Tompkins County and Tammany Hall – Page 4

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – The Problem

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.

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “If rural people don’t fall through the cracks” Bumper sticker

“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.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Whose Plan is this Anyway? Part 4

“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 20^th; 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.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Whose Plan is this Anyway? Part 3

“All the f**king surveys – where do they all come from.” Frequently they come from “why”? Tompkins County government has no need for surveys – except as a calming measure – so residents can feel listened to. It’s the public parking outside the impenetrable walls of privilege and bureaucracy. Meaningless public participation is the logo on every self-serving agenda in the county – a smudged, fifth generation copy that reveals the Legislature’s lack of concern with its appearance or legibility – they just don’t care. Do you?

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

WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?

Part 3

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

The only thing more indigestible than Tompkins County’s refusal to allow residents meaningful participation in County government; is the County’s pretense of enabling public participation. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan’s “Listening to Community Voices” is a laughably unconvincing cover story; dismissively penned by those who are unconcerned with whether you believe it or not.

From Kickoff Survey:

“Tompkins County needs YOUR INPUT to help develop the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Update.”

“The purpose of this survey is to gather input on what should be covered in the update to the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan.

However; the “ten elements already included in the Comprehensive Plan” by Tompkins County legislators, before the first community survey was even announced – are unchanged in the final document. The Comp Plan is a “revealed” document, not a participatory one.

The “kickoff survey” was a vague, generalized survey that used loaded terms like “Healthy Communities” to fish for results that would support policies that the County had already decided on. [Who wouldn’t vote for a healthy community?]

The two additional topic areas that were “identified” [from a list of thirteen possible choices supplied by the County] made no meaningful difference to the final County Plan.

“APPENDIX B – Public Comments and Responses” [not included in the Tompkins County Comp Plan document] shows how the County reacted to actual “Voices of the Community”:

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 responded with the following “substantive change”:

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

Note that County policy will only “consider” the needs, rather than “meet” the needs – and they refuse to acknowledge that rural residents have special problems or needs by excluding the mention of “rural” from their policy statement. The tag line of “alternatives” is used to hide the County’s real policy agenda – that the rural disabled and elderly are forced to rely on friends and neighbors, try to book a volunteer driver, or pay for expensive taxi service — or somehow travel the miles to their “Ag Ghetto” border; and wait on the side of the road for a TCAT bus.

Tompkins County’s rural population pays the same County taxes at the same rate as the rest of the county; but does not receive services like transportation and law enforcement — this is blamed on “the high cost of rural service and constrained fiscal resources” by the County — while at the same time, in a neighboring community only a few miles away; the buses stop every few hundred feet – and at tax exempt Cornell University; with students who only pay the occasional sales tax — there are so many buses in service that I’m told that it’s very difficult to drive around the campus.

Comment:

“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.”

County response:

“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.”

The Plan’s Foreword clearly shows that it is the principles, policies and actions of the County’s “vision” that are important – not the people. Tompkins County Legislators subordinate human worth to powerful interests and inflexible doctrine in every Comprehensive Plan policy.

Comments:

“The assumption that ‘planners’ can design and provide the most desirable lifestyle for the most people is pure hubris.”

“This document is nothing more or less than an attempt to have the government control everything.”

“The questions suggest their own answers, those planners want to hear. They are designed to steer the outcome into a pre-ordained mold, subordinating individual choices to government control.”

County response:

“Many residents of the County appreciate the vision presented in this plan but some fear that it can only be achieved by more regulation and what is perceived as increased intrusion by government into their lives. The Foreword explains how local regulation has a role to play but that the County does not have such direct regulatory authority over most areas addressed in the plan and the plan relies heavily on voluntary actions by individuals and organizations that the County may be able to collaborate with.”

There is no evidence to support the statement that “Many residents of the County appreciate the vision presented in this plan” — The overwhelming perception of residents is that Tompkins County government is corrupt and that there is no meaningful public participation: and with a new comprehensive plan “vision” that boldly announces where and how everyone should live — “increased intrusion by government into their lives” is anything but a “perception” for Tompkins County residents.

The plan’s thin excuse of policy “guidelines” does little to cloak the ambition that is revealed in the last sentence of their response – Tompkins County government has no intention of allowing any “plan” but their own.

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.”

“In a survey to critique the TC Plan conducted in the fall of 2013 there were 915 responses of .9% of the county population. Of these, a large number [more than 25%] were from Participation in Government classes in four local high schools. The session with Planning Department officials I attended earlier this month in the TC Library also seemed poorly attended.

This is a laughable attempt at having an informed electorate. Yet, this plan will be voted on nevertheless.”

County response:

“Listening to Community Voices describes the considerable efforts to involve the public at three separate stages in preparing the Comprehensive Plan.”

In truth: very little effort was made to involve the public, and their comments and concerns had no impact of any substance on principles and policies already decided upon “in house.” The 915 survey responders did nothing more than choose which of the preselected “topic areas” were preferred [while the Planning Advisory Board made the actual choice] — it was participation on the level of “Do you want to have mac and cheese on Tuesday? Or Wednesday?”

And in what the County describes as “Another major public outreach effort” in the spring of 2014 – a total of “over 70 individuals” attended six meetings. [A pathetic number for any public meeting.]

The County’s Comprehensive Plan states that “the Department sent information and requests for input to a wide variety of email addresses” – but only mentions “local government officials, advisory board members, and previous commenters” — and by posting “information about the public meetings” to the “Department’s Facebook and Twitter accounts” – they would again reach the same limited group already involved.

Comments and questions were solicited at meetings of County advisory boards, Business and economic development groups, Local government groups, and undisclosed “Groups the Department has worked with over the years” — once more gathering input from the county’s power structure.

In spite of the obviously inadequate response from the public; no effort was made in the local media or community outreach to rectify this situation, or to solicit public approval of the Plan’s policy statements.

The legitimacy of Tompkins County’s “LISTENING TO COMMUNITY VOICES” pastiche of public participation is based solely on their own assertions that it is so.

Few residents were even aware that a new comprehensive plan was being prepared — and that was according to plan as well.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Whose Plan is this Anyway? Part 2

Even though it’s tempting to believe the County’s rhetoric that all local plans become the county plan – their every effort is exerted to ensure that the County’s plan becomes all local plans. To a hierarchical government that sees themselves as rulers and deciders – a foot in the door is only the first step to the head of the table.

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

WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?

Part 2

While the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan claims that it’s only a guide; and readily admits that “New York State clearly places land use authority in the hands of its towns, villages, and cities” – the reality of the County’s methods undercuts its pretentions of local community control and ethical good faith.

New York Town Law § 272-a – 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 that town government should “assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed plan”

But the Tompkins County Comp Plan urges local municipalities renounce that duty and to deny citizens participation in 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”

In the face of the legislative intent set out in New York Town Law: How can the County ethically even make such a suggestion?

More and more; Tompkins County Legislators are taking an aggressive “hands on” approach to making their own “vision” – everyone’s reality:

Tompkins County Action Items Adopted: 2019

Action Item #1 “Undertake direct outreach and engagement with municipalities several times each year to identify opportunities to assist their implementation of projects that would directly promote the policies of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan”

Their own words and actions demonstrate the County’s intent to be much more than a “guide” – and are part of an ongoing attempt to coerce local municipalities into renouncing their lawful responsibilities — and to gather all power and control into the centrality of vested interests.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Whose Plan is this Anyway?

This piece is one of a series that demonstrates the intent and the interests of the Tompkins County government through an examination of the 2015 County Comprehensive Plan: “Planning for our FUTURE”.

From the Plan’s Foreword [which this piece examines], to the County Legislature’s “Mission and Vision Statements” that bookend their Plan — their air of rulership is unmistakable: They decide everything – and this Comp Plan is a proclamation of those decisions.

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

WHOSE PLAN IS THIS ANYWAY?

At first glance; the County’s “vision” reads like a Visitor Center brochure — but a more thorough inspection reveals authoritarian boot marks among its carefully worded 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.”

Their rosy “vision for the future” displays an elitist policy making attitude:

• It reflects the “values of the community” but only “as expressed by the County Legislature.”

• It 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.”

• And while the County’s 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 indicates who will decide what these “regulations” and “burdens” are – and how they will be implemented.

By removing those portions of their “vision” statement that are negated by qualifiers; we arrive at a more straightforward disclosure of intent:

This plan is based on values that reflect the principles of the County’s Legislature. In serving this agenda; We will choose the burdens to place on individuals and businesses, and decide which individuals to restrict in their choice of where and how they can live.

Corroboration of this interpretation is provided by statements like: “The Plan includes policies that, when considered together, can help create both rural and urban communities” — exposing the County’s intention to “create” new communities, rather than help those that already exist.

What these new communities will be like and who will benefit from their creation is a connecting thread in this Comp Plan “deconstruction.”

Like many speeches of grandiose rhetoric; the writers can’t help but leave a trail of truth in their efforts to cover it up. The County may claim to be “helping people to live together in harmony” – but harmony requires more than one voice, and that’s something that is entirely missing from this Comprehensive Plan.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Rural Sprawl

Like the elite in any authoritarian social structure; Tompkins County uses the needs and fears of its citizens to control and direct their energy.

Coining new terms to make people believe they’re getting a new deal is as old a trick as targeting a group of people for suspicion and hate.

While Tompkins County may deny they are stacking the deck against the rural community; they won’t let anyone else touch the deck – or deal the cards.

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

RURAL SPRAWL

“How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” — Abraham Lincoln

. . . But if you keep on insisting his tail a leg – people will start to believe you.

This is the rationale behind the creation of the term: “rural sprawl” — a term designed to obscure the truth.

Since this chapter focuses on a single example, and the area’s Town and County comprehensive plans will be subject to a detailed examination in other chapters; I will merely outline the housing agenda in Tompkins County.

Ithaca; named the “Best College Town in America” is also reported as being the “8th most expensive city in the U.S. to raise a family.” The ability of landlords to rent a 3 or 4-bedroom apartment to students for far more than families can afford to pay, along with the high property taxes; have pushed out the college and business workers; and artificially forced the creation of urban sprawl bedroom communities in the outlying rural towns and villages.

While Ithaca planners designate block after block of their wood frame houses as historically important and surround the city with 3,800 acres of “conservation land” — the rural town of Lansing has 0 acres of conservation land; and its secluded 33-acre Salmon Creek Bird Sanctuary has been turned into a sanctuary for drug dealers and drug users through County cut-backs.

The best way for Ithaca to preserve its gentrified way of life – while expanding the colleges and increasing their importance as a business center – was to markedly increase the size and density of their urban sprawl “satellites.”

This is where the concept of “Rural Sprawl” comes in.

These sprawl bedroom communities became “identified” as Development Focus Areas for “compact residential development” – the County adopted a plan that categorized rural Lansing as an Emerging Node with the need for a municipal water and sewer infrastructure to support additional development in the area.

The awkward problem of urban sprawl – was suddenly the solution.

Increasing Tompkins County’s urban resettlement was now the only answer to “rural sprawl”: the new “Red Menace” of rural residents destroying the land, water, and future of the county.

[An interesting attribution for a rural community that had done just the opposite for over 200 years.]

The fact that “rural sprawl” and its attendant denunciations appear 11 times in the Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan is not surprising — Cornell not only wrote the Town’s Agricultural Plan; it supplied all the planning for the Town’s Comp Plan as well.

By 2021; Lansing’s native residents were completely disenfranchised and marginalized – with incomers taking control of the government. This is how Urban Colonialism works in Tompkins County.

The “rural sprawl” argument is a patronizing pastiche that any rigorous questioning would expose; but in a dictatorship, even a pseudo-democratic one, you can’t change anything . . . and you don’t ask questions.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Truck Route – Part 1

The process of effecting change in Tompkins County policy decisions is like the law of diminishing returns – the more effort you make to move forward; the less real progress you make. The “best” results are achieved by doing nothing, and believing their conscience stultifying patter — and since unabashed self-praise is so au courant; there are less and less people who “walk the walk.”

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

TRUCK ROUTE

There’s an old saying: “Where there’s smoke there’s fire”; but when you can see flames over the treetops; you don’t need a cautionary phrase to tell you there’s a conflagration – The only question is: Will anybody come to put it out?

The roads in and around the hamlet of Lansingville were quiet rural roads; named after the families that lived on them. What were once backwater roads to nowhere; have become major routes through nowhere; to everywhere – a series of intransigently unregulated short-cuts through a community that doesn’t matter to Tompkins County authorities.

In looking over the timeline narrative I’ve written for this chapter; I realize how tedious reading the repeated negative results may be for the reader — but I wanted readers to understand the frustration, effort, and lack of result that are the hallmarks of citizen-government interaction in Tompkins County. This chapter recounts only part of the efforts, and it’s only the first chapter in the story . . .

This is a good a place to start as any:

10/01/2019 – Email to a candidate running for the Lansing Town Board – Dear Ms. B**:

“I received your ‘Who do you want for your neighbor’ card in the mail and want to reach out to you — to rephrase your campaign slogan: Your representation can preserve rural Lansing . . . or not.

In this letter I would like to focus on something that you can do to help preserve the safety and quality of life in Lansing’s rural community — have the Lansing Town board request that Tompkins County exclude big trucks from Lansingville Road (CR155).”

The email continued with several pages of documented arguments explaining why these through-cutting trucks are destructive to the roadways and environment, and detrimental to the safety and quality of life of the rural community.

10/08/2019 – Email from County Legislator M** S**:

“A** sent me your email. I read over it, but need to again as there was a lot there. I also forwarded on to our county roads superintendent. His email is below:”

“M**-

Couple of quick thoughts:

Trucks using this road are likely Agriculture or local and there would be no way of limiting either.

If they are Through Haul Trucks I don’t understand why they would be using this road? Do you know of any reason?”

10/09/2019 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“Thank you for looking into this issue.

Here are a few of my quick thoughts on Mr. S**’s comments:

‘Trucks using this road are likely Agriculture or local and there would be no way of limiting either.’

As far as I can see, he has no basis either in fact or through observation of Lansingville Road for making that statement. I work at home in my studio, and I only have to turn my head [and the noise they make is definitely head turning] to have an unobstructed view of Lansingville Road. These are definitely not agricultural trucks. I can see the mounds of gravel in the back, and when traveling down Lansingville they have all three of the back axels down to carry the maximum weight these trucks are capable of.

‘If they are Through Haul Trucks I don’t understand why they would be using this road? Do you know of any reason?’

Once again, a puzzling reaction from Mr. S**. Why should the reason matter? Maybe it saves five seconds.

Maybe it would annoy people in Genoa if the trucks used Route 90. It could be, as the Cornell report finds, because of safety and weight issues.

Following these trucks through Lansingville Road, and other rural roads, to and from the job sites will quickly substantiate the facts.”

10/26/2019 – From County Legislator M** S**:

“J** S** tells me:

“I have researched the area and talked to highway officials in Lansing and they report there are no large through haul trucks utilizing Lansingville Road. What is using the road is as I thought, Agriculture Vehicles.”

11/13/2019 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“The attached shows seven different thru haul trucks [clearly none of these trucks are agricultural.] Note that in bottom right hand truck you can actually see the uncovered gravel.”

No response or acknowledgement of this email was ever received.

Throughout the winter, spring, and summer; a number of emails were sent to both Town and County authorities: detailing and documenting the deteriorating conditions, and the pressing need for implementing traffic management on the roads around and through Lansingville — these communications were almost never responded to; and never in any meaningful way.

In the fall of 2020; a new attempt was made to bring traffic management to our rural roads and establish a weight limit for non-agricultural through-cutting trucks. We reached out to our County Legislature representative, M** S**, to request that the County Highway Department place a 4-ton weight limit on non-local, through-cutting trucks.

12/03/2020 – From County Legislator M** S** – “This is what I got back from county highway”:

“You are correct the State decides on Reduced Speed Zones. The County places weight restrictions and can change centerline road striping.

Large truck wise. This issue has been going on for a while. The weight restrictions will only effect through traffic. Any agricultural or delivery activity will still have the ability to use the road. When we looked into this before on a complaint from Mr. Baird it was found to be Agriculture Trucks cutting the fields. Although they can make a mess of the road with mud, they would not be effected by a road posting

We can look at what exists as far a passing zones, etc and change accordingly next season. That said we are reluctant to change passing zones if we don’t see or are aware of some change in the area, ie. New Homes or businesses that change traffic flow or density in some way.

Please let me know if you have any questions.”

12/03/2020 – To County Legislator M** S** and Town Board member A** B**:

“That is a ludicrous assertion from J** S**; as anybody on Lansingville Road can tell you.

Lansingville Road continues to be a thru-cut route for commercial and industrial dump trucks, flatbeds and tractor trailers on a daily basis.

I sent you a montage of some of the dump trucks using Lansingville Road [taken on with an old digital camera], after J** made the last ‘agriculture only’ statement – and will reattach it.”

12/16/2020 – To County Legislator M** S** [to further address the “misidentification” explanation by County Highway Director J** S**]:

“I am well aware of which trucks are ‘Agriculture Trucks cutting the fields’; and which are not.

1. They are built different – made for carrying harvest crops, not stones. Gravel, etc. The sides are noticeably higher and different in conformation. [The very few old dump trucks used have plywood added to one side to allow them to be loaded with more by the combine harvester.] Their wheels/tires are made for heavy loads over softer fields.

2. I am familiar with most of the trucks that carry crops on Lansingville Road, and see them parked in the farmyards. Others have “W** Dairy” on the doors.

3. These “Ag Trucks” are only used at intervals to harvest crops; and can be seen and heard on neighboring fields at that time.

4. The most obvious reason: crop trucks are mounded/loaded well above the sides and are not tarped, so it’s plain which trucks are carrying crops, and which are not – you can’t miss seeing it.”

Just before the end of 2020: the Tompkins County Highway Department posted a number of through-truck weight limit signs around Lansingville — for “20 TONS”!

12/31/2020 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“Attached is my brother’s photo of the signage on Burdick Hill Road. [Speed limit 40 – Weight limit 4 tons; except local delivery – double yellow line/no passing]

We want nothing that Burdick Hill Road residents [and others] don’t already have — and with less reason.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

01/06/2021 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“The O’T**, A** C**, and other dump trucks have been roaring up and down Lansingville Road at speed all day – every day this week [untarped], along with flatbeds and other industrial traffic. Crazy, reckless drivers fill the road.

Have you made any progress in getting our traffic concerns addressed?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

01/11/2021 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“Farm tractors towing equipment pass by my window, slowly traveling up and down Lansingville Road; and O’T** and A** C** dump trucks roar by up and down Lansingville Road every weekday at more than twice the speed of these tractors . . . Blatant disregard for any traffic laws by thru-cutters is endemic in our hamlet — everyone now knows there is no law in Lansingville.

Can you please let us know what’s being done?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

01/21/2021 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“I was wondering; have you anything in process to help us in managing traffic on Lansingville Road?

It’s been over three weeks [since our December 29th meeting] and we haven’t heard anything.

My brother has been checking; and every other road with a posted weight limit specifies ‘4 TONS’ and a 2 ton axel weight.

My research shows that ‘20 TON’ weight limit signs are reserved for bridges, not roads.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

03/25/2021 – To County Legislator M** S**:

“Nothing has happened with the requested weight restrictions on thru-cutting trucks; the 20 TON sign is still up . . . and my recent emails to the Town and County have not even been acknowledged.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

03/30/2021 – Complaint Letter to: L** H**, Deputy County Administrator – Department of County Administration:

“Re: Tompkins County Highway Department

Dear Ms. H**:

I wish to complain in the strongest terms about the response of the Tompkins County Highway Department to our request for a weight limit restriction on non-local trucks.

Commercial and industrial trucks have been using Lansingville Road and the Hamlet of Lansingville as a thru-cut for development projects from BJs to the new Cargill Mine Shaft and the Salmon Creek Bridge work.

These trucks race through, sometimes hundreds of times a day; driving aggressively down the middle of the road, and routinely passing agricultural traffic on the double-yellow lines — creating a serious safety issue.

The repeated heavy-truck traffic is breaking down the narrow [20 wide] paved surface of the road relied upon by local farmers.

They also scour down the dirt and gravel shoulders to as much as several inches below the road surface; creating a dangerous lip for small cars and bicycles.

There is no hardship to the trucking companies; since Lansingville Road is paralleled by state highways on either side.

The County Highway Department Supervisor has the power to set weight limits on local roads; so we asked our County representative, M** S**, to forward our request to have a 4-TON weight limit set on non-local traffic for Lansingville Road.

He received the following response from County Highway Supervisor J** S**:

This statement was so at odds with reality that it took us aback. We sent photos of just a few of the many large non-agricultural trucks that are “utilizing Lansingville Road,” and sent them to M** S**.

There was no response from the County to our documentation; and at the end of December 2020; signs suddenly appeared on Lansingville Road setting a 20-TON limit on non-local traffic — this is 5 times the weight limit that the County has posted on any other local road. And it’s a sign that is usually reserved for bridges, not roads.

Residents are frustrated and angry at the County’s dismissive treatment of their request, and the apparent disregard shown for their safety; as well as restricting agricultural activity in a proposed agricultural zone located within a NYS Agricultural District.

How can you fix this?

We want nothing that the residents of many other local roads, like Burdick Hill Road, haven’t already have received without demur; and for far less cause.”

Enclosures (1): Photo of weight limit sign

04/14/2021 – Reply Letter from: L** H**, Deputy County Administrator – Department of County Administration:

“Dear Mr. Baird:

I received your complaint about the Tompkins County Highway Department and your request for a weight limit restriction on non-local trucks traveling on Lansingville Road.

I spoke with Highway Director J** S** about your concerns. The Highway Director is prohibited from posting roads based solely on citizens’ requests; rather there needs to be data indicating that damage to the road has occurred because of heavier loads.

In regard to Lasingville Road, Mr. S** posted the road at 20 tons to limit through traffic of large trucks. This came in part from your previous request for a weight restriction because the data did indicate that road is in poor shape, and the weight limit would help to prevent it from deteriorating faster. It’s important to note that agriculture vehicles and local deliveries are exempt from the posting. This exemption for agricultural vehicles and local deliveries would also be true of a 4 ton weight restriction.

In response to your concerns, and in an effort to better understand the situation, the Highway Department will conduct another traffic count on Lansingville Road in the coming weeks and will utilize this data for related decisions.”

04/18/2021 – Email from County Legislator M** S**:

“I know the administration is now looped into the issue on your road. I’m not sure there’s a solution. I’ll call J** again tomorrow on it.”

04/19/2021 – Follow-up letter to L** H**, Deputy County Administrator – Department of County Administration:

Re: Tompkins County Highway Department

“Dear Ms. H**:

Your letter of April 14, 2021 neither responds to, nor accounts for, the actions and assertions of Tompkins County Highway Department Director J** S**; which are the substance of our complaint:

1. It does not account for his denial of any non-agricultural large truck traffic on Lansingville Road in an email to County Legislator M** S**; in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

2. It does not substantiate his claim of research, or give the name of the Lansing Highway Department personnel this assertion is based on.

3. It does not account for the posting of a 20 TON weight limit without informing County Legislator M** S**; who was inquiring into this issue as an official County representative.

4. It does not account for the posted weight limit being five times the [4 TON] weight limit of every other sign posted locally to “limit through traffic of large trucks” — a 20 TON weight limit that would allow the continued high-volume through traffic of gravel trucks — truck traffic that Director J** S** asserts does not even exist.

The County’s actions and response do not in any way “maintain public confidence” or meet the needs of local residents. Your letter will be kept on file as documentation for future inquires.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

05/06/2021 – Email to Tompkins County legislators:

“I wish to complain in the strongest terms about the response of the Tompkins County Highway Department to our request for a weight limit restriction on non-local, non-agricultural trucks, and the handling of our complaint by Deputy County Administrator L** H**.

[Attached are the ethics complaint to Ms. H**, her response, and my follow up letter.]

All we asked for is what many other local roads already have — how did Burdick Hill Road, Cherry Road and many other local roads get a “4 Ton” weight limit? And why can’t we get it the same way?

All we get are obstructions on top of obstructions, deliberate misunderstandings, and answers to requests we never made.

The roads around Lansingville already have considerable large and heavy traffic in the tractors, trucks and agricultural equipment used in today’s consolidated farming activities — traffic that none of these other roads have.”

“The lack of transparency and inappropriate responses by the Highway Department and the Deputy County Administrator have no place in ethical government.

We look forward, hopefully, to the posting [and enforcement] of 4 ton limits for all non-agricultural thru-cutting trucks on the agricultural roads of our historic hamlet: Lansingville Road, Lockerby Hill Road, and Jerry Smith Road.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

05/11/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“Do you know if the County Legislators are going to do anything about the thru-cutting trucks . . ?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

05/18/2021 – Email to the Lansing Town Supervisor and the Lansing Town Board, with a request to take action and forward to all Lansing Ag Committee members, and to representative J** K** of NYS Dept. of Agriculture:

“Lansingville Road, Lockerby Hill Road, and Jerry Smith Road have been turned into some of the biggest unregulated high-speed shortcuts and industrial truck routes in Tompkins County [attached is a video of the everyday behavior of thru-cutting traffic on Lansingville, taking place on a curve with a double yellow line; this behavior is also common with dump trucks, tractor trailers, and even Lansing Town trucks.]

The ability to change this is up to you.

Some of us are trying to trying to make our roads a safe and lawful part of the rural community by establishing a 40 MPH speed limit, no passing, a 4-Ton weight limit on non-agricultural, non-local delivery trucks, and enforcement of these laws.

We approached M** S**, our County Representative, and asked him to request that the County Highway Dept. to put a 4-Ton weight limit for non-local deliveries on Lansingville Road. The troubling response by the County is documented in the attached.

County Legislators have, to this day, refused to investigate, explain, or even acknowledge any communication concerning the Highway Department’s and Deputy County Administrator’s actions, or admit that non-ag trucks use Lansingville Road.”

The email continued with additional arguments and points; and ended with a plea for them to get involved – “This is a chance to do good for everyone in the rural community.”

Attached were copies of the 3/30/21 complaint letter to the Deputy County Administrator, the 4/14/21 response from Deputy County Administrator, the 4/19/21 follow-up letter to the Deputy County Administrator, the text of the 5/6/21 email to the County Legislature, and a video clip of traffic on Lansingville Road from the previous day.

No response or acknowledgement was ever received from any of the parties.

05/20/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S** and Town Board member A** B**:

“Could you find out what requirements the residents of Burdick Hill Road, Cherry Road, and the other local roads fulfilled to get approval for their “4 Ton” weight limit postings?

I’m sure we can do the same.”

05/25/2021 – Email from Town Board member A** B**:

“Doug…I think this is a positive step to take to reduce large truck traffic.

M** [County Legislator]…Do you know who should be contacted?

A**”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

05/29/2021 – Email to Town Board member A** B**:

“I have letters and emails on this issue going back to 2018; and not a single thing has been done to remediate the situation. Are we being stonewalled? If so, why?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

06/01/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“Do you have any information yet on what requirements the residents of Burdick Hill Road, Cherry Road, and the other local roads fulfilled to get approval for their “4 Ton” weight limit postings?”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

06/07/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“Is there anything of substance happening with the request to post a 4-Ton limit on thru-cutting trucks . . ?”

Video clips of dump trucks filled with crushed stone using the road that morning were attached.

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

06/09/2021 – Email to Town Board member A** B** [owner of a thousand acre dairy farm with permanent easement]:

“I don’t know what luck you have had in obtaining any sort of traffic management on our rural roads, but I haven’t. More than 4 years of factual and reasoned attempts have gotten me nothing but runarounds, and when I persisted; a stone wall of silence.”

“There are three areas in which I see a possible solution, if you are willing to help:

1. You can act on this issue with the Ag Committee and Town Board – both the Town and County approved the Lansing Ag Protection Plan that lists in its “Goals and Strategies to Preserve Farmland and Promote Agriculture” a number of recommendations; from “giving priority to farming” to “review traffic/speed limits/signage in agriculture areas to improve safety” and the “maintenance of roads & bridges – for heavy ag vehicles.”

2. J** K** . . . I was told by the Counsel’s Office that he is the contact for NYS Ag in this matter.

3. Help with a petition – once again, you have connections, locally and through the Ag Committee, to get “door to door” and email signatures to a petition. Attached is a sample of what I thought might be wanted.”

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

06/17/2021 – A letter and enclosures were sent to Attorney General Letitia James:

“Re: Tompkins County Government Misconduct

Dear Attorney General James:

I am writing you to request an investigation into the conduct of Tompkins County Highway Director J** S**, as well as the conduct of L** H**, Deputy County Administrator in her handling of an ethics investigation of Director S**’s actions, and the Tompkins County Legislature’s subsequent refusal to take appropriate steps to insure ethics and transparency in County government.”

The letter contained a detailed account of the actions of the parties named; and enclosed copies of the email response from the County Highway Director, the letter to the Deputy County Administrator, the response from Deputy County Administrator, and a photo of weight limit sign.

The Certified Mail receipt was dated June 21, 2021.

No response or acknowledgement of the letter was ever received.

06/23/2021 – Email to a neighboring town Superintendent of Public Works:

“We want to stop the through-cutting of large trucks. Lansingville Road has become a major route for industrial and commercial traffic from Cayuga County. During projects like the Cargill mine shaft there were hundreds of trucks going back and forth in a day with crushed stone. There are also tractor trailers, heavy equipment flatbeds, and cement mixers that uses Lansingville on a regular basis. There are no law enforcement patrols on Lansingville Road; and these trucks drive aggressively down the middle of the road and routinely pass tractors and farm equipment on the double yellow lines. This narrow road with only gravel shoulders is really taking a pounding as well. There are state highways on either side (34 & 34B) and no hardship or need to use Lansingville Road.

We want to fulfill all the requirements that other residents did and get the same protections.”

06/23/2021 – Email reply from the Superintendent of Public Works – Re: Requirements for a “4-ton” weight limit on non-local traffic:

“Residents don’t decide where signs are placed. Petitions hold no merit.

Roads are posted for other reasons.

Good luck”

07/05/2021 – Email to County Legislator M** S**:

“I’m still trying every door on a thru-cutting weight limit on Lansingville’s roads” . . .

No response or acknowledgement was ever received.

07/07/2021 – Email to All Tompkins County Legislators:

“We are still trying a to get 4-Ton weight limit for thru-cutting trucks on Lansingville’s roads; and want to find out how the residents of many other local roads were able to do this. We got this response from one government authority:

‘Residents don’t decide where signs are placed. Petitions hold no merit.

Roads are posted for other reasons.’

There cannot be a set policy; because there has never been any mention of a policy to date, so it must be decided by a group — who are the people who make this decision?

Even a minimal government transparency should allow citizens to find that out.”

Two months later – there was still no response from any Tompkins County Legislator.

Throughout the entire process, and in the face of irrefutable documentary evidence; the County has never changed their claim that these trucks do not even exist.

Once again; the County has given the cold-shoulder runaround to the real needs of the rural community – and they’re so comfortable in their power – they don’t even try to hide it.

The story continues in Part 2.

“All Roads Lead to Cornithaca” – “Cornithaca County is so corrupt . . .” 14

“The Will of the People is in probate.” . . . and the Legislators have appointed themselves Executors. In a county whose “vision for the future of the community is based on a set of principles that reflect the values of the community as expressed by the County Legislature” – there’s no doubt about where the “vision” and all the decisions are coming from.

“Tompkins County and Tammany Hall” – Ruler of all you survey

“More Info – Less Filling” A more satirical treatment of the ethical misconduct that saturates the fabric of Tompkins County — the Urban Colonialism of Cornell University has marginalized and destroyed the “native” rural culture throughout much of the state; and runs the county for the benefit of its corporate “bottom line” — The New Paradigm: “Squat . . . shit . . . move on.”

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

RULER OF ALL YOU SURVEY

The “telephone survey” is an excellent example of how Tompkins County authorities validate elitist policy making – while at the same time giving the appearance of meaningful public participation.

The following document uses the Town of Lansing Telephone Survey as a “How To” guide for politicians looking to legitimize “quid pro quo” government and short-circuit future opposition.

How to Create the Perfect Telephone Survey

Preparing the Survey

TIP: Telephone surveys should always be carried out early in the decision making process; before residents have a chance to consider the ramifications or discuss the issues among themselves.

It’s very important to decide on the answers you want before formulating your questions in order to ensure a successful survey.

Include as many respondents as possible who will not be affected by the survey results.

TIP: Avoid displaying any correlation between the respondents and their answers that may weaken your case: for example – people who rent, and only moved into town for ‘convenience’ or plan to stay less than five years, are unlikely to care about the long-term impact of your policies and are more likely to express support.

Make sure your “random” survey has no surprises by instituting quotas of respondents for each of the different demographic categories you’ve created — Hang up any anybody who’s been “apportioned out.”

TIP: “The Devil is in the Dialogue”: Don’t include any questions that you don’t want the answers to, and make sure to limit the choices in your “multiple-choice” questions.

Ask the most questions in the areas you want to have the greatest weight in the results. This is your primary agenda.

Add “filler”: Up to 50% of the questions should be non-arguable demographic questions: this will lend an atmosphere of solidity and worth to the survey.

Generalize to avoid problem areas: the answers can be interpreted as an approval of any specific policy later.

• Don’t ask — “Would you support a large increase in the school taxes?”

• Ask — “Do you want our children to receive the best quality education?” [The inclusive “our” is always a useful touch.]

Don’t ask residents if they actually want something: your position is to assume it will happen and ask what they want to do with it.

• Don’t ask — “Do you want a Town Center?”

• Ask — “Do you want sidewalks/a mini-mall in the Town Center?”

Ask questions in a way that is psychologically loaded:

• Don’t ask — “Would you support re-zoning to allow large-scale apartment complexes?”

• Ask — “Would you support housing for families in need?”

Make sure you offer special services to the people as a “rider” so they will support your development agenda: for example – “Is the use of tax dollars for the development of recreational biking/hiking and walking trails important to you?”

Use the elderly and disabled as leverage to get what you want: for example – “Do you support use of tax dollars for [your agenda here] including services for the elderly and persons with disabilities.”

Include the largest topic areas for your questions so that the general can override the specific: for example ask – “Agree or disagree – The roadways and intersections in the county are generally safe for pedestrians” especially if the roads in your town are not safe for pedestrians.

Presenting the Survey Results

Always stress the accuracy of the survey’s methodology to mask the agenda used in the creating the questions and your interpretation of the answers.

Use “pie” and “bar” charts to lend the weight of a scientific fact to your presentation.

TIP: Add requests and suggestions from survey responders to make it seem as if you’re interested in what the public has to say.

In Conclusion

If you have followed the preceding guidelines and recommendations, you will have all the material you need to present a clear-cut “mandate” for your project or policy. FINAL TIP: Make sure all the influential “partner-stakeholders” receive a cut to be certain of their continued support.