Committees debunked

To the editor,

Larry Wilson poses his usual "what do you think" rhetorical question at the end of his comments on the land-use planning committee. Usually I resist the bait, but this time he hooked me when he asks a real question regarding how the committee could be more balanced.

For openers, balancing the committee would require re-evaluating how the committee is formed and from what sources its members are derived. The North Fork Preservation Association is comprised of members who are devoted to doing exactly what the association's title suggests: Preserve. The basic tenets of the NFPA are to maintain the status quo, resist change and even roll back the clock on inevitable change.

Opposition to significant North Fork Road improvements, primarily any paving, and a resistance to any Forest Service attempts to initiate forest-fuel reduction efforts designed to minimize the intensity of forest fires are key goals. The land-use planning concepts of this association would seem to be "Keep it Wild!", "Let it Burn!", keep undefined others out, preserve what current residents and landowners have, and prevent anyone else except recreational users from enjoying the North Fork.

NFPA members would never admit to this, but in reality they are not in favor of land use except on their narrow terms. A good motto for the NFPA would be: "We've got ours, good luck trying to get yours."

The North Fork Improvement Association is an association with a misnomer. It's hybridized with NFPA members. It is a struggle to come up with anything the NFIA has improved with the exception of the building in which it meets.

The NFIA takes no position on North Fork Road improvements or efforts to pressure the Forest Service to manage the forests in the interests of all citizens rather than the special interests of extreme environmentalists. The issues are "too political." The NFIA has no credible record of bringing even basic improvements to the lives of people living in the North Fork.

The NFIA is opposed to a school because it would encourage people to reside full-time on their property. Clearly an anti-progressive stance. The issue of at least a seasonal trash disposal site is also opposed. It would "attract bears" and "not conform to the North Fork image" are the lame excuses.

The North Fork Compact survived a near-death experience to be reconstituted. This group is comprised of the heirs of old North Fork aristocracy and affluent new landowners. The sons and daughters of the 'auld' sod have teamed up with the newly rich to preserve, to protect and to defend. I'm not quite sure what progressive issues they promote, if any, but from looking at the makeup of its board of directors, I don't expect to see anything as wild as promoting the basic amenities of 21st century life.

Most of these folks, especially the nouveau riche, just buy a Hummer to overcome the poor road conditions and install massive sprinkler systems and buy small fire engines to protect their wilderness estates. Their motto could be, "Let them eat cake, or road dust, or whatever."

The boards of directors from these three groups appoint nearly all members of the land-use planning committee. It doesn't require a Ph.D. in sociology to figure out where land-use policies in the North Fork are headed.

I supported the land-use planning initiatives that lead to zoning rules, which would marginally improve and yet preserve the quality of life here in the North Fork. I did so in the hope that the preservationists would be appeased with some reasonable restrictions and would then support road and other improvements.

Unfortunately, I sense the same forces will be at work to limit, prevent and preserve. The North Fork land-use plan will, more than likely, contain ambiguous and regressive wording designed to react negatively to change. It will be interesting to see what develops.

R. A. Grimaldi

Polebridge