Opinion: Removing a voice is disappointing

Dear Editor,

My wife and I were flummoxed when the Mayor and the Trustees disbanded the OHPC. This letter is not an effort to re-litigate the arguments over Public Law 3. This letter is a hope we learn from the process.  

First, as citizens, we insist that the Mayor and the Trustees treat us with greater respect. On Monday three Trustees angrily, silenced speakers. In the original meeting on Public Law 3, in a stunning assault on all citizens’ speech, the Mayor used a Deputy Sheriff to silence Kevin Millar.  

This was a chilling abuse of power in the guise of following a meeting agenda; a bit comical in the home of General Robert’s Rules. 

What happens when not seen by over 100 people? The Trustees may not have liked the seven-page document prepared by the OHPC in an effort to improve the interactions, but to suggest the effort was something put together in the manner of a school project was out-of-line.  

Second, we hope to have fact-based and transparent decisions in the future. The arguments put forward in this discussion by the Mayor and Co. were anecdotal, and by their own admission based on the complaints of a few. A tyranny of the minority masked as “listening to all” is merely a device to accomplish an agenda driven goal. During the October meeting the substantive discussions among the Trustees were made in secret (Boss Platt’s “smoke filled room”) and a unilateral pronouncement made on their return.  

Finally, the problems as described, and admittedly the information put forward to the public was all anecdotal, are very similar to the precursor events of the housing crisis and financial collapse culminating in the depression of 2008.  While those arguing to disband the OHPC wrapped themselves in the costume of pistol-packing defenders of libertarian property owner rights, the actions were those of social justice warriors or real estate speculators.  

The depression of 2008 at its core began with mortgages people could not afford and speculators who walked away from upside-down investments. Of course, any person has the right to purchase a property. However, the civil administration should not abet the uniformed purchase of an historic property whose real cost (sale price, repair and maintenance) are beyond the means of the purchaser.  This is the duty of mortgage lenders, code enforcement and other agencies. In the case of cash transactions and speculation, it is the duty of the civil administration to protect the environmental, structural, and taxable value of the property and similarly for that of the neighbors.   

A property owner’s rights should not be diminished or enhanced by the connivance of the civil authority, especially when making substandard improvements, even if profitable, shuffles problems to the next owner or the Village.

Removing a voice (the OHPC has no hammer), a defender of the character and value of the Village, is disappointing. What is more important is that, in the future, fundamental decisions affecting the Village for future generations must be made with Respectful Collaboration, with Transparency, and based on a study of precedent and financial realities, not on personalities.

Sincerely, 

Peter C. Gordon

Owego, N.Y.