What other way is there to deliberate on an absolutely irreversible proposal than what I said -- better, yes, not better, no, unknown, no, until it is known? I own a house here and pay property and sales taxes. I have volunteered over the entire 25+ years of my life here for various Town and Village committees, studies, and departments, including routinely risking my life. I'm turning 65 this week, and want to live out the rest of my life in the house my wife and I own, and hope to leave to the three children we raised here. How the citizens of New Paltz vote starting when early voting begins October 24th will decide that -- not how prudently we've lived in preparation for retirement, and I have just one vote, out of 11,300 registered voters -- a position of total helplessness outside any 1st Amendment rights I have to try to get an outcome that protects my rights and investment.

So that's what I'm doing. I will be taking it issue by issue, not all at once. That's the only way it doesn't become a mass of gray lettering too vast to process.

I screenshot this supposedly expository post by Tim Rogers on two questions that have arisen many times, not just among the citizenry, but directly by the two departments named. All I have to say about it is look at the use of the word "goal" in both instances. "The goal is..."
Editor’s Note: The two departments referred to by Mr. Greenfield are 1) the Village of New Paltz Department of Public Works, and 2) the New Paltz Fire Department.

Tim's being honest that he doesn't know. He's giving it the wink-wink, nudge-nudge, so that citizens who feel aligned with him personally get the idea he's giving them an assurance the proposal covers these two fields, but he doesn't want to outright lie and say he knows.

He does not. We do not. And while I can't rule out that some people around here just don't care what happens to DPW workers, even though what happens to DPW workers will cascade out to the operations of the water and sewage systems, all of the institutional knowledge of which is with them, which can be a very shitty (sorry/not sorry) thing not to care about, voting for uncertainty about the future of the fire service, how it is funded and administered, and whether its future governance will be as a contractor -- in other words, ungoverned, but still paid for -- or whether, after a period of disarray, the new consolidated Town of New Paltz will need to hastily assemble an independent governing and taxing entity called a Fire District, with five separately elected Fire Commissioners to replace the Village Board, which is the Fire Commission right now, completely blows my mind.

The idea that the architect and principal salesperson of this project can, in all honesty, state the words "the goal is," and all of us don't see that for exactly what it means, and treat that as a deal breaker for the current proposal and its rapidly approaching decision day, is unacceptable. 

Tim's first plan was not consolidation. It was Village dissolution, throwing all of this at the town, with all its unknowns, without Townies even having a vote. He withdrew that plan because as the intended Village election date was approaching, he had no solution to the DPW problem. He still doesn't. He doesn't have a firm solution to the fire service problem, either. "The goal is" is the most he can say.

The problem for us as the voters is that the ballot date is certified, and the proposal is on the ballot. Tim cannot withdraw this vote for additional study. If it's going to get a better study so we actually know what we're voting on, rather than what the goals are, even though the means of achieving them are unspecified. we have to take charge and vote no.

Consolidation may well be a good idea. This particular proposal for how to do it is not. It's long on goals, and short on proof they will be met. We must prevent this plan from happening. Those of us who do, or potentially may, feel favorably inclined towards consolidation must advocate to their Town and Village board members to start over and present a plan that achieves its goals, rather than just stating them and hoping for the best.

But the only way that can happen is if the proposal on the ballot fails. If it passes, we're all in a rudderless "let the chips fall where they may" boat, with no possibility of reversing course.