To the Editor:

Primaries in town elections are a new occurrence here in Guilderland. Enrolled Democratic voters will have a choice to make on June 22 (or from June 12 to 20 if they opt for early voting), and in this independent thinker’s mind the choice is pretty clear.

Amanda Beedle and Paul Pastore are the endorsed candidates of the Guilderland Democratic Committee. I am not a part of this organization, and have disagreed with its selections a number of times over the years.

That said, being the endorsed candidate of the local committee carries no stigma with it, as a bit of recent commentary suggests. I would point out that one of these commenters, Ms. [Guilderland Councilwoman Laurel] Bohl, herself sought and received the endorsement of the Guilderland Democratic Committee when she ran in 2019 [“Elected officials should be accountable only to residents,” Letter to the Editor, The Altamont Enterprise, June 3, 2021].

I have been acquainted with both Mr. [Councilman Paul] Pastore and Ms. [Amanda] Beedle for some time, and find them to be thoughtful people with a clear sense of dedication to their community. I do not always agree with either/both of them on every nuance of every issue, but both have an established history of engagement in and commitment to the community, and that leads me to a reasonable level of comfort in supporting them for election/re-election to the town board.

Their opponents claim that the Democratic Party in Guilderland is in need of change, and that they are the ones to bring about that needed change. I'd like to offer a thought or two on both parts of that assertion.

The claim that change is needed is focused on a single topic, development. It is true that proposals for development in different areas of the town have risen in the last few years, but it is worth considering the context. Prior to these recent proposals, development in Guilderland was practically nonexistent for an extended period

 I would assert that the recent increase in proposals is more the result of pent-up demand, local population growth, changing demographics, and improved access to financing than of the conspiratorial view of various town boards and departments being “in developers’ pockets” (comment that has been offered with not a shred of specific evidentiary support, of course).

Development has also been associated with the recommendations of the significant number of planning endeavors undertaken by the town over the last couple of decades, beginning with the comprehensive plan, and continuing through the various neighborhood plans it recommended. All of these studies were performed under the direction of impartial professional consultants, and all were undertaken with the participation of both a variety of interested government agencies and of the general public.

They are all readily on display on the town website. They represent an enormous amount of work and community engagement, and the so-called “change” proponents have offered no credible evidence as to what is unsatisfactory about them, other than that they disagree with the conclusions.

On the subject of what makes them the folks who will deliver “needed” change, I find candidates [Kevin] McDonald and [Christine] Napierski (Siracusa?) sorely lacking in substance and specifics.

Mr. McDonald's literature and social media presence offers zero (0 percent) indication of him having any active involvement in the Guilderland community during his time of residence here. He further claims to have “no memory” of there having been any planning studies done with respect to the area around his Westmere Terrace residence.

It is a matter of fact that the public meetings on this study were held at the Westmere firehouse, right at the end of Mr. McDonald’s street. Rather than involving himself with the planning exercise, he chose to sue the town over an outcome he disliked. This is hardly a demonstration of responsible citizenship.

I offer the view that someone with no history of community involvement, and with no awareness of planning activity going on around the corner from his residence is not the kind of “change agent” that Guilderland might want or need. 

Ms. Napierski (I find her politicking online under both names, so I’m unsure what to “correctly” call her) is quite a story. She has run for town Judge as a Conservative, aided by Republican donors, yet now claims the support of the left-leaning Working Families Party, so I have no clue as to her “big picture” political positions.

Ms. Napierski claims to reject excessive development, but has joined in a family request to further subdivide a family-owned parcel in a subdivision where no further subdivision was promised in 2001. Is it possible that personal financial interest trumps principle for this candidate?

Along the same line, the additional lot proposed to be subdivided where no subdivision was promised will, if the action is approved, be almost totally denuded of the large old trees it currently holds. It’s interesting to see someone who purports to be a lover of greenspace take a position in favor of the clear-cutting she opposes in other locations on a property where the financial benefit to her is clear.

I’m not quite sure what Ms. Napierski (Siracusa?) is after in the grand scheme of things, but the lack of clarity and questionable ethics evidenced when personal interest is in play costs her my support in any instance.

I am not going to assert that Guilderland has a “perfect” government situation in every instance. It doesn’t. However, based on what has been shown to the public during this campaign, the Guilderland Democratic Committee made the better choice when it opted to endorse Ms. Beedle and Mr. Pastore. I offer them my support as well.

Donald Csaposs

Guilderland

Editor’s note: Donald Csaposs works as a grant writer for the town of Guilderland and is also the chief executive officer of Guilderland’s Industrial Development Agency.

Christine Napierski responded that the Dutch Hill property in question is two acres owned by her sister, which currently has just her sister’s house on it. “Someone approached her to build a house on the other acre…., said Napierski. “I have zero financial interest in it. I have nothing to do with it. No one on the street has opposed it.” Napierski added that the Guilderland Conservation Advisory Council found no negative impact on the environment or the town.

The April 27, 2021 evaluation signed by John G. Wemple Jr., who chairs the council, says, “The parcel is part of a larger piece of property on Dutch Hill Terrace which was subdivided into four lots about twenty years ago.” Andrew T. Prancil of 15 Dutch Hill Terrace owns the 2.1-acre property. Anthony P. Hazapis of 180 Marion Ave. in Albany is applying for the subdivision.

The evaluation reports no known endangered species, no major visual impact to the neighborhood, and no impact related to drainage.

Wemple’s conclusion states, “GCAC does not envision any major problems with this proposed subdivision provided tree cutting is kept to a minimum, if possible; as well as an appropriate storm water management plan is included to control runoff from both [lots].”