Enfield’s “Pot Lot”

Westchester cannabis grower targets Breezy Meadows

by Robert Lynch; April 22, 2025

An Ossining, NY-based company with a strange sounding name may establish a marijuana farm and processing facility off Halseyville Road within Enfield’s Breezy Meadows subdivision.  And because a majority of the Enfield Town Board has agreed to fast-track the approval process, local residents may have little voice into whether the state should grant the company a license. 

In an email to the Enfield Town Board April 15, Daysi Briones, president of IQ CANNABIS-KHUYAY CORP. (“Iq Cannabis”), requested a “Letter of No Objection” from Town officials, a requirement to secure permission from New York’s Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) for an” Adult-Use Microbusiness License” at Breezy Meadows.  Briones had requested a response by April 22, just one week later.

Town Supervisor Stephanie Redmond confirmed Tuesday, the 22^nd that the Letter of No Objection had been sent based on the majority opinion of Town Board members.  One Enfield Councilperson (this writer) also wrote the applicant that day to clarify that no formal approval vote had actually been taken.

Company president Briones stated in her letter to the Town that Iq Cannabis had purchased Lot 33 in Breezy Meadows which subdivision documents identify as a 5.035-acre parcel, the more northerly of two Breezy Meadows lots which abut the west side of Halseyville Road. (Look for the patch of woods.)

“Our intended use of the land is for agricultural cannabis cultivation, utilizing both outdoor and mixed-light methods,” Briones stated in the company’s email.  “We also plan to conduct agricultural processing activities on-site (including drying and trimming). No on-site retail or public commercial traffic is planned,” she stated.

Briones’ email sent the Town Board provided no further details of the project.

Iq Cannabis’ email caught Town Board members by surprise. 

The time stamp on Daysi Briones’ email indicates it was sent at 7:50 PM on April 15.  In little more than an hour, Town Supervisor Stephanie Redmond had shared the message with other Town Board members, asking them to weigh in on the company’s request for a Letter of No Objection.  That letter is apparently all the company needs at the moment to advance its application with the Office of Cannabis Management.

Redmond pointed to Briones’ hurried April 22 deadline for a reply.  The date would come well before the Town Board’s next scheduled meeting on May 14.  And rather than call a special session, Redmond circulated the Iq Cannabis email, asking board members to “weigh in to let me know” if they’d approve her sending the letter. Redmond stated that she, herself, had no objections to the letter being sent.

By the following morning, April 16, Councilpersons Cassandra Hinkle and Melissa Millspaugh had emailed their lack of objections, thereby joining with Redmond to constitute a Town Board majority of three.

Yet Councilperson Robert Lynch (this writer) weighed in differently. 

“I must respectfully abstain,” Lynch replied in an email that same morning.  “I know too little about what IQ CANNABIS-KHUYAY CORP. proposes for Lot 33 at Breezy Meadows to express my support at this time,” he wrote.  “Those whom we represent may have concerns or objections, and those objections deserve the opportunity to be aired at a timely-called Town Board meeting.”

“I cannot believe that the permitting procedure employed for the requested Adult-Use Microbusiness License did not accord Daysi Briones sufficient time to come before our Town Board at a prior monthly meeting, outline the company’s plans, and receive residents’ inquiries,” Lynch wrote Town Board colleagues.  “As the saying goes, ‘Failure to plan on your part does not create a crisis on my part,’” he stated.

Under parliamentary procedure, an abstention is treated the same as a dissent.

The final and fifth Town Board member, Jude Lemke, had not expressed her opinion on the matter to Town Board colleagues by the morning of the deadline.

Upon learning from Supervisor Redmond that a Letter of No Objection had been sent based on a three-member informal poll, Councilperson Lynch wrote Iq Cannabis his own letter April 22 the clarify the limited nature of the Town Board’s consent.

“In my opinion, writing as one Town Board member, any implied local municipal consent given to the proposed IQ CANNABIS-KHUYAY operation stands premature and has been stated apart from our Town’s customary authorization procedures,” Lynch wrote.  He requested that his comments be incorporated into any communications the company has with the OCM concerting local approval.

Two years ago, New York Land & Lakes, an Oneonta-based real estate developer, purchased the 337-acre John William Kenney farm between Halseyville and Podunk Roads in Enfield and subdivided it into 33 building lots.  News of the subdivision prompted initial neighborhood objections, with critics fearing depletion of their water wells, loss of agricultural land, and damage to Tucker Road, the gravel roadway that transects the former farm.

Despite the objections, the Enfield Town Planning Board approved the Breezy Meadows subdivision that June.  By late-2023, Land & Lakes had sold off most of the lots.  Now, two years later, few parcels have seen development.

Depending on its construction timetable, IQ Cannabis may become among the first purchasers to break ground.

“We believe this use aligns with the protective covenants outlined in the recorded Warranty Deed, which permits agricultural and non-commercial uses,” Briones stated as to the cannabis growing and processing operation.

But the extent to which IQ Cannabis would develop the site, and just what it would put there, remain unclear.

“The company’s plans for ‘agricultural processing activities on-site’ raise issues of whether the Iq Cannabis-khuyay operation borders on an industrial activity,” Councilperson Lynch wrote Town Board colleagues April 16. 

“The Town of Enfield has no zoning law,” Lynch informed Iq Cannabis in his letter April 22.  “All site plan review is conducted by the Town of Enfield Planning Board,” he explained.  “To date, the Planning Board has not considered this development.  To the best of my knowledge, Planning Board members remain unaware of it.  The Planning Board must decide whether our Town’s Site Plan Review Law empowers its oversight of the quasi-industrial operation proposed by your company.”

Iq Cannabis-khuyay Corporation was founded in July 2021, according to corporate records on file with the New York Department of State.  It lists its headquarters as 4 Narragansett Avenue, Ossining, NY, in Westchester County.  No other information about the firm was readily available.

Daysi Briones held out the opportunity to meet with the Enfield Town Board if required to do so and provide the Town additional information.  Lynch urged Board members to accept that opportunity.

“Make no mistake.  I do not necessarily oppose the IQ CANNABIS-KHUYAY Corporation’s proposal.  I just know too little of it,” Lynch wrote the applicant Tuesday.  “In my opinion, the letter submitted your company on our Town’s behalf should only issue following full consideration at a public meeting where public input is both permitted and invited.  Such has not occurred.  And of that shortcoming, the OCM should be made aware.”

###

My Words to the Town Board:

That was then. This is now.

Posted April 16, 2025

Speaking from the heart—no script—this Councilperson, Robert Lynch, addressing the Enfield Town Board Wednesday, April ninth, after leading those willing in the Pledge of Allegiance:

“One of the meager attributes I bring to this Board is a long institutional memory, probably longer than anybody in this room, I dare to say. 

“I covered my first Election Night in Tompkins County in 1969, as a cub radio reporter.  We were down at The Ithaca Journal’s newsroom.  And we brought all the data together, and then we disseminated it to the public, including the town elections. 

“And one thing—and I covered a good many election nights thereafter 1969—And one of the things that sticks in my mind from those days back in the ‘70’s and ‘60’s was that no matter how uphill a climb it was, there was always, usually a full slate of Republicans and a full slate of Democrats who ran for Town office.

“Now I went back today and I looked at the 1969 Enfield elections, back on early-November of ’69.  And here’s how they were:

• Supervisor: Robert Linton, a legend in Enfield, won over Roger Hubbell; Linton, 348, Hubbell, 213.

• For Town Clerk:  Mabel Purdy, a Republican, won over Dorothy Leonard, 439 to 113.

• Highway Superintendent:  Now there the Democrats cross-endorsed Republican Wesley Rolfe; he’s another legend in Enfield.

• Town Justice:  Robert Bock beat Robert Scofield.

• For Town Councilman:  Earl Smith beat Richard Holley; Smith the Republican, Holley the Democrat.

• For Tax Collector:  Edna Palmer, the Republican, beat Marian Lovelace, the Democrat.

“And I bring that up because that was then, and this is now.

“We have Town elections in Enfield this year.  They’ll be this November fourth.  But instead of deciding those elections on the date seven months from now, they were decided last week. And they were decided last week because the only people to petition for reelection to Town offices, including this Town Board, were the incumbents.  Nobody else stepped up.  Nobody else said, ‘I think I can do it better.’  And that’s disappointing to me. 

“And I want to stop here and say I’m not disparaging anybody who’s sitting at the table or at the side table, who may be running, because that’s not the issue.  You may indeed be the best qualified candidates for the office.  And indeed maybe you deserve to win.  But how will we know?  We won’t know because there’s no competition.  The November ballot is more or less set, with one exception, which I’ll bring up in a second. 

“But it disappoints me because we won’t know; we won’t really have a good gauge of where Enfield is heading.

“Now the party petitioning is over with.  But Independents can still petition beginning the 15^th of April through the 27^th of May.  They can circulate petitions, file them with the Board of Elections, and be on the ballot in November.  I don’t know if anybody will.  I’m not too optimistic that that will happen.  But it’s disappointing because an uncontested election really doesn’t tell you a whole lot because it doesn’t say these are the best people who are running.

“And again, I congratulate everybody’s who’s serving now and has agreed to serve for another term.  You’re to be commended, and that’s good.  But we need more people in the mix.

“Now back then, Republicans were the dominant party in Enfield.  And I’m sure that Roger Hubbell, who ran for Supervisor, or Dorothy Leonard, who ran for Town Clerk were a little disappointed the morning after Election Day because they hadn’t won. 

“But you know what?  I bet’cha they were satisfied in the fact that they gave it the Old College Try.  And I look forward to some new faces, people I probably don’t even know, to this year give it that Old College Try.

“Thank you.”

****

Postscript:  A close confidante advises me that those from generations far more recent may not know what “Old College Try” means.  Perhaps they don’t.  So look it up online.  It’s defined there.  Then after you do that, visit the Board of Elections website and learn how you, too, can run for local office.

Robert Lynch, Enfield Councilperson

###

Enfield Dog Law (finally) Passes

Yearlong effort ends amid public grumbles

by Robert Lynch; April 11, 2025

To some, it’s a justifiable response:  “C’mon, it’s only a Dog Law.  Why did it take you a year to pass it?”  Well, it did. And well, it’s also Enfield, where it could be said that the most compelling command to those in power is: “Be careful when you mess with Man’s Best Friend.”

On Wednesday night, April 9^th, the Enfield Town Board adopted its revised, long-discussed “Dog Control and Licensing Local Law and Regulations.”  It runs 16 pages and consumes nearly 8,500 words.  It replaces a pithier, two-page document that an earlier Town Board had passed in 2010.  Quite rightly, critics could call this latest, wordy rendering the product of lawyerly bloat.

The Town Board’s vote was unanimous, “I’m torn by this, but I’m going to vote aye,” Councilperson Robert Lynch (this writer) stated as Town Clerk Mary Cornell called the roll.  Some two hours later, as the meeting wound to a close, Lynch recanted.  He said he’d made a mistake; upon reflection, he should have opposed the law.  Too late.   It would have passed anyway, of course.

“Have we heard from anybody who actually wants this dog law, other than members of this board and members of the Town administration?” Lynch asked following Wednesday’s close of a two-night public hearing that had spread over two months.  On each of those hearing nights, all comments proved negative.

“In my experience, that when people are happy, they don’t comment,” Supervisor Stephanie Redmond replied.

Town Clerk Cornell said she had been visited by residents who’d requested tighter regulation.

The Enfield Dog Law journey began almost one year earlier from its day of adoption.  On April 10, 2024, the Town Board’s official minutes state, “Clerk Cornell shared that she would like to include a late fee of $10 for dogs that are renewed more than 30 days late.”  The Town Clerk had first only sought a minor change in the fee schedule. That was all.

But the fee schedule was cemented firmly within the 2010 law.  And the Town’s legal counsel, Guy Krogh, said there’d need to be a public hearing to impose the late fee that Cornell had proposed.  At about the same time, Krogh looked at the old law, said it fell short by modern standards, and recommended a rewrite.

By June, the attorney had brought forth the much more comprehensive Dog Law draft, a version almost identical, word-for-word, to what the Town Board would eventually adopt.  In a June 12 memo—a document whose contents must otherwise be considered confidential between the attorney and the Town—Krogh described his draft dog law as a “fully option-loaded Caddy.”  He could downsize it to an “Accord” or an “Impala” should the Town prefer it, Krogh qualified.  But most Enfield leaders opted to stay with the Escalade.

“This is ridiculous.  I’m sorry, but I’m done,” Town Supervisor Stephanie Redmond exclaimed in exasperation 44 minutes into an 80-minute Dog Law Public Hearing February 12^th.  Redmond retreated after a trio of residents had pummeled her with critical, sometimes repetitious questions and complaints about the proposed law and its reach into dog owner freedom.  Redmond stepped aside for a time and let Councilperson Lynch take the questions.

“There are so many other things in my opinion that are more important in this town than dog owners,” Hines Road’s Tammy Alling, a multiple dog owner herself, complained.

“My problem is we’re regulating and regulating and regulating,” Alling continued.  “We live in Enfield.  This is not Cayuga Heights.  This is not Dryden.  This is not Lansing.  We’re Enfield, for crying out loud.  We’re the second poverty-stricken area in Tompkins County.  We can’t forget that.”

“Are we fixing something that isn’t broken?” resident Rodger Linton asked, pointing to the proposed law.

“I think we are,” Councilperson Jude Lemke answered, implying that the current law is, indeed, broken, “because there have been situations where our Town Clerk has had people approach about a problem that’s going on with a dog, and we have not had any recourse because our law has not covered those situations as they currently exist.”

It’s an “added layer of protection,” Clerk Cornell described the expanded law.  We don’t want to get a “hoarding situation,” the clerk explained.

The February discussion could have gone long into the winter’s night had the Town Board not adjourned the public hearing for two more months so as to move on to other business.  The hearing resumed this past Wednesday.  It only ran for about a half-hour this time.  But Rodger Linton was back in the gallery.

“What do we need it for?” Linton asked.  “We went to all this work to get an increase of two dollars,” he said, referring to the higher licensing fees.  “But you put a price on the head of dog owners in the town by adopting a whole new bunch of other punishable, finable problems that didn’t exist before.”

“Yes, the initial reason we picked up the law was to look at the fees,” Councilperson Lemke acknowledged.  “But we spent a year on and off talking about the dog law, so things came up as we discussed it… that we thought should be addressed, and we addressed that as we went along.”

In truth, the Town Board made very few revisions from the “Caddy” draft that attorney Krogh had handed board members.  And just as often as not, such as during a somewhat testy, line-by-line review last July 31, substantive modifications were tossed aside, rather than accepted.

“Whose life is better off because of this new law?” Linton asked at the April 9^th hearing.

“The dogs,” multiple Town Board members and Clerk Cornell chimed back. 

“I just don’t see the benefit,” Linton rebutted.  “It benefits nobody except for the coffers of the Town.”

Linton and others sought parallel, though perhaps irreconcilable, goals:  more specificity yet reduced regulation.

“I don’t quite understand,” Supervisor Redmond inquired.  “So you want more definitions, but you want it to be less.  The reason it grew from two pages to 16 pages is we got much more specific.”

One of the Dog Law’s more intrusive new dictates is one that impacts a handful of dog owners who harbor five or more canines, whether for profit or just because they have a big heart.  A five-dog household would newly be considered a “kennel” in the eyes of the law.  Under the dog law’s requirements, food at such “kennels” would need to be “kept under cover and in sealed containers,” and animal waste removed so as “to keep the property sanitary.”

In deliberations just prior to the law’s final adoption—as Councilperson Lynch offered a flurry of proposed amendments, many of which never got adopted—the Town Board softened the kennel waste removal requirement from its initial stipulation that “waste be removed daily from the premises in tightly covered containers.”

Clerk Cornell told the meeting that while 29 households harbor three dogs, only three homes harbor between five and nine dogs.  That’s apart from the additional five registered purebred breeders, according to the clerk’s licensing data.

One Lynch amendment that did not survive the night was to strip from the proposed law its “Section 13” regulations for “Designated Off-Leash Areas and Dog Parks.” 

Enfield does not have a dog park.  Supervisor Redmond made clear that no such park is planned.  If one were proposed, it would require a separate public hearing.  And meeting attendees made it clear they would not want a dog park… ever.

“The dog parks are not working out,” one speaker commented, referencing the dog park in Ithaca. 

“I have seen dogs kill other dogs.  I have seen people fighting over their dogs,” the commenter claimed. “I have picked up I don’t know how many dead dogs and given them back to their owners.”

Section 13 was apparently boilerplate; language the attorney had cut and pasted from a draft law far more applicable to some other, more urbanized place.  Nevertheless, despite the provision’s inapplicability and the public opposition to dog parks in general, the motion to delete the section never moved to a vote for lack of a second.  Redmond said she’d prefer keeping options open for a possible dog park in the long-distant future.

Similarly rejected was Lynch’s call for stripping down the bloated law to its barest of bones; slicing away all the surplus regulations and appending the fee changes Clerk Cornell had sought to the old, 2010 law.

And as a final failed amendment, revisiting a provision that had raised emotions at last July’s contentious review session, yet has received scant attention since, the Town Board failed to second and thus cast aside Lynch’s effort to clarify liability rules.  The amendment would have made clear that even though the law would provide an “affirmative defense” to a dog owner whose animal attacks another animal—such as a cat—when it trespasses onto the dog owner’s own property, the allowance would not preclude the victim pet’s owner from suing for damages in court.

“I don’t make mistakes often, but I think earlier tonight I did make a mistake, and that was to vote for the Dog Law,” this writer, Councilperson Lynch, said, at the close of Wednesday’s meeting, nearly four hours after the session had begun. 

“It would have passed anyway,” Lynch said of the law, “but I thought there had to be additional protections for people who own other domestic animals who may be harmed by a predatory dog.”

After the meeting, Councilperson Lemke, an attorney, emailed this Town Board member to assert that the affirmative defense posture taken within the new law reflects New York case law.   Any higher, “strict liability” standard for dog liability, she argued, the courts will not accept. 

“I maintain that the law we adopted last night reinforces a “Castle Doctrine” approach to dog ownership, one that goes beyond the legal interpretations of the New York Courts,” Lynch stated in reply to Lemke.  “The Board majority appears to accept this position.  I do not.”

###

Coronation, Not Competition

Party filings propel Enfield incumbents toward reelection; prospects for primaries, fall face-offs dim

by Robert Lynch; April 3, 2025

Unless one or more independent candidates suddenly emerge from the political thicket, this November’s elections in Enfield—and for that matter, in much of Tompkins County—could prove not worth the bother.  As it stands now, with party petitioning completed and documents filed, all incumbents now holding Enfield Town office would win reelection unopposed.

What’s more, in the two Tompkins County Legislature races Enfield voters get to decide, in neither instance would any voter be given a choice. 

Republican Randy Brown faces no Democratic or intra-party competition in the district that represents Enfield’s southern half.  Ulysses political newcomer Rachel Ostlund confronts neither a primary challenger nor a Republican rival in her bid to succeed the retiring incumbent, Anne Koreman, who represents Enfield’s northern neighborhoods on the Legislature.

Thursday, April third marked the state-dictated deadline for party Designating Petitions to be filed.

In Enfield, incumbent three-term Town Supervisor Stephanie Redmond was the only party designee, Democrat or Republican, to file for the office she now holds.  Redmond’s fellow Democrats Jude Lemke and Cassandra Hinkle filed unimpeded for new terms as well. 

No Republicans petitioned to challenge the incumbent Democrats on the Enfield Town Board.  And no other Democrats petitioned to challenge Redmond, Lemke or Hinkle either.

Similarly, no political drama has emerged in races for other Enfield town offices.

Republican Barry “Buddy” Rollins has petitioned for this, his ninth consecutive term as Highway Superintendent.  Rollins was first elected to oversee Enfield’s roads in 2009.  Two years ago, Rollins faced a challenge from within his party.  But opponent Chris Willis lost that race badly.  This year, neither Willis nor anyone else from either party has chosen to run against Rollins.

Likewise, Town Clerk Mary Cornell appears headed toward easy reelection.  Only Cornell petitioned for Town Clerk, an office she’s held since her appointment in 2021 to fill a sudden vacancy.

In the repeat of a procedure that equates to “I’ll scratch your back, if you’ll scratch mine,” Enfield Democrats and Republicans have cross-endorsed Republican Rollins and Democrat Cornell for re-election.  The parties had employed the same practice two years ago.

And this time, Republicans also cross-endorsed Jude Lemke for Councilperson.  The GOP did not provide a similar cross-endorsement for Supervisor Redmond or Councilperson Hinkle.

An important change affecting several Enfield offices takes hold this cycle.  Some terms of office will carry extended length. 

Voters last year approved extending future terms for Enfield Supervisor, Highway Superintendent and Town Clerk from two years to four.  Under normal circumstances, that would mean candidates elected to those positions this fall would serve through 2029.  However, a state law aimed at conforming most local elections to even-numbered years, the same as for the President or Governor, will force a one-time shortening of the new terms to just three years. 

The state law enacting the change faces a legal challenge.  The case is currently before New York’s highest Court.

The petition filing completed Thursday assures there’ll be no Enfield political primary this June 24^th.  And while the party designations just filed point to an off-year Enfield election that would become little more than a coronation of the incumbents, what occurs within the next few weeks could lessen that certainty.

Any Enfield registered voter—Democrat, Republican or Independent—can petition for an independent line on the November ballot.  The separate, later petitioning process bypasses a party primary and also enables unaffiliated voters—those not registered under any party banner—to participate in the political process. 

Independent petitioning begins April 15 and concludes May 27.  The Tompkins County Board of Election’s website indicates that 67 valid petition signatures will get an Enfield candidate onto the November 4^th General Election ballot.

In neighboring Newfield, at least on the Republican side, a spark of political life exists.  Three Republicans, incumbent Christine Seamon, and challengers Michael Corbett and Christopher Hyer Jr., have petitioned for two seats on the Newfield Town Board.  There’ll need to be a primary.

Enfield stands not alone in demonstrating an inherent lack of candidate fervor at this point in the off-year cycle.  In the race for Tompkins County Legislature, to be newly-expanded to 16 members, as many as 13 of those seats will see no competition this year, either in the June primary or later in the General Election.

In only one district, that representing northern Lansing, is a Republican-Democrat match-up assured.  In that district, Lansing Republican Mike Sigler, on tap to become the Legislature’s longest-serving member, faces a Democratic challenger, James Perkins.

One Ithaca City district, the one held until recent days by Democrat Susan Currey, faces a two-way primary contest for the Democratic nomination.  But it has no Republican contest in the fall. 

The Caroline-Danby district to be vacated by the Legislature’s current chairman, Dan Klein, faces the fiercest intra-party battle.  Three Democrats, Irene Weiser, Kyle Emily Erikson, and Matt Sullivan, have filed to represent Klein’s newly-numbered District 13.  Still, no Republican has petitioned for the legislative seat there.

Thursday’s petition filings confirmed one heretofore unreported fact.  One-term Republican County Legislator Lee Shurtleff will seek a second term in his Groton-based District 9.  To date, Shurtleff had been silent as to his reelection intentions.  His district is perhaps the most ruby-red of any in Tompkins County.

With long-time legislator Mike Lane’s planned retirement at years end, one could speculate about the prospects for a Republican pick-up in Lane’s eastern Dryden district.  But unless a Republican runs as an independent this year, it will not happen.

In 2021, his most recent re-election run, Democrat Lane won by a mere eight votes in a nail-biter of a contest.  It ended with a count of absentee ballots.  With Lane now departing and with District 10 ripe for picking, one would expect Republicans to compete fiercely.  But Thursday’s filings revealed that only Democrat Dan Wakeman will seek to become Mike Lane’s successor.  Wakeman faces no challenge.

Indeed, based on party petitioning alone, Republicans hold no hope for expanding their meager minority status on the Tompkins County Legislature.  Only current incumbents Sigler, Shurtleff, and Randy Brown filed petitions to secure GOP ballot lines.  Republican influence would weaken further by the fact that the Legislature will expand from 14 to 16 members next year.  Add to that the reality that Sigler must hold back a Democratic challenge in the fall.

Thursday’s political filings left one bit of unfinished business:  Who will represent Legislative District twelve?

No candidate, Republican or Democrat, has filed a designating petition for the County Legislature in District 12, situated in the southeastern corner of the Town of Ithaca.  One presumes an independent candidate will file for the seat during subsequent petitioning.  If not, the seat would head into the fall unfilled.

 But back to Enfield:  Unless something unexpected occurs these next two months—either an independent candidate emerges, or some last-minute write-in candidacy takes flight—the 2025 off-year elections may find themselves tempting to ignore.  There’d be no debates, no yard signs, and no candidates knocking at one’s door.  Those on the ballot would have no need to do so. They could coast.

Some may find that kind of a respite from politics a welcome relief.  But elections are held for a purpose; to compare and contrast; to make meaningful choices, to chart a community’s future direction.  Again, unless something changes, expect little of that to happen this time around.

###

ICSD hits brakes on electric bus-buying

School Board mulls budget; names new IHS Principal

by Robert Lynch; March 29, 2025

The Ithaca City School District (ICSD) will ask voters in about six weeks to buy eleven new school buses, part of an annual replacement and upgrading of the fleet.  But unlike last year—and flying in the face of an eventual state mandate—not a single one of those buses will be electric.

The Ithaca Board of Education’s decision March 25^th to delay further fleet electrification accompanied the board’s first, all-member review of School Superintendent Dr. Luvelle Brown’s $169 Million proposed budget.  Members also appointed long-time elementary principal and teacher Caren Arnold as Ithaca High School Principal, and heard more than a half-dozen ICSD faculty fault the district for offering raises too small during ongoing contract talks.

Hitting pause on electric bus purchases, according to ICSD officials, is not a matter of choice, but one of necessity.  The needed electricity to energize those buses simply isn’t available.

“We know right now that whether or not ICSD was ready for electric buses, our infrastructure—and not just the ICSD’s infrastructure, (but also) the power grid—would not support us at this point in time being able to get electric buses,” Board President Dr. Sean Eversley Bradwell explained in support of  the board’s self-imposed purchase moratorium. 

Last year, the board first asked Ithaca district voters to buy four electric buses, part of an eight-bus transportation purchase.  After an angry electorate rejected the initial request, doing so along with every other spending proposition on the ballot, the school board sliced the transportation request in half, voters approved the trimmed package, and two electric buses were bought.  

But buying an electric bus does not necessarily bring to that bus the electricity it needs.  Nor does it assure administrators and the public that a bus that runs on batteries will hold the stamina to finish its route.  On both points, Ithaca finds the drive toward meeting the state’s electrification mandate an uphill climb.

Governor Kathy Hochul has ordered that beginning in 2027, all new school buses purchased in New York State must be electric-powered.   And she’s ordered that a decade from now, every school bus must be zero-emission.  Easy to dictate from the Governor’s mansion.  Tough to implement in the field.

“At this point in time, the Governor’s mandate stands,” Eversley Bradwell cautioned the board.  “There’s debate about whether that will continue, but by 2035, the entire ICSD fleet—(indeed) every public school district in the New York State’s bus fleet—needs to be full of zero-emission buses.”

At last count, the ICSD runs 88 buses.  Only eight of them are now electric.  The district maintains a ten-year replacement cycle.  So on average, it needs to buy eight or nine buses every year.  If the mandate holds, buying absolutely no electrics this year would prompt a latter-day game of catch-up.

Still, the nearly $2.27 Million spending proposition board members put onto the ballot this past Tuesday moves about as close to a Green New Fleet as practicality seems possible. 

Each of the eleven new buses proposed for purchase would be an “ultra-low emission propane bus.”  Six would be 70-passenger buses for “long range travel.”  Three would be 30-passenger buses.  Two more would be 66-passenger buses equipped for wheelchairs.

“Even if the district wanted to go all-electric, it takes some long-term planning,” Eversley Bradwell admitted.

“We will not be able to do our entire fleet electric,” a transportation official advised the board that night.  “It’s just an impossibility at this point.”

Batteries that power electric buses are getting better, the transportation official told the board.  But they’re still not good enough to enable every bus to finish its task without grinding to a halt.  Under current technology, the official estimated, only “sixty percent” of buses could be electric.

Listed as “Proposition 2,” the proposed $2.27 Million capital appropriation would also include amounts for renovations at Cayuga Heights Elementary School “to include gymnasium dividers, exterior door repairs, and floor repairs.”

Prop. 2 spending would come from capital reserves, not new taxation.  The spending will be decided in the May 20^th referendum.  Proposition 1 on that ballot will be the district budget.  Budget figures will likely become final in early-April.

Specifics as to which kinds of buses the district would buy weren’t added to the school board’s agenda until the day of the meeting.   Therefore, environmental activists had no time to organize opposition.  The matter drew no public comment at the meeting.  The board president acknowledges it could draw fire at future sessions.

What’s more, school board members spent little time discussing the electric bus decision that night.  The proposition’s authorization came as part of a routine resolution that set the date, times, and polling locations for the May 20^th referendum.  Emily Workman was seen abstaining from the authorization, but she never explained why she did.

Board member Karen Yearwood reported that those on ICSD’s student-based Climate Justice Alliance have already registered concerns.

“The student group was disheartened that we as a board of the school district are not moving ahead and purchasing electric buses,” Yearwood informed her colleagues.  “And I reminded them that the community said that we need to slow down, and we listened to the community last year,” Yearwood stated.

Critics have faulted electric school buses over time for lots of reasons: their unreliability, an inadequate charging infrastructure, the risk of catastrophic fires, and of no small consequence, their cost.  Each electric school bus costs close to a half-million dollars, about twice that of a standard diesel bus.

And the unspoken question always hangs out there:  Is it better to invest scarce resources to marginally help the planet or to substantively teach a kid?

School Superintendent Dr. Luvelle Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Business Dominick Lisi, and a flock of four fellow administrators officially presented the school board the administration’s proposed next-year’s budget March 25^th.  Aside from its slightly reduced total, little had changed from a draft budget presented the board two weeks earlier.

The 2025-26 budget the Superintendent now proposes, totals $169,031,619.  That’s up 3.69 percent from the finally-approved budget of the current fiscal year, yet down from the nearly $171 Million budget that Dr. Brown had initially proposed for 2024-25, but which the school board—and then the voters—had demanded be reduced.

But less noticed, the new budget’s proposed spending has fallen almost $780,000 from the $169.8 Million draft budget presented the school board at an earlier session March 11.  The change never drew discussion at the latest meeting.  Yet a spreadsheet comparison reveals that a $500,000 reduction from a line labeled only as “Other Central Services” accounts for most of the difference.

Year-to-year, the Administration’s revised budget:

• Sets total spending at $169,031,619, up 3.69 percent (it had risen 4.17% two weeks earlier);
• Sets the total Tax Levy at $115,031,984, up 3.76 percent;
• Raises the projected Tax Rate from $14.80 to $15.20 per thousand, a 2.7 percent increase.
• Signals the district would tap nearly $6.8 Million from fund balances and reserves to moderate the tax levy. (For the current year, the budget drew upon fund balances by just over $7 Million.)

“We have needed to use our reserves and fund balances to plug budget gaps and budget holes,” Superintendent Brown admitted.  He doesn’t like that practice.  “We are using our savings account to fund operational things in a way we should not be doing,” Brown said.

When the draft budget got its unveiling a fortnight earlier, only five board members had attended the meeting.  Todd Fox, elected last year as a watchdog conservative, was absent then.  So was Erin Croyle, a perceived liberal defender of a vibrant curriculum.  But both sat at the table March 25th.  Fox spoke little.  But Croyle spoke much.

“We’re not looking at any cuts, but we’re also not looking at adding anything back that we had,” Croyle captiously asked of the Superintendent, Croyle referring to voter-demanded austerity measures imposed last summer that had canceled courses and downsized teaching staff.

Brown replied that he’d plan to keep “the same ratios and formulas” as were imposed last year, including a minimum 15-student class size.  “That was a tough move and a difficult and challenging move for us last spring,” Brown conceded.  “We’re getting used to that new approach to staffing;” but to Croyle’s point, “not a restoration.”

Disheartened by what she’d just heard, Erin Croyle pressed the superintendent further.

“Being a community member with three students in our district, I hear concerns about the programs we have being cut, things that are seemingly extras” Croyle cautioned.  “People are really concerned that they’re going to have to be fighting to keep some of those things that feel like extras that really aren’t.”  Could such programs “be on the chopping block,” Croyle asked?

“What we have right now will stay,” Superintendent Brown assured Croyle.  “There are no recommended reductions in programs, period,” he insisted.  Still, he qualified that changes in “enrollment patterns” and student interest could always affect what’s offered in the fall

Of course, that’s the superintendent’s intent.  First the school board—and then the voters—must have their say.  Another budget planning session could come as soon as April first.  Discussion will definitely come at a meeting on April 8.

Add to the fiscal uncertainty the wild card of still-unresolved contract negotiations with unionized teachers. 

As many as eight members of the Ithaca Teachers Association addressed the Board of Education at the start of its meeting.  Most read from prepared statements—speakers willingly acknowledging a coordinated union campaign—each teacher calling upon the Ithaca District to elevate its salary offer from the current 4.59 percent annual increase to a much-larger 7.5 percent raise for each of the next four years.

Elizabeth Crawford, a high school instructor in advanced writing, said she’s needed to visit a food pantry and access public assistance.  Sam Trechter, a teacher at Caroline Elementary, claimed he could earn $10,000 more annually by working in a neighboring district.  Northeast Elementary School’s Meg Burke claimed she works three jobs and argued teachers shouldn’t need to work “side hustles,” in her case, cleaning houses, to make ends meet.  Burke called her salary “barely survivable.”

“ICSD is located in an Ivy League town,” Burke observed, reading from the union’s script.  “Tompkins County has one of the highest median incomes in upstate New York.  ICSD administrators are paid above the New York State average. This is a community that appears affluent by every measure except when it comes to retaining teachers.”

“If these are some of our most valuable educators, I just wonder what direction we can go to pay people what they’re worth,” Erin Croyle later questioned.

But then, again, what would happen if whatever budget the Board of Education hands up gets rejected at the polls this May similar to what happened last year?   Board President Eversley-Bradwell wants a back-up plan.  The president asked administrators to draw us a bare-bones “Contingency Budget” just in case.

Buses, budgets and teacher pay aside, what may carry the longest-lasting impact on Ithaca’s students came almost matter-of-fact, sandwiched between money items at an all-too-busy monthly meeting.  Without discussion, the board elevated three-decade Ithaca teacher and administrator Caren Arnold to become the new Principal at Ithaca High School.

Arnold first joined the district as a teacher in 1993.  She currently serves as principal at Caroline Elementary.  Effective June 15^th, Arnold will transfer to IHS, succeeding the retiring Jason Trumble, who’d served as IHS Principal since 2015.

Superintendent Luvelle Brown commended Arnold as “the best teacher I’ve ever seen; the most loving person I’ve ever seen.”

“Caroline Elementary is thriving because of her leadership,” Brown said of Arnold.  “And she knew that we needed somebody at the High School, and she stood up and said, ‘Send me.’”

“Thank you for your support, Caren Arnold responded from the visitor’s gallery at York Lecture Hall.  “I have really big shoes to fill.”

“I hope to show that we can all work together,” the High School’s principal-designee commented. “We have an opportunity to really bring our community together.”

Most recently, Vice Principal Martha Hardesty has overseen Ithaca High while Trumble has been on leave.

Superintendent Brown took the moment to commend departing principal Trumble as well.

“He has a High School he can say he served as Principal of for a decade that has been recognized as one of the best high schools in the nation,” Brown remarked.  “The hardest job in this community… is being Principal in the High School,” the Superintendent asserted.  And of Trumble:   “I know what the toughest job is.  And I know how long he works.  And he did it well, and I love him.”

###

Please, Run for Something

Commentary posted by Robert Lynch; March 24, 2025

Alright, now that the pictures have grabbed your attention, let’s turn our focus back home, where it belongs.

Unless something changes, and changes quickly, elections this year in the Town of Enfield could become next to boring; inconsequential.  In fact, there’s an outside chance that this November’s ballot could bring us no competitive races at all.

And the absence of competition would prompt cancellation of Enfield’s June 24^th Democratic and Republican primaries.

Even though it’s only March, party petitioning for the November off-year General Election is heading into the home stretch.  And at this point, no competition has emerged publicly for party nominations for any Enfield Town office or for either of the two Tompkins County Legislature seats that represent portions of our town.

In fact, in District 15—southern Enfield—a well-placed Democratic official has advised that no candidate from that party has emerged to challenge one-term incumbent Republican legislator Randy Brown.

Similarly, to the north, in District 16, where incumbent Democratic legislator Anne Koreman has declined to seek a third term, only Democrat Rachel Ostlund is running to succeed her.  If Republicans have a candidate in that district, he or she remains a secret. 

There would have been a District 16 legislative primary if Democrat David Foote had stayed in the race.  But he didn’t.  Foote pulled out just about the time fellow progressive Ostlund made her political intensions known earlier this month.

For Enfield Town offices, each of the incumbents appears to be running for reelection, but no one else has declared. 

Supervisor Stephanie Redmond is said to be petitioning for this, her fourth (full or partial) term to lead Enfield government.  Councilpersons Jude Lemke and Cassandra Hinkle are seeking re-nomination too.  Democratic Town Clerk Mary Cornell is petitioning to remain in office.  Republican Highway Superintendent Barry “Buddy” Rollins is likely to run again, as well.

No Republican has yet declared for any position this cycle on the Enfield Town Board.  Nor has anyone of either party declared to challenge Cornell or Rollins.

That’s all well and good for the incumbents.  Congratulate them for wanting to represent us.  And to newcomer Ostlund, welcome to local politics.  The point of what’s written here is not to disparage any one of them.  It is to state a point.  Their presumptive nominations (or elections) stand for nothing if those victories aren’t won in the arena of competition.  They may not be.

Progressive Democrats have a recently-formed group called “Run for Something.”  No doubt, conservatives have something similar.  Run for Something’s effort is to engage entry-level future leaders at the grass roots strata, to nurture their incipient candidacies, to help them achieve victory; and then to watch their aspirations flourish and grow.

Get past Run for Something’s splashy homepage; scroll to the website’s internals, and the organization’s guiding principles become instructive.  They should apply to each of us, Left or Right:

Be “Bold and Fearless,” Run for Something’s guiding principles proclaim.  How is that motto defined?

• “We have big dreams and are unafraid to pursue them;”
• “We have a high risk tolerance, and we’re not afraid of fighting the system when fighting is necessary.  We’re not afraid of primaries either;” and
• “We’re willing to fail,” and “we’d rather fail than avoid challenges.”

No, we’re not talking about Congress or the State Legislature here.  We’re talking about the town board, the school board, or the county legislature.

Nothing written here should imply that those already running for local office lack the ability or the merit to lead us.  They may be the best persons we can find for their jobs. If you admire a Town lawmaker, a County legislator, the Town Clerk or Highway Superintendent, fine.  Volunteer for your chosen candidate, donate to that candidate, and talk up that candidate around town or on social media.  But then, find another local office you’d like to hold and run for it instead.

And to challenge an incumbent is not to demean that incumbent.  Too much in politics these days is smash mouth: “I win, you lose; I’m the greatest, you are worthless,” or so it goes.  Maybe they play that game in Washington.   Let’s us in Enfield show everyone that we’re made of better stuff.  He or she I’m running against is still my neighbor; maybe even my friend.  We two can still sip coffee together… and smile at each other from across the table as we do.

And here’s a truism:  Competition makes every candidate stronger, including the incumbent.  Without a competitive election, there’ll be no debates or candidate forums.  The media will ignore the race.  An incumbent will never have a true opportunity to defend his or her record.  And there’ll be no challenger to stand up and proudly inform the electorate, “I can do it better.”

Coronations continue the status quo, when change truly may be needed.  And if the status quo eventually prevails amidst a competitive election, it probably means the community wants things to stay just the way they are.  But unless the sides are drawn, whether on the debate stage or in the Dandy Mart, no one will ever know which way our government really wanted to turn.  And that, Enfield, is not good.

Democratic and Republican Party petitioning continues from now through April third.  In Enfield, 49 valid signatures are required for a Democrat to secure consideration for Town-wide office; only 32 signatures are needed for a Republican candidate (because Republican voters are fewer than Democratic voters in Enfield).  County Legislative district requirements are higher because those districts represent more people.  The Tompkins County Board of Elections posts the required numbers.

In New York, only registered Democrats and Republicans can compete in their respective party primaries.  So if you’re an unaffiliated voter, but still wish to vie in the November fourth General Election, you’ll need to petition as an independent.  Independent petitioning begins April 15 and concludes May 27. In Enfield, an independent nominating petition requires 67 valid signatures for Town-wide office, roughly twice to three times that number in County Legislature races.  For other towns and in other races, the numbers will differ.

And yes, Republicans or Democrats can avoid facing a party rival in a primary by petitioning as an independent and saving the face-off until the fall.

The Washington Post says “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”  But it also dies amidst apathy.  Lack of political competition will do us no favor in this, our little, lovable corner of Tompkins County.  Please, don’t let apathy prevail.  Pick an office and run for it.  Have those “big dreams” and then be “unafraid to pursue them.”

###

Gun-shy Board greets Brown’s “Rollover” Budget

ICSD Superintendent would raise spending 4.17 percent, but hold levy hike within tax cap

Reporting and Analysis by Robert Lynch; March 21, 2025

Erin Croyle wasn’t there that night.  Had the program-conscious Ithaca Board of Education member attended the board’s March 11 voting meeting, the tenor of the discussion might have evolved differently.  Croyle’s presence could have given the meeting a pulse.

Amanda Verba wasn’t there either.  The sharp-minded, PowerPoint-driven former Chief Operations Officer for the Ithaca City School District (ICSD), resigned last summer.  She migrated to Trumansburg to become business executive of its school system.  At Ithaca, Verba had served as much the budget salesperson as the bean counter.  Her ICSD successor is much more the green-eyeshade accountant type.

But maybe that’s the mood of the moment for the ICSD.  Burned badly by a first-round landslide budget defeat last year, many school board members in Ithaca have now embraced a cautious, taxpayer-respectful approach to budgeting. 

Ithaca School Superintendent Dr. Luvelle Brown and Verba’s successor, Dr. Dom Lisi, ICSD’s recently-hired Assistant Superintendent for Business, reflected that penchant for fiscal caution as they provided the board the skeletal outline of a next year’s spending plan whose details they’ll refine and bring back to the board in forthcoming days.

“We’re presenting a rollover budget,” Dr. Brown told the bare board quorum of five who attended March 11th.  By “rollover,” the Superintendent meant hold-the-line spending; nothing bold and beautiful; nothing likely to make Erin Croyle smile.

As unveiled that night, Brown’s outline would increase spending by 4.17 percent for the 2025-26 school year.  Yet it would raise the tax levy—the true benchmark of taxpayer pain—by only 3.76 percent,  a percentage falling into line with this year’s state-calculated “tax cap” as applied to the ICSD. 

The proposed spending total is $169,811,365; less than the 2024-25 budget Dr. Brown initially advanced last year, yet larger than a trimmed-down plan that voters last May rejected.

The tax cap is truly an arbitrary number; a fiscal fiction.  It changes year to year and district to district.  And aside from its propagandistic power in promoting frugality, the only legal significance the number serves is to require at least a 60 percent margin of approval when any non-cap-compliant school budget goes to the voters in a May referendum.

“We want to take what we’re doing this year and continue doing it next year,” Brown advised the school board.  “No major additions; and we’re not proposing any major reductions.”

Last year was different.  Dr. Brown and district teachers and administrators had loftier plans.  Brown was laying the groundwork for a 20 percent hike in teacher pay over a three year period.  At this time last year, the Superintendent had proposed a $170.9 Million budget for 2024-25.  It would have increased spending by 7.79 per cent, and boosted the tax levy by 12.14 percent, more than three times the increase proposed now.

Even the school board didn’t accept Brown’s—and by her association with it, Amanda Verba’s—first draft.  Over several weeks, the board cut the budget’s proposed spending by $2 Million, and pared the tax levy increase to 8.43 per cent. 

It still wasn’t enough.  Last May, seven out of ten Ithaca voters rejected the district’s first-submitted budget.  They also tossed two of three board incumbents out of office, members they’d (rightly or wrongly) faulted as being spendthrifts.

The school board regrouped.  Guided by board budget hawk Jill Tripp, it cut spending to $163 Million, reduced the levy hike to 2.92 per cent, and ordered a second referendum.  That time, the budget passed.

But to carve away the proposed increased spending, the Ithaca District also cut programs.  And some program-friendly liberals fear that too much was lost.  No schools got closed.  But high school elective courses that drew too few students got chopped away.  Administrative positions—including some at the top level—got cut as well. 

The 2024 election was one whose lesson was not lost on those who survived and currently populate the Ithaca Board of Education.  Three members will face the voters this spring; two more the year after.

“I’m glad that the proposal is staying within the tax cap,” Board Vice-president Adam Krantweiss told Dr. Brown and Dr. Lisi.  “It seems like a good start to me.”

Adam Krantweiss was the only incumbent among the three whose terms then expired to survive last year’s election.

“I, too, am pleased to see us coming in at the tax cap,” Jill Tripp remarked.  “Thanks for your hard work to get us there,” Tripp told the two administrators.

“My personal view would be that the tax cap is a reasonable way forward,” Garrick Blalock affirmed.  “What I heard the public say last year was that that tax cap was what they were comfortable with.  I believe that remains the public sentiment.  We’ll certainly listen to folks when they come in.”

Blalock’s term expires next year.

True, the tax levy increase being roughed in for next year—3.76 percent—is three-quarters of a percentage point higher than that of the revised budget voters approved last June.  But this year’s tax cap is also higher.  Still, remember, the tax cap remains a fiction.  A levy increase reflects real money.

And by raising proposed spending more than they increase the tax levy, what Brown and Lisi have advanced for starters is technically an unbalanced budget.  The gap must be filled, of course, yet only by perhaps raiding savings accounts or adopting a heavy dose of wishful thinking. Think state aid.

“We think we can work through that as we continue to refine the budget,” Dom Lisi told the Board of Education.

As it stands now, a 4.17 percent spending increase coupled with only a 3.76 percent rise in the tax levy would leave a $933,000 funding shortfall to fill.  Were the Ithaca District not to raise the levy at all from this year to next, the funding gap would swell to more than $5 Million.

With each of the five adult school board members attending the March 11 meeting reluctant to urge aggressive new spending or exceeding the tax cap, some of the better questions that night came from the high-school age, non-voting student representatives. 

If gap-closing money can’t be found, how would the shortfall get remedied, one student asked?

“We’d have to look at either reductions or using fund balance to support that,” the Assistant Superintendent conceded.

Is there any chance of restoring language programs cut in the current year’s budget, another representative, “Claire” asked?  Last summer’s reductions eliminated both Mandarin and Latin, the latter course spared only though an outside donation.

“Last year we made some hard cuts, and those cuts I don’t think are going to come back,” Garrick Blalock cautioned.  “What remains we want to continue to offer at the highest quality.  That’s my general approach.”

Infer from that, Mandarin isn’t likely to return.

“It was a class-size threshold,” Dr. Brown explained.  Fifteen students became the cutoff.  Brown gave no indication that the criterion would change.

The budget draft that Luvelle Brown and Dom Lisi roughed-in on the 11^th was not quite finished.  Brown said he first needed school board “feedback”  that night.  And if five of eight board members sitting in a room can prove an effective gauge of sentiment, one can expect that the more formalized budget  that Brown and Lisi will present at the next meeting, Tuesday, March 25, will prove a close-to-perfect reflection of the one briefed to members that earlier night.

And when the Board of Education reconvenes, those not heard from two weeks ago may register their own opinions.  Fiscal conservative Todd Fox is likely to argue for economies.  Board President Sean Eversley Bradwell is apt to serve as more referee than advocate.  And Erin Croyle may attend too.  Her passion could pivot the discourse to a whole different level;  to more than just dollars.

###

A Progressive Primary Cut Short

Ostlund declares for Koreman seat; Foote withdraws; Enfield incumbents eye easy re-nomination

by Robert Lynch; March 17, 2025

Barring a last-minute surprise, Enfield Democrats—and for that matter, Republicans—will find no need for a June primary as they sort out their nominees for this November’s off-year elections.  Indeed, unless new faces emerge, the local November ballot could prove pretty boring.

The most likely prospect for a intra-party primary battle quietly evaporated eight days ago as Ulysses progressive David Foote withdrew his short-lived campaign for the Tompkins County Legislature.  When he did,  Foote threw his support to Jacksonville food entrepreneur and wedding planner Rachel Ostlund, who now appears gliding unopposed toward securing the Democratic nomination to succeed retiring incumbent legislator Anne Koreman, whose newly-redrawn District 16 includes northern Enfield, all of Ulysses, and a slice of the Town of Ithaca.

“Rachel who?” you might ask.  “David who?” you’d ask as well.  Neither candidate is a household name, at least not in Enfield.  Neither is known to have held prior elective office.  At least neither of their biographies speak to it. 

And unless you were a petition-carrying party activist, or happen to read a soft-ball, puffy profile that ran March 7 in one local paper, you wouldn’t have known that Ostlund was even in the race.

“I believe that with creativity and an open minded approach to collective problem solving, we can build a Tompkins County where we all can live and thrive,” Ostlund stated to Tompkins Weekly, whose story byline was simply stated as, “Uploaded by Staff” (meaning that Ostlund’s campaign likely wrote the story itself).

“We deserve a community where we all have access to affordable housing, healthful food, clean air and water, equitable education, affirming and respectful healthcare, affordable childcare, meaningful work that pays a living wage, and the right to live free from oppression and violence in all its forms,” Ostlund’s campaign rollout continued, quite transparently hitting every single liberal button cliché.

But in an off-year election year when the progressive rallying cry is “Run for Something!” the message appears to have fallen on deaf ears among others in the  Enfield Democratic constituency. 

With pre-primary party petitioning for the fall elections now at about its mid-point, an informed local  Democratic official advises this writer that not a single member of the party has emerged to challenge Republican incumbent Randy Brown in his legislative district that includes southern Enfield and Newfield.  Likewise, another party official indicates that for the Enfield Town offices up for election this year, only the incumbents have chosen to petition.

Lack of competition for party nominations would cancel Enfield’s otherwise-scheduled June 24 primary.

Local Republicans in Enfield have not announced any plans to seize offices now held by elected Democrats.  For his part, County Legislator Brown has already said he’s running in the Newfield-Enfield district..  The GOP has not said whether it will compete in Koreman’s heavily-Democratic district to Brown’s north.

Meanwhile, for Enfield Town offices, the only petitions now known to be circulating are those for the incumbents; namely three-term Supervisor Stephanie Redmond, and two-term Councilpersons Cassandra Hinkle and Jude Lemke.  (Two other Enfield Councilpersons seats are not up for election until 2027.)

Incumbent Town Clerk Mary Cornell, a Democrat, is known to be running.  Incumbent Highway Superintendent Barry “Buddy” Rollins, a Republican, is said to be petitioning as well.  No Democrat has yet emerged to challenge Rollins.  A party official has suggested Democrats may cross-endorse Rollins instead, just as they did two years ago.

Where a June Democratic primary could have emerged—but now apparently won’t—was in the northern Enfield/Ulysses district where Rachel Ostlund will likely secure an unopposed nomination to the Tompkins County Legislature.   For a while, another Ulysses Democrat wanted the job for himself.

David Foote’s campaign to succeed two-term Democratic incumbent Anne Koreman wasn’t widely known until it was already over.  The Trumansburg Road resident announced his withdrawal from the race March 9, two days after Rachel Ostlund’s press profile was published.

On his short-lived campaign’s Facebook page post March 1, Foote announced “I’m putting finishing touches on a website for my campaign and expect to have it published soon!”  It may never have happened.  Eight days after his proclamation, Foote pulled the plug.

“I am backing off the campaign for county legislature district 16,” David Foote wrote, again on Facebook, March 9.  “This follows a lot of thought and direct conversations with volunteers, local allies, and others who have offered support.”

David Foote continued: 

“Last year, I was asked if I would consider running for the open seat.  Having supported a number of local campaigns and familiar with the process, I started planning, meeting with local groups, and studying up on county processes.  However, the time requirements and pressures of running a campaign from my dining room have been affecting my health and ability to focus on my day job and other commitments.”

Side-by-side, the platforms and points of political passion for David Foote and the fellow progressive he endorsed, Rachel Ostlund, reveal little sunlight between them.  Legislator Anne Koreman has represented her district for the past nearly eight years from the center-Left.  Whether it was David Foote or Rachel Ostlund, one could—and can—expect an even more leftward tug.

From David Foote’s endorsement:  “My goal was to make sure we continue a trend of progressive, community-based representation for the district,” Foote said as he withdrew his candidacy.  “I believe that Rachel will be an advocate for resilient social services, affordable housing, local agriculture, and protecting the rights of our community, and that she will be attentive and responsive to the needs of people in the district,” Foote stated.

And from Rachel Ostlund’s self-scripted profile in Tompkins Weekly:

“I am committed to raising my family here, and it matters to me that Tompkins County is a welcoming, inclusive, livable, affordable, safe and vibrant place for every person,” Ostlund wrote.

And make no mistake, the presumptive Democratic nominee knows who it is who won last year’s Presidential election and what he stands for.

“I’m also running because of the chaos that is happening at the federal level right now, which is destructive and destabilizing,” Ostlund informed the paper.  “We are entering into a period of extreme uncertainty, especially around federal funding – and the programs and services that many of us and our neighbors rely on are on extremely shaky ground.”

An Ithaca High School and Cornell University graduate, Rachel Ostlund has lived in Tompkins County most of her life.  She’s served as an AmeriCorps volunteer, taught environmental education in Tennessee, co-founded a student-run organic farm in Connecticut, performed field botany work in Arizona, and started her first business at a farmers market in Montana.

Ostlund’s closer-to-home business ventures have included the Iron Owl Kitchen, a prepared foods business at the Ithaca Farmers Market, the Sweet Bough Wedding Collective, and Kinship & Company, a business “focused on planning inclusive and meaningful weddings and events,” as Ostlund described it.

Ostlund and her partner live in Jacksonville and have two young children.

“She loves to build and fix things,” Rachel’s campaign website biography said of the candidate.  “She loves people and thinks we all deserve the world.”

Rachel Ostlund will likely carry the Democratic Party banner into the fall as prospective successor to Anne Koreman on the Tompkins County Legislature.  Other Democrats, should they choose, hold the power to force a primary providing they gather sufficient petition signatures before April 3.  Independent candidates, if any, whether for the County Legislature or for local town offices, may circulate their petitions between mid-April and late-May.

But unless something changes soon, local elections this year could prove themselves to be a parade of cakewalk coronations.  And for democracy’s sake, that’s a situation that’s always less than good.

###

Courthouse Dry Well fails; dollars drained

Solar Bid OK’d; Flood Law Set for May Hearing

by Robert Lynch; March 14, 2025

Call the March 12 monthly meeting of the Enfield Town Board one of multiple, yet manageable, catastrophes.  And battling fatigue, shock, and occasional sniffles, but finding no disagreement among themselves, Town Board members waded through their agenda; a long one… one consuming three-and-a-half hours.

For starters, the five-member Board could barely muster a three-person quorum.  Councilperson Cassandra Hinkle was out sick.  Melissa Millspaugh was also ill, but attended remotely from home.  She could vote, yet still not count as present toward a quorum.  Meanwhile, sitting at a side table, Town Clerk Mary Cornell also nursed a cold.  Cornell could barely speak.

Next problem:  Little more than 15 minutes into the meeting, the video stream encountered its worst “Zoom bomb” attack ever.  Multiple hard-core pornographic images suddenly flashed onto the meeting room screen.  A hacker slurred a racist obscenity.  And Supervisor Stephanie Redmond found herself momentarily helpless in trying to expel her video’s unwelcome intruders.  In time, the feed was cleansed, apologies were shared, Millspaugh returned to the sanitized Zoom room, and the session resumed.

But those calamities brought only inconvenience and embarrassment.  What cost the Town real money that night was the catastrophe that lurked outside, deep down under the driveway, just a few short steps from the meeting room door.

The dry well had failed.  The lid that covers the dry well (dry hole), a pit that receives sewage effluent from the Enfield Courthouse’s septic tank and then disperses it into the soil, was about to collapse.  It must be dug up and replaced.  And the replacement won’t come cheap.

“Nobody knows how deep it is,” Enfield Highway Superintendent Barry “Buddy” Rollins told the Town Board.  Most likely the six-by-eight foot cinderblock repository was dug 77 years ago, when the Courthouse building, formerly the Enfield Fire Station, was built back in 1948.  Rollins judged replacement as too complex of a task for his crew to undertake without help. A private contractor, Paul Carpenter, will oversee the work.  Rollins said Highway staffers will assist him. 

Board members were told that Enfield Food Pantry Director Jean Owens and her volunteers had only days earlier spotted the imminent rupture.  The Food Pantry co-locates on the Enfield Courthouse’s lower floor.

The Town of Enfield Budget maintains a contingency fund, a catastrophe cushion of sorts.   Of the $27,500 in contingency moneys budgeted in 2024, more than $20,000 of the total had gone unspent, the Town Board learned that night from the bookkeeper’s year-end report.  An identical $27,500 had again been placed into the contingency fund for 2025. 

Sadly, when it comes to unspent surplus in contingency, the Town won’t find itself so lucky this time next year when books are closed.  And it’s little more than ten weeks into this year’s budget. 

Rollins and Redmond estimate the dry well’s replacement cost at $10,000 to $12,000.  By a quick, unanimous vote among the four members present, the Town Board pulled $12,000 out of this year’s contingency fund to pay for the reconstruction.  Of course, that’s what contingency funds are for; unplanned emergencies.  Some years you win; others, you don’t.  This year, one guesses, Enfield won’t.

As for the work ahead, Rollins predicted a timely completion.  He said excavation will likely occur either Friday, March 14, or on Wednesday or Thursday of the following week. 

And Food Pantry officials assured Board members that the driveway’s current precautionary closure will not impair weekend food distributions.  Instead, the oft-seen patron-parade will follow an alternate route.

If another public works disappointment needed to be put on the Town Board’s plate—and it was—Rollins reported that this winter’s off-and-on bouts of sub-freezing cold had taken a tough toll on secondary roads.

“Dirt roads and oil-and-stone (surfaced) roads took a real bad beating,” Rollins stated, assessing their seasonal damage.  And wintertime harm will, no doubt, heighten summertime repair costs.

One thing more:  Two trees are dying and need to be felled in Town-owned Budd Cemetery off Gray Road.  Rollins recommended their professional removal.  It was that kind of night.

But amidst a sudden run of disappointment, the Enfield Town Board did move forward March 12 on a few other fronts.  It awarded the winning bid for the largely grant-funded addition of solar panels atop the Enfield Town Hall, the long-vacated old Highway Barn that currently quarters the Town Clerk’s office.

By a 4-0 vote, the Board awarded the Enfield-based firm, Fingerlakes Renewables, Inc., the contract for putting the panels in place.  Fingerlakes Renewables will install the 25.4 kilowatt rooftop array for a quoted price of $70,248.  A state grant will cover $60,000 of the cost, and estimated rebates will contribute another $6,355.

Of the five companies that quoted on the job, Fingerlakes Renewables, Rebekah Carpenter’s local firm, did not tender the lowest bid.  Yet her company got the award, nonetheless.

Carpenter’s company won selection after the Town Board first excluded the rock-bottom bidder, Solar Environment, from Saratoga Springs, saying its bid offered too few specifics to be considered a “responsible” offer.  And then as it employed state-authorized “best value” analysis, the Town Board calculated that Fingerlakes Renewables would generate the most kilowatts for each dollar the Town would invest.  The company also achieved “best value” preference as a woman-owned business.

****

Flood Prevention Law: More than a year after state and federal officials had warned that Enfield would need to restrict development in its newly-mapped flood plain bordering Enfield Creek, the Town Board Wednesday finalized a preliminary set of development rules.  It authorized the draft regulations, forwarded them to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for a required review, and set a local public hearing on the proposed “Flood Damage Prevention Law” for its May 14 meeting.

“People I’ve talked to say this looks a lot like zoning,” Rosanna Carpenter, an Enfield Main Road resident, warned the Board before it acted.  Carpenter’s home, while not located within the proposed restricted area, stands close to it.  Carpenter also owns vacant land within the flood plain and maintains a private bridge that crosses Enfield Creek.  Carpenter cautioned that restricting future development in the flood plain could diminish her land’s value should she ever subdivide it.

In response, Town Board members pointed out that for the most part, their hands are tied.  Given the Enfield Creek’s newly-designated flood-prone status, they said Washington as soon as this June will dictate the purchase of flood insurance by anyone who holds a federally-backed mortgage and lives in the flood plain its federal agency has newly-designated.  And the insurance would only become available if the Town adopts the development rules.  New York State will go further, they were told, demanding the regulations regardless of the insurance consequences.

Enfield, however, has chosen to make the state-scripted rules one step tougher. 

The draft Enfield Flood Damage Prevention Law would prohibit any new residential structure in flood zones, not merely follow state guidelines that still allow new homes be built in flood zones, only if elevated above worst-case flood levels using “pilings, columns… or shear walls parallel to the flow of water.”  The Enfield draft would also prohibit the placement of any new mobile home in a flood zone.   In either instance, aggrieved property owners could plead hardship and seek a variance.

“We as a Town Board may exercise ‘police powers’ to keep our community safe,” Councilperson Robert Lynch (this writer) wrote in an email to other Town Board members and the Town’s legal counsel one day before the meeting,  defending the tighter restriction.  “And building a home on elevated pilings in a flood plain is less than safe or desirable,” he said.  “This is a safety thing for me.”

One day later, during the meeting, the Town Board agreed to retain within the draft law, at least for now, the more restrictive language.  Should residents object at the public hearing, members said, the prohibition could later be stripped out. 

Subdivision Regulations:  Pressed for time as the hour advanced and attention spans waned, the Town Board gave only glancing attention to an end-of-meeting chore that’s evaded resolution for as long as 18 months; namely the revision of Enfield’s Subdivision Regulations.  The Planning Board had handed up its rewrite of the nearly 40-page document as far back as September 2023.

About all the Town Board decided at this latest March meeting was to tone-down any attempt to infuse Town Board oversight into the subdivision review process.  The Town Board had sought to involve itself in the wake of the “Breezy Meadows” development controversy two years ago.

Having been cautioned by the Town’s attorney that state law limits Town Board intervention and prohibits any form of novel, “two board” subdivision review, the Town Board resolved itself to offer the Planning Board only advice and recommendations—not hold veto power—regarding a future developer’s plans for larger subdivisions.  The Town Board will hone regulatory details at future meetings.

Ukraine: Before adjourning for the night, the Town Board resurrected an initiative it first took three years ago.   It directed that the flag of the Republic of Ukraine again be flown on the flagpole outside the Town Hall, this time for a renewed 30 days.

“[A]s the third anniversary of the Ukrainian war has come and gone, significant adjustments in United States foreign policy affecting Ukraine have occurred, changes which in many people’s minds complicate the path to peace and imperil the preservation of Ukraine’s democratic sovereignty,” the latest Resolution to  “Reaffirm Solidarity and Support for the People of Ukraine” stated in part.

The adopted Resolution further expressed Town Board sentiment that continued American  support to Ukraine “in both word and deed…  stands vital to the achievement of a true and lasting peace in eastern Europe and also serves to advance American interests of democracy, independence, and freedom, principles this Board wishes to embrace.”

Expect the banner for Ukraine to return to the flagpole within days.

****

It was a long Town Board meeting.  And in case anyone should ask, Supervisor Redmond said she’ll take extra precautions to deter future Zoom bomb attacks.  That was a sort of catastrophe that no one needed that night.  Too much else was going on.

###

Previously Posted:

Do it for Downtown’s Sake

Economic case pushed for Center of Government siting

Reporting and Analysis by Robert Lynch; March 4, 2025

A prime reason to build a $40 Million Center of Government downtown next to the County Courthouse is so that government employees will continue to prop up the Downtown Ithaca economy, an architect guiding Tompkins County in the pricey project argued to lawmakers Tuesday.

“The main reason that we’re saying this is the right location for the Center of Government is related to the economic impact that it would have in Downtown Ithaca,” Quay Thompson, a principal architect with Holt Architects, Tompkins County’s design firm,  advised a Tompkins County legislative committee.

Thompson pushed back on a hypothetical alternative—advanced by some, though still not considered seriously by most legislators—that County Government instead build its new, eight-figure office building on cheaper, more objection-free land, a “Greenfield,” somewhere outside Ithaca’s city limits.

“So not only would you lose the benefits of bringing all of the county employees right to the heart of Downtown Ithaca, but you’d also conceptually lose the employees that are currently in the Old Jail and the Tompkins Building if we were to consolidate all of them together at an off-site location,”  Thompson said, albeit deceptively.

The “Do it for Downtown” argument may fall flat with some rural Tompkins County residents, taxpayers who wince at paying a premium price for an office complex buried in the bowels of Ithaca, an increasingly congested place many hate to visit, where crime is perceived as on the rise and where (paid, of course) parking is catch-as-catch-can.

But what architect Thompson and his team must work on most immediately is a presentation to the New York State Historic Preservation Office, the agency commonly known as “SHPO.”

The SHPO review centers on the County’s intent to “deconstruct” (i.e. demolish) three existing buildings on the Center of Government site.  In 2021, Tompkins County brought the former Key Bank branch at Buffalo and Tioga Streets and the one-time Wiggins Law Office building adjacent to that bank.  County Government would raze both buildings to make way for its new five-story office building.  Its plans also call for tearing down the so-called “Building C,” the current home to the Tompkins County Board of Elections and the Assessment Department.

One year ago, alerted by the preservationist group Historic Ithaca, SHPO bureaucrats began to express concerns about the proposed demolitions.  SHPO holds influence since the Center of Government site lies within the DeWitt Park Historic District.  The structures may not themselves be historic, but regulators regard them as “contributing structures” to the district.

The Tompkins County-SHPO standoff has dragged on for a year.  The agency demands input and warns that evading its authority could compromise Tompkins County’s ability to secure state and federal grants to help underwrite the office project.  About the extent of that leverage—or the range of grants affected—local officials remain unsure.

Holt’s design team will submit to SHPO by March 20^th its final justifications for the buildings’ deconstruction.  SHPO representatives plan to tour the downtown site April 10.

The Tompkins County Legislature’s Downtown Facilities Special Committee took no action Tuesday. But unless plans change drastically, legislators appear moving unimpeded toward building the Center of Government on the downtown site with a groundbreaking, state willing, targeted for January 2027.

“What SHPO wants to see is have you done due diligence in trying to (sort of) create a solution for your project that preserves the three buildings… reuses and preserves them,” Thompson advised the committee Tuesday.

The problem is that keeping the old buildings is not what either the architect or most legislators want.  So what Holt’s team will do instead, Thompson made clear, is to make the most persuasive argument as to why as many buildings as possible should come down.  And it’s in the context of demolition advocacy that the issue of downtown economic vitality secures the architect’s attention.

Thompson called it, “the importance of locating the Center of Government downtown in Ithaca from an economic perspective.”

What the architect plans to present SHPO preservationists are three principal options.  The first would retain all three of the structures and somehow build a Center of Government around them.  A second option would keep only the former bank building at the corner as some sort of public-facing entrance and build a government working space in a new building behind it.  The third, and the preferred, option would tear all three buildings down.

Regarding the option of keeping all buildings standing, “That’s an option that we’re trying to take off the table,” Thompson admitted.

“Leaving the three buildings on the site and building a really tall, skinny building in the middle isn’t really a viable option,” the architect opined.  A new office building, he explained, must be built with an expected 80-100 year life span in mind.  Moreover, one can imagine that a tall, odd-shaped monstrosity could overpower the adjacent DeWitt Park.  That’s the historic space SHPO most wants to protect.

Quay Thompson hadn’t even planned to consider as an option moving the building’s site out of downtown.  Only when Department of Planning and Sustainability Commissioner Katie Borgella raised the alternative did the architect latch onto it as it could sway SHPO regulators into endorsing demolition.

“Should we include a project option of moving the Center of Government to a ‘greenfield’ outside the boundary of the City of Ithaca?” Borgella asked.  “It does help tell the story for why we would be investing in downtown and what the benefits are of that,” she said.

“So you’re asking if we should build this in Lansing instead of downtown?” Downtown Facilities Committee Chair, Newfield-Enfield’s Randy Brown, asked the planner.

“I’m asking if we should include that in the report as an option,” Borgella answered.  “If it is, then it seems like it’s something SHPO should understand that if this doesn’t get approved, that (relocation) might be one of the options that the County move forward,” she said.

Some Tompkins County legislators, most notably Dryden’s Mike Lane, hate the idea of “building in a cornfield,” as Lane has derisively put it.  Others, however, may prove more open.

“I’m not against moving the building location if it’s counter-productive,” Brown said, presumably referring to the obstacles faced by staying downtown and facing SHPO’s continued roadblocks.  “It is what it is, right?”  Brown posited rhetorically.

“We’ve always looked at… keeping the center of our government in the county seat, which is the City of Ithaca,” Mike Lane insisted.  True, Tioga County built its offices in the proverbial “cornfield,” Lane acknowledged.  But he thinks that was a mistake, and that his county should not follow Tioga’s lead.

“Yes, it’s cheaper, faster to do that,” Lane admitted.  Nonetheless, he said, “Ithaca is central from all of the surrounding areas,” and a building’s location should consider that.

Toward that issue of centrality, some on the committee raised transportation concerns.  An estimated one-third of Tompkins County residents live close enough to the downtown Courthouse complex to either walk there, bike there, or take a reliable TCAT bus.

“More and more people that I’m meeting and talking to downtown are foregoing getting a car,” Ulysses-Enfield’s Anne Koreman observed.  “Some people don’t even have a driver’s license,” she said.  An out-of-the-way office building, she argued, would prove inconvenient for them.

Whether through institutional ignorance or by purposeful design, architect Quay Thompson spread much misinformation about the committee’s meeting room Tuesday, arguments that would work to dispel thought of a more rural siting and keep the focus on downtown.

“So we have three buildings that we’re preparing to take down that are currently unoccupied,” Thompson told the committee. “One has become a homeless shelter.  They’re deteriorating, and we haven’t been able to find tenants for ‘em for the last number of years.”

“We’ve invested a lot in the Old Jail,” the architect continued.  “If we moved this project off-site into a greenfield, those buildings would continue to sit there and probably be sold off to someone else, and the investment that we’re planning for those other two buildings wouldn’t occur.”

So wrong, so misleading on so many fronts: 

First, only two of the three buildings targeted-for-deconstruction are “unoccupied.”  Building C is—and has remained for many years—very much in use.  It’s a county office building. 

Secondly, the two other buildings, the former bank and the law office, were bought specifically to be torn down to build the Center of Government.  Tompkins County has never made a serious attempt to rent them out.  The old bank is now a Code-Blue wintertime homeless shelter only because no one could find any other place for the state-mandated service.

And what about the Old Jail and the Gov. Daniel D. Tompkins Building, the 1854 Courthouse?  No, they won’t become vacant.  The Gov. Tompkins Building houses the County Legislative Chambers, and no one’s talked about moving that venue.  The Old Jail was repurposed in the 1990’s.  Renovations to either of the buildings would be made only to re-accommodate departments moving in after the current occupants expectedly move out.

But again, consider the arguments advanced here as bargaining points to bolster demolition’s case in  any forthcoming negotiations with SHPO.

“Certainly, if we’re talking about moving off campus and letting three buildings become abandoned  and not making the improvements in the two buildings that we were talking about, they can’t not look at the whole project, the whole package that we’re talking about,” architect Thompson reasoned to legislators, trying to think as he thinks the state office’s preservationists would.

Might the argument work, as biased and deceptive as some may see it?  We can only wait and learn what happens in April. That’s when SHPO comes to town.

###

Local “Living Wage” jumps by a third

by Robert Lynch; March 2, 2025

It’s a pay rate many a local employer would be hard-pressed to provide and many a local worker can only envy at a distance.

Reflecting inflation-driven increases in basic necessities, the so-called “Living Wage” for Tompkins County has grown to $24.82 per hour, according to figures released February 26 by the Tompkins County Workers’ Center, an Ithaca-based employee advocacy group.

The revised Living Wage stands 34.5 per cent higher than a comparable calculation the Workers’ Center made two years ago.

“It’s obviously a huge increase,” Workers’ Center Director Pete Myers admitted to a radio interviewer one day after his group had made the new number public.  “There are some employers that are going to have a really difficult time with this,” Myers Thursday advised the morning host on WHCU.

To state the just-released Living Wage a little differently, paying $24.82 per hour would earn an employee nearly $200 per day, a thousand dollars a week ($992.80) or $51,625 per year.

The Tompkins Living Wage calculation stands well above—a full 60 per cent above—the legally-enforced $15.50 per hour “Minimum Wage” that New York State currently imposes on employers upstate.  The state’s Minimum Wage rose by 50 cents last January.  It’ll rise by another 50 cents next year.

“Tompkins County, New York, is the most expensive place to live in Upstate New York, and by some measures one of the most expensive places to live in the United States,” the Workers’ Center asserts on its website.

While the wage increase may seem staggering, it registers not far different from the number local officials had predicted last summer when Myers and his supporters brought their complaint about inadequate local wages to the Tompkins County Legislature.  Tompkins County Government already applies Living Wage standards to its county workforce.

In his Thursday broadcast interview, Myers claimed as many as 23,000 employees in Tompkins County earn below the Living Wage.  And the worker advocate conceded that for some employers, particularly those in the health care industry, a sector dependent on state subsidies—he singled out Racker (the former Franziska Racker Centers) as an example—the new, higher wage will likely prove impossible to meet.

Myers also acknowledged the special burden placed on “mom and pop” businesses. “This will be really hard to keep up with,” he said of the new benchmark wage and owners’ resulting struggle.

The Workers’ Center website credits researchers at the Ithaca and Buffalo “Co-Labs” for Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations for computing the revised Living Wage.  “The latest study was updated to take into account the extreme inflation that took place this past year,” the website states.

“These are basic needs,” Myers said in the WHCU interview regarding the factors driving the revised statistic.  Increased rent stands foremost among these, he said.  “Rent has increased pretty substantially in the last year,” Myers stated.

The Living Wage calculator, posted by the Workers’ Center, estimates current countywide apartment rental at $1,489 a month, up 17 percent from the $1,276 calculated two years ago.

Still, many may find that even this new, higher rental number seems low, especially for those living in the City of Ithaca, where one must compete for scarce housing with throngs of college students.

Transportation costs have also gone up, Myers said.  The new calculations peg local transportation cost at $520 per month, up from $320 two years ago.

Among the other monthly costs estimated:  Food at $341; Health Care at $348; and “Taxes” at $909.43.

“It’s definitely a big number,” Pete Myers said of the newly-computed Living Wage. “But for a lot of people it’s not going to be enough to live on.”

And the worker advocate pointed out that the ILR School calculations target costs for only a single person, not a couple or a family.  If children were factored in, Myers conceded, the livable pay rate could climb as high as $40 an hour, a plateau impossible for most employers to reach.

Paying a Living Wage is strictly voluntary, not the law, although some local activists have sought to persuade Tompkins County to wrest authority from New York State and enact a stand-alone local Minimum Wage, one that would mirror Myers’ higher number.  Doing so would require challenging a long-standing court precedent that assigns the New York State Legislature exclusive power to set minimum compensation.

During his radio interview, Myers claimed 127 local employers voluntarily comply with the Living Wage standard.  But he acknowledged that this number may become a high-water mark.

“I presume we’re going to lose a lot of Living Wage employers because of such a large increase,” Myers said.

That may already have occurred.  As of February 25, the Workers’ Center’s website listed 66 “Living Wage Employers” as certified.  That list includes Tompkins County Government, the Ithaca Teachers Association, and the towns of Ithaca, Caroline, and Danby.  Conspicuously absent from the list are the City of Ithaca, the Ithaca City School District, and most noticeably, Cornell University.

The Workers’ Center advises that it will allow employers up to one year to “catch up” to the new, higher Living Wage.  To retain certification, employers will need to pay at least $24.82 by the end of December.

Early last July, Democrat Veronica Pillar placed before a Tompkins County legislative committee a resolution that by its title would have moved toward implementing a higher County-wide minimum wage through a local law.  Its title overstated expectation.  The resolution was mostly process, not substance.  And by the time Pillar’s bold move got watered-down and debated to death by the full Legislature one month later, it stopped short of snatching away state authority.  Instead, it merely set aside money for a consultant to study the prospect.

Nevertheless, it was during those summertime meetings that Pete Myers first predicted that a $24 an hour Living Wage would be coming soon.  Now that it’s here, we can look back and say Myers underestimated reality by nearly a dollar an hour.

But a Living Wage is more than just organized (or disorganized) labor’s lofty aspiration.  It can hit taxpayers soon—and hard.

Remember, Tompkins County Government is a Living Wage employer.  Its mandates demand payment of living wages.  And because they do, our county budgets next year may require padding to cushion the wage burden blow. 

“We are a Living Wage employer,” Lansing legislator Mike Sigler reminded colleagues last August when Myers first predicted a $24 Living Wage.  “If you just do back-of-the envelope math… you’re looking at over $8 Million it would end up costing the County.”

Sigler that night voted against proceeding with the consultant’s study, as did two other lawmakers.  The other eleven members of the Legislature supported moving forth.  Nothing’s known to have surfaced publicly from that study to date.  And even were the experts to chart a path forward, some recognize that challenging state authority could prove futile.   

“A lot of employers are going to feel this is unrealistic,” Pete Myers admitted in his latest radio interview as he addressed the new Living Wage.  “So I’m concerned about it,” he said.

Pete’s not the only one.  It costs a lot to live in Tompkins County; or to pay people sufficiently to remain living here.  Perhaps it’s the price Ithaca pays for its prosperity.  If more small businesses shutter, or your taxes go up, this new Living Wage may stand at fault for the new reality we’re all about to face.  Better brace for it.

###

Why I Still Pledge

This Councilperson, Robert Lynch, speaking after requesting and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the Enfield Town Board’s monthly meeting, February 12, 2025:

Board:

“I’ve just joined this Enfield Town Board in the Pledge of Allegiance.  I’ve done so for most every monthly meeting I’ve attended since I first joined this Board five years ago.  I recognize that a majority of my colleagues don’t accompany me; they remain seated.  One member generally stands, but declines to recite the words.  That is your prerogative.  The Constitution guarantees you that right.  I defend your freedom to exercise your choice, just as you should always respect my decision to exercise my own within the rules of this Board.

“Much has changed in America since we last met.  Some of us in this politically blended community of Enfield may welcome the change.  Others may question if the United States of today remains the same country they’ve always known, respected and loved. 

“And because of that concern, some of you, our residents, may now refuse to stand, hand-over-heart, and pledge to our flag.  I regret that you’ve made that choice.

“The American flag I pledge to represents freedom, patriotism and love:  Love for our Constitution, our Rule of Law, our resilient institutions, and our nearly 250-year heritage as a—yes, sometimes flawed, but always evolving and self-correcting—democracy. We express our love for the dedicated public servants in uniform and in civilian service.  And yes, we express our love for the citizens—or non-citizens—whom we sometimes leave behind, but later reach down and pull up to join in our unique American experiment.

“Nowhere in the words I recite is there a demand of allegiance to one man—or to one woman—or to one office.  We pledge allegiance to a principle, to a nation, and to a concept of liberty and justice for all that our Constitution commands we embrace.

“And if they ever rewrite the Pledge of Allegiance to demand obedience to a particular leader, I will be among the first to stop standing and requesting we recite those words.

“One thing more: I assure you that the winds of change that have buffeted our nation have not dislodged Enfield from its foundation.  Enfield’s strength, its resilience, and the generosity, compassion and determination of its people remain as rock-solid as ever.  I’m glad I live here and serve here.  Thank you.”

[Our meeting continued.]

###