LETTER: Response to letters about incumbent candidates

To the editor:

The recent rhetoric in the town election does a great disservice to the people of this great community. There is a lack of understanding, either indifferent or deliberate, that village government and town government operate under a different set of laws.

The fire bond issue is one example. The village agreed to refund the fire station bonds without any public comment or debate. That may be allowed under the law, but whether that is good government is a question for the voters. However, the village did not inform the town it was considering this proposal until it was too late for the required provisions of state law applicable to towns to solicit bids and have a public hearing to take advantage of the interest rate reduction. It is too bad this was not mentioned by the candidate for town supervisor in her letter to the editor as it was an opportunity to educate the electorate instead of exploiting them for political gain. Perhaps it says more about the private discussions had on the issue without the opportunity for public comment than anything else.

As to the litigation between the town and SRCT, the candidate’s argument is so absurd that this argument was abandoned in court. It also ignores the facts: (1) the town left the assets at the community center to make the transition smoother, (2) the town and SRCT reached a written agreement on the issue until the SRCT reneged and (3) the town board simply was following its constitutional and legal obligations to protect the taxpayer property. It was not about money or pride.

The town board agonized over this issue, but had the courage to take what may have been unpopular in some quarters for the benefit of the community. The final outcome gave access to the Skaneateles Community Center for those on a monthly basis who could not afford it.

Vote on this Story by clicking on the Icon


Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment