Smallwood not exclusionary

By GAIL RUBENFELD

This past May, by an overwhelming majority, the Smallwood Civic Association passed an amendment that ensures that the civic association in our hamlet and its assets, including lake, beach, tennis courts and park, will remain in the control of the owners of individual homes in Smallwood. I write because claims have been made since the passage of the amendment that the perfectly rational and legal action taken by the Smallwood Civic Association is somehow exclusionary or unwelcoming.

The recent amendment denies membership in the Smallwood Civic Association to residents in Smallwood who reside in new housing clusters or subdivisions governed by their own, separate homeowners’ associations, and like governing bodies, with the power to “impose restrictions or limitations on the availability and use of its facilities.” In other words, a private community within our hamlet that does not allow other Smallwood residents to participate in its governance and share in the use of its amenities will not be allowed to join our private organization and use our amenities. The amendment evolved out of our community’s concern about a proposed 200-unit townhouse development in the midst of Smallwood.

As many members of our civic association recognized, if members of such a development, with their own private association or governing body and private amenities, were allowed to join the Smallwood Civic Association, but we were not offered the same option to join theirs, such an outcome would be grossly unfair. But, more importantly, allowing for a potential voting block of 400 members from a townhouse association, which has a separate membership and agenda, could easily undermine the interests of the civic association and its membership. And civic association members resoundingly said this is not acceptable.

The negative label of exclusionary is simply wrong. Can just anyone who so desires join our civic association? Can a family from, say, the next town over join? The answer has always been clearly, “no.” There have always been limitations as to who can join the civic association. And the suggestion that a private organization like the civic association cannot limit its membership and deny entry to members of other associations, who see no problem in excluding people from their own association, ignores basic issues of fairness and self-preservation. Homeowners’ associations, private clubs, and private organizations limit their membership all the time and do so reasonably and legally, without any improper discriminatory intent or effect. (At the time of the amendment’s passage, there was no indication as to who might inhabit the proposed townhouses. There still is no indication.)

Of course, there can be no question that Smallwood residents who will not reside in the proposed development will not have access to the amenities that the townhouse development will enjoy. I know of no closed, private development of clustered housing on private streets that opens its private amenities to the public in Sullivan County, or anywhere else in the region. No homeowners’ association or condo board or other private entity of a financially sound development would ever entertain the notion. People who pay to own homes in a private development with privately maintained roads, who pay substantial maintenance fees for upkeep and amenities, are not about to share their material comforts with everyone else. Nor should they have to. And we, as a private organization whose membership has spoken out overwhelmingly, should do no less in protecting our interest in what we own.

(Gail Rubenfeld is a member of the Smallwood Civic Association in Bethel, NY.)