Journal News Joins Preserve Ramapo Calling on St. Lawrence to Dedicate Open Space Properties

October 5, 2007

After back-and-forth Community Views on its editorial page about St. Lawrence's refusal to dedicate open space properties, a Journal News editorial on Friday called on the Supervisor to listen to Preserve Ramapo and dedicate those 23 open space properties not yet dedicated as parkland.

The editor questioned why St. Lawrence and the Board have not done this, and they came up with this conjecture and advice: "Could it be because that instruction comes from Preserve Ramapo, which has an anti-growth, anti-St. Lawrence slate on the November ballot? Whatever the rationale, another layer of protection, so simply achieved, seems like an easy choice."

The paper points out that Clarkstown has protected their open space projects with restrictive resolutions, and it just makes sense that if you're claiming the lands are to be put aside, then do what's legally required to protect them.

What is not discussed in the editorial is the completely irresponsible downzoning and accelerating growth in Ramapo as a result of this administration's close ties with developers. When this Supervisor and Board can change the zoning so that a single-family lot 75-feet wide can now be the site for a three-family dwelling plus 3 additional accessory apartments in severely overcrowded sections of Monsey, you have to wonder why they categorically refuse to take 10 minutes out of a Town Board meeting to legally dedicate these open space properties as they did for the one in St. Lawrence's back yard.

Bob Rhodes also has a letter on today's editorial page calling for the formal dedication of these properties. His letter appears immediately below, followed by a link to the complete text of the Journal Editorial "Belts and Suspenders."

Put your vote where your mouth is on open space

In a Sept. 27 Community View, "In Ramapo, is open space forever?" Michael Castelluccio charged that contrary to Ramapo Town Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence's written assurance to our community, the town had failed to dedicate "open space" purchases. In his Oct. 3 reply, "Ramapo's 'open space' is most certainly protected," St. Lawrence doesn't deny this. He asserts that land can become parkland through other means, such as how it was purchased and the use to which it is put.

Let us assume that 10 years from now, St. Lawrence and his successors decide that there is a better use for a piece of "open space" than a park. Who will have legal standing to sue? How much will it cost them to fight merely to establish that they do have legal standing?

Our town fathers know how to drag out legal proceedings in as long and costly a manner as possible.

Once they have established their right to sue in our "open space" case the poor plaintiffs will be forced to spend a huge sum to continue their fight in court. Who will have the commitment and the money to do this?

We know that all that is required to protect open space is the passage of a simple resolution by the town board dedicating the land as parkland. Why isn't St. Lawrence and his rubber-stamp board willing to do this? This is very very strange.

Robert I. Rhodes
Suffern

The full text of today's Journal News editorial, "Belts and Suspenders," can be read here.