It’s bad enough to be a piece on the board in a political game; but with a dictatorship – it’s game over. In Tompkins County; the people have no human worth — they’re just a material that’s used to cast the “selfie-statues” of the elite — a humanity that their impaired “vision” can’t see.
The Town of Lansing is proposing a new Local Law – one that only applies to the “Rural/Agricultural Zone”; and further restricts the lives and activities of the town’s rural residents.
In today’s world of unabashed self-promotion; where the most repressive and discriminatory policies are marketed as the “Greater Good” — a dictatorship has crawled through the crumbling remains of our once representative government. How can you survive on the path to world-wide dissolution? Conforming won’t help you get a place in the lifeboat: you’re just clawing up the backs of those who are already drowning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TOWN OF LANSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Introduction
From First to Last
Buried towards the end of Chapter 4 in the Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan; is a paragraph that should have come at the plan’s beginning – a statement that reveals the true authorship and intent of the town’s future policy making:
“The best way to plan for the long-term future of the Town of Lansing is to decide regionally where the major commercial, educational, shopping, recreational, health care, agricultural, manufacturing and residential sectors will be located. The reality is that our municipalities are not in competition with each other; rather they survive in symbiotic relationships. We should build upon these cooperative relationships in land-use decisions as well, while respecting a town’s right to home rule. New York State Law delegates planning decisions to the town and city levels but does not forbid a more coordinated process.”
This statement unilaterally rewrites the whole structure of responsibility and obligation of town government; and directly contradicts New York State Town Law § 272-a:
“The development and enactment by the town government of a town comprehensive plan which can be readily identified, and is available for use by the public, is in the best interest of the people of each town.”
The Law clearly shows the intent of the law is NOT to make the Town’s comprehensive plan a “regional” decision.
“Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a town government is the authority and responsibility to undertake town comprehensive planning”
The comprehensive plan is an important “duty” and “responsibility” of the town government – and as such cannot be delegated or subordinated to other agencies or interests.
“The participation of citizens in an open, responsible and flexible planning process is essential to the designing of the optimum town comprehensive plan.”
The Town of Lansing planning process was anything but “open”; with citizen participation relegated to a scattering of meaningless pre-planning activities – and offering NO participation for residents throughout the entire decision-making and policy approval process.
Lansing Town Government’s claims of public representation rests on a single telephone survey, prepared and administered by Cornell University’s Survey Research Institute (SRI) [See Ruler of All you Survey for a more detailed examination.] – A survey that was widely attacked by Lansing residents in a Town Meeting. The advocates of the survey retreated – and ended up by claiming that it was only meant to give an indication, and was not to be considered an important policy document. This same survey was later cited and used throughout the final Comprehensive Plan as both a definitive source and as a mandate from the town’s residents.
In this “Community Survey” – 365 town residents were cold-called on issues that had never been brought up for discussion or debate, to reply to a series questions that showed a definite bias in their preparation.
The Survey’s method of formulation and its inclusion as the Town’s only source of policy-defining public participation – shows the ongoing misrepresentation of policy goals and lack of ethical underpinning that pervades policy-making in Tompkins County.
New York State Town Law § 272-a:
“In the event the town board prepares a proposed town comprehensive plan or amendment thereto, the town board shall hold one or more public hearings and such other meetings as it deems necessary to assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed plan or amendment”
Everybody I talk to; everybody; believes that there is no meaningful participation by the people in either Town or County government — and the actions of government policy-makers to stubbornly continue insisting that there is meaningful public participation; while refusing to allow public participation and oversight; gives legitimacy to that belief.
The lead writer of the Town of Lansing Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan [from Cornell Cooperative Extension] publicly expressed the opinion that nobody but farmers “deserved to live in north Lansing” [an opinion that no Town official would rebut] – And the entire Plan was prepared while excluding 95% of the rural residents from any participation at all. This “Protection Plan” [including its policy of rural citizen exclusion] was then approved by both the Town of Lansing, and Tompkins County governments – and became an important part of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan’s “vision.”
It’s should be interesting for students of Tompkins County government to note how perfectly both the Ag Protection Plan and the Lansing Comp Plan dovetail together — with both supporting each other and claiming that the other Plan is essential to the success of their own.
Unsurprisingly; the 2018 Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan echoes the exact same policies and concerns as the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan of three years earlier: Lansing Town Government has abjured their duty to the people of the town — and meekly acquiesced to the County’s primacy by accepting “planning at the county level”.
The Town of Lansing should post a disclaimer on all their documents stating: “No meaningful public participation was used in the formulation of these policies and regulations.”
“Put the poor urban blacks and the poor rural whites together – somewhere else.” The County Comp Plan calls it “balance the burdens” – but it’s another name for the County’s policy to move everything and everyone they don’t want in Ithaca – somewhere else.
When a drug rehab center marred their vibrant downtown – they found a better home for it in another municipality. Necessary public works in Ithaca’s “jungle” displaced the homeless; but they were found new housing – elsewhere. The County’s urban housing authority merged with rural providers and absentee landlords turned rural homes into subsidized housing apartments for the urban unwanted — and since agriculture is the only rural activity and land use that the County considers of any importance – those people [and their problems] effectively disappeared. Clever. And there are other words for it . . .
It’s an age where people don’t need to know what they’re talking about – only that it needs to conform to what they are supposed to say. When this book is finished and available; even with all the documentation – many people will see it as an attack on their beliefs – without reading it – and without thinking. It’s “fake” news, “fake” facts, “fake” something.
This unthinking mob of adolescent adults may be useful for politicians and corporations – but it’s a one-trick-pony where survival is concerned. They need to see a disaster movie screenplay where they are not selected as the designated survivors; because no one survives.
Today’s government policies read like a man who jumped off the roof of a hundred-story building and as he passed the 79th floor was heard to say: “All right, so far!” We’re falling to place most people can’t imagine; and are not being told about. Parachutes made from recycled plastic bottles will only give you a soft landing into a toxic sea, breathing unsupportable air.
I won’t live that long — but here’s a thought: maybe the building is only 50 floors . . . or twenty five. Think “fake” extinction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TOWN OF LANSING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Part 1
Home Invasion
The rural Town of Lansing is racing ahead to be the “the growth part of the Tompkins County area,” but when you look around; there’s no competition in sight — so why are they doing this?
Nothing shows the duplicitous agenda of Tompkins County government as clearly as their treatment of housing. This essay will examine housing policy statements in both the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, and the Cornell-written Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan.
Ithaca has been simultaneously listed as both “the best destination for students” in the American Institute of Economic Research’s list of the best college towns in the country, and as #11 in the Top 20 cities with the “least affordable rents” by the New York Times.
With its high rents, high taxes, and lack of housing already forcing 80% of their workers to live outside the City, how can Ithaca attract new businesses and provide affordable housing while keeping College revenues up and protecting those low-density, high rent urban neighborhoods with that “small town feeling” students and professors love?
Answer: Force another municipality to build the affordable housing that your workers need, and let them shoulder the cost of the schools and services; while you keep the businesses and spending in your upscale, “small town” Ithaca.
Create a “vision,” for Tompkins County and use all of your credentials and influence to sell it directly to another town government – and by the time the town’s residents wake up to what’s happening; it’s too late.
The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan’s backers heavily and aggressively promote the creation of an “Urban Center” and “Development Focus Areas”:
“The Urban Center includes portions of the City of Ithaca, the Towns of Ithaca and Lansing, and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing and is the largest of the Development Focus Areas.”
“It is envisioned in the future at least two-thirds of all new residential development would occur in the Development Focus Areas.”
The following excerpts from the comprehensive plans of the “Urban Center” municipalities gives a clearer picture of how this residential development will actually be shared:
Village of Lansing Comp Plan: “All HDR [High Density Residential/Multi-Family] parcels in the Village have been developed.”
Village of Cayuga Heights Comp Plan: “For the purpose of land use analysis, the County plan . . . anticipates no major changes for the Village in the coming decades.”
City of Ithaca Comp Plan: “No significant changes to the character of low-density residential areas are proposed.” “No significant changes to the character of medium-density residential areas are proposed”
Town of Ithaca Comp Plan: “The HDR–High Density Residential zone accommodates detached and semi-detached (duplex) residences in a medium density setting. . . Only 136 acres, or 0.7% of the Town, is zoned HDR.”
Town of Lansing Comp Plan:
“From these residential housing maps, we can see that the area of South Lansing, which runs along Triphammer and Warren Roads, is currently unaffordable for the majority of people within the region. However, due to close proximity to jobs, shopping and the university it would make for an ideal location for housing, which would provide the opportunity for people to earn a living and spend less than the 30% threshold for affordability.”
Since the rural Town of Lansing is the farthest municipality in the County’s new “urban center” – 8 miles – from Cornell and Ithaca’s business and shopping: arguing this development on the basis of its “close proximity” and “ideal location” is more than a misrepresentation.
“By creating compact neighborhoods of high population density, TCAT would be more likely to expand into this area and thereby making housing more affordable by eliminating the costs of additional vehicles and associated transportation.”
How can you argue to expand mass transit into a new area; when you already have an existing transit system and great walkability in an urban area with endless housing redevelopment potential? An area that has the jobs and businesses that these relocated workers would need to be bused many extra miles to get to.
“Housing expansion in the form of new developments and PUD’s will result in increased traffic and the need to expand roads and/or mass transit to accommodate the resulting increase in population. As with municipal water and sewer, the logical choice would be to gradually expand out from the village into the area of South Lansing and eventually further north.”
[PUDs are “Planned Unit Developments” – a term used to describe a housing development that is not subject to standard zoning requirements for the area – a further erosion of any community control.]
Since the Town of Lansing will need to “create neighborhoods,” “expand roads,” and add “municipal water and sewer” to their infrastructure, as well as being miles further away from Ithaca’s job and business center than any other municipality in the County’s “Urban Center” plan — how could this ever be considered the best planning solution for Tompkins County?
Town of Lansing 2018 Comprehensive Plan’s “Proposed Future Land Uses”: depicts thousands of acres that will be zoned for apartments and condominiums. Tompkins County and “Lansing’s” government plan to turn a once rural town into the largest and most concentrated collection of housing developments in the region.
“The construction of a new four-lane highway on the outskirts of Ithaca, NY created a rapidly growing commercial center in the previously rural Town of Lansing. The clash between the newcomers and the old-timers over the direction and pace of this change led to the formation of a new local government and the incorporation of the Village of Lansing.” – Lansing at the Crossroads: A Partisan History of the Village of Lansing, New York, Rita Smidt
Incomers from Ithaca and Cornell continued to move into what was left of rural Lansing; creating a large urban sprawl bedroom community and gradually taking over the town’s government and planning. Finding a loophole from an old agreement to share municipal Highway Dept. services: that allowed residents of the Village of Lansing to vote in the Town of Lansing’s elections without any reciprocity – they blanketed the Village’s streets with election signs calling themselves the candidates “For All of Lansing” — there were no ethical qualms about having residents from a different municipality, with a very different viewpoint, voting into office a Town Board that would radically change the community they had historically “clashed” with. The plan worked.
It’s the Fall of 2021; and upcoming elections for Lansing’s Town Board – a sign in the Village of Lansing:
PLEASE VOTE!
Village of Lansing
residents
vote in
Lansing Town Elections
First Tuesday in November
After all; isn’t this in line with the ethics and actions already demonstrated by Tompkins County government itself?
The “Urban Center/Development Focus Area/Rural Sprawl” housing agenda that County Planners concocted for the Town of Lansing is an example of everything that’s wrong with the “City-centric” planning of Tompkins County today:
• Academic credentials at the service of vested interests.
• Adopting a lesser plan to appease a greater master.
And maybe what’s even worse; in a college “destination” with such smug pretensions of being a seat of learning and illumination — it’s intellectually dishonest.
Why? Because I like to write poetry; and because this book is about thinking, and doing, and creating. Society is what people do – Art is what people are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reasonable Rhymes
I
They’re all blameless
In a sea of sameness
II
The more they say
The less they do
If there’s a way
It’s up to you
III
We read
Jack Keats
He knowed
What is ode
IV
Pity
Recently divorced
Smiles like the rhyme is forced
Wherefore one not married yet
Deal in sadness
Non regretted
V
Scientific studies
Created for consumption
Fit within
A paper thin
Prerogative presumption
VI
They’re cunning as weasels
And slicker’n snot
But compassionate humans
Is one thing they’re not
VII
Politicians re-recount
To obfuscate our doom
Like a pack of pachyderms
That fill the anteroom
“Tompkins County: A college destination with the sort of moral compass that lands people a spot on American Greed.” If you lived here you would know. It’s become filled with the sort of people who see making a better world, and making things better for themselves as the same thing. People whose sense of entitlement takes a cut off the top – to the cheers of an imagined appreciative audience. Autocratic Rulers in a crumbling democracy. Laughable in their denials – deadly in their acts.
Environmental ethics used to mean making the right choices – today it’s just another sales mark. Picking up beer bottles on the beach. It’s too late for that.
If you voted to ban all fossil fuels, and made the next space station out of recycled plastic bottles – it would make no difference.
Environmental ethics is a choice — and when you let others make that choice for you; it’s their choice. In the future; if we’re forced to live in sealed cities: The elite will have the best of everything that’s left; and the poor will have . . . an answer to why we’re developing artificial intelligence?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?
Part 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
It’s ethics that gives a government legitimacy
There’s a big piece missing from the planning agenda in Tompkins County: What needs to be done about the environmental destruction caused by modern farming methods? — and in a not-so-surprising coincidence: this same issue is missing from the County’s Comp Plan as well.
The “Environment” section of the Comprehensive Plan holds up Agriculture as a model of stewardship and conservation; while suppressing any mention of the agricultural methods and regulatory exemptions that have made them the biggest polluters in Tompkins County — tiptoeing around their role in the impairment of our water resources and depletion of the ecosystem in a blatant example of cronyism and skewed environmental reporting.
The presentation of some of the arguments is a bit technical; the facts are unequivocal.
The County Comp Plan:
“Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet, and Sixmile Creek play a significant role in determining the quality of water in the southern basin of Cayuga Lake as they contribute approximately 40 percent of all the surface water entering the southern end of the lake.”
Comments:
Salmon Creek also enters the southern part of Cayuga Lake in Tompkins County and drains one of the three largest watersheds in the Cayuga basin.
“The watershed land uses range from the highly urban and forested Cayuga Inlet to the mostly agricultural Salmon Creek.”
Nutrient pollution from runoff and groundwater discharge “are relatively minor in the urbanized watershed but are much more significant in the two more agricultural watersheds, Fall Creek and Salmon Creek. The high contributions from groundwater in those watersheds, 55% and 72%, respectively, pose difficult challenges for management because only long-term changes in land use can reduce these loads.” — Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012
Salmon Creek is never mentioned in any of the Comprehensive Plan’s water quality discussions; and agricultural nutrient pollution is never mentioned at all.
The County Comp Plan:
“Most of the phosphorus that enters the southern end of Cayuga Lake is bound up with the sediment carried by Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet, and Sixmile Creek. This sediment is largely the result of stormwater runoff and erosion of stream banks.”
Comments:
Actually, the percentage of bioavailable particulate phosphorus [available nutrient for algae growth] measured in Salmon Creek was more than twice that of Fall Creek, and more than three times that of both Cayuga Inlet, and Six Mile Creek. [Phosphorus Bioavailabiltiy and Loads, Upstate Freshwater Institute, 10/22/2015]
The County Comp Plan:
“Impaired water bodies and their related pollutants, are published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The most recent list published in 2012 identified the southern end of Cayuga Lake as impaired by three pollutants: phosphorus, silt/sediment, and pathogens.”
Comments:
Phosphorus
“Mean annual TP [Total Phosphorus] load to Cayuga Lake is just under 100 Mg/year, of which 60 Mg/year is DP [Dissolved Phosphorus.] The largest source of both DP and TP is agricultural runoff, providing 45% of the DP and 47% of the TP. Urban runoff provides 13% of the TP but negligible DP. The largest urban TP source, at 8%, is high-density impervious residential land.” — Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012
Silt/sediment
The County’s Plan makes no mention of the wide-spread agricultural practice of “tiling” fields [installing subsurface drainage on the entire field]. Tiling will drain a field in minutes, rather than hours; not only causing water to flow into streams more quickly and allowing less water to replenish the groundwater, but increasing the flow of sediment and manure into Cayuga Lake’s tributaries.
Pathogens
The County’s Comp Plan makes no mention of agriculture as a source of pathogens.
“My results allow me to conclude that the most nutrient and pathogen pollution occurs after large rainstorm events, especially after manure has been applied to land for months with no precipitation events, and after manure application on frozen ground. These results support the findings from similar studies. I can also generalize that many of the soils from the field sites that I collected from had buildups of phosphorus, which likely contributed to the high concentrations of phosphorus in the runoff samples that I collected. I can also conclude that the manure pathogens that I examined for antibiotic resistance were resistant to high levels of ampicillin. This result further supports the severity of antibiotic resistance and the negative health effects and environmental effects that they can cause.” — “The Effects that Liquid and Solid Cattle Manure have on the Water Quality of Drainage Ditches in Putnam County, Ohio”, Bowling Green State University, Janelle Horstman, 2014
“Increased phosphorus levels were also detected after precipitation in the agriculturally impacted areas, and fecal coliform densities were much higher after precipitation. The strong correlation of turbidity, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform densities suggests a common source for these parameters. Elevated total phosphorus, turbidity, and fecal coliform densities are presumed to be the direct result of runoff from nearby tiled fields sprayed with liquid manure as reported by MDNRE in numerous previous waste discharge infractions by the CAFO farms in close proximity to our AI sites (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2003a, 2004b).” — “Antibiotic Resistance, Gene Transfer, and Water Quality Patterns Observed in Waterways near CAFO Farms and Wastewater Treatment Facilities” West; Liggit; Clemans & Francoeur, 2009
The “Point Source” Smokescreen
The County Comp Plan:
“New York State regulates pollution discharge into waters through its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit program, including the control of all point source discharges to surface waters. The program is designed to maintain water quality consistent with public health, public enjoyment of water bodies, protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, and industrial development in the state.”
Comments:
The County fails to mention that this program does not adequately regulate pollution from agricultural sources:
“The Clean Water Act provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for many discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. Through the primarily regulatory NPDES permitting program, significant improvements have been made to the quality of the country’s water bodies. However, the NPDES permitting program only applies to point sources discharges, thus most agricultural discharges are not subject to permitting or other federal regulatory control. Nonpoint sources, including those from agriculture, remain the most significant water quality challenge facing the nation. Moreover, the CWA’s exemption from section 404 permitting for normal farming practices continues to allow many wetlands to be degraded by agricultural activities. Because the CWA does not provide direct federal authority for regulating many agricultural sources of water pollution and wetlands degradation, the responsibility for addressing water quality degradation from agricultural activities has fallen largely to the states. To date, most programs designed to address agricultural water pollution have been voluntary or incentive-based programs designed to encourage farmers to implement best management practices. These programs have been only minimally successful, and agricultural pollution continues to be one of the most significant sources of water quality degradation in the United States, meaning that there is a need for a more comprehensive regulatory system to address the water impacts of farming.” — “Maintaining a Healthy Water Supply While Growing a Healthy Food Supply: Legal Tools for Cleaning Up Agricultural Water Pollution” Mary Jane Angelo, Professor of Law & Director, Environmental and Land Use Law Program University of Florida Levin College of Law
Stormwater Runoff and Flooding
The County Comp Plan:
“Increased stormwater runoff has a significant impact on floodplain management. As land area is converted to more urbanized uses, the amount of impervious surface associated with that land use generally increases, causing water to flow into streams more quickly and allowing less water to replenish the groundwater.”
Comments:
Once again, the County refuses to acknowledge agricultural sources as a problem. When the increased runoff from “tiled” farm fields: an opaque, strong smelling liquid blend of water, sediment and agricultural contaminants; began to overflow the ditch in front of my house and spread across my lawn — the County merely dug a bigger, deeper ditch and put in a larger culvert for my driveway. Tompkins County makes no effort to reduce the runoff from agricultural fields; they just continue digging bigger ditches.
Wetland Protection
The County Comp Plan:
“At the state level, NYSDEC regulates wetlands of at least 12.4 acres in size and smaller wetlands of unusual local importance. Taken together, these regulations have the effect of leaving responsibility for regulation of isolated wetlands of less than 12.4 acres to local governments. Identification and protection of these otherwise newly unregulated wetlands is a priority.”
Comments:
New York State Agricultural Law has a different priority for land use that allows “grazing and watering livestock, making reasonable use of water resources, harvesting natural products of the wetlands, selectively cutting timber, draining land or wetlands for growing agricultural products and otherwise engaging in the use of wetlands or other land for growing agricultural products,” thereby completely undercutting the authority of local government to protect these valuable resources.
Riparian Corridors
The County Comp Plan:
“Riparian corridors are the lands bordering streams and represent a transition zone from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. Maintaining lands adjacent to streams in their undeveloped state helps to support the natural functions associated with stream buffers, including protecting water quality, stabilizing stream banks and preventing erosion, trapping sediment and nutrients, improving floodwater retention and groundwater recharge, and shading stream channels in summer.”
“Providing vegetated buffers of at least 100 feet either side of stream banks, or 50 feet from intermittent streams, is critical in achieving water quality benefits”
Comments:
Unfortunately, New York State NRCS agricultural manure spreading standards for CAFOs requires only 35-foot setback, where the entire setback width is a vegetated buffer; and just a 15-foot setback with incorporation within 24 hours of application to be maintained between manure applications and surface waters and surface inlets.
Well Water
The County Comp Plan:
“The amount of available drinking water is primarily an issue in rural areas that obtain drinking water from groundwater. As more homes and businesses are built in these areas, they are supported by new wells withdrawing more water from groundwater supplies. In some parts of the county it has been observed that new wells noticeably decrease the supply of water in nearby wells.”
Comments:
While slamming rural families; the County’s Comp Plan deliberately ignores the massive negative impact that high water-use “farming practices,” especially those of CAFOs, are having on the county’s groundwater supply. One CAFO owner in Minnesota reported a well water use of 570,200,000 gallons in 2017. [The average unrestricted water use for a family of four is 320 to 400 gallons a day.]
While the County’s Comp Plan recommends that “Land uses and facilities that pose the greatest threats to groundwater should be located away from areas that contribute to drinking water supplies” — the Plan’s suppression of agricultural pollution as an environmental threat reveals an unannounced policy to exclude agriculture from any County restriction or regulation.
Climate Change – Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The County Comp Plan:
“While global energy and climate problems cannot be solved exclusively at the local level, and leadership is needed from global, federal, and state organizations, locally we can identify, plan for, and take steps to address these issues.”
“PRINCIPLE Tompkins County should be a place where the energy system meets community needs without contributing additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”
The Plan goes on to state:
“Emissions from residential, commercial, and industrial buildings together accounted for the largest proportion of community emissions and transportation accounted for more than a third of all community emissions.”
But finally admits:
“. . . it appears that it would be more accurate to use a much greater GWP for methane to reflect its extreme potency in the shorter duration when reductions will most help in limiting warming that may result in a cascade of uncontrollable negative impacts. Such an analysis of methane will likely be incorporated into future energy plans, and would primarily affect the waste and agriculture sectors, as they are currently the highest emitters of methane.”
Comments:
This admission that the “agricultural sector” is one of the “highest emitters of methane” – is the one and only time that the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the negative impact of any agricultural practice on either the residents or the environment; and then only that this “will likely be incorporated into future energy plans.”
The Town and City of Ithaca sit like spiders in the center of a web; with recent redistricting placing 8 of the 14 Legislative Districts at least partly within their borders.
The large student population [30% of the county’s total population] gives those legislators a great deal of power; but little accountability, from a constantly shifting youthful population with no history or permanent ties to the area, and no association with the county’s rural communities. This leaves county policy making vulnerable to the influence of corporate and corporately-controlled entities like Cornell University, and the Cornell Cooperative Extension.
The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan’s glaring refusal to acknowledge the reality of agricultural pollution in their reporting is clear evidence of this influence.
“Tompkins County” government is in the process of yet another legislative redistricting . . . and the Tompkins County Legislature will appoint the committee on reapportionment.
This piece will probably fit in before the County and Town of Lansing plans are examined.
Since these plans have no public oversight, and almost no public readership; they have ballooned into a dumpster’s worth of poorly supported arguments and misrepresented problems – gaining importance through the sheer weight of their endlessly insistent claims.
It’s not a question of “Cui Bono”; because the players are unfazed by the spotlight – but “Can anything be done to save the community?”
Is there anything left but the rot?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE PROBLEM
There is a public relations problem that comes pre-packaged with every Tompkins County government agenda: Why does every policy decision work to the benefit of Cornell University?
The “All of Us Together” concept of “Tompkins County” was created to mold the surrounding towns and villages into a pattern that is beneficial to Cornell’s corporate growth — it has no other purpose.
“Tompkins County” government doesn’t work with the people – it works with the corporations, the institutions, the politicians, bureaucrats, and special interests.
They are power brokers.
That’s why the county’s public policies are never decided in the public sector — it’s not a government of the people – it’s a government above the people.
“Tompkins County’s” decision making flow chart is a beautiful example of Vertical Integration: every stage of government action is integrated and controlled from the top.
It’s the very strength of this system that makes it so easy to spot – and once spotted; its methods of public “predation” can be studied:
Camouflage – Cornell moves everywhere among the shadows – policies are carried out by them, because of them, or in gratitude to them. Even when the “County” claims its concerns are with the people – Deferential nods are given to Cornell’s “importance”.
Media stories read like the handouts that they are; and if public opposition forces the reporting of a community or environmental outcry – the article always ends with rebuttals of those concerns; at length.
Deal making – as exampled by the Town of Lansing’s Comprehensive Plan and Agriculture Protection Plan: this once rural town was divided into two distinct land uses to appease the county’s powerful Development and Agricultural interests. Not only do both plans dovetail perfectly and express wholehearted support of each other as an important part of their own plan’s success — both were written by Cornell.
Credentials – every policy “push” releases a flood of credentials – even if they know nothing about the particular community or the needs of residents: they know exactly how to solve every problem — do what “Tompkins County” wants. [If you want to have career longevity.]
Beneficence – while I have never met a single resident or employee who believes that altruism plays a part in the University’s corporate agenda – their dictator-inspired “parades” and proclamations are a not-to-be-gainsaid part of Cornell’s “Sun King” persona.
Meaningless public participation – public participation is kept to a minimum: none. Tompkins County fosters rulership; not representation. At Lansing Town meetings the public cannot ask any questions; and are told they’re lucky to even be allowed to speak.
Power – Cornell is more than just a big frog in the small pond of Tompkins County – it’s a big frog that swallowed the county. Connected at all levels of government and business, even internationally; they are the controlling authority for every activity within the county.
On the workplace level there’s “Cornell Paranoia”: The fear of being associated with any thought, belief, or person that makes your superiors unhappy – even a social media link or the mention of a critical observation might get back to the hierarchy and result in your losing your job — it’s palace intrigue in a new millennium setting.
Stone walling – If you ask unwelcome questions, or persist in opposition – the County just shuts down; and refuses to communicate or acknowledge your existence. It’s a further proof of the power behind County government that they can do this and get away with it.
Enhancing Cornell’s power and profit is what Tompkins County government does — it’s what they are.
The reader may find this essay a bit “offhand” for the seriousness of the subject; but it’s intended to be descriptive of the situation, and not a rigorous examination.
It’s something to keep in mind when you’re presented with a bill of goods.
“Tompkins County steps on their fingers.” There is nothing accidental about the fallout from the County’s policies – or the people who it falls on. The strength of the circumstantial case is in the unanimity of the evidence – like iron filings in a magnetic field; they fall into a pattern that reveals the force that works upon them – unmistakably.
Being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Yes, rural Tompkins County for the past twenty years.
“Rural Colonization” This insight bypasses the text of this essay; and takes a turn directly into the heart of Tompkins County’s “ag ghetto” policy: Two days ago, on the afternoon of September 20th; a Medevac copter landed on my front lawn. First responders picked this location because they remembered using it for another Medevac pickup only four years before. [A 15-year old boy was thrown onto the pavement while riding standing on the trunk of a car.]
Tompkins County has refused to enforce any traffic laws on our rural road that has become a playground for reckless games, illegal vehicles, impaired drivers, and “any speed you want” short-cutters — no matter what is happening.
I sent an email [with a photo of the victim being loaded into the copter] to my Town Board rep, the Town Supervisor, the County Sheriff, and two County Legislators:
“This is the second time a Medevac Helicopter has landed on my lawn to transport a Lansingville road accident victim. Am I the only one who wants to stop this?” Two days later — silence is their only answer.
I can’t describe the sadness and anger I feel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?
Part 4
Rural Colonization
Definition of Urban Colonialism
1 : of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting control by a city over a rural area or people
2 : a policy advocating or based on such control
In trying to write about the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan [as with many other recent plans] I am confronted with the difficulty of untangling the mass of misrepresentations and lies that provide the underpinning for their policy agenda.
Just one Policy sentence may misrepresent the cause, current situation, the impact, the population, the intent, and the viability of the solution that the Plan proposes — making it almost impossible to get to the bottom of an issue; or even follow a single thread.
As a starting point for this essay; I searched for the word “rural” – and found it appeared 84 times in the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Grouping sentences where it appears; a pattern emerges:
“In rural areas the Plan envisions a working landscape of farms and forests providing products and jobs that support a strong rural economy – Rural economic activities may include businesses processing agricultural and forest products, and other small businesses appropriate to a rural setting – Employment choices for those interested in living and working in rural areas will include full- and part time farming, independent “homestead” lifestyles, entrepreneurship in agricultural and forest product processing, and at-home workers who want to live close to nature – Rural areas will gain economically from urban markets for food, wood products, and energy – Urban areas will have access to the natural beauty, outdoor recreation, and local food and energy provided by our rural landscape – working rural landscapes are preserved”
If this echoes the colonial policies of the 1700’s that enforced North America’s role as a provider of agricultural goods and raw materials [and a captive consumer of manufactured articles]; it’s no coincidence:
Ithaca is not a business center – it is THE Business Center for Tompkins County:
“The Downtown Ithaca Alliance works to maintain and develop downtown Ithaca as the county’s center for ‘banking and finance, business and professional offices, government and community services, downtown residences, and as a retail destination.’”
“The urban area will include the lively, active downtown and vibrant waterfront district of Ithaca, neighborhood centers serving nearby residents, and regional commercial centers that serve the needs of both urban and rural populations.”
“The urban center is the historic employment, retail, service, and government center for the surrounding region”
When the Town of Lansing requested NYSEG to supply a natural gas line needed to attract businesses – Tompkins County Legislators went to the State Capitol and lobbied to block any new natural gas use on environmental grounds. They succeeded.
Shortly thereafter; Cornell proposed building a 1,200 student living complex, powered by natural gas – it was approved without any demur by both the County Legislature and planning authorities.
Then what is the land use that County’s planners “envision” for rural towns like Lansing?
Colonial resettlement, of course:
“DEVELOPMENT FOCUS AREAS STRATEGY – This strategy identifies an urban center, five established nodes, two emerging nodes, and eight rural centers as the Development Focus Areas
COUNTY ROLE. It is envisioned in the future at least two-thirds of all new residential development would occur in the Development Focus Areas. Tompkins County’s role is three-fold in achieving this vision: providing support to municipalities as they undertake these activities; strongly advocating for appropriate types of development within Development Focus Areas and rural land uses outside of the focus areas; and addressing the intermunicipal aspects of implementation, such as providing public transit services to the focus areas, focusing infrastructure investment in the focus areas, and promoting efforts to provide strong pedestrian and bicycle connections between the focus areas and nearby existing developed areas.”
By “strongly advocating” the creation of satellite “mini-cities” for their urban workforce, surrounded by rich corporate Agribusinesses [employing tax-subsidized foreign “guest” workers] the County has radically altered the rural landscape – and left no place for the county’s rural residents:
“Tompkins County contains an uncommon mixture of spectacular natural features, a vibrant urban center, internationally renowned academic institutions, and a productive and attractive working landscape.”
With nearly 60 percent of rural residents calling unemployment a “critical” problem in a community needs assessment survey conducted by the United Way and Human Services Coalition of Tomkins County — The County’s planners propose no solution; nor see any need for one.
In the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan’s “vision for the future” – the already marginalized native rural community will no longer even exist.