The GRIP Viewpoint (8/23/06)

(Note: This is a previous letter to the editor explaining GRIP, and we're reprinting it here for your edification.)

I'd like to thank the New Paltz Times for the coverage that they gave to our newly formed property rights group, GRIP. I'd especially like to thank photographer Lauren Thomas for digitally capturing the core members of the group. I had invited reporter Anne Pyburn to meet with various GRIP members to get diverse points of view for the article, but she declined. Instead, the interview was held over the phone by way of being a "chat".

I thank Anne for accurately summarizing my views, but I would like to point out that the quotes given in the article were not my words verbatim. Also, I gave my opinion that Behan Associates had a vested interest in having the proposed open space plan adopted because of the additional business it could bring them from Gardiner. Anne followed my statement with a bracketed addition of her own that pointed out that the plan called for a volunteer advisory board implying that my information was incorrect. I would like to clarify that although the Open Space Plan does call for the formation of a Conservation Advisory Committee to determine what projects get funded, page 55 of the draft plan also recommends that the town "Increase Organization capacity for the Land Conservation Program by hiring a Full-Time Program Manager or contracting for services with consultant planners." This is in addition to the appointed committee, and would be funded by taxpayers. The document then spells out in detail the duties that this Program Manager or Consultant Planner would perform.

As for Behan's presentation given to the town of the draft Open Space, I want to make my view of their role clear. Behan Associates was hired by the town for a fee of $51,000 to create an Open Space Plan. The Town of Gardiner is a client of theirs. The "presentation" given to the town is in effect a sales pitch by them, as it recommends many of the additional services and programs that Behan provides (GIS Mapping, Master Plans, Economic Feasibility Studies, Design Guidelines, Land Acquisition Implementation Services, etc.) Behan has an interest in Gardiner adopting the "Plan", as it would provide them with an opportunity to sell additional products and services to the town for a profit.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this process or Behan Associates, as I'm sure that they are excellent at what they do. However, they are not promoting open space planning in Gardiner (or Marbletown, or New Paltz, or any of our other neighboring towns where they are currently or recently hired) for altruistic or philanthropic purposes. Simply, it is their business and open space planning is their product line, and that's how John Behan and his associates make a living. If Gardiner were to adopt the current draft plan, it would create a basis for many future taxpayer-funded programs, and Behan Associates or some other planning consultant would be able to retire happily from the proceeds.

Each and every property owner and taxpayer should read the draft Open Space Plan for themselves and not rely on biased interpretation. Think about the huge spending commitment it would take by taxpayers to fund it. Mostly, don't believe everything you read in the papers, or see presented at Town Hall. If you are interested in the taxpayer point of view on this and other property rights issues that are now affecting Gardiner, I invite you to www.gripnow.net, and you can make your own decision.