If the Carmans River is to be truly protected and flow clean in perpetuity...it must first be freed from some elected officials seeking to ride its currents to high places. More importantly, it must also be free from high intensity development and all the pollution of air, soil and, water emanating from such development; not only within but beyond its watershed boundaries. This is a future for the Carmans River Watershed and Brookhaven Town that many residents will support for our precious 'Jewel of the Isle".
And the real friends of the River are truly easy to find...they are publicly out front, members of the Brookhaven Town Council, and are found among those who showed up by the hundreds to voice their opposition to a plan that purported to "Save the River", while putting in place the very plan that could destroy it along with the entire rest of the town.
But the Carmans Four, elected officials and servants of the people, stood up as a strong bastion against the back room deals, the powerful special interests, the big money, the phony preservation plans and the seemingly endless political spin and streams of false and misleading information. Yes, Four members of the Brookhaven Town Board led an effort to block a scientifically indefensible plan that could not possibly achieve the worthy goal of "saving the river".
The plan was hatched over many months, with untold number of secret closed back-room sessions, unannounced and unrecorded meetings between developers and special interest groups, and big deals for high density development that threatened to change Brookhaven communities forever. Oh yes, there was some small efforts to appear open, truly little more than mere lip service, There was no meaningful or cooperative community outreach efforts from planners, LIBI developers or even the misguided environmentalists. In fact, it now seems that the plan may have been used by some to identify areas secretly slated for multi-family development and get a big "jump start" on purchasing specifically identified parcels or perhaps setting the eligibility table for new Pine Barren credits ...so very convenient?
The thankfully thwarted plan would have served two big special interests goals: making it appear that developers were actually working to help "Save the River"; while also creating unencumbered rights to build thousands of multi-family rental housing all across Brookhaven. The need for such housing remains in question, considering there are some 20,000 foreclosures and abandoned homes lining one neighborhood after another throughout much of Brookhaven Town.
Our young people want good jobs, that is their first order of priority, not a luxury apartment. Transferring development rights from the Carmans or any other watershed into more densely populated and stressed areas of the town was simply a non-starter. Allowing developers to by-pass Code requirements and avoid zone changes, and elected accountability and public review, by giving them the right to build multi-family housing in specific areas and council districts without regard to schools, 1st responders, or even the necessary infrastructure outside our downtowns was totally untenable.
Yes the Carmans Four are proponents for "Saving the River" -- Steve Fiore-Rosenfeld, Daniel Panico, Tim Mazzei and Connie Kepert -- each raised multiple serious objections, not only about the science in particular, but also how areas in the town where thousands of rental housing might be built or where transfer of development and property was to be located were selected. They stood firm against Supervisor Mark Lesko's plan developed by special interests and instead offered a viable alternative to save this most important natural resource. They also agreed to consider (if necessary), a plan to provide 'next-generation' housing. Clearly, any plan that is bad for our residents and communities must also be a bad plan for the River and the Town.
These Four worked together and identified the plan's failures, recognized the failings of such an exclusionary process and questioned the findings and statements that high-density housing couldn't add any school children. Especially in a suburban environment, they recognized that without critical input from our school districts, communities and others...and not developers...the plan simply could not be supported.
After more than two and half-hours of seemingly endless verbal gymnastics, Supervisor Lesko was forced to withdraw the resolution to 'accept' the obviously flawed plan. Still, even presented with another alternative to "save the river", Supervisor Lesko and Council members Bonner and Walsh simply refused to allow any other process to displace the Carmans River Development Plan or to even permit the beginning of a public discussion on an "alternative vision".
 |
| Photo by MaryAnn Johnston |
Notwithstanding, an alternative resolution will be presented at the April 24th Town Board meeting and the Four Heroes of the Carmans will stand ready to vote to move real preservation efforts forward.... with or without the support of the remaining three council members.
Finally, there are Four council members who actually listened to the community, carefully read the documents, (many released at the 11th hour), have now offered an "Alternate Vision" for moving ahead...one that will not include the destruction of any one area or the rest of the town. These Four are to be congratulated for their courage.
Now together we can look forward to a real Preservation Plan. One that considers all factors provides avenues for meaningful community input and contribution and can be supported by all stakeholders, residents and communities...and not just special interests.
Hopefully, the seriously flawed plan that by-passed all local community-based planning principles as well as elected accountability does at last appear to 'lie dead in the water'.
MaryAnn Johnston
President, ABCO (Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organizations Inc)
Chair: Land Use and Environment Committee
So what next? Great read Maryann, good work Col
ReplyDeleteThese Four worked together and identified the plan's failures, recognized the failings of such an exclusionary process and questioned the findings and statements that high-density housing couldn't add any school children.??????