Comprehensive plan is not intended to prevent future growth

To the Editor:

In response to some of the information being conveyed in regards to Nick Fahrenkopf and Michelle Ganance as candidates for the village board, I’d like to offer a little clarification and my thoughts on the subject. First and foremost, there has been some misinformation conveyed.

Neither Nick nor Michelle was on the board when the cell tower decision was made. To imply that either were a part of or responsible for that decision is categorically false.

When campaigning for seats on the board, it is important that the correct information is being conveyed so that every voter is able to make an informed decision. I implore our community to thoroughly research any claims that are being made to ensure that their decisions are ones based on fact, not rumor.

Let’s not infect our precious village with the “fake news” virus sweeping the country. I’d like to think that we’re better than that.

Both Nick and Michelle have been instrumental in making decisions that are in the best interest of our community. These haven’t always been easy decisions, but they were crucial decisions that needed to be made.

Nick and Michelle have proven that they’re up for those challenges and successfully navigated them with a common-sense approach that preserves our village while also enhancing it. Nick stepped up to the plate when no one else would to save our elementary school and have tirelessly served our community — making personal sacrifices to be able to do so.

With all of the hard work they’ve put in to our village, to great success, Nick Fahrenkopf, Michelle Ganance, and Rebecca Hout have earned their seats. Their reputations are testament that they are in fact the best candidates and will always embody their campaign slogan to put “Altamont First.”

Additionally I think it’s important to recognize that the comprehensive plan that so many are referring to these days, that we’ve heard very little about from these same people over the years since its inception, is in fact intended to be an evolving baseline for how our village should be run. It is not the end-all and be-all nor is it intended to prevent future growth within the village.

Everyone appreciates the hard work that every individual poured into the creation of that plan. It is an outstanding guideline and I applaud each person who was involved in its creation.

However, it would be a huge disservice to them and to future generations of Altamontians to use that plan to diminish or prevent future growth. It would be a travesty if we jeopardize the future of our community by making perilous business decisions using little, if any, economic sense and incite NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard]’ism.

Remember folks, at one time, Altamont was a thriving resort village that attracted tourists to vacation and pour money into our local economy. Change was embraced as it was change that would secure our future as a village.

Altamont should and can use a common-sense approach that works to both preserve our history and to protect our future as we move into these ever-changing times. It is possible to keep Altamont the quaint Victorian village it always has been and move forward with progress, simultaneously.

We do not need to be stagnant and we do not need to be commercialized. We can achieve a balance that protects the best interest of this well-loved community.

Nick and Michelle have worked hard to do that and I am confident that, if they remain on the board, they will continue to do so. I encourage our community to vote on March 19 for Nick Fahrenkopf, Michelle Ganance, and Rebecca Hout to put “Altamont First.”

Tresa Matulewicz

Altamont

More Letters to the Editor