To the Editor:

The town of Guilderland will soon hold its first Democratic primary in 100 years. This is significant. For the past 100 years, the Democratic establishment chose who would run for the highest offices in town in “secret” caucuses, with virtually no notice to residents.

In 2019, feeling the need to give residents a voice in town government, I found out when and where the caucus would be held, and showed up to throw my hat into the ring. You saw the need for change too, and elected me to represent you. I thank you all for your vote.

This year, the Democratic Committee has finally changed to a primary system, yet the committee is still trying to control who gets these positions by putting its weight behind two establishment candidates, the exact same ones they would have chosen in a caucus.

But this year, for the first time, residents have a chance to break that 100-year cycle of rule by a select few, by voting for the two non-establishment residents in the race who are bravely running, mostly with their own money, solely to help bring the voice of the residents, your voice, front and center into our town government.

Those candidates are Christine Napierski and Kevin McDonald [“Two pairs of Democrats face off in Guilderland’s first primary for town board,” The Altamont Enterprise, May 27, 2021].

I have gotten to know Paul Pastore and Amanda Beedle over the past year and a half, and they seem like nice people. I wish them no harm and thank them for their service. But my job, like any voter’s, is to decide which candidate is best suited for election to the town board at this particular time going forward.

Paul Pastore has been on the town board for over 16 years, and seeks a fifth four-year term, bringing him to 20 years. Amanda Beedle, also a longtime town employee, was newly appointed to the planning board last year, and now seeks a seat on the town board.

Let’s look at their voting records. Ms. Beedle has voted with the chairman of the planning board on every vote, including the vote on the Pyramid SEQR [State Environmental Quality Review], which resulted in a lawsuit that the town lost in court.

Mr. Pastore’s voting record shows he has consistently voted in step with the town supervisor on every issue. Pastore and Beedle relinquish the major decision-making in the town to two people, the town supervisor and the chairman of the planning board.

In my experience, government works best when elected officials have no loyalties to other high-ranking town officials in power, but are accountable only to the residents.

Christine Napierski has grown up and raised a family in Guilderland and served as town judge in 2018.  She stated that, if elected, she plans to routinely survey the residents to determine what they want for their town on a given issue. She strongly believes that the residents should be in control of any new comprehensive plan.

Kevin McDonald is a 20-year union leader employed by the Albany Police Department and a family man raising two daughters, one on the autism spectrum. As a 10-year resident of a long-established neighborhood next to Pyramid’s planned apartment complex, he has experienced first-hand how residents can sometimes be pushed aside.

He is strongly motivated to stand up to big developers and powerful politicians. He sees your backyard as his backyard too.

I read with interest the May 27 letter to the editor by two of my colleagues on the town board, “Pastore and Beedle will build on our past successes.” I respect Rosemary Centi and Pat Slavick, both multi-term board members supported by the Democratic Committee, and I thank them for their contributions to the town.

Their letter represents what the current establishment, including Mr. Pastore and Ms. Beedle, cite as their successes, but let’s look at the facts.

Is it a “success” that so many acres of mature trees and forests have been cut down in the last few years? Clear-cutting without permission has now become the norm, despite the fact that our comprehensive plan and zoning code both clearly forbid it (see, Town Zoning Code s. 247-30 [A, B and C] [ “No lot shall be cleared completely of existing trees except on the approval of the Planning Board’]; The Guilderland Hamlet Plan specifically prohibits clear cutting).

Specifically, section 280-53E(5)(g) of the Zoning Code directs: “Wooded areas, and single trees with a diameter of 12 inches or more as measured three feet above the base of the trunk and other significant existing natural features should be preserved to the maximum extent practical.” This prohibition in the zoning code is never enforced.

Respectfully, does Ms. Beedle, who sits on the planning board, know about these provisions? They were clearly not raised on any large projects over the past year, as developers were allowed to routinely clear-cut large forested lots with impunity, sometimes before receiving approval for a project, as  happened for example on Hurst Road in Guilderland Center, at the luxury townhouses on Winding Brook Road, and elsewhere.

Complaining once the trees are gone is useless, and complaining beforehand falls on deaf ears. I have to ask, is this “protecting and enhancing greenspace?” Is this a “pro-environment” record?

Is the new post-COVID system of calling in to board meetings a “success” and has “public access to government operation been enhanced”?  I have received numerous calls and emails after board meetings by frustrated residents who have tried to get through to their representatives but couldn’t.

If they do get through, they are just thanked for their comment and hung up on. I have frequently brought up to my fellow town board members, including Mr. Pastore, numerous problems with this system, and Mr. Pastore has seen me ignored or ridiculed by the town supervisor for trying to ensure that residents’ voices can, literally, be heard.

No one seems to want to fix the kinks in this system. The current situation is not “enhanced”; it’s a step backwards, and I question whether it even complies with the spirit of the state’s Open Meetings Law.

Most recently, the current chairs of the boards and the town supervisor have all expressed a desire to limit all residents’ calls to three minutes and to stop engaging in any two-way discussions during meetings. Is this what passes for “significant public input into the process?”

Ms. Beedle was on the planning board during the public hearing on the Pyramid proposal where this new three-minute rule was first used. She did not protest. How is that truly being “transparent” and wanting the residents to be involved? How is any of this “conducting business in an open and above-board manner?”

Have the establishment-endorsed candidates truly supported “open government” and “transparency?”  When the residents’ attorney in the Pyramid case filed a Freedom of Information Law request with the town for a copy of the final EIS [environmental impact statement], it was refused and held back until the town was served with a legal complaint to provide it. Is that open government?

Paul Pastore was on the town board and Amanda Beedle was on the planning board at that time, but neither spoke up to insist that the document be handed over to the residents.

Has growth been “moderate,” as claimed? Guilderland has seen an enormous amount of change in the past few years. Growth has not been moderate by any standard.

In the fall of 2019, there were at least 20 new development proposals before the town at the same time. This is a marked increase from only a handful in any past year, and the rapid pace has continued.

Some of these, including the highly contested apartment complex proposed by Pyramid, were so huge that they would change the character of the town and quality of life for its residents forever.

We have seen more applications for spot rezonings approved over the last few years than ever before. These rezone applications, such as the one that allowed the giant car wash on Western Avenue, are always granted, with no dissent from Mr. Pastore (in one January 2019 town board meeting alone there were three requests for rezones).

Traffic continues to increase exponentially. At this pace, what will the town look like in four more years under the current regime? The letter from my colleagues questions why Christine Napierski and Kevin McDonald are focusing on development, but, honestly, to not focus on it would be to turn a blind eye to their town, bordering on negligence.

As the Enterprise reported, “The central issue in this Democrat-dominated town is development” (“Two pairs of Democrats Face Off,” May 27, 2021). All towns need growth, but it has to be done reasonably and responsibly, and with resident input. Christine Napierski and Kevin McDonald want to encourage resident participation, not cut it off.

Laurel Bohl

Councilwoman

Guilderland Town Board