Statement by Peter VanAvery, Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee, at February 14, 2005 HRBRRD Board Meeting, Johnstown, N.Y.
I want to talk about the Sacandaga Advisory Committee that the board proposes to establish. It certainly sounds like a benign group, doesn't it? Its members would include town supervisors, county officials, businesspeople, the state Department of Environmental Conservation, law enforcement officials, and lake interest groups. What could possibly be wrong with that picture? The answer: plenty.
For that lineup is overloaded with stakeholders who look at the lake with dollar signs glittering in their eyeballs, whether it's a politician hoping to boost his or her community's tax base or a businessperson looking to make a buck. In a vote on an important issue, representatives of Great Sacandaga Lake's 4,650 access permit holders -- the area's most important stakeholders -- could be steamrollered.
For the first 73 years of the reservoir’s history, the Regulating District treated access permit holders as its doormat. That situation shifted dramatically in October 2003 when nearly 1,000 of us showed up at Northville Central School to protest an outrageous access fee hike. As we looked at one another in that overflowing auditorium, we realized for the first time that we represented a potent political force. The genie was out of the bottle. The proposed Sacandaga Advisory Committee is an attempt to squeeze us back in. It will not succeed!
The vast majority of the lake's access permit holders are seasonal residents who live in the Capital District, elsewhere in the state, or outside its borders. In summer, we quadruple or quintuple the populations of lake-area towns, villages, and hamlets. In many cases, the value of our seasonal home approaches or exceeds that of our permanent dwelling. Through property taxes and expenditures, we pump huge amounts of money into the lake-area economy. But we can't vote, and we therefore have no influence on local government. In fact, most local politicians view us as cash cows to be milked mercilessly.
Access permit holders who are permanent residents share many of the grievances of seasonal residents. They, too, are being hit hard by disproportionately high and rising property taxes. They, too, strongly oppose growth that is not responsible. Unlike their seasonal neighbors, they can vote in local elections ... but they are too few in number to carry much weight.
The BBAC was formed four years ago to give this "silent majority" -- the lake's access permit holders -- a loud voice where it counts ... and that's in state government. The majority of us may not be permitted to vote locally, but all of us can and do vote for the Governor, the Comptroller, the Attorney General, and members of the state legislature. And, as we have demonstrated much to the Regulating District's grief, we have captured the attention of these state-level politicians. They are aware of our frustration and outrage, and ... best of all ... they realize that we and our families and friends wield a large number of votes.
Over the years, access permit holders have formed a number of organizations to protect their interests. The reality is that no single one of them represents more than a few percent of us. But that's not our problem. That's the Regulating District's problem. Unless the Sacandaga Advisory Committee includes a whole bunch of these groups, it will not be representational, and its recommendations will be worthless.
For many years, the Regulating District has promulgated the fiction that the Great Sacandaga Lake Association represents all of the lake's access permit holders. The District has even given the GSLA space in its newsletter. In 2003, after the new license on the reservoir went into effect, I lodged a complaint about the resulting high water levels and shoreline erosion. In response, Willard Loveless sent me a letter pointing out that the rules in the Offer of Settlement were acceptable to the parties that signed the document, including the GSLA, which he referred to as a local group that represents landowners and residents around the lake.
This was laughable because, during the Offer of Settlement negotiations, the GSLA had fewer than 350 paid memberships. That amounted to less than 8 percent of the lake's access permit holders. Although the GSLSA has grown a bit since then, its membership today includes less than 20 percent of the lake's access permit holders. Put it like this: When the lake's access permit holders receive a membership offer from the GSLA and 80 percent of them tear it up and toss it into the waste basket, that's a pretty strong hint that they want no part of that organization.
Like its pals at the Regulating District, the GSLA has a communications problem. In fact, the latest membership letter from the organization starts out: "We have been a little silent over the past number of months ...." Now let me read from a letter I received from a camp owner who wants to join the BBAC. She writes: "The GSLA is unresponsive and relatively inactive, and has become too accepting of the 'new' HRBRRD. I do not trust the Board, and I still worry about our being classified as 'beneficiaries' of the lake, so that the Board can grant the wishes of the downstream 'beneficiaries' and let them off the hook. I have asked questions of the GSLA and have received no response."
I think she'll enjoy BBAC membership. We issue our newsletter at the rate of about twice a month. However, I’m afraid she'll be even madder when she finds out that the District's quest for additional beneficiaries to share the reservoir's operating cost was required by the Offer of Settlement that the GSLA negotiated and signed.
So, the BBAC will be looking carefully at the final composition of the proposed Sacandaga Advisory Committee to assure that the interests of access permit holders are fully protected and that we have enough votes to offset those whose interests conflict with ours. Otherwise, you ... and the state ... will be hearing from us.
Thank you.