Heading 6
Social Media
Rosemarie Kukys' Comment on New Paltz (Moderated) 9-30-2026
Statement from CSEA Southern Region President Rosemarie Kukys
As a union, we are proud of the CSEA members who provide exceptional service in the Village of New Paltz. Not only is the Village a tourist and college destination, residents put down roots here because of the quality of life. That quality of life wouldn’t exist without the folks who work behind the scenes providing vital services, keeping the Village the special place that it is. Those folks include the CSEA members at the Village DPW.
Earlier this year, we announced our union’s opposition to consolidation. Our position hasn’t changed. Please know that we have been working closely with our members throughout this process and that our union stands strongly behind them. Right now, CSEA members are focused on continuing to provide the same outstanding level of service, especially as the Village enters what is arguably its busiest season of the year.
We urge all New Paltz residents to truly familiarize themselves with what’s at stake and make an informed decision in November. We appreciate everyone who has worked to make sure all voters have the facts as Election Day approaches. Our experiences across the state have shown that New Yorkers value Village services and choose to maintain them. As the Village of New Paltz continues to grow both in population and as a tourist destination, we feel that maintaining a DPW workforce within the Village is going to play a vital role in adapting to this growth.
Editor’s Note:
At the invitation of Don Kerr, New Paltz Public Access member for over 25 years and former Village of New Paltz Trustee, Civil Service Employees Association President Rosemarie Kukys posted this statement on the New Paltz Community (moderated) Facebook page. to view the New Paltz Public Access video.
Steve Greenfield Facebook Post 9-21-2026
There are just 5 weeks remaining. The time has come for me to state my position on the current consolidation proposal, the one that's on the ballot, as written, and start advocating to prevent a potential disaster. Some of the support for it is inadvertent and well intended due to inadequate information, most of it presented by its authors as adequate and complete, although it is not, and some, yeah, I'll say it, driven by ill will and self-gain.
A disclaimer, up front: I have no philosophical or "vibes"-based position on consolidation. I'm a "show me" type. Prove to me what's on the ballot proposal is known to produce something better than what we're doing right now. If yes, yes. If no, no. If unknown, no, until we know. The devil we know is always the better choice than the devil we don't know, and there is nothing devilish about how the Town and Village are governed now. It's actually pretty good. All our services get delivered. All our departments are run well by capable people, whichever side of the municipal water and sewer line they fall. The lights are on. The potholes are filled. When it snows, the streets are cleared. Nothing is wasted.
Steve Greenfield Facebook Post 9-21-2026
Letters to the Editor
Michael Zierler LTE Oct 7 2026 HV1
Vote NO on consolidation
The Village of New Paltz has existed since the 1600s. By the mid-1800s, our little village center was bustling with businesses, places of worship, banks, a fire department and a railroad depot. Hundreds of homes were closely packed on newly-formed streets branching off of Main Street. This busy, dense central settlement surrounded by the rural remainder of New Paltz was a familiar model of communities at the time. To service the dense and growing center of New Paltz, a village government was formed in 1887. As per New York State laws, this gave control of water and sewer, streets and sidewalks, fire protection and more to the new village government, while the rural parts of New Paltz remained under the governance of the town. This made a lot of sense because the two portions of New Paltz had very different growth patterns, need for services and constituencies.
This division of governance into the village and the town has held strong for 139 years.
It is why New Paltz has retained the desirable model of a densely-populated, business-focused, walkable core surrounded by beautiful farms, woods and mountains. The village and town have very different land-use zoning, which reflects the distinct uses and density of the village versus the town. Village control of municipal water and sewer, plus distinct zoning laws are the primary reasons that New Paltz still has a vibrant village center and a largely rural, bucolic town around it.
Two governments serving two distinct populations with different needs is a major reason why New Paltz is New Paltz. Why it is a desirable place to live and visit. Without a village government, sprawl becomes a major concern. That is bad for the town and for the village. Vote NO on Proposition #2. Vote NO on consolidation.
Mike Russo LTE 10/7/2026 HV1
Consolidation will lead to greater bureaucracy
The roots of New York’s Citizen’s Empowerment Act stem from the 2007 Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness, instituted by Governor Eliot Spitzer. Andrew Cuomo, then attorney general, used the issue to elevate his political standing, embarking on a highly publicized statewide media tour. He inflated the perception of local government bloat by combining school, water and fire districts with villages, towns and counties to claim that 10,000 costly, inefficient government entities existed in New York state. He weaponized this narrative, naming local layers as the primary driver of high property taxes. Cuomo subsequently drafted and championed the New N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act, which became effective in 2010.
Opponents rightfully charged that this hyper-focus on local government was a political smokescreen to deflect public anger away from the state’s own rapidly growing unfunded mandates. Critics pointed out that forcing two tiny villages to merge their police forces would only save thousands of dollars, whereas reforming state Medicaid, pension, or education mandates would save billions. Furthermore, incentivized consolidation attacks community democracy and local identity. Smaller governments are structurally more responsive and efficient for labor-intensive, routine tasks.
Independent research repeatedly validates these concerns. A 2008 Association of Towns report warned that top-down, incentivized mergers destroy housing affordability and raise overall costs. More recently, a 2022 Rutgers University study by Prof. P. Zhang examined New York local government data from 1996 to 2019. The study concluded that the economies of scale behind centralization are not as large as expected and they do not outweigh the values residents appreciate most: decentralized service, local culture and policy control.
Since many local services have already been shared, there is little basis to presume that consolidation of New Paltz’s village and town will lead to greater efficiency rather than just greater bureaucracy.
Michael Zierler LTE Sept 22, 2026 HV1
There are Real Risks and Drawbacks to Consolidating
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.
Michael Zierler LTE Sept 15, 2026 HV1
Eliminating the Village would Diminish New Paltz
Good people of New Paltz, “consolidation” is what people in polite company say when what they mean is, “Let’s eliminate the village!” No more village government; no more village identity; and no more dedicated representation, staff and resources to address the interests of people and businesses in the village. Why do these things matter?
The Village of New Paltz was incorporated in 1887 because the railroad had recently arrived, the mercantile class was growing and an urban center was forming. People recognized that these developments would need infrastructure and the people to maintain it. They recognized that the needs and desires of this nascent urban center were different than those in the much larger agrarian Town of New Paltz. What foresight. Today, the village population is larger than the population of the town outside the village (TOTV). And the village population is ten times as dense as the TOTV. Most of the infrastructure -- water, sewer, sidewalks, street lights -- plus businesses are in the village, just as they have been since the late 1800s. The village has always been different enough from the TOTV that a village government dedicated to village needs, issues and growth has been essential. It remains essential today. It is a major reason why New Paltz has retained the lovely and desirable model of an urban core surrounded by beautiful farms, woods and mountains. Without a village and a village government, sprawl becomes a much bigger threat. The truth is that eliminating the village would diminish New Paltz, threaten what we have and break something that doesn’t need fixing. So, on NO-vember 3, vote NO on the question of “consolidation.”
Michael Russo LTE Sept. 2, 2026 HV1
A Rush for No Good Reason
I’d wager that almost all of us have seen this circumstance at some time in our lives. Leadership of a company, an organization, or a municipality had a vision of major changes that they wanted to carry out. Knowing that people resist structural change, they decided on an expedited process to push these changes through quickly. Unfortunately, the very manner by which they tried to implement the changes boomeranged; the failure to devote enough time and communication for the idea to be considered by all affected people created much pushback, divisiveness and resentment. But the leaders were so assured in the correctness of their own vision and so attached to it that they paid little heed to others who identified weaknesses and fallacies with the idea, thus to the detriment of the whole entity.
Kim Squillace LTE Sept. 1, 2026 HV1
Vote NO on consolidation this November
As a village resident, I urge my neighbors to vote NO on the upcoming November 3 consolidation referendum. While proponents promise quick tax cuts, this rushed agreement strips us of our local voice and permanently surrenders our self-governance.
Comments from our Elected and Appointed Officials
Village Building Inspector Rich Drao Fears “Imaginary New Government”
While a majority of Village and Town public officials chose to call a referendum on consolidating the two New Paltz governments by disincorporating the village, several have raised concerns and voiced disagreement. The following are excerpts of statements from relevant Town and Village joint meetings:
In a previous letter, I highlighted the limitations of the Joint Consolidation Agreement’s (JCA) fiscal model. Here are some further thoughts.
The JCA offers taxpayers zero accountability. As page 14 of the JCA explicitly states, the fiscal impact analysis is merely a “point-in-time model” that cannot predict future pressures or policy changes. Crucially, it notes that “actual decisions on spending and tax rates will be determined by future elected town boards.”
Because the JCA contains no provision to track or report the ongoing financial effects of consolidation, taxpayers will never know if these estimates match reality or were just empty promises. Page 14 essentially tells taxpayers, we won’t be giving you a scorecard, not for year one, not for year two, not for years five or ten.
Consider this scenario: Should consolidation pass, the merger process will involve unforeseen ongoing costs and significant upfront costs, which I suspect are seriously underestimated. Should taxes rise -- which is especially likely for town residents -- the officials who championed this merger will likely wave their hands, claiming that taxes would have jumped even higher without it.
The ensuing public pressure to contain those hikes might well result in cost-cutting of services and personnel, despite current promises to retain them. Alternatively, the board may try to save face by offsetting costs with hard-earned fund balances that should instead be reserved for capital improvements.
Furthermore, the JCA’s “point-in-time” is years ago, since it relies on two-year-old budgets that largely drew on 2024 actuals. Imagine two savvy business owners deciding to merge their companies based on outdated budgets rather than current actual figures and solid projections. It would never happen.
Taxpayers deserve five-year forecasts and built-in accountability. The current agreement provides neither. Vote NO to consolidation.
Mike Russo LTE 10/13/2026 HV1
No consolidation without accountability
