To the Editor:

As a retired Berne resident and taxpayer, I write regarding several articles and letters to the editor that appeared in recent editions of The Altamont Enterprise that piqued my interest. The first article appeared in the Feb. 22, 2018 edition titled “Emails about Berne roads rile highway super who feels undermined by town board.”

Let’s step back in time for one moment. In the November 2017 Berne election, the incumbent town highway superintendent, Republican Randy Bashwinger, was handily re-elected. The incumbent town supervisor, Democrat Kevin Crosier, was voted out of office and replaced by a Republican newcomer, Sean Lyons. A Democratic candidate for a town board seat lost to yet another Republican newcomer and the Democratic candidate running for the remaining opening on the town board barely gained his seat by one vote. All this in a town dominated by Democrats with a 3 to 1 margin.

Apparently Berne voters grew tired and weary of the arrogance, pettiness, and rancor that was the hallmark of the former administration and expressed their displeasure and dissatisfaction by voting for a much-needed change.

The current Berne Town Board, still dominated by Democrats, has proven that the old saying, “Old habits are hard to break” is true. The Altamont Enterprise article revealed that the Democrat dominated Berne Town Board is up to its old habit — no, not shuffling the Berne Town Highway budget around in a shell game, an odious habit and questionable practice raised to an art form by the previous administration, but rather the habit of trying to undermine the re-elected Republican, Randy Bashwinger, by discussing town highway conditions without including the town highway superintendent. Sound familiar?

Once again, the Democrat-dominated town board exercised poor judgment and an uncanny ability to shoot themselves in the foot. Can you blame Bashwinger for being riled? It seems that the Berne Town Board, still dominated by Democrats, just doesn't get it.

According to The Altamont Enterprise article, the latest flap between Republican Highway Superintendent Bashwinger and Democratic town board members came about from a Jan. 25, 2018 letter to The Altamont Enterprise by a Bradt Hollow Road resident concerning the depth of ditches on Bradt Hollow Road and the need for guardrails there.

The letter writer said that her husband found a car in a ditch, and the driver, a young lady, had an apparent broken leg. It is not clear from the letter where the car was found, on Bradt Hollow Road or elsewhere. Perhaps The Altamont Enterprise could clarify where this deep ditch is located.

Highway Superintendent Bashwinger responded to the concerns of the letter writer and Altamont Enterprises inquiry and stated that guardrails are needed on sections of Bradt Hollow Road and other town roads but the town lacked needed funds for this purpose.

In light of the results of the November 2017 election, I and other town residents were hoping that the New Year would bring about better cooperation between the Democrat-dominated Berne Town Board and the re-elected Republican Berne town highway superintendent. I’m saddened and disappointed that the Democrat-dominated Berne Town Board is unable to break free of its old habits.

The next Altamont Enterprise article that caught my interest was titled “Out in the Cold, Two Buddhists forced from Switzkill Farm,” appearing in the March 8, 2018 edition, and the shocking editorial in the March 15, 2018 edition titled, “Sounding the alarm on an unnecessary and unfeeling expulsion,” which drew my interest and ire, and letters to the editor in the same edition regarding the Switzkill Farm property.

In the March 8 article, the Berne building inspector determined that the Switzkill Farm retreat house was unsafe to live in as the smoke alarm and sprinkler systems were not in working order. The two tenants who lived there were asked to leave on short notice on a cold evening. Further inquiry and other information came to light that the smoke alarm and sprinkler systems were not in working order for quite some time. That the two tenants were temporarily inconvenienced is a small price to pay, considering the alternative.

Readers may recall the tragic apartment house fire in Schenectady were several tenants died as a result of non-working smoke alarms and sprinkler systems. The building inspector there was put on trial as a result of those deaths.

In light of the above, a reasonable minded person would agree that the Berne building inspector did the right thing and put the safety and well being of the retreat-house tenants first. There is an old saying: Better to err on the side of caution, which means to act in the least risky manner in a situation in which one is uncertain about the consequences. Clearly the building inspector acted properly.

Incredibly, the slant The Altamont Enterprise put on the story was that the eviction of the tenants was unnecessary and the new Republican Berne town supervisor and other Republican officials were unfeeling toward the rent-paying tenants. Wow!

I can only imagine the outcry and condemnation that would have been directed at the building inspector and the Republicans if the retreat house caught fire and the tenants were injured or worse because of non-working smoke alarms or sprinkler systems.

Now, readers, stop and think. The Switzkill Farm property was purchased over three years ago. The very instant that the town of Berne representatives signed papers acquiring the Switzkill Farm property, the town became landlords and was directly responsible to ensure that those buildings were safe!

During those three years, the property was under the direct control of former town supervisor, Crosier, a retired Albany firefighter; the previous Democratic town board; and subsequently, members of the Switzkill Farm Board. It was they who showed complete disregard and ignorance of a landlord’s legal obligations!

Obviously, Crosier, the previous Democratic town board, and members of the Switzkill Farm Board took no action in three years, more than ample time, to correct the non-working smoke alarms and sprinkler systems discovered in the retreat house. This failure, this disregard and ignorance of the law, falls into the lap of Crosier, the previous Democratic town board, and members of the Switzkill Farm Board. The Altamont Enterprise conveniently overlooked this fact.

If Crosier, the town board and members of the Switzkill Farm Board spent less time star-gazing and more time studying Landlords Legal Obligations Responsibilities 101, the expulsion of those tenants on that cold night would not have been necessary.

Speaking of tenants and expulsion, shame on The Altamont Enterprise for inferring in the March 15 editorial that discrimination was involved in the tenants removal from the Switzkill Farm retreat building because they were Buddhists.

Since the clandestine purchase of this property three years ago, I have had numerous conversations with Berne residents concerning it. In those conversations, mention was made of tenants living at the Switzkill Farm property, but never that the tenants were Buddhists. No one ever spoke disparaging about the Buddhists who formerly owned the property or of any Buddhists. The Altamont Enterprise has needlessly sullied and tarnished the residents of Berne. Frankly, I expected better from your newspaper.

Also mentioned in the March 8 story was a comment that Scott Green, a former town employee, was brush hogging the Switzkill Farm fields. Why? I and others were under the impression that Roger Chrysler, a local resident and farmer who harvests hay from the Switzkill Farm fields, as a trade off, was maintaining the fields. I would also like to know who is liable if Roger or someone helping him harvest hay is injured on the Switzkill Farm property.

Regarding property purchases and inspections, in this day and age, no responsible person buys property without first having it inspected. After purchase, the flaws or defects shown in the inspection report are addressed and corrected.

As we know, the Game Farm property was purchased without a public hearing, without approval or any input from Berne tax-paying residents and apparently without an inspection. The former town supervisor, Kevin Crosier, the lead cheerleader for this purchase, also a retired Albany firefighter, of all people, should know how important it is for buildings to be inspected and to be in compliance with existing safety and fire codes.

Was the Switzkill Farm lodge and retreat house inspected? If yes, where is the inspection report? If not, why not? It seems the newly elected Republicans, who are trying to do the right thing, to make the buildings safe, are being made out to be the bad guys. Far from it, in my opinion.

What’s even more troubling to learn according to letters to the editor of Richard Ronconi and Mark Hohengasser, innumerable activities such as anniversaries, weddings, local school visits, parties, breakfast and birthday gatherings, and other events have taken place in the lodge — a potentially unsafe building. The health, safety. and well being of every child, every adult, every person who set foot in that lodge may have been put at risk.

One sentence in the Altamont Enterprise editorial of March 15 stands out: “If the retreat house was dangerous to live in, the town shouldn't have been renting it out in the first place.” To that I would add, if the lodge hasn’t been inspected, the town should cease renting it immediately until an inspection has been performed and the building declared safe to use.

Returning to the Feb. 22 article titled, “Emails about Berne roads rile highway super who feels undermined by town board,” per the Altamont Enterprise article, the Berne Town Board agreed to create an outline for a proposed roofing project at the Switzkill Farm lodge in order for businesses to know the specifics the town wants in a request for proposals.

Councilwoman Karen Schimmer said that the lodge roof is 57 years old and needs to have its roof replaced and it was estimated that this cost was around $50,000. Hmmm, $50,000 — that’s a serious chunk of change. I wonder where the funds will come from.

One thing is for certain, Berne residents won’t be picking up the tab. We were all reassured by former town Supervisor Crosier, who told everyone present that day at the lodge, that there would be no cost to Berne residents to maintain this facility. Remember all the jobs that would be created? And all the revenue that would roll in from camping fees, room rentals, conferences, and weddings and such.

Beyond the roof, what expenditure will be next? Will inspection of the lodge show that mold, or worse, asbestos has been found and must be removed? Or that the electrical system is 57 years behind the times? Or that the 57-year-old kitchen is an outmoded firetrap? Or that the 57-year-old plumbing is substandard? Or that the 57-year-old fireplace chimney has cracked flue tiles and must be replaced? Or that the 57-year-old septic system is woefully inadequate and undersized for the intended use of the building? Since the facility is open to the public, does it meet safety code compliance and do restroom accommodations and entrance and exits for people with disabilities meet current state code?

As a retiree and Berne taxpayer, I’d like to know how much more money the town of Berne is paying for liability insurance since acquiring this white elephant. In the interest of good government and transparency, the new administration should draw back the curtain, open the books, and enlighten us.

The town of Berne has a library, a senior-citizen center, and a town park all located on flat ground and easily accessible. Partridge Run, a nearly 5,000-acre state wildlife management area with plenty of flora and fauna and abundant nature trails is located within the borders of the town, and John Boyd Thacher State Park, with waterfalls, great vistas, nature trails, and loads of flora and fauna, incredible fossils, and a shiny new world-class visitor center, is a mere stone’s throw away.

Many residents believe Berne would be better off improving our town roads, making them safe and upgrading existing facilities. Furthermore, many residents are wary of Berne being a landlord and in the camping, motel, bed-and-breakfast, catering, and conference business and should not be throwing tax money at a white elephant money pit.

As we have learned, the current Democrat-dominated town board wants to spend scarce funds for repairs to the Switzkill Farm property but somehow can’t find funds for needed guard rails on town roads to ensure the protection and safety of town residents.

I did not agree with the purchase of the Switzkill Farm property, nor can I envision any economic benefit or value in it. In fact, there is nothing taking place at the Switzkill Farm property that can’t take place at existing town-owned property or nearby parks.

Why are we wasting tax money duplicating what already exists and easily available and accessible at our doorstep?

The idea that the Switzkill Farm property should be sold should be taken seriously and fully explored.

The town should pass a law prohibiting the Berne Town Board from ever again purchasing property without approval from a voter referendum.

Robert J. Motschmann III

Berne

Editor’s note: Our March 15 editorial said: “...those alarm and sprinkler systems hadn’t been working for a long while. If the retreat house was dangerous to live in, the town shouldn’t have been renting it out in the first place.” The editorial also said, “The town, as a landlord, has the responsibility to make sure the building is safe. [Hilltown reporter H. Rose] Schneider found out there had been no regular inspections. There should be. We urge Berne to institute a policy where all of its buildings are inspected yearly. It’s important to keep workers as well as tenants safe.”

This clearly implicated the previous administration. Where the editorial focused on the current administration was questioning why the town’s highway superintendent and Republican Party chairman, the town’s supervisor, and a council member — all three Republicans — would be involved in getting keys for an inspection — not informing the town’s appointed Switzkill Farm board or the other town board members — rather than leaving it to the building inspector whose job it is.

We wrote that, if the Republicans think the town should sell Switzkill Farm, they should broach it at a meeting with other town board members. We wrote that we hoped the expulsion of valued tenants was not a ploy to surreptitiously move toward a sale and we further hoped it was not a sign of the prejudice against Buddhists that played out on our pages when a Buddhist center was established at Switzkill Farm 15 years ago.