To the Editor:

I am writing to voice my concerns about the letter from the chairman of the Guilderland Democratic Party and all of the district leaders that appeared in a recent edition of The Altamont Enterprise [“Local government is about results, not politics, April 30, 2021].

I was quite shocked at what I read and felt that a rebuttal, clarification, and an apology on the part of these leaders is needed not only to those of us who are registered Democrats but to the general public as well.

They claim that local government is not about partisanship and politics, but results. No matter how they made their endorsement selections to represent the Democratic Party, there are those of us who feel that there needs to be a choice on the ballot and we have one this year in the first Democratic primary. 

The primary process provides more access to all members of the party who wish to participate and not just a select few who can attend an irregularly scheduled, barely publicized caucus meeting. I really appreciated that the Democratic Party did away with the caucus and commend it for being more small-d democratic.

However, having a small group of party leaders select a slate of candidates for endorsement of the party before the primary election is just a pathetic attempt to repackage the same caucus system. 

We will have a primary on June 22 to see who will be representing the Democratic Party in November for two of our town board seats. We can choose between the pre-selected Democratic Party-endorsed candidates and have more of the same “we-know-what’s-best for-you” insiders or we can vote for candidates who will listen and represent their constituents.

Their claim that the Democratic party leadership has selected a highly qualified team is subjective at best and a real contortion to pat themselves on the back to maintain their power within local government and I question their dedication to improve the quality of life for everyone in our town.  

I can point to several areas where they lack in considering all townspeople and have limited their view or work for only one side of an issue that is not in the best interest of the town residents.  

The most obvious outlined in the 77-page State Supreme Court decision in which Judge Peter Lynch chastised the town (meaning everyone sitting on various town boards that could have spoken up, but didn’t) for their lack of looking at all issues and solutions to the Crossgates/Rapp Road/Costco project.

How a project such as this improves the quality of life for this town is again subjective, but the court points out how the correct legal process was not followed and look at who is disadvantaged by the impacts of a project such as this. How much did the town care about the impacted  neighborhoods? It didn’t, and you know this! It would seem that cheap gas and another place to shop for Christmas was the priority.

They claim that the town board has worked to make Guilderland a great place for families and new businesses — please explain how. I am not seeing it.

All I see is that developers and builders get to build and do whatever they want because all this town sees is tax revenue, not quality of life. This is evidenced by their willingness to ignore the comprehensive plan and change zoning to meet the requests of the developers.

And, where is the new dedicated park land that you speak of? I haven't seen anything recently and neither have most people in this town. There was a project completed by University at Albany students but, as far as I can see, nothing has happened with this. It is an idea, not an actual project that has broken ground anywhere. What expansion of trail systems? Where are these?  

I will concede that the town does open up the golf course as well as a few other parks for winter activities. This is a positive action.  I don’t see the addition of any new space anywhere. Again, show me.

What about the dilapidated properties that you speak of? Are you talking about the Governors Inn property? This is one property; singular not plural. What about the abandoned and dilapidated gas stations on Route 20? FYI, there will be more of these if there is a Costco gas station built.

What about the dilapidated building on the outskirts of Guilderland toward Duanesburg? What about the property across from Willow Street? What about the abandoned properties on Western Avenue near Crossgates that are owned by Pyramid?

I know this last one was supposed to be a problem solved by building the Costco, but this ghost-town neighborhood was created by Pyramid itself in collusion with the town. You don’t get credit for creating new problems and then offering solutions to them that will benefit your corporate buddies. There’s a term for this: oh yes —Trumpian.

Not maintaining properties is addressed in Chapter 220- Property Maintenance, in the town code. I find it interesting that the town does not enforce its own code when it comes to these properties, or any properties for that matter. How is this beneficial to the town and its residents? We have rules and laws in this town, but they are enforced only when it suits the town and enforcement is not uniform in applicability.

They state that senior housing has increased, creating affordable homes for retirees to live near their children and grandchildren.  This is one of the biggest misrepresentations of affordable housing I have heard.

Although there are several projects scheduled to be built, there is nothing that states they will be affordable for the general senior population. This town does not seem to know or understand what affordable housing is or how it relates to the housing market in town.

The New York State Association for Affordable Housing website says, “Affordable housing does not simply mean ‘housing that is affordable’ as people think. National guidelines define affordability where no more than 30% of household income is spent on housing costs.” Just because a place to live is an apartment and not a house doesn’t make it affordable.  

There are a host of demographic checks such as mean income for the age group, mean income for the town in general, the ages of the general population, the size of schools, property values, population density etc. that all need to be considered. If this were truly done as it is intended to be done, you would not say that these apartments are “affordable” for seniors.

A case in point is the senior apartments on Western Avenue just west of Town Hall. They were intended for seniors, but what happened? Seniors couldn't afford to live there and now the complex is open to anyone. 

Starter homes? What starter homes? I haven’t seen any starter homes in Guilderland open up because seniors moved to “affordable” senior housing. That again is a lie. If you look at the town’s website under “Residential Development Activity,” you will see exactly what is planned and when.

To date, there are 84 senior housing units under construction. We have no idea what they will cost and how affordable they will be until they are built.

Given the huge jump in cost for basic home building materials, I seriously doubt that any housing can be built that is truly affordable to the general public and at a break-even point for the builder. New senior apartments opening up on Winding Brook cost nearly $2,000 a month. If that is 30 percent of your household income, that means your retirement income is over $6,500 a month to be considered affordable by national guidelines. 

They further make the statement that “it is equally important for you to take the opportunity to reject Trumpian politics and the divisive stories that campaigns use when seeking to divide the public.” Do they even know what Trumpian means?

Are they saying that fellow party members in the primary are proponents of far-right, national-populist and Neo-nationalists? Are they saying the unendorsed candidates are fascists? Are they saying their opponents are conservative in their approach to their mission? 

Answer: No

They just want to trigger a negative response in Democratic voters with childish name-calling that should be beneath the Democratic Party, but clearly is not. These Democratic Party leaders owe Christine Napierski and Keven McDonald, as well as members of both Democratic and Working Families parties a public apology.

It is the job of the candidates seeking office to put out to the public their points of view and arguments for why they are advocating their position and why it is the better choice. Within that context, it is also part of the process to highlight what has and has not been done to serve those goals.

From my observation, I don’t recall any of the candidates who are not of the committee’s endorsed slate doing anything other than that. Clearly their use of the term “Trumpian politics” was intended to be divisive in itself.  

And what happens if your darling endorsed candidates lose the primary? Are you going to turn around and embrace the opponents as the winners along with their positions as the publicly elected candidates of the Democratic Party as you will surely “require” if the unendorsed candidates are not successful?

If your candidates have “listened up and taken notes,” and “are getting to work,” again show me! I have not seen any evidence of it. Going back to the Crossgates/Rapp Road/Costco project example, Amanda Beedle voted for this project in the first place, which led to multiple lawsuits, and Paul Pastore voted to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court instead of learning from it to change the laws and policies that guide our town.

If your candidates are being primaried by those from your own party, it says volumes about your party and what you are not doing. Clearly, not all of your constituents see things the way you do, yet they do have the basic goals of the Democratic Party that you seem to lack, mainly that of respect for another opinion.

If you need to be divisive by making those kinds of claims and labeling opponents as Trumpian, it makes me wonder what your actual intentions are.

Robyn Gray

Guilderland