To the Editor:

A larger Stewart’s might mean little or nothing to the person who wants a larger peanut butter pandemonium ice cream cone. Or so one would think.

But if that person lives in the village of Altamont, pays taxes here, walks a dog often, and cares about the well being of the community, perhaps the expanded Stewart's idea might carry more weight than the calories consumed.

Often forgotten today in any discussion of any community issue anywhere is the concept of the common good.

In my opinion, there is a common good that is at stake in the issue of a bigger Stewart's being granted spot zoning variances. It seems to me that the creators of the village’s comprehensive plan years ago had the foresight to commission this study so that they could act in a wise and just manner for all of the people of Altamont.

I believe they had the common good in mind with the creation of that document and hard-earned taxpayer money was laid down so that rash decisions would not be made in the future.

Spot zoning is rash and I think that is what is being sought in the present Stewart’s application in its effort to obtain multiple variances to its new store configuration.

I have little doubt there will be future applicants who are now eyeing this situation closely who will line up seeking similar favors from the village.

To grant Stewart’s application is not necessary. What other options have not been brought up that could have been brought up but might have been more expensive for Stewart’s?

Have we asked: “Why this timetable?  What will the Village of Altamont get out of all of this?”

The village board should be the stewards of the common good. First, last, and always. Not the stewards of Stewart’s.

Betty Head

Altamont