The good news, the bad news

in

To The Editor,
Regarding, “Mayor takes blame for ‘aqua berm’ OK,” the article covered three issues; the approval of the ‘aqua berm,’ an announcement of a project for a ‘Bulkhead Berm,’ and the longterm concern about Freshtown’s and the village’s future.

The “aqua berm” is a moot issue, but the background behind the decision highlights the inadequacy of the current village administration’s decision-making procedures; failure to share information, to seek options, and work for consensus. It shows poor understanding of their responsibilities, both in failing to meet their obligations and overstepping their authority. As for the third issue in the article, these administration problems do not bode well for the future of Freshtown or the village.

The announcement of a pending “Bulkhead berm” project is either grossly overstated or another product of the “Mushroom Factory.” It is not consistent with information reported at the monthly Flood Commission meetings. The good news is that the administration has finally conceded that the repair and extension of the bulkhead along the west shore of the East Branch of the Delaware River is necessary. Their eight-year refusal to do so was the root cause of the “water-related controversy.” The bad news is that if there is any real project development work being done, they apparently are following the same pattern that resulted in three previous aborted attempts.
Since the village office is aware that I will be running for mayor in March, your readers should consider the possibility that the article is a public relations attempt of damage control for something that was already public knowledge, and to take credit for a project that may evaporate after election.

Lauren Davis,
Margaretville