frenemies can do awesome things too

Jason West’s 100 Ideas for New Paltz: YES.

Kudos, kiddo.

22 Responses to “frenemies can do awesome things too”

  1. Jason West

    Thanks. If you have thoughts on fleshing any of these out, or shifting the focus, or links that should be there, let me know. i don’t have anything animal-rights related, because the only thing I thought of that can be done on the government side I already did – banning trapping in the village

      • Jason West

        that is a good one, but doesn’t one alread exist somewhere?

      • lagusta

        Hmm, I feel I should know this, and am ashamed I don’t. I’ll see if any Greens know. I haven’t seen any fliers or heard anything for such a thing, but now I’m really curious.

  2. brittany

    i have ALWAYS loved the goats idea!!! i was just telling someone about it the other day… it makes me feel very, very, very snuggly.

    unification is notably absent, but there’s like a million more ideas to add, so i’ll give him time before getting myself into a tizzy.

    • Jason West

      Feel free to get a goat herd going in Sacramento — I’m sure if you just brought them to the park, it would be a good PR stunt to get the city to do it.

      • brittany

        First I have to figure out if we have poison ivy? We’ve got lots and lots and lots of parks, maintained in the perfectionest Cali way… I should look into the pesticides thing, though…

  3. brittany

    *i don’t consider the city option on #74 unification. it isn’t feasible and probably isn’t the best option for our community. but i respect that his thinking seems to be coming around on the issue regardless – jason has been a pretty staunch opponent to unification in any form previously.

    • Jason West

      For my money, creating a city is the only unification schema that would actually have financial and organizational benefits that justify the expense and effort. That’s why unification per se isn’t on the list — I’m just not convinced that’s it a good idea.

      • lagusta

        What about the idea to expand the village, as apparently villages have more wiggle room under the law than towns and cities? Though Patrick O’Donnell said at our last GP meeting that now NYS is making villages less…um…I don’t know what the word would be—free? Have less autonomy, I guess that’s what I mean.

      • Jason West

        I very much doubt that NYS is making villages less autonomous. There as a report recently about how to consolidate governments released by the AG, and there is some grant money available for studies in consolidation, but for my money, consolidation is undemocratic. I base that on the principle that the smaller the unit of government, the more democratic.

        It takes about 500 votes in a standard village election to win. It’s about 1500 for a Town election. The Democrats are the only party in new paltz that can get 1500 votes at this point, so eliminting the village is eliminating a whole suite of offices that independents and small parties can win

      • lagusta

        OK, our notes from his visit say that he said that NYS is trying to abolish villages. I unfortunately don’t have any specifics, but maybe I’ll ask him for more. FYI, the official NPGP position on unification is to work to unify the the ENCCs, the Building Depts., and Planning Boards, then move forward as a study recommends.

        I agree that it seems like it’s undemocratic because smaller is better, but it just seems so inefficient to have so much bureaucracy in so many instances. And if we had proportional representation smaller parties would have more a fair shot at getting elected anyway, right?

      • brittany

        First, I’m with Jason – I think POD is way off base on that claim and while I haven’t been as attentive to the issue in the past few months, everything I’ve seen is to the contrary. It’s probably some hogwash he’s regurgitating from Terry.

        Second, I’m with Lagusta – while smaller governments generally lend themselves, in theory, to greater accessibility, that obviously isn’t the case in our existing governments. It also doesn’t negate the fact that governments structured properly (i.e. a large board elected proportionally and/or using IRV) would fit the traditional model of big government/little impact. I think it would actually be a hell of a lot better than the “small” governments we are currently dealing with, as well as being better than those traditional “big” governments.

        So, basically, I’m with everyone.

  4. brittany

    also i don’t like #83 at all (districts in town elections), and on #84 it sounds like he’s talking about proportional representation… so shouldn’t we just call it proportional representation?

    • Jason West

      it’s still proportional representation even if I didn’t use that phrase.

      • Jason West

        It wasn’t a conscious decision — I was trying to briefly explain the concept, and titled it in a way i thought was more descriptive than “proportional representation” which sounds dull. i think i linked to some PR sites, and maybe i can throw a line in there saying omething like ;this is called PR”

  5. lagusta

    I left a comment on #15 (replace the village hall lot with downtown-type development), but it didn’t seem to show up, so here it is:
    “YES. This seems like it would solve about 50 problems in one. Add some good green housing and affordable business spaces that are not ugly (I’d like one cheap commercial kitchen please! Retail space not necessary!), maybe even a grocery store—not a supermarket, a grocery store—and you’ve got yourself a real liveable downtown. Cute and well-done and dense and better for the environment and affordable and everyone will whine and bitch but it’s for the best and it’s what we need in order to preserve open space and, well, everything we love about NP.”

  6. lagusta

    OK, I’ve only read up to about #40 and skimmed the rest quickly for more of a read later, but I’m super impressed by this. I haven’t seen anything I’ve hardcore disagreed with, and it’s totally sappy but I’m so proud to live in a town that is even talking about most of these things. If half of them come to pass in my lifetime I’d be so proud and happy, and I look forward to putting good energies and hard work out on their behalf. ABOLISH CORPORATE PERSONHOOD, YO!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

%d bloggers like this: