The taxpayers' double whammy

Apparently, taxpayers in the village of Potsdam are OK with suing themselves. That's the only conclusion you could draw from the lack of uproar over the village Board of Trustees' decision to sue the town of Potsdam over the annexation – or rather, the lack of annexation to this point – of a parcel of land owned by James M. Snell on the village's northern boundary.

The Snell annexation issue has been going on for what seems like decades, although it is only 18 months. The parcel in question, all 5.8 acres of it, has a medical office, nine apartments and some undeveloped land, and connects to the village along another property's back boundary. There are a number of businesses between the property and the village boundary on Route 56.

The village has supported Mr. Snell's request for annexation as a way to enhance its tax base. Mr. Snell wants annexation to get access to public sewer and water services. The Town Council is resisting the annexation because, its members have said, continuing to annex property into the village, as has been common along Route 56, pretty much precludes the town from business development.

So, after three failed attempts, the Board of Trustees is taking the town to court. Keep in mind that every village resident and property owner is also a resident and property owner of the town of Potsdam. Keep in mind, likewise, that legal expenses are a whole-town expense under the town's budget. So, property owners in the village of Potsdam are paying to sue themselves as property owners of the town of Potsdam, AND, if that weren't enough, paying to defend the action by and against themselves.

This is the municipal equivalent of eating your young. While Mr. Snell has a reasonable interest in getting access to municipal services, it's tough to argue that his land is a natural fit in the village, given its backdoor connection. And, perhaps most importantly, this is the village that has formed a committee to study whether dissolution of the village is a step that should be pursued.

Should any village that could be facing a dissolution vote sooner rather than later, a village that has an adamant pro-dissolution trustee elected on that platform, really be expanding? If the village does dissolve and the town forms a water and sewer district out of the existing municipal utilities, adding Mr. Snell or anyone else would be a matter of a simple Town Council vote.

And, really, isn't anyone in Potsdam sick of the sniping between town and village government? The village's decision to make the town pay to defend itself in court, when viewed in the historic panorama of town-village relations, appears to be petty and not a little punitive. These two boards who share taxpayers can't even sit down and talk about shared court services and facilities. The annexation of the Snell parcel appears to be, on many levels, a continuation of the bad blood between two elected boards. It's truly a shame that the taxpayers – especially village taxpayers – have to foot the bill for this pettiness.