Urbana officials ignore constituents' wishes

Imagine my surprise when I read that the Urbana board had approved the purchase of land for a park. The board must not understand the feelings of the electorate, or they have chosen to ignore the voter's sentiments from just 2.5 years ago. The purchase of the land was defeated 53% to 47%. 6% is a large margin, unless you are trying to spin the 421-378 vote as losing by 'merely' 43 votes. Why do the proponents deserve a 'do-over'? Don't get me wrong, I love this lake and want to preserve it but the board should be looking at ways to reduce our taxes - NOT increase them.

This deal will take $1,100,000 of property value off the tax roles, require us to repay a $500,000 bond, add to the park maintenance budget and require further unspecified funds to convert the vacant land into a park. The school board is at least moving in the right direction with their efforts to trim $800,000 from the school budget over the next two years. Steuben County is ranked 19th in the nation (taxfoundation. org) in taxes paid as a percentage of property value at 2.31%. We want to be lower on that list not higher.

Is it just a coincidence that this is being brought up in the middle of winter when the majority of lakefront owners are away? After the last vote was held during the summer, the perception was that the lakefront owners voted heavily against the purchase. Is the board trying to disenfranchise the lake property owners by proposing this deal now? These disenfranchised voters are the same owners who have seen a dramatic tax increase in the last year with the latest reassessment

How is a petition signed by 200 residents viewed as strong support for a new deal when it represents only around half of the people who voted yes in the first place and lost? The proponents had a year to raise funds for the park and only got ~$100,000 - excluding the $500,000 from one anonymous out of state donor (who will likely get a nice tax write-off for the donation). To me strong support would be a petition with greater than 422 names which would represent more people than voted against the deal in the first place.

Why do we need a third lakefront park in Hammondsport? If this sale passes will the board wait to close the purchase for another 2.5 years to allow the opponents a chance at their 'do-over'? If it is defeated again will the proponents ever give up? Is reducing the original plan from a free boat launch site to a 'simple park' just a statement to get this sale to pass? Will the board later determine that we need to fund a more elaborate park - increasing our taxes yet again? We may get to be number one on that most taxed list yet…
Kevin Bennett
Hammondsport