Substantive criticisms on Lumberland
Per Supervisor Nadia Rajsz’s disingenuous letter to the editor in a local newspaper, the only people insulting the Town of Lumberland residents are herself and her behind-the-scenes group of cohorts.
I have offered several, direct and specific criticisms of her process:
1. Conservation subdivisions are not good for the community of Lumberland. Taking half of the value of residents’ development rights for a misplaced suburban development model is detrimental to the good of the town.
2. Severely regulating the amount and types of trees that can be cut on private property is hard to enforce and bad for the local economy.
3. David Slottje, who has been practicing law in New York State for less than two years and refuses to submit his full resume for review, should never have been given a seat at the head of the zoning rewrite process.
4. The last zoning review meeting was ingenuously designed to skip over the reason why everyone was there: i.e., to discuss the gas drilling provisions. We have it on videotape.
5. Supervisor Rajsz declared that there is “probably no gas in Lumberland.” My question was simple: why go to all the trouble, expense and hassle of banning it?
When I got involved, Lumberland was trying to shove this zoning through the process by the end of September, with only cursory community review. Since the rezoning approval is now not slated till early next year, I think my goals have been reached, which was to slow down a misguided runaway train—a two-year process hijacked this year by agenda-driven activists.
Judging by the emails and phone calls I get, it’s not just the people at the meetings who have concerns with the zoning rewrite specifics.