Tag: rural tompkins County

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “The Road to Hell is paved with Good Credentials”

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD CREDENTIALS

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 we doing this?

Ithaca was recently 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.

The Problem: With 80% of your workers already forced to live outside the City, how can Ithaca attract new businesses and provide affordable housing for workers while keeping College revenues up and protecting those low-density, high rent urban neighborhoods with that “small town feeling” students and professors love?

The Solution: Convince another municipality to shoulder the costs of schools and services for the affordable housing your workers need; while you keep the businesses and spending in Ithaca.

• Create a “vision,” for Tompkins County and use a lot of credentials and influence to sell it to a town government; and by the time its residents realize what’s happening, it’s too late.

The new Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan heavily promotes the creation of an “Urban Center”

“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.”

Excerpts from recent local comp plans give a clearer picture of how this residential development will actually be shared among the municipalities:

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.”

• “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.”

• “Housing expansion in the form of new developments and PUD’s [Planned Unit Developments – a term used to describe a housing development not subject to standard zoning requirements for the area.] 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.”

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 can this be the best planning solution?

Scurvy Survey

The Town of Lansing survey never asked residents if they actually wanted a town center, only what should be included “In the town center” when they get one. Regardless of the soundness of the survey’s sampling methodology, the selection and wording of the questions clearly indicates the intent to gather responses that would validate predetermined policies.

Many of the survey questions are so general that the results could be used to support almost anything.

And if that isn’t enough evidence of manipulation, the Lansing Comp Plan uses statements like “the survey indicated strong community support for a ‘Complete Streets’ study and approach for this area to include safe travel, pedestrian and bicycle access,” when the survey responses only indicated that residents support “bike lanes” and “improving sidewalks,” and the survey never even mentions the ‘Complete Streets’ study.

Once a response was elicited that could be made to fit a preselected Comp Plan agenda, the public “participation” was over.

If it couldn’t be made to fit: it was ignored:

90% of those surveyed supported “laws or policies to protect scenic views and natural areas,” yet the Comp Plan recommended “infilling” the fields and woods for miles along Triphammer Road [the highway with the best Lake views in Lansing] with High-Density residential developments.

Ironically, the survey results showed that most town residents thought town officials did not respond to resident concerns or communicate information well.

The Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan is only a “stooge” for the County Plan’s agenda: It backs exactly the same policies, and was jockeyed through its entire formulation and pre-approval process without any meaningful participation or oversight by the town’s residents.

There is very little of Lansing in the “Lansing” Comp Plan.

“Lansing’s” Plan includes no fact based models or projections on the impact that thousands of acres of new high-density development would have on the rural town’s schools, taxes, and recreational facilities. Instead, the Town of Lansing Comp Plan blandly claims; both that agriculture reduces taxes because of the low cost of services compared to new residential development, and that new residential development will also reduce taxes.

Elitist Policy Making

Planning in Tompkins County today is a textbook example of elitist policy making:

“Public officials and administrators merely carry out policies decided on by the elite, which flows ‘down’ to the mass.” – California State University Long Beach, Graduate Center for Public Policy and Administration.

In other words:

“Tompkins County should be a place where all levels of government work cooperatively to address regional issues.” – Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan

This policy is perfectly represented by the County Plan’s flow ‘down’ to the Town of Lansing Comp Plan.

Examining the wording of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan reveals its underlying elitist ideology: “All in all, the colleges define the community” proclaims the Plan, and in many ways and on many occasions reiterates this idea. Another common thread is the insistence on “restrictions needed to protect or otherwise benefit the larger community.”

The use of the word “protect” is revealing: The “haves” are always interested in “protecting” what is theirs.

• Although the County’s Plan “protects” agriculture 25 times, it does not mention “protecting” any other rural landowner or resident even once.

The Real County Development Plan

If you take the County Plan’s stated development goals:

• “Tompkins County should be a place where new development is focused in compact, walkable, mixed-use communities.”

• “Compact development lowers costs of government services by utilizing and reinvesting in existing infrastructure and broadening the base that bears the cost of maintaining that infrastructure into the future.”

And add the City of Ithaca’s existing assets:

• High walkability ratio.

• Existing infrastructure.

• Low-density residential downtown neighborhoods of old wood frame houses that are perfect for redevelopment.

Then obviously the City of Ithaca is the best location for building the affordable housing needed for its own workers — but that is not the County’s plan.

The Town of Ithaca, which surrounds the City, and admits: “The bulk of residential zoned land is undeveloped, underdeveloped, or occupied by non-residential uses” should be the second choice — but using that is not the County’s plan either.

The nearby Village of Cayuga Heights and the Village of Lansing, by their proximity and infrastructure, are the next logical choices — but neither is of them is County’s choice.

The Town of Lansing is the County’s default, but unannounced, choice as the development site for the thousands of housing units needed for their “vision.” It’s a rural town that has no existing infrastructure to support this development, the town that is the farthest from the county’s business center, and by a strange coincidence, the town that has a different school and tax district from the all other municipalities in the “development focus area.”

By adding the rural Town of Lansing to their Urban Center’s “development focus area,” County planners can bypass policies that: “encourage municipalities to protect rural character and scenic resources by limiting [urban] sprawl” and use its rolling landscape as a dumping ground for all the high-density and affordable housing that the other municipalities refuse to build.

The “Urban Center” housing agenda is an example of everything that’s wrong with planners and planning in Tompkins County today:

• Academic credentials at the service of vested interests.

• Adopting a lesser plan to appease a greater master.

And maybe even worse in a county with such smug pretentions of being a seat of learning and illumination — it’s intellectually dishonest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An important part of elitist policy is making all decisions final. Policies made by Cornithaca’s elite; flow down invisibly until they are revealed to the masses by the County Legislature. There is no way of knowing exactly where they come from — just that our lives are being shaped “up there.” As in the “Non-disclosure Statement” article: County Legislators may go away saying one thing, and come back saying something very different. They’ve talked to someone(s).

Our County Legislators see a “need”; and implement a fully formed policy to fill that need. Government is that simple in Cornithaca County.

The Form Based Codes that the “County” is using for planning are not only an incredibly powerful tool for government control; they are unanswerable. This a Plan for everybody. Their Plan for everybody. A Plan made by and for the Elite to enforce “restrictions needed to protect or otherwise benefit the larger community.”

Form Based Codes slide in under the cover of “zoning” and rise to the position of “dictatorship.” Form Based Codes are not a new way of living: they’re as old as oppression.

See if the officials in your community are planning to use Form Based Codes — do you think they will use all that power with compassion and respect for human dignity and worth?

Haw, haw, haw, haw.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Smoke and Mirrors” 2

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Participation Circumvention

“The participation of citizens in an open, responsible and flexible planning process is essential to the designing of the optimum town comprehensive plan.” — New York Town Law § 272-a

Although Town Law stresses the importance of citizen participation in an open and responsibly designed town comprehensive plan, local officials downplay this mandate; claiming that the comp plan is only a “guide” — and use the minimum legal requirements for public meetings and notifications to limit disclosure and block participation.

The town of Lansing, like many rural towns, traditionally uses posters and signs along the roadsides to announce everything from chicken barbecue fundraisers to concerts in the park. The town’s government, although it placed a large display board for notification of a boat slip raffle, never placed one sign to advertise the town’s comprehensive plan meeting. Notifications were placed in the legal minimum two newspapers; and in spite of their low readership, no further efforts were made it inform or involve the residents.

The public meeting for the Lansing Comprehensive Plan draft was reduced to a segment of the monthly Town Board meeting, with a scattering of residents being told it was only as a favor they were permitted to speak, and allowed 2 minutes to do so. No questions were allowed to be asked.

This was an action that directly contradicted the State’s intent and the legal “duty” and “responsibility” of Lansing’s municipal government to “assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed plan.”

Why are so many county, town and village officials anxious to prevent residents from having a voice in the future of Tompkins County?

The public and private maneuverings of Tompkins County officials to minimize the importance of these comprehensive plans and exclude meaningful community participation — urging local governments to abdicate their duty and responsibility under Town Law, and give over all local power to the “County” — will be examined next.

New York Town Law § 272-a. Town comprehensive plan

Legislative findings and intent.

“The legislature hereby finds and determines that: 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 and to regulate land use for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens.”

It is the intent of New York State Town Law § 272-a that both local planning boards and the town boards “assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed plan”

To make the preceding as clear as possible; here are legal definitions of those words:

• Assure: to make certain; to inform positively, as to remove doubt; to convince.

• Full: abundant; brimming over; comprehensive; exhaustive; filled to utmost capacity.

• Opportunity: fair chance; proper time; reasonable chance; suitable circumstance; suitable occasion; suitable time.

These words denote a legislative intent that was never even remotely fulfilled by the municipalities granted the authority and charged with the responsibility of these “most important powers and duties.”

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” ― The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

The powerful interests behind the “County’s” Comprehensive Plan leave little doubt of their intention to take all power into their own hands:

“The County’s plan is based on the understanding that certain issues are regional in nature; cannot be fully addressed solely at the city, town, and village level ; and require proactive cooperation among all levels of government.”

• Since the County considers Housing Choices, Transportation Choices, Jobs and Business, Development in the city, villages and [County] designated nodes, and Rural Resources (the importance of agriculture and the need to protect farmland), all to be regional issues — they want to control everything. [Note that the importance of protecting agricultural interests is the only issue that the County’s plan recognizes for rural communities.]

The County’s plan requires “proactive cooperation among all levels of government.”

• Proactive cooperation is defined as: “two or more individuals cooperating together and acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty.” In this case, the expected difficulty is the participation of the County’s residents.

The interests that control the County are trying to take direct control of its towns and villages — urging local municipalities to let the “County” decide local planning:

“Often, local municipalities have a full workload simply addressing the important day-to-day issues of local concern. Planning at the county level can help municipal governments address key issues of concern that cross municipal boundaries, such as sprawl, economic development, housing affordability, and environmental protection.”

This attempt to subvert the “duty” and “responsibility” of local officials and planners has been largely successful. Policy decisions flow directly from the County into “local” plans; without public scrutiny or any meaningful public participation in the towns and villages themselves.

“A lie that is half-truth is the darkest of all lies.” ― Alfred Tennyson

The “ten elements already included in the Comprehensive Plan” by County Legislators, before the first community survey was even announced, remained unchanged in the final document.

The Plan’s “kickoff survey” itself was a vague and generalized 19 question survey using loaded terms like “Healthy Communities” to produce results that would support the policies the County had already decided on. [Who wouldn’t vote for a healthy community?]

Two additional topic areas were “identified” from a list of thirteen choices supplied by the County, but this made no meaningful difference to the final Plan.

The County’s reaction to comments critical of their Comp Plan draft was both defensive and dismissive.

To the comment: “efforts to acquaint citizens with this plan which will, by design, touch each and every resident of Tompkins County are pitiful to non-existent. There were 4 meetings attended by a total of 70 individuals out of a Tompkins County population of 101,570”— the County asserted they had made “considerable efforts to involve the public,” and pointed out the “large number of written surveys” received from Participation in Government Classes at local High Schools, and comments received from “approximately 40 individuals and several groups.”

In response to the comments:

• “Can there be a policy that prioritizes transportation investments for the ‘transportation insecure’ – especially low-income families with children in rural areas.”

• “I think it’s important to pay attention to the needs of rural residents. In addition to fixed-route what is possible as a systematic approach to meeting public transit needs.”

The County made the following “substantive change”:

• “Proposed Policy: Consider the needs of populations that are particularly challenged by transportation when developing systems and alternatives.”

[Note that the County chose not to use the word “rural” in their policy statement.]

To the request for equality:

• “Overarching principle – looking out for rural landowners (Broaden the idea so people are as important as the rest of it.) All residents matter/ every resident matters.”

The County evasively replied:

• “A Foreword was added to explain how the principles, policies and actions of the Comprehensive Plan can contribute to a positive future for both urban and rural residents of the County.”

Like snakes in snake oil, the County’s “Plan” squirms around every issue of human dignity and worth. If you could polygraph the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, it would “show deception” on every page.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once again, you can see how the implementation this new society is just another form of colonizing — and for the same purposes:

A source of wealth, raw materials, and cheap labor – a dumping ground for the unwanted and criminal in their own population – and an unconsidered people to squeeze dry of all worth – all for the exclusive benefit of the colonizers [and a useful distraction from problems at home.]

Ithaca always looked down on the rural residents of the surrounding towns and villages — they still do; but now they snap the whip.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Whose Plan Is This Anyway” 2

WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?

At first glance; the County’s “vision” reads like a promotional brochure — but a careful inspection reveals a dictator’s boot marks among its carefully shaped phrases.

“THE TOMPKINS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN presents a vision for the future of the community. It is based on a set of principles that reflect the values of the community as expressed by the County Legislature they have elected. The Plan seeks to foster a place where individual rights are protected while recognizing the benefits that can accrue to community members from common actions. It largely focuses on voluntary collaboration between the public and private sectors, but also supports the role that local regulation can play in addressing key issues impacting the entire community and helping people to live together in harmony. Where regulation is required, it should balance the burdens placed on individuals and businesses with the restrictions needed to protect or otherwise benefit the larger community. In most cases the Plan seeks to expand individual choice in terms of where and how people live their lives.”

This “vision for the future”:

  • Reflects the “values of the community” but only “as expressed by the County Legislature.”
  • Claims to “foster a place where individual’s rights are protected” but in the same sentence subordinates this to “common actions.”
  • It “focuses on voluntary” but “supports the role of local regulation.”

The phrase “helping people to live together in harmony” is particularly fatuous: Harmony requires more than one voice, and that’s something that is entirely missing from this “vision.”

And while the Plan states “Where regulation is required, it should balance the burdens placed on individuals and businesses with the restrictions needed to protect or otherwise benefit the larger community,” it nowhere states who will decide what these “regulations” or “burdens” are and when they are “needed.”

By removing those portions of the Plan’s foreword that are negated by qualifiers; this seemingly contradictory policy statement becomes clear:

This plan is based on values that reflect the principles of the County’s legislature. It uses local regulations to place burdens on individuals and businesses in serving that agenda and restricts individuals in their choice of where and how they can live.

Statements like “The Plan includes policies that, when considered together, can help create both rural and urban communities” indicate that these policies are intended to “create” new communities, rather than help the existing ones. Just what these communities will be and who will benefit is the subject of Cornithaca County.

“Prosperity for All”?

The Plan’s paragraph that begins with “Prosperity for all” ends with an equivocating “encourage the payment of livable wages whenever practical and reasonable” that completely drains statement of any meaning.

The County’s assertion: “Unemployment rates in Tompkins County have experienced the same cyclical ups and downs as New York State and the U.S., but have consistently been lower than statewide,” is used to minimize rural joblessness: “Still, unemployment is considered a problem by local residents, especially rural residents, with nearly 60 percent of rural residents calling it ‘critical’” — and the County further weakens the issue’s significance by the omission of any factual data, and the use of the qualifications: “still” and “considered.”

While admitting that “Individual poverty rates here are quite high, around 20 per-cent in 2011” and “It is clear that not everyone in the community shares in the region’s economic prosperity,” it muddies the issue of rural poverty with: “this can be partially explained by the fact that about 30 percent of the local population consists of students,” and goes on to add generalized family data; thereby avoiding any specifics or insight into the very real plight of the county’s rural poor.

The Plan makes no mention of mitigating rural unemployment or poverty.

Re-colonizing Rural New York

Most frequently, however, the Plan refuses to admit that Tompkins County’s rural communities have any place in its future:

“In rural areas the Plan envisions a working landscape of farms and forests providing products and jobs that support a strong rural economy, while providing for management and protection of these resources to maintain their ability to sustain the community into the future. Rural economic activities may include businesses processing agricultural and forest products, and other small businesses appropriate to a rural setting.”

It’s easy to see this “envisioning” was never done by rural residents; because this policy would exclude the lifestyles and destroy the communities of the majority of the county’s rural population.

“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.”

Agriculture is historically among the lowest paying of all jobs — the owners may make millions, but the workers are frequently living below the poverty level.

NY farmers were furious with the minimum wage hike even though they are the only industry to receive a tax credit for the wage increase. The NY Farm Bureau was not only a self-proclaimed “leader in the fight against $15,” it’s also an important voice opposing the farmworkers’ right to organize…and an important voice in rural policy.

A May 2016 article in Grassroots [the NY Farm Bureau’s “Voice of New York’s Agriculture”] points out that NY agriculture needs cheap labor to compete with Pennsylvania’s minimum wage of $7.25. Nowhere in the article does it mention what it is like to try to live on $7.25 an hour, or show any concern for the farmworkers who do.

While the right to organize for all workers is guaranteed in the state’s Bill of Rights, the state’s Employment Relations Act excludes farmworkers from being defined as employees, effectively denying them those same rights.

In Conclusion

The County’s “Plan” is a regressive and autocratic vision from the past — a stratified society that serves the goals of vested interests and leaves rural communities in the position of powerless suppliers of raw materials and cheap labor.

This Plan takes that big step from telling people how they should live to making them live that way. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan is a “kick out notice” for rural residents unwilling or unable to conform.

The repopulation of rural towns by affluent incomers demanding services and conveniences that local residents neither need, want, nor can afford is the death knell for their historical independence and way of life — leaving young couples unable to buy a house in the town where they were born, or even eat in the local restaurants.

“Living here is only affordable when jobs are paying wages that make household costs manageable.” proclaims the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan.

Whether by inadvertence or design, the county’s high taxes, aggressive property assessments, and high rural unemployment rates are forcing the community’s rural residents to sell the land and homes their families have lived in for generations and leave Tompkins County — a problem that the Tomkins County Comprehensive Plan neither acknowledges nor plans to prevent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This article focuses on the fate of the rural community under the Plan’s “vision.”

Once the takeover of the surrounding towns was accomplished: The vested interests/nobility were given lands and position; with the understanding that they would acknowledge the leadership/sovereignty of the College Town through its County Legislature and the Plan.

Like the unborn who are no longer human beings, and the elderly who died in their thousands from COVUD-19 while state government shrugged its shoulders; New York’s rural residents are a troublesome segment of the population already marked for the chop.

In a county based on using and taking at the highest levels; the less-educated rural poor stand out like a starveling in a field of contented cash cows.

If we don’t “wither away”; there are other means.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Fly Zapper Incidents”

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Fly Zapper Incidents”

You know what they say about factory farms: “Familiarity breeds contempt; and flies.”

Here’s a few “zap and dirt nap” scenarios that makes play on words like playing in traffic. If you’ve never experienced it; you don’t know what you’re missing.

A factory farm has flies; and their rural neighbor flees. Bug out.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Whose Plan Is This Anyway?”

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Whose Plan Is This Anyway?” page 1
“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Whose Plan Is This Anyway?” page 2

These are a couple of excerpts from one of the County Comp Plan articles. This Plan is a scary document that outlines how each aspect of our lives will be directed and controlled. It may be even scarier to learn how few people want to read it.

“To make a contented slave it is necessary to make a thoughtless one.” — Frederick Douglass

In a kind of natural selection; Cornithaca attracts those who are only concerned that their place in this new society is secure and defined.

It’s strange to think that it’s a University Town where the residents refuse to look at the corruption and oppression that goes on all around them. Maybe it’s what they’re being taught.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Smoke and Mirrors”

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Smoke and Mirrors”

Another excerpt. If you’ve read the previous excerpts; you’re probably thinking: “Oh, another example of elitist policy making; can’t he write about something different.” There is no other kind of policy making in Cornithaca County.

I am trying to present a strong circumstantial case by showing the reader how all the facts point in the same direction. I could write about a hundred incidents that that support this argument; but it would be a waste of time: where could I go with it?

As I point out in my Deadly Drift story, even the laws don’t matter — they have the power and the friends to ignore or even rewrite them.

This book can be seen as a cautionary tale. As they used to say when I was in grade school: “A word to the wise is sufficient.” The “unwise” become characters in their own cautionary tales.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “The Death of Meaningful Public Participation”

THE DEATH OF MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Today’s rural residents have no place in Tompkins County’s future.

This statement is based on more than two years of research and review, questions and public meetings concerning the most recent Agriculture and Comprehensive Plans of Lansing and Tompkins County, NY.

The amount of evidence that supports this conclusion is so great, that even in outline, it covers many pages. In this, and in following articles, I will present some of the evidence and research that support this viewpoint. A body of evidence that is still awaiting public review and discussion — and has so far been successfully suppressed by the interests that drafted these plans.

The Death of Public Participation in Tompkins County

From its very beginning, the Lansing Ag Plan deliberately excluded any meaningful participation by Lansing’s rural families [who comprise 95% of the proposed “Ag Zone” residents; and are the poorest, least represented and most economically depressed segment of the town’s population.]

The Lansing Ag Plan, although it is funded by the state, shaped by rich agribusinesses and controlled by Cornell through their powerful and federally connected Cooperative Extension, is always described as “local.”

The parties involved were so confident they were “untouchable” that they did not even bother to cover their tracks; in what amounts to a privatization of public policy.

The EPA’s “Public Participation Guide” states: “Public participation affords stakeholders (those that have an interest or stake in an issue, such as individuals, interest groups, communities) the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.”

The county’s rural families have never been included as stakeholders in any planning decision; and are considered an obstruction by those who covet their land.

A Brief History

In response to my email expressing concerns with Lansing’s Proposed Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan and stating “This Summary gives the overall feeling that nobody else lives [or deserves to live] in North Lansing but farmers.” Cornell’s M***** R*** lead writer of the plan; inserted the phrase “You are right.”

I have reported this many times in communications with the people involved in Lansing Ag Plan’s formulation and approval, state and local politicians, boards and planners, and of course Cornell Cooperative Extension, and have never received even one response that repudiated or expressed any fault with this discriminatory policy statement.

Following M***** R***’s disclosure, and in light of the questionable and biased nature of the proposed Ag Plan, I sent a letter to Cornell Cooperative Extension [CCE] in December of 2015, along with a Title VI Environmental Justice form detailing seven major categories of complaint, including deceptive and false plan information, ignoring mandates for meaningful participation, incidents of CCE bias, and negative impacts of the plan on the rural community. This resulted in a meeting with CCE County Director K****** S********. The only outcome of this meeting, however, was his decision that further study of the Lansing Ag Plan was needed — there was no follow up to this meeting, and all subsequent attempts at communication went unacknowledged.

I then took all the previous information and sent it to the office of the state CCE Director C********** W*******, along with quotes from the CCE website declaring that their programs “build the capacity of New York State communities to engage in and direct their own futures.” The letter I received in response admitted no accountability or wrongdoing in their actions, and placed all responsibility solely on the Town of Lansing.

Similarly, Senator N******** responded that he did not have “authority or jurisdiction” and that the Ag Plan “falls under the control of a local municipal government,” and Senator G**********’s office agreed that it fell “under the jurisdiction of your local town government” and returned my correspondence.

In addition to the above, I have not been able to find one lawyer, or Tompkins County or New York State department, not one Cornell or Ithaca College professor, administrator or student activist group willing to help in this matter — even to the extent of writing a letter of protest. And at Ithaca College, the home of rural activist Janet Fitchen’s famous studies on rural poverty, a current professor wrote back excusing himself with “Janet worked in a simpler time.“

Local Lockstep

Local Lansing government and town officials, moving in lockstep with CCE, county and state agencies and politicians, have never once responded to questions about the lack of representation for the rural families living the Ag Plan area, or to the negative impact this plan would have on these families — and not one of the letters or emails sent to them has ever been acknowledged.

The Ag Plan’s “public meeting” was announced with minimum publicity, even though Town Board members knew that few rural families received the newspapers that posted the notices, and most rural residents did not have computers to track meetings, or even know how to use them.

The publicly staged Ag Plan meeting was no more than a small part of an ordinary Town Board meeting. Attendees could ask no questions, and were told that it was only as a favor they would be allowed to speak at all. Those wishing to speak were given two minutes each; after which the Town Board immediately approved the Lansing Ag Plan without comment or discussion.

Total public meeting time: 15 minutes.

Total respect for Lansing’s rural families: 0.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the time readers of the book have gotten a few pages into Part 2; the posters, games, and “humorous” pieces in Part 1 will be viewed in a different light.

These are no “A 2-page form to register a trailer!” type stories, but “The farm polluted our well, and I can’t afford to fix it or buy bottled water for our family!” situations.

And how do government agencies help them out?

They tell them to mix bottled water and the polluted well water together to be able to afford it. It may be safe to drink [if you’re not too old, or too young, and don’t have medical conditions.]

Or:

Shut down the well for safety; so they have no water at all.

In New York City: this would be outrageous! In rural New York: it’s not even a story.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “A Cyclic History”

A CYCLIC HISTORY

Pollute-Distort-Pacify-Repeat

Politicians, bureaucrats, and agricultural interests hold hands in committee, while putting on an endless dog and pony show of ineffectual voluntary fixes and do-nothing oversight.

10 years of articles in the Auburn Citizen show that efforts to abate agricultural pollution are at a standstill — the only difference is the date of the article.

The following quotes and excerpts are grouped by article and presented in chronological order:

The Citizen May 27, 2007: Is county’s top industry the largest threat to lakes? By Shane Liebler

“Overall, farmers are very good stewards of the land” Sharon Anderson, lake steward for the Cayuga Lake Watershed network, said. “When I talk to farmers, they’re concerned about the water.”

New York leads the nation in terms of regulations on large farms, Mark James, executive director of the Farm Bureau’s Finger Lakes office said.

“The plans and practices are working,” Jon Patterson of Patterson Farms in Aurelius said. “I’m sure of it,” he said.

“They’ve all been forgotten, they haven’t been monitored, they all drain into our lakes, which are becoming impaired,” watershed resident Connie Mather said.

The Citizen Jun 19, 2014: DEC fines Scipio farm for manure runoff events By Carrie Chantler

The DEC served Gary Allen and Duane Allen, the owners of Allen Farms, of Scipio, with a consent order they signed June 3 agreeing to pay a $10,000 fine for the runoff events that contributed to the contamination of lake tributaries and of a private drinking water well.

According to the order, a Feb. 20 application of manure to a field along Rice Road caused the contamination of a neighboring private drinking well.

Additionally, a Feb. 21 manure application caused contaminated runoff to discharge into Tributary 44a of the lake.

On March 11 and 28, manure Allen Farms applied to a field along Black Street caused contaminated runoff into Tributary 9a-1 of Yawger Creek.

On April 9, manure spread on a Gilling Road field caused contaminated runoff to discharge into Tributary 16 of Crane Brook.

On March 19, the Owasco Lake Watershed Management Council sent a letter to the DEC with an accompanying photo that showed a 75-by-25 foot plume of manure along the shore line near Fire Lane 26 in the Town of Scipio.

“Ten thousand dollars, we feel, is totally out of place,” said Michael Didio, chair of the OLWMC. “It should have been more like $100,000.”

Didio’s disfavor comes from his thinking that the fine becomes “the price of doing business” for the farm.

The Citizen Oct 29, 2014: Public discusses manure runoff into Owasco Lake By Carrie Chantler

“We drink the same water as everyone else does. Our children swim in the lakes, same as everyone else does. We, as a family farm, have as much invested in making sure that our natural resources are protected as everyone else does, maybe more so,” said Jason Burroughs.

“We believe that more emphasis is needed to be placed on the inspection and enforcement of the current CAFO plan before we look to add new regulations,” Jon Patterson of Patterson Farms said.

Residents with homes around the lake discussed how grandchildren and pets were kept from enjoying the lake this summer due to the algal blooms.

“If we don’t correct the situation now we will have future problems in a much higher level. Anyone who is a lake owner, you will not have waterfront property you will have lake view property because you can’t use the lake,” Steve Fland said.

The Citizen Dec 8, 2014: County water quality officials continue discussion about winter manure spreading By Carrie Chantler

In response to a request from a Cayuga County Water Quality Management Association member to look at the science behind the issue, the EPA viewed existing research on winter manure spreading and water quality and reported that in New York, the practice should be considered as “a last resort.”

The discussion turned then to best management practices and the distinction between the word “avoid” and “prohibit.”

“To say prohibit is a whole different ballgame than avoid, I think it’s prudent to avoid,” the county’s buildings and grounds superintendent Gary Duckett said. “I’m completely comfortable with saying avoid, but I don’t recommend prohibit.”

And Stefan Lutter, from Cornell Cooperative Extension, questioned the cumulative repercussions of what would happen if area farmers were prohibited from winter spreading and had to wait to spring to deal with stored manure.

What we do know from this review (winter spreading) is not doing any good from an agronomics point of view. Avoid it if you can, but it’s OK if you can’t,” Bob Brower of the Owasco Watershed Lake Association questioned. “I don’t understand.”

The Citizen Jun 26, 2015: Cayuga County agricultural working group receives positive input during forum on manure By Carrie Chantler

The 10-member advisory committee, comprised of city leaders, farmers and environmentalists, developed the report’s 15 recommendations, flagging five of them as high priority.

“Agriculture in Cayuga County is as important as the lake is, so we need to find a way to live and work together.” Auburn City Councilor Debbie McCormick, a member of the advisory committee.

The Citizen Feb 3, 2017: DEC issues new permits for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations By Gwendolyn Craig

“The permits are an important measure to safeguard public health and the environment. I thank everyone involved for their thoughtful input throughout this process,” said DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos, in a news release.

“New York Farm Bureau was a major collaborator in a workgroup with our agricultural and environmental partners from the very beginning of the new CAFO permit process,” said David Fisher, president of the New York Farm Bureau, in a news release.

Bob Brower, president of the Owasco Watershed Lake Association, said there was “great disappointment” over the new conditions.

The Citizen Feb 22, 2017: DEC works with two Cayuga County farms on manure runoff By Gwendolyn Craig

The state Department of Environmental Conservation was busy in Cayuga County this weekend, working with two farms that had manure runoff issues in two watersheds.

The DEC recommended the public to stay away from Salmon Creek and the Cayuga Lake shore near the creek’s inlet. The DEC also said the Tompkins County Health Department advises anyone on a beach well or using lake water in the area to avoid consumption.

RE: Sunnyside Farms manure spill

“It’s not a violation necessarily because it’s a good practice,” Doug Kierst executive director of the Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District told members of the Owasco Lake Watershed Management Council Tuesday. “It was on higher ground. It wasn’t seemingly saturated.”

RE: Broadway Pork farm chicken manure runoff

“There’s no need for fines or tickets,” Kierst said. “It’s a good way to handle it, through education and outreach.”

Jim Beckwith, former president of the Owasco Watershed Lake Association, seemed incredulous that part of an emergency plan would be to spread [manure] on snow.

The Citizen Mar 3, 2017: Manure management guidelines adopted by Cayuga County water agency By Gwendolyn Craig

Besides the Water Quality Management Agency’s nutrient working group, a group of 10 farmers, four who actively participated in the process, helped draft the document

All of the 19 practices outlined are voluntary measures – “guidelines intended to encourage progress through expanded voluntary use of proven, cost effective methods, technologies, and techniques rather than force changes through legislation or rule-making.”

“It’s a lot easier and softer to know that they’re just guidelines, and they’re not rules and regulations at this time,” Doug Kierst, executive director of the Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District said.

Members voted on the guidelines, passing them with Rick Nelson, representing the Owasco Watershed Lake Association, voting against. Nelson said that OWLA believes the guidelines “are inadequate and ineffective for phosphorous reduction.”

The Citizen Jun 20, 2017: Owasco Lake watershed rules and regulations get their first public critique in decades By Gwendolyn Craig

Steve Lynch, director of the Cayuga County Department of Planning and Economic Development said that now is the opportunity to examine what’s there and what’s not, use the best science available and input from various stakeholder groups, and create a document locally that works for the watershed, which touches Cayuga, Onondaga and Tompkins counties.

From the Cayuga County Government website:

“WELCOME!

The Owasco Lake Watershed Rules & Regulations Update Project is an important water quality initiative being undertaken by the Owasco Lake Watershed Management Council. The project goal is to update and revise the 1984 Owasco Lake Watershed Rules and Regulations, through a thoughtful and engaged public participation process resulting in effective and equitable watershed regulations that will help to improve, protect and preserve water quality within Owasco Lake and it’s 205-square mile watershed for the benefit of current and future generations.”

Stracuse.com Sept 25, 2017: ‘Astronomically high’ levels of new algae toxin found in Owasco Lake By Glenn Coin

Syracuse, N.Y. — Scientists have discovered a new algae toxin in Owasco Lake, and at levels high enough to kill dogs who swim in it, said the head of a state testing lab. The sample taken from Owasco Lake had “astronomically high” levels of the new toxin.

Cayuga County health Commissioner Kathleen Cuddy declined to answer questions about the new toxin earlier today, saying she needed to get more information.

New pony, same show.

Note: The New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee is appointed by the Governor. Current 2020 Voting Members: Representative-At-Large for Farm Interests (Chairman), New York Farm Bureau representative, New York State Grange representative, Representative-At-Large for Urban, Suburban, and Rural Non-Farm Interests (a former farmer, currently Associate Director of an Agribusiness.)

In every lake and waterway pollution remediation plan in NYS: All power is placed in the hands of farmers, politicians, and bureaucrats. Rural residents are unimportant and powerless. We don’t matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A ten-year history of government doing nothing.

The New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee is appointed by the Governor. Current 2020 Voting Members: Representative-At-Large for Farm Interests (Chairman), New York Farm Bureau representative, New York State Grange representative, Representative-At-Large for Urban, Suburban, and Rural Non-Farm Interests (a former farmer, currently Associate Director of an Agribusiness.)

In the New York State of Corruption: “You have to be in it to win it” — and the deeper you’re in; the more you win.

In every lake and waterway pollution remediation plan in NYS: All power is placed in the hands of farmers, politicians, and bureaucrats. Rural residents are unimportant and powerless. We don’t matter.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “The Map is not the Territory”

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY

The mapmakers are

If it is ethics that give a government legitimacy; what does the County’s creation and continued use of this map represent?

The Town of Lansing’s 2016 Agricultural Property map is just one example of the deliberate misrepresentations that riddle the County’s planning agenda:

• This map misrepresents existing facts: i.e. actual acreage receiving Agricultural Exemptions in 2016.

• The County’s Assessment Department admitted that they knowingly supplied a map misrepresenting the actual acreage receiving Agricultural Exemptions: “The intention of the map is to show the parcels that receive an agricultural exemption – it is not intended to show how much of each parcel receives an exemption.” This is clearly not the representation of the map. [As an example: Contrary to the 100% shown on the map, only 40% of my neighbor’s tax parcel receives an Agricultural Assessment.]

• This map was used to support preferential agricultural policies, including the creation of an Agricultural Zone, to the exclusion and detriment of the existing rural community — an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.

A knowingly inaccurate map should neither have been created nor have been offered for inclusion in a legal document that is described in NY Town Law as follows: “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.”

Additionally, whereas this map is offered as a proof of intent by the Town for continued agricultural land use; a different Comp Plan map shows that the Town has zoned most of the agricultural land in the southern half of town for residential and commercial development.

Just changing the legend and/or name of the map would only cover up the situation and retain any advantages that the misrepresentation has already given to the parties involved.

I sent these arguments in an email requesting that the County Legislature remove this map from its files and from any documents wherein it has been used, and to correct as much as possible the damage its use has caused.

Attachments included both the Agricultural Property map and the “clarification” email from the County Assessment Department.

There was no response or acknowledgement of my email from any of the county’s 14 legislators.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government in Cornithaca County is inaccessible to its residents. The doors that lead to meaningful participation are merely a decoration. The actual decision making process takes place out of sight; and is revealed to the people as unalterable policy decisions.

Cornithaca County is the template for a secular religion: a stratified and compartmentalized society based on 200 years of bureaucratic materialism.

One thought, One taught • One voice, One choice . . . a shiny dictatorship with a dark underbelly.