Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Election aftermath
This past Election Day, politics were brought down to the very local level as voters selected those who will govern our towns and impact our lives in a very direct way. Here in Columbia County, residents selected not only those who will represent us on a town level, but those who will govern our county as a whole.
Since April 2008, county residents have been bombarded with the plans to purchase the old Ockawamick school building, move the Department of Social Services and other county agencies out to Philmont, and the idea to move Pine Haven, the county’s skilled nursing facility, to Valatie.
Over the course of several months, there has been an outpouring of opposition to these proposals. The magnitude of the community’s involvement was impressive and something that we have not seen in quite some time. It didn’t matter to people that they didn’t live in the areas affected, nor did it matter that they did not utilize the services by the affected county agencies. What mattered was that the protesters saw an injustice and let their elected officials know how they felt. Forums were held, meetings were attended and letters to the politicians and this newspaper were written.
And it seemed that all the efforts were for naught. However, the Pine Haven subcommittee made the recommendation to build at the present location.
But, Ockawamick was still purchased. There is still no definite word as to what agencies will be moving out to the building. We can’t help but think that the decision has been made and the “powers that be” held off announcing until after the election as a way to not cost any of the incumbents’ votes. Well, that didn’t work.
Doug McGivney, longtime Kinderhook supervisor is out. So is Livingston Supervisor Phil Williams. George Jahn was bested in Austerlitz, as was Tom Dias in Ancram. Claverack Supervisor Jim Keegan is dangerously close to being unseated.
But did the incumbent supervisors lose because of town issues or county issues? If you listen to Board of Supervisors Chairman Art Baer, you would say county issues were not to blame. “In a lot of the towns, I think, decisions were made on local issues and the county issues didn’t play a role at all,” he said, adding that in towns where major issues were most important, like Claverack regarding Pine Haven and Ockawamick, county issues probably played more of a crucial role.
C’mon! Really? Either Baer is at best naive and at worst arrogant and completely blind to the fact that people are unhappy with the direction the county is taking under his leadership. The chairman better realize that issues like Pine Haven and Ockawamick are local — no matter what town you reside in. We, as county taxpayers, will be paying for Ockawamick. We, as county residents, would like the option to have a Pine Haven in our midst.
Every election season it is often repeated that if you don’t like what your elected official has done during their past tenure, vote someone new in. It appears the voters of Columbia County have done just that. It would have been interesting to see the results if Baer was up for re-election along with his supportive cast of supervisors.
Since April 2008, county residents have been bombarded with the plans to purchase the old Ockawamick school building, move the Department of Social Services and other county agencies out to Philmont, and the idea to move Pine Haven, the county’s skilled nursing facility, to Valatie.
Over the course of several months, there has been an outpouring of opposition to these proposals. The magnitude of the community’s involvement was impressive and something that we have not seen in quite some time. It didn’t matter to people that they didn’t live in the areas affected, nor did it matter that they did not utilize the services by the affected county agencies. What mattered was that the protesters saw an injustice and let their elected officials know how they felt. Forums were held, meetings were attended and letters to the politicians and this newspaper were written.
And it seemed that all the efforts were for naught. However, the Pine Haven subcommittee made the recommendation to build at the present location.
But, Ockawamick was still purchased. There is still no definite word as to what agencies will be moving out to the building. We can’t help but think that the decision has been made and the “powers that be” held off announcing until after the election as a way to not cost any of the incumbents’ votes. Well, that didn’t work.
Doug McGivney, longtime Kinderhook supervisor is out. So is Livingston Supervisor Phil Williams. George Jahn was bested in Austerlitz, as was Tom Dias in Ancram. Claverack Supervisor Jim Keegan is dangerously close to being unseated.
But did the incumbent supervisors lose because of town issues or county issues? If you listen to Board of Supervisors Chairman Art Baer, you would say county issues were not to blame. “In a lot of the towns, I think, decisions were made on local issues and the county issues didn’t play a role at all,” he said, adding that in towns where major issues were most important, like Claverack regarding Pine Haven and Ockawamick, county issues probably played more of a crucial role.
C’mon! Really? Either Baer is at best naive and at worst arrogant and completely blind to the fact that people are unhappy with the direction the county is taking under his leadership. The chairman better realize that issues like Pine Haven and Ockawamick are local — no matter what town you reside in. We, as county taxpayers, will be paying for Ockawamick. We, as county residents, would like the option to have a Pine Haven in our midst.
Every election season it is often repeated that if you don’t like what your elected official has done during their past tenure, vote someone new in. It appears the voters of Columbia County have done just that. It would have been interesting to see the results if Baer was up for re-election along with his supportive cast of supervisors.
Share this Article
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
phl1m wrote on Nov 10, 2009 8:21 AM:
" You almost forgot the cherry on top...the plan to purchase the St. Charles hotel (when there is a desperate need for hotel beds in the county) in Hudson and convert it to a DSS Satellite office. "
Really? wrote on Nov 10, 2009 10:52 AM:
" The proverbial Monday morning political quarter backing, searching for the rationale for the results of the recent local elections, is currently underway. This newspaper has just published an editorial and several articles focusing on whether local or county issues are to "blame" for the election losses of some incumbent supervisors. Predictably, Board of Supervisors Chairman Art Baer [R] publically stated that county issues were not to blame whereas, and just as predictably, Hudson Fourth Ward Supervisor William Hughes [D] publically stated that incumbent losses represented the voters' rejection of any supervisor who agreed with Chairman Art Baer on certain County issues (i.e., proposed DSS and Pine Haven moves).
I am struck by the simplistic scope of this "local vs county" political reporting and/or analysis. The current structure of the County government - with a Board of Supervisors as opposed to a County Legislature – necessarily blurs the local vs county issue lines. Was the proposed move of Pine Haven to Valatie /Town of Kinderhook a local or a county issue for Valatie/Kinderhook or Philmont/Claverack voters? Art Baer's and Bill Hughes' respective comments, as reported, regarding the purported motivations of the voters appear simplistic to the point of insult as well as politically self-serving.
In the absence of reliable polling, voter motivation will always remain a mystery. So, why the incessant focus on unanswerable questions? What other potential factors could have contributed to the incumbent supervisor losses? In the first instance, should all incumbent losses be grouped together for analysis? Focusing on the Town of Kinderhook, perhaps the Register Star would better serve its readers by examining other possibilities that could have contributed to the greatest Democratic loss at the County level:
Campaign funding disparity between Democrats and Republicans?
What level of support (in money and manpower) did each campaign receive from its respective political party at the County and State level?
What party did a better job at getting out the vote?
What party was better organized?
Did Democratic voter disinterest in this off-year election contribute to the ouster of the long-standing Democratic Supervisor?
What impact did the economy and other national issues play?
Whether Republican gains in the County, and in Kinderhook in particular, evidence a significant fund-raising and organizational advantage that sets the stage for further Republican gains in next year's cycle?
The above thoughts/questions only begin to scratch the surface of some of the issues that deserve a closer look. There may never be a decisive rationale for the election results, but at least your readers deserve more thoughtful analysis than this bogus "local vs county" issue dichotomy. "
I am struck by the simplistic scope of this "local vs county" political reporting and/or analysis. The current structure of the County government - with a Board of Supervisors as opposed to a County Legislature – necessarily blurs the local vs county issue lines. Was the proposed move of Pine Haven to Valatie /Town of Kinderhook a local or a county issue for Valatie/Kinderhook or Philmont/Claverack voters? Art Baer's and Bill Hughes' respective comments, as reported, regarding the purported motivations of the voters appear simplistic to the point of insult as well as politically self-serving.
In the absence of reliable polling, voter motivation will always remain a mystery. So, why the incessant focus on unanswerable questions? What other potential factors could have contributed to the incumbent supervisor losses? In the first instance, should all incumbent losses be grouped together for analysis? Focusing on the Town of Kinderhook, perhaps the Register Star would better serve its readers by examining other possibilities that could have contributed to the greatest Democratic loss at the County level:
Campaign funding disparity between Democrats and Republicans?
What level of support (in money and manpower) did each campaign receive from its respective political party at the County and State level?
What party did a better job at getting out the vote?
What party was better organized?
Did Democratic voter disinterest in this off-year election contribute to the ouster of the long-standing Democratic Supervisor?
What impact did the economy and other national issues play?
Whether Republican gains in the County, and in Kinderhook in particular, evidence a significant fund-raising and organizational advantage that sets the stage for further Republican gains in next year's cycle?
The above thoughts/questions only begin to scratch the surface of some of the issues that deserve a closer look. There may never be a decisive rationale for the election results, but at least your readers deserve more thoughtful analysis than this bogus "local vs county" issue dichotomy. "
JfromKinderhook wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:33 AM:
" What happens in Columbia County happens to each and every Columbia County town. The form of government has nothing to do with it. If we had a county legislature, and it made the same wrong decisions on Ockawamick, DSS, the nursing home, and the nine million dollar fiasco, voters in each town would have then voted outthe legislator from their town. The point is that we voted on issues made at the county level that effected our towns. Regarding the question of Art Baer being voted in or out if he were up for reelection the answer would have been a resounding yes, regardless if he chaired the County Legislature or the Board of Supervisors. "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
stonepound wrote on Nov 10, 2009 7:12 AM: