To the Editor:
(Brookfield, NY – July 2013
) The Brookfield Town Planning Board held a meeting June 26. The meeting’s primary purpose was to have been the gathering of input from this board for the Comprehensive Planning Committee regarding changes needed to the initial draft of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Town Board has charged this committee with the duty of developing a comprehensive plan for the town. After many hours of research, discussion, consideration and re-edits, the initial plan has been done and submitted to the Planning Board and the Town Board for their review.
The Planning Board stated the revisions it felt were necessary, and these changes in format will be made.
From that point on, several “gentlemen” (visitors to the meeting, whom I am sure had been invited to attend) put forth their opinions of the reasons why there should be no comprehensive plan; then finger-pointing and accusations of lying “to us and to the public” were made against two members of the Planning Board.
This was done by two other members of the board, with the full enjoyment of several of the “gentlemen” who were present.
I’m ashamed of the actions of the members who did this. It was inexcusable! We were told, also at this meeting, that one of the people who is against the Comprehensive Plan has been speaking to people in the towns and distributing information which is NOT based in fact.
I’m fearful that people will believe this material and make decisions based on it. I ask everyone who lives in Brookfield and who cares about their community to PLEASE contact a member of the Comprehensive Planning Committee to get “the other side of the story.”
This comprehensive plan is important to this and to every [municipality] everywhere!
I thank you.
Karen Beehm, Co-Chairwoman, Town of Brookfield Comprehensive Planning Committee
Ms.(mrs?) Beehm in her letter to the editor shows her unfortunate contempt for any citizens of Brookfield who happen to disagree with her and also choose to be involved with local politics. Her use of quotations around the word gentlemen is an obvious display of this contempt. I happened to be at this meeting, and I was not invited by anyone. I was informed of it by another citizen. The town had advertised the agenda for this meeting, and may I remind Ms. Beehm that meetings are open to the public. Yes, there was some contention at the meeting, but that is nothing new or out of the ordinary for such things. The planning board had control of the meeting and allowed members of the public to speak at times. When I was able to speak at one point, I pointed out that one of the unfortunate effects of such central planning is that it is inevitable, by the plan’s very nature, that they would be infringing on somebody’s rights. Ms. Beehm’s response was: “That’s life.” Maybe she is comfortable with the idea of squashing people’s rights, but based upon the protections given us in the U.S. Constitution, (namely the notion that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,)I would argue that this is an unacceptable and UN-American attitude. I do not believe that anyone on either side of this debate has lied intentionally. However, the fact is that once a plan is passed, new laws must comply with the plan. That fact has been passed over or considered unimportant by several people involved with the plan. The generalities and opinions present in the plan are what make it a danger. A majority of residents did not respond to the survey. That does not make their rights any less vital nor less protected and sacred. Those that did respond stated that they like the rural lifestyle. The planners then took it upon themselves to define what it is that makes our rural lifestyle, and what is and is not compatible with it. That is a far step from a couple of vague questions. By the time we get to the public hearings on the plan, I believe that the point of making changes will have passed. With that in mind, the Comprehensive and regular planning boards should welcome public input, and try to understand the reservations people have, instead of merely defending the conclusions they have already reached. Thank you.