The letter from the New Paltz supervisor last week about the Brexit analogy utterly misses the point. Separation or merger is immaterial. The point is that should voters choose to eliminate the Village of New Paltz, that decision is irreversible. It would take an act of the New York state legislature to reform an incorporated Village of New Paltz. Not likely to ever happen. So, just like Brexit, if an under-informed citizenry votes to radically change their government forever, it then has no choice but to live with its regrettable mistaken decision. So, good citizens of New Paltz, avoid buyer’s remorse. Don’t be misled by the lopsided Pollyannaish version of consolidation that is on the town and consultant’s websites. There are real risks and drawbacks to consolidating.

For 21 months, I have paid close attention to this latest effort to eliminate the village and have concluded that our village government is essential, not duplicative. I have also concluded that the claims of efficiency are vague promises, cost savings are overstated and highly uncertain and negative impacts on service delivery by staff and volunteer boards are likely.

But each New Paltz resident should come to their own conclusion after hearing all of the possible pros and cons and then making their own risk-benefit assessment. Unfortunately, the town’s version of what will happen is grossly one-sided. To learn about the risks, uncertainties and downsides of consolidation, visit www.nonpconsolidation.net and keep your eye out for letters and comments in this paper and on social media.