Open letter about dissolution of the village

Dear Village Resident,
 
After attending many of the Dissolution Study Committee meetings, reading their reports, and much reflection based on almost four years as a village trustee, I have come to the conclusion that dissolution of the Village of Potsdam is not in the current best interest of our community. I would like to share my reasoning in this letter.
 
First, I believe that local interests deserve local representation.  In my view, village residents often have distinct interests compared to town outside residents. 
 
For example, in the village we have sidewalks, street lights, house lots typically less than half an acre, a hospital in the middle of one of our nicest neighborhoods, a dense business district, a predominance of rental properties, and about 7000 students as our close neighbors.  With village life comes a set of distinct concerns and interests, and as the future unfolds I think these can best be served by a village government.
 
Second, when I look at the pros and cons of dissolution, I see few potential advantages and many potential disadvantages. 
 
There is great uncertainty about how things would look post-dissolution.  How much police protection will we have?  Will the town succeed in creating a police district, which will actually increase our taxes?  Will we continue to have sufficient code enforcement that regularly inspects rental properties and puts pressure on them to maintain the quality of our neighborhoods?  Will we continue to have a Planning and Development Office?  Will we continue to have sidewalk plowing and brush pick up?  Will we continue to have an environment in which our big economic engines, the colleges and the hospital, can thrive?  The list could go on. 
 
If we as village residents consider our entire property tax bill, which includes school, town, village and county taxes, the projected savings if dissolution occurs and follows the recommendations of the DSC is 10.5%.  As village residents, we must ask ourselves: Is this reduction a fair compensation for the great uncertainty and potential losses that dissolution will bring? My conclusion is that it is not.
 
Finally, I think we should recognize that this is not the last chance to dissolve the village, but if we do dissolve, this is the last chance to have a village.
 
A recent change in state law makes it possible to have another dissolution vote in two years.  A petition of 10% of registered voters, an easily achieved threshold, requires a vote on dissolution to be held within 90 day of petition submission.  So, if you vote no on dissolution this November, and you do not like the way things have changed, you will likely have another chance to vote yes in two years. 
 
Given that there are likely to be new faces and new leadership on the town and village boards come this November, that many of the desired changes could be achieved through normal democratic processes without dissolution, that there are great uncertainties surrounding dissolution, and that dissolution is irreversible, would it not be more prudent to vote “no” now, and see what happens over the next couple of years?  To me this seems the best approach.
 
While the dissolution question has caused a lot of stress in our community I believe it will be to our benefit.  A new set of eyes has studied our village government carefully and made recommendations on how we can improve.  We have energized public discussion on what we want for the future of our community.  I remain hopeful we will continue to have a village, and continue to make it an even better place to live. 
 
As always, your questions and comments are most welcome.
 
Steve Yurgartis
Village trustee and candidate for mayor