit was conveyed to the council by the Finance Director again and again—and again.
Furthermore, contrary to our colleague’s rendition that the council is merely falling prey to ill-advised whims of public sector workers like sheep about to jump off cliffs because we’ve been told to, we invite the public as well as the former-mayor-turned-columnist to view the hours and hours of debating, unpacking, and deliberating how we can create the most humane, practical, and financially-sound decisions to ensure the least amount of financial pain be inflicted upon our community. There is no evidence that we acted without critical examination of the evidence provided. The point, we realize, was not to use formal processes or allow the transparency of addressing these concerns in a public meeting, but to undermine the processes we have in our toolkit as council members. Deliberation, rigorous debate and discussion remain our fundamental tools.
We believe as elected officials that council must make decisions based on facts, and we also have a responsibility to educate and inform the public about how and why these decisions are reached after significant investments of staff time, committee review, and council study. Council meetings are often lengthy public meetings to afford the time needed for this important work. For example, our April 15th meeting began at 6 p.m. and went past 10:00 p.m. Our meeting time is valuable, and Common Council members also invest time in preparation for meetings. For our mid-April meeting, we prepared questions to ask about proposals for development of 27 Market Street included on our agenda. However, the presenters did not provide proposals for use of the downtown location. Rather, the presenters used the time as a platform for their own agendas with no data or factual evidence, and turned personal opinion into facts. To conduct deliberation in this manner contributes to the demise of public trust and an improper use of council process and time.
Housing advocates know the well-trod adage: “Housing projects are lightning rods that draw naysayers.” That same opposition can also chill interest from funding agencies and developers who will notice what we do next with the second property RSS (Rehabilitation Support Services) invested in trying to develop in the city but got caught up in the rhetoric of “not the right place.” The city has provided opportunities for robust public engagement around this, yet there continues to be opposition to progress along with a refusal to engage in collaborative policymaking. The May 6th vote on the sale of 27 Market Street to RSS will be a historic decision for Oneonta. The vote should force us to ask: Are we actually as welcoming—or as trusting—as we would like or want to be?
We believe we are a community imbued with the shared values of social trust and inclusion. At a time when the bonds that connect us are under direct threat, we must call on and create anew the trust embedded within our community if we have the courage and fortitude to summon it. The spread of misinformation, attacks on our public sector workers, and mischaracterizing the work we do as Common Council undermines us all. We have an upcoming opportunity to act on years of city investment leading up to this decision, to demonstrate Oneonta is a city that values diversity of all kinds, and make a bold decision in the interest of everyday Oneontans that will also set the stage for a chain reaction of investment in our downtown.
May love guide us to remain true to the root of the Mohawk word origin for Oneonta, “the place of open rocks,” openness and strength together, a place that is truly welcoming to all who call Oneonta home.
Elayne Mosher Campoli and Cecelia Walsh-Russo chair the City of Oneonta’s Budget Review and Finance committees, respectively.
