Greetings, everyone. Are we on, Nancy?
Yes? Okay.
Welcome to our town board meeting tonight.
A lot of people here. I think we've used up all the chairs we can, but please make yourselves
comfortable. And I hope you'll get copies of the resolution, which I'm willing to guess
is the topic of high interest tonight, which is on the back table. If you would join us,
Next we start every meeting, excuse me, with a Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic for which
today, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.
Thank you, everyone, for coming to our meeting tonight.
I have one announcement to make.
We're inviting everyone to the Delaware Ave Complete Streets public meeting.
This will be Thursday, February 16th, right here at Town Hall, 6 to 8 p.m.
Delaware Ave. Complete Streets is a study of the section of Delaware from Ellesmere,
basically, to the line of the city of Albany.
It involves ways to improve transportation on that corridor, including automobiles,
mass transit, also bicycles and pedestrians, how we can best solve all those needs.
It's something we're doing in concert with the Capital District Transportation Committee.
but we'd really like a lot of input, so I hope you get a chance to come to that meeting.
If you want to learn more about it, there's some material on our website.
You can go to community news and get to it from there.
Any other announcements from members of the board?
Okay, so the first thing we do is every meeting is public comments
and being that we have a rather large crowd tonight,
most of whom I expect are going to want to talk about agenda item number one,
consideration of a resolution affirming Bethlehem's practices with regard to citizenship, immigration,
and protecting against threats or violence targeting national origin, race, religion,
or citizenship.
That resolution and several related memorandum are on the back table.
I hope we still have copies, so I hope you get a chance to look at that.
So what I'm going to ask first, if we could, is there anyone who would like to
address the board on a topic other than that, and you would get to come up first.
Good evening. I would like to address open space planning, totally unrelated to what
the majority of people are here. We are ruled by a republic form of government in which the
Constitution guarantees certain individual rights, which elected officials are sworn
to uphold so that the minority is not completely overridden by the majority.
Once again, the town is hiring a consulting firm to make land use decisions which
significantly affect those individuals who own larger tracks of land within the town.
Well let's review how the last few consultants the town has hired fared for the rural land
owners in this town.
Saratoga Associates was hired to draw up a comprehensive plan that was to guide development
within the town.
In verbiage the plan was to utilize flexible land use regulations and creative land development
techniques to retain the economic value of rural land.
At that time, on many occasions, we ask that the town not just take this plan as written,
but to make it specific to our town. As many of the supposed smart growth principles,
we're not applicable to the more rural parts of town. But of course the consultants are the experts,
and what do we know of land use just because our livelihoods depend on being good stewards of the land?
So we fought for every opportunity to be able to retain the economic value of our rural lands,
only to have the town board recently vote to limit everyone in rural light industry
in order to stop one apartment complex being proposed in the town.
The irony, of course, is that this multi-use and multi-family housing options
were proposed by Saratoga Associates as smart growth in our comprehensive plan
in an effort to keep our town from being overdeveloped with single-family homes.
Next, VHAN & Associates was hired to work with the Citizens Advisory Committee on Conservation.
There are documents on the town's website and it's called
recommendations on open space needs and opportunities, and it lays out the next approaches for open
space planning, including short, medium, and long-term goals.
This document says, as a result of evaluating the issues, needs, and opportunities surrounding
open space, it is clear that in the case of Bethlehem, voluntary cooperation from those
who control the open space resources will be necessary if the town is to preserve
an open space system of any substance.
Essential premise of this report is that implementation of the town's open space preservation program must occur in the context of voluntary participation by willing landowners.
The irony here is that the objectives dealing with the rights of the landowners and their issues relating to retaining the land is open are clearly the ones that have not been approached by the town.
The next consultants hired by the town were from American Farmland Trust.
They also produced a document that can be found on the town's website titled
Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan. Its executive summary states
this plan is to encourage the continuance of town's semi-rural
setting. This plan presents several goals and recommendations for the protection
of agriculture and farmland. The term protection should be perceived as
an opportunity to support agriculture as a business, and on a voluntary basis
is protect farmland as a land use in the community.
I have concluded below a list of the recommendations.
The irony is that very few of these recommendations
have been implemented.
The town likes to think that it is friendly to agriculture,
and indeed I think the idea of having picturesque farms
within the town is appealing to most,
but letting loose on land use controls
and allowing additional complementary uses and flexibility
so that agricultural business can actually be profitable
and survive is not something the town is comfortable with.
The cumbersome system of approvals for any additional land use results in rural lands
are being put up for sale, as we have seen with several large parcels within the town
the past few years.
The town would like the idea of quaint farming without the dirty sights, smells, or sounds
of agriculture, so stepping up to implement these recommendations has not been a priority.
The most recent consultant hired by the town was to reassess the values of properties
within the town, particularly larger parcels which the town felt were significantly
undervalued.
I'm sure you remember the fiasco. That was for, in particular, agricultural lands.
It's consultants value them based on lands in Skahari County, one of the most fertile soils in the country,
and Saratoga with its affluent horse farms. This all resulted in a significant amount of work for rural landowners
to have to find suitable comparable sales to give a realistic agricultural comparison.
I am sure you noted the increased amount of logging done on parcels around the town
in an effort to pay these increased tax birds, as well as several property owners
being forced to re-evaluate whether to keep these parcels was cost effective, hence several
being sold and the owners relocating to other towns.
So based on our...
I'm sorry, we're a little short for time, but we have a lot...
Okay, I'm almost done.
Okay.
Yeah.
So based on our prior experience, as you can see how the prospect of our tax dollars
going to get another open space expert is not appealing.
This town has basically taken the approach that come hell or high water, we will
have an open space plan, so much for willing landowners.
The town hasn't even satisfied the goals of the previous documents, but since there's
the desire for more control of the remaining lands, we are once again embarking on forwarding
on an agenda for citizens who want more open space being put ahead of the needs or rights
of actual citizens paying taxes on the open space. Our reticence of partnering with the
town and any type of open space preservation is that the rules of the partnership are
always controlled by the town. They are only too quick to change the rules at
their will. Just look at the definition of a land division. This change puts
additional costs on, instead of being able to do four GLAND divisions all in one year,
they have been now spread out over 10 years, so you can only do one per year.
So this brings us back to the introduction, and that is elected officials, that is your
duty in our republic to protect the rights of the individuals who are in the minority
from being overrun by the desires of the majority.
As was noted in the media last night, the town representatives plan to stand up
for the immigrants and refugees of this town, because sometimes, and I paraphrase
Mr. Clarkson, you just have to stand up for what is right.
So that is what we ask of you. Stand up for our rights.
Thank you. Could you e-mail us? We didn't get a chance to.
We will try to get to any questions of that as they come up.
There are a tremendous number of people here who I'm sure want to be heard on the resolution issue.
Anyone else with other issues to discuss with the board?
However, I'm going to have to hold you to one to two minutes, if you could.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is David Hostick, and I'm the managing partner of Normanside Country Club.
I come here tonight because we're going on 22 months since the landslide of the
Normanskill that happened on our property.
John, you went on record saying that you felt confident,
attorneys and insurers felt confident that the town would prevail if lawsuits
were ever brought.
I know the majority of the board members here were not on the board when the
landslide happened and may not be privy to all the information regarding it, but the town
has now lost three motions in lawsuits regarding the landslide.
So my question is, when, as you claim that we were going to do, are we going to sit
down and work together to find a solution?
Because I am personally tired of wasting my money, and I would assume you'd be tired
of wasting the towns as well.
Mr. Hostic, just to be clear, those were motions for summary judgment.
the court said there are issues of fact that have to be determined.
Town remains confident that it ultimately is going to prevail in these lawsuits.
Now, in terms of trying to work out a solution, not more than a month ago,
I was speaking to your attorney about whether we could find a way to move things along.
I'm still waiting to hear back from him.
I know these are not easy way things to resolve, but there is an open dialogue.
Okay. I would not consider it open, but we can go for that.
Thank you.
Good luck.
Anyone else with other issues other than the resolution tonight?
Okay. So we want to hear from you all, or all who want to speak, but seeing the large
number of people, we are going to have to put very tight time constraints on it.
We can't be here forever.
So I want to give you the general rules.
We can hear you for up to one to two minutes.
I know it's a short amount of time, but think what you most want to tell the board.
Tell us your name, where you live.
If you're representing a group or organization, that's fine too.
And this is an opportunity to give us your general views on this issue, but it's not
a question and answer back and forth.
If you do have a question or someone want to raise, just say it.
We'll write it down.
We'll try and get it to get there, but we can't go back and forth during this
period.
So, and also just because it helps, because sometimes people tell us, you know,
are you for or against the resolution of what you think, or if you'd like it changed.
Give us a brief message.
So, with that as introduction, and I don't enjoy being the timekeeper,
but I will remind you if you're running over, please,
whoever would like to address the board, come up, approach the microphone,
tell us your name and where you live, and any other information.
And just make sure to speak clearly into the microphone. We were getting feedback
earlier that not all of our messages are being recorded.
Joshua Shulman, Marcus Del Mar.
I was one of the citizens who contacted the town
board advocating for a statement regarding refugees and immigrants.
I want to praise the board and the police department for taking up this issue
thoughtfully. I fully support tonight's proposed resolution. I think the
resolution strongly affirms the spirit and core principles we want in Bethlehem.
I hope it serves as an inspiration to others.
Thank you.
John Flanagan, I live in Selkirk 33 Peel Street.
I'm giving you my information.
I wish we were able to get information from illegal immigrants that are going to be coming here.
What does sanctuary city town mean for Bethlehem?
What do we expect from this?
We all have constitutional rights here, yet they don't.
And we're being discriminated against.
If I get pulled over, I don't have my license with me, I get ticketed.
Why can't we ask them?
I have apartments.
Am I going to be in trouble if I ask somebody who wants to rent my apartment?
Any information where they're from so I can do a background check?
Am I going to be against the town rules?
Are we going to get rid of the code enforcer?
Why do we have laws?
This is a federal law.
Is this board going to be on record of saying that they defy federal law?
How about the police department?
Are they on record saying that they are going to defy the federal law?
Are they going to be ignoring their oath to serve and protect all of us?
There's a lot of questions here.
Who's paying for this?
On the news last night, they said that there's going to be a big welcome sign in Bethlehem.
But welcome to our schools that we're going to pay for, draining the resources, rents we're
going to be paying for.
Why are we always being under attack here?
I really think this board really should look into this much deeper, listen to the constituents
behind you.
You work for us and to unilaterally go about and say we're going to make this a
sanctuary town is a slap in the face to everybody in here that holds constitutional rights.
Thank you.
And we will try to address all those questions that we want to hear from people first.
My name is Harriet Jeffey.
I'm a Bethlehem resident for 20 years and I'm in favor of the resolution.
Thank you.
Hi.
My name is Kristen Locas.
I'm a resident of Delmar.
And I would like to say that this resolution makes me proud to be a resident of Del Mar.
Dan Locas-Rain, resident of Del Mar, and just as speaking as a private citizen tonight,
I want to thank Supervisor Clarkson and the board members for bringing this resolution forward,
and very, like my wife, I'm proud to be a Bethlehem resident when these kind of resolutions bring
forward. We're a nation of immigrants. We're a community, a diverse community that needs
to be welcoming and accepting, and strongly in favor of the resolution, and as I read
in the Supervisor Clarkson's memo, it's not asking the town employees or police department
or anybody to do anything illegal.
So I certainly support it widely.
Thank you.
My name is Mary Baker.
I'm a town resident.
I am supportive of the resolution.
It makes perfect sense and it doesn't really change anything that we're doing.
It's just affirming that the rights of all people is important and vital.
Thank you.
All right.
My name is Bob Egan.
I live in Hamlin of Selkirk.
And I'm against the resolution I've heard today and read in the paper yesterday that
this is not a change to what's going on currently, but if it's not a change, why make it a public
resolution?
The public resolution has the effect of putting a shingle on the town's city limits,
the town limits saying, come in.
And so if Gildland doesn't do it or Voriceville or Revena,
those illegals are going to come from those towns
because they're going to feel more comfortable here.
The effect on our property values,
and maybe even worse, the personal effects
of some of these illegals or criminals,
is going to be devastating.
And the presidents will have no recourse
if their property values or other harm comes their way.
At least I'm not aware I'm not a lawyer,
but I don't know that we would have any recourse.
So my concern is about my property.
If we have to do this, maybe do it a year,
five, ten years out so some of us can sell our homes before this takes effect, but it's
kind of been sprung on us and we haven't had opportunity to play in for it and I think
that that's difficult for us residents.
Thank you.
I'm Carol Northrup and my family's been here since 1926.
My grandparents came in the legal way.
They came in with the process that's in place.
You do have stuff up a little.
Sorry.
Just get closer to the microphone.
Okay.
So I'm asking why – I'm not against this resolution. Why this – why are you passing
this resolution? How does it benefit the town? Who is paying for this? Is our taxes going
up? As you know, we just went through, as the First Lady said, about the lands through
open space. There is already a procedure in place for immigrants coming into this
country. I've known many families that have gone through the process. It's not an easy
one, but it's one that's in place. So why violate the – and go on record – violating
the federal law? They can go through the channels like past immigrants and who's vetting the
undocumented immigrants in our town. What about helping our own town residents that
may need assistance.
What impact will this have on our community, our schools, and strange
entitlements? I really think the Board should really talk about this quite a bit more. And
if it's not going to change anything, then why make it a sanctuary city or community?
It's more harm than good.
Good.
Thank you.
Hi.
My name is Thomas Goodfellow, and I live on Brookside Drive in Del Mar, and I support the
resolution.
And I support it because I think it's a good idea for the town to go on record.
First of all, we're not violating any existing laws or statute.
And second of all, it shows that we are a humane community.
The federal government must give us a clear and humane plan for addressing illegal immigrants.
Until there is reform, we as a state, county or town should not be complicit in any ad hoc action
that disrupts families, interferes with normal law enforcement, that discourages the flow of legal immigration,
or that provides cover to a Congress and an executive who, quite frankly, I don't think
have any idea of what they're doing on this issue.
The resolution puts the county and the state and the federal government on notice that
that we need comprehensive, humane immigration reform.
It is long overdue.
Thank you.
I'm Dr. Robert Gordon from Slingerlands.
I support the resolution.
I think it's important that the town send a message that we support the ideals
that this country was founded upon.
And it's not a time to look at anyone's selfish interests or even to be paranoid about it.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Gary Fish.
I feel like I'm against this.
We are a nation of laws.
People coming here illegally are violating the law.
And yes, we are a nation of immigrants.
My relatives came here from Germany in 1832, but they did it legally.
Nobody is calling for mass deportations.
We want the policies followed.
And this seems like it's just following on the heels of San Francisco, a sanctuary city.
This appears like sanctuary light to me.
And San Francisco is in direct violation of federal law,
where they are allowing criminal immigrants out of prison and not notifying the proper
authorities that they are going to be cut loose into society. I'm for human rights,
but I'm also for rights of citizens of the country, and I don't feel that the town should
be making unilateral decisions relative to this proclamation. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Maureen Cunningham.
I'm a resident of Del Mar.
As I see this, I am in strong support of this resolution, and I do think it stands strongly
on American values.
I think this resolution is a continuation and an affirmation of what the Bethlehem Police
Department is already doing and doing their jobs well.
This is an affirmation of that, and I support the police department in that
effort.
I also support this resolution because it uses language directly from the New York State
Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, and you can find those guidance materials on his website.
I also want to mention that data suggests that when local law enforcement focuses on
community safety, rather than trying to get entangled in federal immigration efforts,
The data shows that communities are safer and people are more engaged in the local economy and that's what I want for this community of Bethlehem.
These policies, this resolution is based on common sense rather than on fear mongering and I thank the board for considering it. Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm Carmelo Triolo, and I live in Delmar, New York, and I'm here to oppose this proposal
as a daughter of an immigrant and a manual laborer.
I really think this is an economic issue, and people want to – there are people
people that want to keep access to a large pool of labor, labor pool, that are unable
to defend themselves and are open for exploitation. I think that there are people that want to
exploit these illegal immigrants and that the sanctuary proposals aid in this. As a
daughter of an immigrant, I remember my father telling me how he would be exploited by the
criminal element within the immigrant community. And I think a lot of people, they have very
kind, good, well-intentioned motives, but they're being used.
This is not good for immigrants. We need a change in the laws. That's true.
But we need to see that the laws are carried out, and we can't ignore what's happening in our community.
Bethlehem is on the – we know from prior experience that drug dealers use Bethlehem.
as to get to bring heroin and other drugs to Albany, Schenectady, and Pointes North.
And for our police to be told that they can't ask questions, they shouldn't use due diligence,
I mean, it's irresponsible to the communities around us.
And I was very surprised to hear that we're doing this.
I really think we're giving our police the wrong to make them fearful to ask questions,
to do due diligence. I really think, too, if someone is hurt in this community, if I find
out that some member of my family is hurt because the police did not do due diligence,
Well, now I have evidence that I really think the town will be liable.
Come on, I appreciate it. I'm afraid we're running.
We will have Commander Hornet here later.
Thank you, sir.
Don, I think you turned it off. You have to throw the switch up.
Push it toward the front.
Okay. Good evening.
My name is Donna Gilberto, and I'm a 20-year resident of Glenmont in the town of Bethlehem,
and I am in support of this resolution.
First, I would like to thank the town board and Supervisor Clarkson for proposing the resolution.
I understand that the process outlined in the resolution has already followed in the
town by the police department.
Some people would say, why do we need this resolution?
My response to that is codifying the intention to continue the process of non-discrimination
and welcoming refugees and immigrants to our town is worth the effort.
It's worth the effort so that future town boards will adhere to this policy.
Second, while this may seem like a small step to many, it is a huge statement.
Making sure that the welcome mat is firmly affixed in the town of Bethlehem encourages
unity and community spirit.
It says we are decent to others and that we care.
Many of us have been despondent since November and more so since January 20th.
This resolution identifies us as a sanctuary town and expresses our intention to protect
a population that is at risk because of the administration in Washington.
Third, this action follows the spirit of our governor, New York City Mayor de Blasio,
the mayor of Boston, and other mayors and municipal officials around the country in showing acceptance
and support for our refugee and immigrant brothers and sisters.
And lastly, I am proud, like so many others, to live in a town that has made a statement
of solidarity and unity.
Resistance begins with a small step and must be followed by love, acceptance and
continued acts of kindness.
The rest of the country is watching what you are doing here tonight.
So on behalf of my teenage daughter, I want to thank you.
And I support the adoption of the resolution before the board.
Thank you.
I'm Karen Harmon, and I live in the town of Glenmont.
I've been there over 25 years longer than I care to admit.
And I want to second everything that Donna said.
She was extremely elegant, went far more so than I can be.
And I really appreciate what the board is doing and John Clark said,
and I'm fully in support.
I work with undocumented immigrants every day in my capacity down at Family Court, and they're wonderful people who are just trying to have a chance.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Mitch Wies. I live in Glenmont, New York.
I'm not against refugees. I'm not against anybody coming into this country.
My family came in the 1870s from Germany. Like the other gentlemen said before me, they came here legally.
And I'm all about refugees coming here, but they need to be checked.
You know, I invite anyone here to invite them into their homes.
If they're so welcome, allow them into their homes.
I served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I served in Afghanistan and Iraq two years in my life.
I see what these people are capable of, and I don't want that in my town.
I don't want that with my 18-month-old child.
I don't want it.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
My name is Audrey Troy.
I live in Glenmont, but my mailing address is Selkirk, so it's New York State, what can
I say? But anyway, I fully agree with people that are against this. For all the reasons they
said, I've heard twice that we are a nation of immigrants. We are not a nation of immigrants.
were a nation of citizens.
So just having a bunch of immigrants here
does not a nation make.
Again, I agree with him.
I'm not against anybody's rights.
My grandparents, I believe,
or maybe my great-grandparents came here
as a result of the war in Germany,
and I think they turn over in their graves
if they could see what's happening.
I'm afraid to go to the Jewish Center.
I know it's not Delmar, but it's close enough, little kids, and I'm not saying, oh, well,
these people from these countries would do that. I'm just saying somebody's doing it,
and I fear for my grandchildren every single minute of every single day.
I also want to call attention to what I think is insightful wording that you've
I'd like you to keep it more objective when writing to the public.
This is your memo, Mr. Clarkson.
In the first paragraph, it says, other residents have asked if we would pass a resolution
or otherwise take incidents and threats,
steps in opposing the travel ban, executive order.
And, you know, that statistically doesn't make any sense to me.
I don't know what a lot of residents are, and I don't really care about their opinion
in something like this.
I don't know what other residents want to pass the resolution.
In the last sentence of the bottom paragraph, it says, I understand what the resolution
is about, but then it says, additionally, the New York State Attorney General has opined
that there is no authority for the aid withholding provisions of the executive order.
One, I looked up what the word opined means because I kind of knew, but I thought it had a little more meat to it.
It means it's his opinion, his general idea.
And I don't care whose general idea it is, what is the law.
and I'm asking you and the board here,
are you going to be fighting what our president is doing now?
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Gerard.
I live in Del Mar, actually right around the corner here.
And in reading over the resolution,
I found some things that were interesting,
and actually all the paperwork
that you provided for us tonight.
You said that citizenship and immigration status
were both legally protected statuses, went on and so I found that interesting.
I went on to the Department of Justice website and they are, but only in respects to hiring,
firing and things of employment. There is a forced stipulation that is actually protection
for citizens and that is when there's this specific discrimination against them to which
there are methods to file to have restitution or to have that corrected.
In other means, there is no legally protected status for illegal immigrants, and that's
actually my next point. Often you use the term undocumented. I looked up undocumented
and illegal immigration and turns out except for maybe a the, an at, or an in, they're
the same definition. So by definition all these people that you are allowing to
town are illegal, which brings me to my third and final point. You often said
that you, through the paperwork that you provided us, you said that you would
uphold federal, state, and local law. If this travel ban is passed through
through the Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit, whichever it may be, it will
become federal law. So you may pass it tonight, but next week, or six months from now, whenever
it may be, this knee-jerk reaction to the travel ban should be overturned if you are
actually true to your word in following up on federal law. It just seems a little knee-jerk
and possibly hypocritical in the future for this town to be, to do this sort of
thing, then either have to turn it over or be in violation of federal law later on.
Thank you.
Yes, hi.
My name is Jonathan Mitcalf.
I'm a graduate of the Bethlehem Central High School, grew up in this area.
My sister lives a couple of blocks away with her newborn, and that lets you know where
I'm going with this.
I guess I'm totally against it.
I'm strongly opposed to it.
I would say just what the gentleman just spoke up here.
If nothing more was said tonight, I think he pretty much said it.
It's unvetted illegal insanity. I would call it a Trojan horse.
And another thing I would say is those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
A law based on a lie is still a lie. That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
My name is Zachary Brash. I was born in South America.
I immigrated here when I was an infant, so I am a US citizen.
Right now, there are about 11 million undocumented immigrants.
And so no matter what side of the aisle you're on,
what I'd like to point out is they're already here.
You can support trying to deport them or whatever,
but as we know it, 3.5% of our population are legal immigrants.
And I think what this comes down to is it says, like, I don't think it's a bad idea to have them, you know, be able to help law enforcement.
This is designed to help law enforcement.
And my question to the people who are so opposed to this, would you rather an undocumented immigrant not report a crime or not prevent a crime?
So I want to conclude with, like, I support the resolution.
Thank you.
I live right here in Del Mar, and I'm against it.
Number one, one of the big issues is it's not legal.
It's illegal.
If a legal refugee comes in, I'll do anything I could to help them.
But you have to commit to the proper channels.
You commit illegally. Nobody knows your background.
You're undocumented. Who knows who you are?
And we all know from past experience that disasters that have happened in this country
in the past 20 years. I don't want them repeated, especially around here. Thank you.
Thank you.
My name is Marianne Wetchret and I've been a resident of Del Mar for 23 years. I totally
am against this proposal for a number of reasons. I fear for my safety. I fear when I go into
to a store among any place that I'm shopping and someone comes walking towards me. This
is just the way I am. I'm a little person. I'm a no-lady. When someone just walks towards
me with two eyes poking out through garb, whatever you want to call the address, I
don't know the proper name. Excuse me. I have the right to the mic at the weight.
Please, please, everyone, please, please let everyone let the person at the microphone
speak.
That is another rule, please.
You may not agree.
You may not like it, but please.
This is the United States of America.
We are all protected to speak here like anybody else.
I'm only speaking what I feel as a taxpayer.
I pledge my allegiance to the United States of America, no matter who the president is.
I respect my flag.
I respect anyone who comes into the United States of America legally.
I am an American citizen.
I was born in the United States.
My mother was born in the United States.
My father came here as an immigrant from Russia with his mother when he was an infant
and he came legally.
I have nothing against anyone who comes into this country legally, but please become
a United States citizen become an American. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Larry Atkals. I'm a resident, a Native New Yorker.
I lived out of the state for a while. I wouldn't know where to begin to answer some of the
misinformation that's been quoted here tonight. I was both astonished and overjoyed when
When I saw the resolution that came out,
I then – I'm a retired attorney, I was
a volunteer firefighter, and I was an emergency medical technician, and it never would have
occurred to me to ask someone whether they were legal or not legal before rendering
any kind of aid to them.
That would have been abhorrent to my purpose.
I think, in my opinion, that the resolution is perfectly legal.
I'll leave it up to the town attorney to make sure of that.
But I do, but I think some things that have been said about cost.
I don't see any cost in this.
You know, I've lived here for 15 years and haven't had any children in school,
but I've been paying school taxes to support other people's children.
And I've paying insurance through the state as a retired attorney.
I pay more than other people do who are also retired simply because of the way it's structured.
I mean, that's the nature of life in the United States.
We all help others and we support other people.
When I hear people lump everyone into those people, it really gets me off.
The facts are that there have been no events caused by any of the people subject to the
ban.
And the fact that there are people here in the United States with or without documentation
it's not their fault entirely.
They're trying to escape from a very bad place,
which all of our immigrant families did, legal or otherwise.
And the fact that the country let them in didn't stop them
and took no steps.
They shouldn't preclude this town from taking some action
to protect the people within its community,
and it has every right to do so.
So, one said something about learning from the past and condemned to repeat it, well,
I got that lesson back from my social studies teacher back in high school.
And, you know, sometimes there are lessons we forget because back before World War II
started, we didn't let them have been sent here.
We stopped them.
There was a boat full of Jews that wasn't allowed into this country or any other and
they died, and 6 million more died, and millions more of other people died, LGBT, and other
people because no one would raise a hand.
John Kennedy wrote a book called Profiles and Courage.
I haven't seen a lot of courage lately.
And I want to salute the board for taking this action, and I expect that there will
be many, many more towns and cities taking this action in their future.
Thank you.
Hello. My name is Sam Stewart. I am a 25-year resident of Glenmont. I've lived here my whole
life. I support this resolution. And I'm going to be honest with you. I haven't been to a
single-town meeting for as long as I have lived in this town. I didn't intend to come
today, but I saw something posted on Facebook about this meeting that was very frightening
to me. And I'm not going to read it if that person is here, but I know we all, we all love
our children. We all want the best lives for our children for ourselves, because we're
all decent people. Do not let fear destroy the decency that makes this country so fantastic.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Amy Griffin. I'm a 17-year homeowner in Del Mar, and I've got two
teenage daughters in the school district and I support this resolution and I
thank the board and the police department for bringing it forward. I'm
very proud to be a Bethlehem resident. And I love what that guy just said.
Good
evening my name is Jill Rifkin and America is my country.
The home that I love. And its symbol is the Statue of Liberty, on the bottom of which is written, as you all know,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door. How are some of these desperate refugees going to be allowed to get in legally from a country like Syria?
It could take years and most of them, the vast majority of them are perfectly decent kind people.
I tutor a refugee from Liberia who had to leave with a clothes on his back.
His wife didn't want to leave and she was murdered several years later.
He married again, but you couldn't ask for kinder, lovelier people, and I know others
as well.
I welcome the refugees, from everything I have read, they are no more likely to be criminals
than any of the rest of us or anyone else in this country, any other group.
I would be delighted to have them as my neighbors and I hope with all my heart that Bethlehem
becomes a sanctuary city and I thank Supervisor Clarkson and the Board for doing this.
Thank you, Kehle.
It took real courage.
Good evening.
My name is Tom Tryan.
I'm a resident of Slingerlands.
I want to put the politics and the emotions beside and just kind of some financial or
fiscal food for thought for the town board tonight. It's pretty obvious the executive
branch of the United States government is working to revamp the immigration system where
that will go. We have to wait and see. I do know that the executive branch is fairly
opposed to the idea of sanctuary cities, towns, states, what have you. I would just
ask the board to consider, financially, if the federal government were to cut funding
to designated sanctuary town cities, how that would affect the town.
I'm not asking to table this, I'm not asking to hold off.
I think human rights, amen, absolutely.
But perhaps maybe we should allow some more time to elapse before we make a decision
on designating ourselves as a sanctuary town.
You see what the executive government, the executive branch has to say
and where they move forward with that.
I think would be fairly detrimental to the town to lose federal funding.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Pam Skripak.
I live at 98 Salesbury Road in Del Mar.
I actually wanted to share with you a text I received today from a dear friend of mine,
now a dear friend.
He was a refugee asylum seeker from Iran.
He was a human rights activist there and journalist.
and was imprisoned, tortured, put into solitary confinement,
was able to escape Iran.
He actually went back to Iran hoping that the government there would be more reasonable
and it wasn't, and he was informed that he needed to leave quickly
and left within four days, left his apartment, his house, his job, his family, everything,
and arrived here and came to Bethlehem.
A group of amazing and wonderful members of this community took Daniel in
and helped him. And he is not here tonight because he's actually studying at Boston University
now in the School of Theology. He's looking to get his M.Div and become a Methodist minister.
And eventually hopes to go back to the Middle East and talk about what he's discovered
here about love and compassion in this country. But he did want to share his thoughts and
I want to read them to you. He says, this is Daniel Mohamed Zadeh. I'm a refugee
from Iran. I came to the U.S. about five years ago. I was hopeless and destroyed because
of the situation that forced me to leave my home. I came to Albany in a very long winter.
I had no family or friend. I had no job, network or savings. Even I could not speak English.
But a community changed the face of night for me. A community trusted me and accepted
me. The community, Bethlehem, gave me a warm welcome in a coldest moment of my life.
The community made the U.S. for me like my home.
They offered me their friendship and support.
They helped me to find a job. They offered me education.
They offered me a place to live when I couldn't afford a room.
They accepted me into their homes and at their tables.
Now I feel I'm at home.
I'm not far away from my family and friends anymore.
I'm not hopeless or destroyed anymore.
They provided a safe space for me to find myself again.
I ask myself every day how could I survive if the community didn't trust me,
didn't accept me, didn't support me, and I want to tell all Americans and all New Yorkers
who have helped me to survive and grow, thank you, for the outpouring of support.
I can't tell you how much better, unless alone it made me feel, to have your unconditional
support and love in the darkest moment of my life.
And I just want to say that while we have talked about this is not a change of protocol,
I do think the symbolism of adopting this resolution is critical and makes an
enormous difference to so many people who are suffering and not just this vulnerable
community. I think in light of the current political situation, there are many who feel
like vulnerable populations. And I think as a gesture, this lets those people know
we are with them. Thank you.
Thank you again.
Good evening. My name is Anna Campus. I've lived
in Dalmar for 41 years. And I would
like to offer a broader perspective. I returned from Athens, Greece, on January 28th, and after
spending two weeks there, and I arrived at Terminal 4 at JFK just when the protest for
the band was starting up, and I didn't realize until I got home what it was all about. But
it seemed, it struck me as very ironic because I had just spent the last two weeks volunteering
at an NGO, which is a non-governmental organization,
that specifically assists refugees from Syria
and Afghanistan and other countries.
We were teaching them English and Greek
because I happened to be bilingual.
And I just want to cut to the chase.
I never once felt fear working with these people.
I met children, women, and men.
And I made many friends.
So we know that the country of Greece is having a financial crisis,
but this is a humanitarian crisis within their economic crisis.
So they are really challenged right now.
They have 60,000 refugees from Syria that are stranded in the country,
but their population is 11 million.
That's less than 1%.
and they are somehow coping with this.
We have 85,000 refugees that come every year,
and we have a population of 300 million people.
And I think we can take a lesson from Greece.
The phrase Philaxonia is love of strangers.
I think they have something to teach us,
and I welcome the resolution.
I'm Leah Walsh, and I'm a resident of Del Mar
and a business owner here in town.
I own and operate Bluebird Montessori,
which is a Montessori school that serves
children ages two and a half to six.
And peace education is a pillar of Montessori education,
and we teach children to become citizens of the world.
My colleague, Rebecca and I, who is an E&L teacher,
are starting an initiative for immigrant families
to welcome a couple of families into our community
to give them a preschool education before entering into the public school education
to really help build this community and to give them this experience before starting into the public school system.
I fully support this proposition. I think it will make our community stronger.
Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Miguel Ortiz, and I feel like I have to qualify that in some way with regard to some of the folks here.
My father came from Spain, came through Ellis Island.
My mother was born in Arizona, Spanish parents.
And while I always like to say my folks came in the 20th century,
my people got here in 1492.
But I think I'm a little confused because I think there's two issues here.
People who are coming to the country without proper inspection.
I should add that I'm an attorney or a retired attorney for years.
They come through the country without proper inspection and I think that does not apply
to folks who are coming from the Middle East because they've already been granted visas.
In some cases those folks had green cards and had gone back to their country of origin
to visit family.
And when you have a green card, you have all the rights under the Constitution that
a native-born American citizen has.
And same thing with someone who's allowed to come into the country by the government.
On the other hand, I think there's also, I mean, there's this other issue about 11
million undocumented people in the country, and mostly of Hispanic origin.
And this problem goes back 30 years.
And if you recall when President Reagan was in office, he granted an amnesty to people
who were here without documentation.
A number of people became citizens, became residents.
Changed the law.
The law required that employers, they decided to impose what was called employer sanctions.
So if an employer, an American employer hired somebody who was here without documentation,
that employer could be fined and penalized in some manner.
But the employer, all they had to do to show that it complied with the law, was to look
at three pieces of information, like social security card, birth certificate, or something
of that sort, a lot of documents that are forged easily.
But what you had in the late, and some of you folks will remember, late 80s and
hotels, housing, and a lot of things were being built, and a lot of workers came in.
And employers were happy to have them. They were, in some instances, you know, got paid
less than a prevailing union wage, and they were also, as someone pointed out, a very
docile workforce because they could be threatened with deportation if they got out of a hand
or tried to do something, and in fact, there's a case that went to the United States Supreme
Court where an employer in Chicago did exactly that. His workers were organized in a union,
so he called in the Immigration and Nationalization Service, and many of them were taken out
of the plant, and the Supreme Court said, what he did was unlawful as a matter of
U.S. labor law because he, you know, used that information to deprive them of the
right to unionize. However, most of those workers, because they were undocumented, had
to leave the country. So there's been a number. This is not a new, this is a problem that's
been in the making for 30 years. And it's like anything else. If you have a leaky roof
and you don't take care of it for 30 years, the problem just magnifies and gets worse.
So I support this resolution. You're doing the right thing because folks who have come
here 30 years ago have had children who were born in the United States. They go
the churches that you go to, that your children go to schools with your children, you probably
know them, and you probably think they're good people.
In fact, many of them are.
They just want to work.
So I support the resolution, and I thank you for bringing it forward.
Thank you.
My name is William Stewart.
I'm from Selkirk, New York.
I just want to say something briefly.
I have a good friend of mine I work with.
He came to this country and he became a United States citizen and he worked hard and I honored him.
And I think that, you know, a lot of people are upset because of a lot of different things going on here.
But the thing is there's the right way and the wrong way of doing things.
And the right way is to get in line just like everybody else and do the right thing.
I mean, that's what we were supposed to be teaching our kids, doing the right thing.
And if we don't do the right thing, then everything is going to just explode on us, you know.
And I believe that this is a country of laws.
If I break the law, I don't get rewarded.
I get in trouble,
you know, and I feel that's wrong.
People out here, a lot of them, they just want people to do the right thing.
I mean my mother my my grandfather came from Spain my mother's main name was Martinez
So it's not like I'm just any anybody. I mean
My parents and my grandparents they came here a certain way, and they did it the right way
And we're just saying listen just do the right thing
It's the wall just I don't understand it
We're supposed to do the right thing in this country. We're not supposed to get rewarded for doing the wrong thing
That's why I think a lot of people are mad.
They're upset.
Let's just do the right thing.
Thank you.
My
name is Rebecca McElvain and I grew up here and chose Del Mar Trees, my own children
And I, too, want to-
I want to teach them what is right. And what is right is this resolution. I thank you, Supervisor
Clarkson. I thank the board and the Bethlehem Police Department. I am disturbed by some of
the rhetoric. I want to remind people that no human is illegal. And I also want to remind
people that a lot of these families are fleeing terrorism. And I think that our community
community is doing the right thing with this resolution, and I'm very, very proud to be
a longtime resident.
Thank you.
Hi.
My name is Meredith Moriarty.
I live in Delmar.
I grew up here.
I left for 10 years, and I came back because I love this town.
I love how supporting and welcoming it is, and what a wonderful place it is to raise
our children.
I support this resolution.
One aspect of it that has not yet been discussed is that this resolution is simply affirming
our town's policy to refrain from racially profiling our neighbors.
I'm hearing statements against illegal immigrants that are hateful, but this resolution is
not just about illegal immigrants.
It protects all of those who may be suspected of being illegal immigrants.
It protects them from harassment.
The woman who spoke earlier of being scared of someone because they wore a hijab has no
idea what that other person's immigration status is, yet she felt as though this resolution
would somehow put her in danger.
We
must protect our neighbors from being harassed, and we cannot let fear dictate our policies.
Hi, my name is Kathy Manzela-Sasso.
I grew up here.
I brought my family back.
And I'm raising two daughters in this community and I'm very proud to be standing here while
you're considering this proposition.
My job is teaching immigrants.
I'm an English as a second language teacher at Hudson Valley Community College and at
Hackett Middle School.
And the people I work with are amazing beautiful people and my husband is an immigrant and
I can't imagine if he were pulled over and questioned about his immigration status.
He's a citizen because of his heavy accent.
So I applaud the town for considering this resolution, and I just want to read something
by Ronald Reagan of all people.
I never thought I'd be quoting Ronald Reagan, but here we are.
All of the immigrants who came to us brought their own music, literature, customs, and
ideas.
And the marvelous thing, the thing of which we're proud is they did not have to relinquish
these things in order to fit in.
In fact, what they brought to America became American, and this diversity has more than
enriched us.
It has literally shaped us.
The other thing is I want to say that if somebody says their family came in 1870 legally,
that's false.
We didn't have immigration quotas until I want to say the 20s, but I couldn't verify it. So
Hi, good evening, my name is Alyssa Swiback. I've
lived in the town
since 1997
But I've lived in the capital region since 1991 and when I first came up here and lived in Albany
One of the things that bothered me almost nightly was on the news
how it would be reported that so much of the crime that was in this area was coming from
New York City and the downstate area. And having just left that area, I can pretty much
tell you that wherever you go, there's good, there's bad. There's good and bad down there,
there's good and bad up here and whatever country you go to, there's good and bad
there. Though I have often called myself a transplanted downstater, I could have
never have been prouder than I was last night when I saw the posting on Facebook that this
town was looking to make this a sanctuary town. It makes me proud to live here, and
I support it. I consider, I raised my daughter in the town, and I consider myself an extremely
a lucky mom that on 9-11, when the social studies teachers in the middle school were
telling children about what had occurred that day, and we were all petrified.
My daughter was lucky enough to have a teacher whose family was of Muslim descent.
So he was able to explain who people in general are, no matter what your background might be,
probably better than anybody else.
And our conversation that night was so much better than it could have been
and probably wasn't almost every other home around the country that night.
I welcome people from any country, but I can tell you that what I have found to be true
is that people who have come here from other countries, no matter if they are undocumented
or not, are more appreciative of the lives they are able to live here than most of
the rest of us, and we should learn from them.
Thank you.
My
name is Peggy Kowalski. I've lived on Louis Street since 1978. I strongly support
the resolution in principle, and I'd like to look at it since I think we've gotten a
little away from it. It says that the Bethlehem Police Department does not engage in activities
solely for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. It won't inquire about
or request proof of immigration status when providing services, and it won't – instances
of persecution, et cetera, will be responded to in appropriate fashion.
Then I'd like to look at the letter from our chief of police, and I think we all can support
our police.
I think they do a great job here in Bethlehem.
The chief of police says, we do not want undocumented people to be afraid to contact
the police if they need help.
We do not want them to be afraid to report crimes.
And this is why, as well as supporting it in principle, I support it for my own safety.
Thank you.
Hi.
I'm Jennifer Byrne.
I've lived in Delmar for almost 50 years.
And I support this because immigrants are regular people.
They're not some rampaging hordes that are going to do more crime than anyone else.
They don't – they are more likely to be victimized and discriminated against than other people.
But they just want to work and pay their rent and buy things in the stores the same as other people.
Thank you.
Hi.
My name is Pilar Gerasitano, and I am an immigrant, a proud naturalized citizen and
a resident of Del Mar.
I'm in a strong support of this resolution, which leaves federal enforcement activities
to federal agencies instead of the local police department.
I chose the United States to be my country and I am so proud to have chosen Bethlehem
to be my home.
Thank you.
I'm Sarah.
I'm Sarah Burr and I've lived here since 1966.
I support the resolution and I support the speaker from Louise Street who had the resolution
in her hand and had read the papers.
My only problem with the board's presentation tonight is there weren't enough copies of the
resolution on the table and nor of the police letter.
I think many of the genuine fears and questions we have had raised here tonight are because
people didn't have, hadn't read exactly what the resolution does.
And I'd hope that it could be spread more widely.
Thank you for money.
I'm sorry.
I printed more as I saw the side of the crowd.
Mary, if I could ask you my office, the computers on, it's on the screen.
If you could print out at least 50 more copies of the resolution and the police.
Oh, they were gone when I came in.
So that's terrific.
As I sat down, more people were coming in.
I printed out more.
Thank you, Mary.
I think, in addition, this is a common-sense resolution that has nothing to do with the
Bethlehem police availability to investigate criminal activity or even stop someone and
ask for the driver's license.
This is merely showing that they will not use town resources, police resources, to
to do the federal job, which ICE is supposed to do in this country. And further, it does
not want to prevent people from calling the police or fire department. I think someone
else mentioned the problem. We have a serious immigration problem, and this resolution is
an indicator to the nation and to Congress to fix the problem. Thank you.
Thank you sir.
I'm Norman Moran. I lived at 52 cars that drive in Sloan, so I've been
there for 37 years, and I'm the veteran of the Korean War, and I'm a strong believer
in laws. As far as I'm concerned, sanctuary cities are breaking the law. They are encouraging
and not discouraging illegal immigration. I have a friend of mine who was in Florida.
He had a heart attack down there.
He went to the hospital.
I went down and brought him back home eventually.
But when John was in the hospital,
I had to get out of the hospital.
He went to get a video.
And guess what?
The new legal turned around, stuck a knife in his back,
and when he was going back to his car,
and he threatened them to kill him.
John gave him the car.
And he took, and several weeks later, they called him
They said we have picked a guy up. We think did it. She's fine
so I sent photographs up to
This green a police department John one looked picked out the right person
Notified him just a attorney down Dade County said, okay, we'll take care of this
It's about a month or by and John called up in center. What's happening at the case? Oh
well this
Immigration group got him out on bail fifty five hundred dollars bail and just
what he skipped. We got Kate Steiner out in California who was walking along the beach
with her dad and Neil Ego, who had been picked up and was supposed to be turned over to ISIS
and the police department out there decided they wouldn't do that. So they let him go.
He got a hold of a gun and he killed Kate. Kate fell in her father's arms. How would
everybody like that. Everybody talks about the good side of illegals, but there's a lot
of bad side to it, too. And we should not encourage sanctuary cities, because you're only going
to attract me to this community. If they can feel like they can come here and be safe,
they're going to move here.
Thank you, Norm.
I have Bruce Bushart, Livendelmar. I've lived here for 30 years. I have not had illegals
coming up as criminals into my driveway have not been threatened or had any bad experiences
from that. What I have been is the director of the Bureau of Refugee and Immigration Affairs
for some long time. In that capacity, we've met many, many refugees, immigrants, and
built with those issues. We've had visitors into our home, and mostly what I've learned
is the commonality among all of us, and that I've learned at the discussions
questions where you thought it might be about internal issues within Iraq or Iran or whatever,
or about where can I get a good iPhone at Best Buy. And so it just struck me how much common
we are. I respect all the comments made tonight. It's a very difficult, emotional subject,
and I think it's so easy to throw fear into the middle of us and divide our community.
We need to fight that. We need to learn everything we can about each other, including
undocumented, illegals, and the rest of us. If I was going to be fearful, it might be
regarding some orange thing in PC. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Maureen McLeod. I've lived here in Delmar for over a quarter of
a century. I am a sociologist, but more importantly, I am a criminologist. And as a social scientist,
I believe in evidence and data. I understand that many people are concerned about crimes
about being victims, I understand that none of us want to be victims of crime.
I'm very concerned this evening that we've been hearing people blur the lines between
refugee status and criminal behavior.
I am appalled
that our president today lied saying that the murder rate is at the highest
rate that it's been at in 47 years. It's a blatant lie, and all data refutes what he said.
So I would just simply ask us, first of all, you do fully support this resolution, that
we remember, as several people ahead of me have said, that those people who come to us
as immigrants with refugee status are significantly more likely to be victims of hate and crime.
They are not people who are sure. I mean, I'll grant. There are some people, no matter what their status,
who might engage in criminal behavior. But refugees and immigrants are much more likely to be victims
than criminals. And those that we view as looking just like us are more likely to be the criminals in our society.
Hi, my name is Matthew Lorsella. I'm 23 and I've been in Del Mar for 18 years now. There
was a gentleman before that spoke about the right way and the wrong way of doing things.
I completely agree with that sentiment, which is why I think it's so ironic that in 2016
we're having a debate about people coming to this country without warning anybody
else in the country to live here because I don't know what that gentleman was taught in
history class, but in 1492, I believe Christopher Columbus came over here on a boat to a country
where there were people that had already established a civilization and they were actual,
what did that woman say before, rampaging hordes? Were they murdered, raped, and pushed
the Native Americans off of their land and it's I mean I don't know what he was
taught either but in church in school and in my house I was told that killing
somebody stealing from somebody discriminating against anybody those are
the wrong way of doing things and that's how our country started was by
people coming in doing things the wrong way so I actually agree with this
resolution because these people that are coming in today they're not coming in
here and stealing from us the majority of them they're not coming here they're
not killing us they're not trying to make this country theirs they just want
to live and be free and get away from the horrible situations that they're
in now. So I'm, I praise the resolution and I am completely in support of it.
Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Brendan Mooney. I'm a resident of the town of Bethlehem. I've
been a resident of the town of Bethlehem for about 40 years. I'm not going to give you
my age, but you can guess it. I want to urge you to please support this measure
here tonight for declaring the town of Bethlehem Sanctuary town. I've been working with refugees
to the U.S. Committee on Refugees and Immigrants to U.S. CRI, it's called, for the last 16 months.
I worked with a wonderful family that escaped the Taliban six years ago through Pakistan.
They suffered murder in their family, including, I won't go into the details, but horrible,
horrible, atrocious behavior that was committed on their brother and on their husband.
They waited for four years in Pakistan. They were extremely vetted. I don't think our
President knows the word what extremely vetted means or what existed under the law, but there
are 13 specific steps spelled out by the U.S. Department of State, which these people
had to go through to already be extremely vetted and wait for four years, and they waited
on top of that before that by the United Nations to be extremely vetted.
So they have been extremely vetted.
They earned their right as refugees.
These are not illegals, and let me refer to that gentleman who spoke before.
These people are legally vetted refugees who have been admitted to our country just
like my grandparents who have been admitted to this.
So I'm the grandson of immigrants and my grandfather came over here with a warrant for his arrest
from Ireland when it was owned by England.
So at that point, I'm extremely proud to be related to these people in that way.
Their refugee certifications from the United Nations do not return these people, it actually
states on their certifications from the United Nations, do not return these people
to their home country, their lives are in danger. In the event this family must leave
here, this family is in danger at home. Please, remember the words in our Statue of Liberty.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free. I took this family,
the little boy who's going for it, by the way, the green card process that I've taken
the six members of this family to start or to initiate was somewhat halted. I was told
that we can no longer guarantee the processing of their green cards because of the new policies
put in place in Washington. Now these are legal people who are in this country, but
yet they're up in the air after having waited now close to six years in total having
left their home country of Afghanistan.
So I would urge you that God forbid that the time came that our country said that these
people must go, that we find sanctuary in the Middle Ages sense of the word sanctuary,
both in our hearts and under our laws, to provide these people sanctuary and a place
of safety.
Thank you very much.
My
name is Mark Lewis, and I've been a resident of Del Mar for over 25 years.
When my grandfather was 16, he fled Russia due to anti-Semitism.
And he was lucky enough for this country to welcome him in.
Unfortunately, the rest of his family wasn't.
He never saw any other member of his family again.
They were all annihilated in the Holocaust.
His father shot in the square, and his mother and sister sent to concentration camps to
be gassed.
My grandfather, despite this, was always a loving man, and he taught me to love this
country and love the generosity and the morality of this country in that it welcomed people
that were persecuted.
And I think he would be so proud of this town today, the town that I live in, that
it's actually putting this resolution up to protect other people that are being persecuted
and are coming to this country to save their lives.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Agnes Dallin.
I live in Bethlehem.
I've lived here for 16 years.
I want to thank you all for being such patient listeners.
It has been very challenging to sit through everyone's heartfelt feelings about what
they think about this resolution, whether for or against.
And this is our democracy in action. Let's not forget that.
I come before you to thank you for reaffirming this resolution.
And I say reaffirming because it's clearly something we have lived with in our community already.
I'll tell you what worries me.
I am here to reaffirm Bethlehem's practices with regard to citizenship, immigration, and
protecting against threats of violence, targeting national origin, race, religion, or citizenship.
Because I feel that our current leadership has not shown me yet that it is willing
to protect all people in this country.
And I know this because that leadership on national television laughed openly and mimicked
a person with a disability.
That person has repeatedly demeaned women in ways I had never imagined a public official.
Asking for the highest position in our country would talk about and act towards women.
and also demonized people of color and anyone who looks different or believes differently
than what said person and leadership believes is the norm.
I also worry that we have a new and next generation of children who are hearing this national discourse.
And as a teacher, I know how important it is and how hard we work in our classrooms to
make sure that children respect each other and honor each other's differences.
And I really appreciate that our town board and the people who have spoken in favor of
this resolution are upholding that stance.
Thank you very much.
My
name is Doug Zeno.
I've been a resident here since 1978.
And this came on me, I was looking at the weather and then all of a sudden John comes
on and about the sanctuary city stuff.
So I don't know that much about it.
I didn't have a chance to look at the background as I'm sure that this is a very small portion
of the people that live in Bethlehem.
So how about let's give the whole town a chance to vote on this?
We have an election.
Instead of having a few people, we'll make sure that this thing is transparent.
And we'll vote on it.
We'll find out more about it, set it up for a month from now,
and people can get together and look into it.
I don't know how much you guys have studied on where the sanctuary city is now.
Is there anybody on the board here that knows the background of any sanctuary cities
and how well they've been run, San Francisco, Chicago.
We've talked about crime and stuff,
but Chicago's the crime center of the country.
We worried about gun control, but they have gun control
and they're still the crime city of the country.
Why don't we go and look at how well
it's been run in San Francisco?
How well it's been run in Chicago before we ever even think of this and why do we if our laws in our police department is running yet
Now the way that it should be run and there by the laws
Why are we even talking about having sanctuary city? What's the purpose of that?
I remember I went to college up from 67 to
71 at University of Buffalo 500 police stationed on campus one semester they
marched four or five abreast wood helmets on and I saw that they had
sanctuary dormitories where these kids would run out and they turn over police
cars and stuff and then run back into things and and other kids on campus
couldn't even walk in them but nobody arrested them they back off the police
and stuff. I hope this isn't a, I see things, you know, I really like seeing all the thing
of the police supporting the people of Bethlehem supporting the police. They had the signs out.
I tried to get one. They were all out of them. Well, I hope this doesn't turn into a thing
of just being a political stand, you know.
We have different people in our, a different party that's in, for our president.
And I hope it's not a protest against him in what he tries to do to protect our country.
I'm a registered Democrat.
So the thing is, though, is that we want laws, give the people a chance to vote
on this then.
Why would we just have the town board vote?
Thanks, Doug.
Thanks a lot.
Good evening.
I'm Paul Tick from Burwick Road, and I was very involved in the sanctuary movement in
the 1980s.
If anybody wants to talk about that at any time, I'd be happy to talk about helping
refugees who were escaping persecution then, and of course we see refugees escaping
persecution now, too.
And I support the resolution and I greatly appreciate the clarification that we got from the police department.
I also want to say how much I appreciate hearing from people on the other side of this issue than me,
because public debate is essential for our democracy.
So I thank people on both sides for speaking up tonight.
I do want to say that those with green cards and other statuses may come from other countries,
but most of those folks are here. If they have green cards, they're here legally. But
not everyone can come to this country legally. I had family members who didn't make it out
of Europe during the Holocaust, and they – they didn't – not all of them lived.
And even the United States at that time was denying access to this country for people
trying to come here legally.
So it's not always possible to be legal even if you're trying to escape persecution.
And I think passing this resolution would be a great way to honor those victims, other
victims around the country and a great way to just keep the welcoming flag out for everybody
who needs or wants to come.
To a country filled with opportunities like we have here. Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
Thank you, John. My name is Don.
It's on.
Hello?
It might not be tall enough for you, but if you point it upward, it's usually quicker.
My name is Don Schultz, and I would like to say one thing that if you look around and bite behind me, there's America.
I'm proud of them. God bless America.
Now, we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws.
It is wrong, and ultimately, self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit a kind
of abuse that our immigration laws have seen in recent years.
And we must do more.
We must stop it.
are not my words. In 1995, the State of the Union, by President Clinton, what a wonderful
thing to know in one sense. And my definition of an immigrant was taught to me by my immigrant
father. You, when you're in a different country, and that's so very important. I think we
He did the right thing with having this.
I would like to say that one thing I would like to respectfully show to you is that we
could become the first American community of immigrants in law and demand from our government
the fair and equitable solution to our current immigration problem.
Thank you.
Hi.
I'm Jack Connell.
I've been in town here for about 34 years.
I have a slightly different perspective on this.
This is a liberal democratic town, so this resolution is going to pass regardless.
To me, it's a foregone conclusion.
But what I look at, though, is I keep remembering that this, as he said, this is a nation of
laws.
You know, that separates us from so many other countries around the world.
You know, every law that we pass applies to all people, you know, it is a definite thing.
And I think back a couple of years ago, there was a woman down in one of the southern states
who was a town clerk, and she decided on her own because of moral constraints that
she had about issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
And we as a town and as individuals,
we were outraged that someone could select a law to ignore.
And whether we like Trump or the orange-haired man,
referred to earlier, constitutionally and statutorily,
he's on solid grounds.
You know, sanctuary cities are going to be overturned and we as taxpayers are someone
else mentioned.
I mean, I love our sidewalks.
Who is financing that?
You know, it's a lot of thing, it's a lot of estate and federal money, you know.
I just am concerned that, you know, whatever we pass today is going to be overturned
and the message we're giving to our kids that we can select and choose, ignore or
not ignore laws that are discretion like that woman down in whatever state that
was. And I think that, what was it? Kentucky. Alright. Nothing against
Kentuckians. But I mean, you know, and that's my issue with this whole thing.
We're all, we all came from immigrants at one point or another. We, you know,
most of them were legal. I, on the other hand, have a grandfather who was
illegal. Became a lawyer in Massachusetts and a member of the state
legislation illegally. I have an old grandfather that was illegally. So I can
sort of see both sides of the coin here. But I'm just concerned about us giving a
message to kids who are ready today. You look at kids, millennial kids in
particular, who think that, you know, if you don't like something along, you
don't have to follow it. So that's what I have to say. Think about that when you pass it.
Thank you.
My name is Doug Forstoff, a five-year resident of Selkirk, married a
Delmore girl, been in and out of the town for about 47 years now.
As I read this
resolution, it would appear more to me that it's not saying we're going to be
a sanctuary city. It's affirming that we will not persecute, we will not
profile, we will not go out of our way to identify someone's immigration status in that
one that's faced I don't have a lot of problem with.
We certainly don't want illegals living here in fear, we don't want victims of crime or
witnesses not wanting to come forward because of their status, we want to maintain our
law and order in this town.
So, again, I don't see this resolution as calling us a sanctuary city.
My only concern or desire to know the position of the town when it comes to someone who has
committed a crime, who is a felon, who has drunk drive or breaking it, whatever type
of felony, once they've been identified as a felon, booked, sent to the FBI, going
through ICE if a detainer request comes in.
At that point, will we comply with the federal law?
I understand that's voluntary when it comes from the Department of Homeland Security.
We don't have to comply.
We can let them know.
But are we going to comply with that, or are we going to be one of those cities that
lets them go and ends up with these multiple people who have committed multiple felonies
being a problem in our community?
I got a problem with that.
But I had no problem with what everyone said here.
We don't want to be discriminated.
We don't want to be loving, peaceful, caring about our neighbors, caring about those who are willing to live at peace in this community.
That's fine.
I think their immigration status and all of that to how they got here is an issue other than what this is talking about.
So unless I'm missing something, I don't think you're saying we're a sanctuary city.
But I would like to know, when I hear Mayor de Blasio say, oh, drunk drive, for the legal
that's not a big deal.
Or grand larceny.
You know, we don't just have a big deal here in New York City.
Really?
I got a problem with that.
I got a problem.
So I just said that's where I would like to know ultimately where the board stands
in that, but again on its face I don't have a problem with discrimination and discrimination.
No persecuting these people, no profiling them, no, you know, seeking them out
actively to help comply with federal immigration law.
Thank you.
And I don't want to interrupt the floor.
We will hear from Commander Horniglider.
Plus, if there are still copies of the police chief's memo there, it does address that
question.
Hi.
My name is Deborah Dickerson, and I live on Kenwood, been in the town except for
two years for 16 years, which I know makes me a newcomer.
I want to start off by talking about my family's military service because you are really not
going to like what I have to say, so I'm going to start off with military service.
Twelve years, United States Air Force, myself, becoming the first officer,
hundred years
of military service in my family on both sides.
I became the first officer.
We've served ever since it was legal for black people to do so.
My father Island hopped with the Marines. He was at the Battle of Okinawa
The Marines were the most difficult service to integrate so we take
Legality and patriotism seriously. I am one serious girl scout, but I
have sat here tonight and kept track
And I stopped counting at the fifth time. I heard somebody say we're a nation of immigrants. I
Am not an immigrant.
I
immigrants. And to hear us made invisible over and over and over again, I can't go online
for five minutes without seeing it, tells me something about something that underlies
this whole discussion. Google the number of illegal Irish people in Boston. Quite a few.
Nobody cares. The ones we care about are the ones that are brown. If something happened
in Europe and a whole bunch of white people had to come here, nobody would be talking about
legalities. But there's a reason Europeans do not have to come here as refugees and it's not
because they're smarter and it's not because they work harder. I have no personal reverence
for immigration. I know the rest of you do. I don't. I understand the force of it in history,
I'm a non-practicing attorney, all that stuff. I understand it. Immigrants are the people
who enslaved and Jim Crowed me. But I understand the relevance to America. And what I also
understand is that there are five churches in walking distance of me from where I live
on Kenwood. I go to Del Mar Presbyterian. I'm not hard to find.
What I have not heard tonight, I've heard a lot about the law, the law, the law, the
law, the legal, legal, legal. Why can't people come here legally? Like it's so people
leave their native countries because it's so easy to do. They leave because their native
countries are horrible places to live. But why is that the question of breaking the law?
Why is that the moral rubric? Everything in the last 50 years that has been evil has
been legal.
All of it. That's what the powerful do.
So what is the moral imperative
when a law is unjust.
Again, I have no reverence for immigration.
I have a big problem with people breaking the law.
But my heart breaks.
If you're a peasant in Mexico,
you're a bad parent if you don't try to come here.
So I've heard the argument
for why it's immoral to break laws.
I would like to hear the argument
for why it's moral to turn our back on people
Who are suffering?
Good evening.
My name is Robert Czazinski.
I've lived in the town of Bethlehem 60 years.
Most of you don't know me, but I know of you all.
And I am totally against this proposal that you have.
I haven't stood before this board for six years.
I give up.
It's ridiculous.
You people are going to vote it, I know that, and I think quite a few people in New
Yorkians know it, but we are a country of laws. We have a border. You have to have
a border. Yes, we all have a heartbreak, and we all will help somebody. I mean, how
many people will turn around if there's a fight or somebody lying in
in the street, but there's five people around them.
How many of you will walk away?
You won't interfere.
It's none of your business.
So therefore, I decide to come, voice my opinion.
I probably won't come again, because I
know it's a losing proposition.
You're all over the same party.
You all vote the same way.
You're all going to stand there and say, I, since John's been elected, what is it, eight
years?
Probably.
But, I mean, nobody's ever said anything.
None of you have ever decented.
Not particularly you, but almost the last three, four boards that have been elected.
So you're not going to do anything, and you're going to pass this.
But you will take the grants from the federal government.
You have grants that you've taken, whether it's for a sidewalk, water, or anything like that.
But all of a sudden you don't like one of the rules.
Oh, isn't that nice?
You know, you'll take the money and the gifts, but you won't obey some of the rules.
That sends a nice message to everybody, believe me.
So now we know we don't have to follow rules and laws.
We can just step aside and come up with our own ideas.
Thank you.
Thank you, Bob.
I'm Ann Ray Culver from Del Mar.
I'm going to keep this pretty short.
I think the top priority of our government is to keep us safe, and I do not think
this resolution is upholding that. I think it makes us more vulnerable to danger, and
I want to grow up in a country where I feel safe, so I am against this resolution.
Thank you.
Maureen Naxuti from Del Mar. Last one to speak, so I've listened to everybody's opinion
and talk.
No.
It's a little closer.
There you go.
All right, one more.
Lots of confusion between refugees, immigrants, and illegals.
I have yet to hear a person who has opposed this use refugee in the wrong way.
People who oppose it are opposed to the illegals.
The people who are for this continually talk about how wonderful the refugees and the immigrants are
but have not addressed the illegals.
or
Undocumented. I have personal experience myself with refugees. My mother-in-law was a refugee
in the War of Kosovo in 1998, I believe. It took me over six months to get her from a
refugee camp in Albania to Dalmar. I couldn't have done it without the help of Congressman
McNulty. I went through the legal channels. I went through all the paperwork. She went
through everything and our government worked fine doing it legal. We lost family in that
war because they couldn't make it out. We are family who are persecuted still to that
day and we can't get them out. But I'm not breaking the rules. I will not break the
law and bring them here illegally. I don't see why just because your country is bad
you get to come here illegally, or why you, you know, down in Mexico, you're not a good
mother if you don't try and get them to the States.
I taught my four children who went
through Bethlehem Central to follow the rules they have, and they're very successful. I'm
proud of Bethlehem because we do follow the rules. I oppose this because we are encouraging
illegals not to come here because they don't have to follow the rules. Make them wait
the six months in a war-torn country, watching innocent people be killed. We had to do it.
It wasn't nice. It wasn't. It was horrible. But that's part of life. You take the good
and you take the bad, but you follow the rules. Thank you.
Thanks, Maureen.
Hi, my name is Jane Mitchell. I live in Del Mar. Just going to keep it to the scope
with the town here, not world politics.
I want to thank the chief of police.
There has been a lot of talk here about fear
and about everybody's immigration status.
Half the people that come up here are saying I'm legally,
not legally, my grandfather did this.
If somebody in my neighborhood witnesses a crime
or God forbid is a victim of a crime,
I do not want them sitting there waiting to die
with police thinking, God, you know,
the police are gonna be questioning me
By my legality, I don't think I want to get involved.
I think this is a measure that makes people considerably safer by increasing the cooperation
and healthy relationship between the police and the people in the town.
And thank you.
Thank you.
I think the public comment period has ended, so let's go back to the agenda.
and the first item will be this. However, I don't want to pass over the minutes approval.
So may I have a motion to approve the 10 minutes of the Town Board meeting January 25th, 2017?
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
So the minutes are approved. We're now to line item number one and I'm going to try
and cover just in big picture a lot of the questions that were asked. Explain
what this is, what it is not. You have, I hope everyone has, the resolution out there
and I hope you have the memoranda of what I tried to do in mind is explain how the town
came to this, what it addressed, the chief of police and the director of senior services
explained what we currently do, what we have always done in the town of Bethlehem
with regard to providing services. And the first thing that I want everyone to know
and it may raise some more questions, but I'll try to get them to do is we are not actually
changing procedures in this resolution. A number of people came to us, many of them spoke
tonight over the course of the fall and the winter, and said we would like you to
consider a sanctuary town or sanctuary community resolution. At first we asked, okay, we've
heard of that. What is that? We looked into it. We are operating obviously in
a nationally charged environment, which is related, I think, to what we're doing.
I'll speak for myself on that, but we are in a nationally charged environment.
I heard passionate stories on both sides.
I heard people talk a lot about federal immigration law, about the morality of putting
law first above human needs.
I heard a lot of really fantastic dialogue.
So if nothing else, I'm grateful that we had the chance to hear all this.
It was quite helpful, I think.
But what we have here is a resolution of what the town is going to do, and it doesn't, we'll go into more detail later, it doesn't change what we're doing.
We found when we looked into the concept of sanctuary cities, and this is a bit different from the sanctuary church movement of the mid-80s, where churches were actually helping people escaping from Central America,
And we're indeed, you know, helping to hide them and do that, not passing a judgment on
that.
I understand that was a wonderful movement.
That's not what we're about here.
This is about what the town will do going forward and what we're going to say about
it.
And I will say, though our police department follows excellent procedures, we're very
proud of them.
We're very proud of all the other town services and they all follow procedures
that are good, that are consistent with the sanctuary provisions that you often
hear of in sanctuary communities.
But when the town board says it, it's a bit stronger.
We are setting policy in a way that goes forward.
It can be changed.
It can always be changed in the future.
But we're saying this is our policy.
The other thing we're doing is a symbolic message of types.
And many people have said that symbolism is important.
And I believe it's important in this day and age.
We are saying that, yes, we are a community of immigrants.
We are saying, yes, that we have an imperative
to assist refugees and support human rights. And we are also saying that we will not
tolerate, under any circumstances, targeting of individuals because of what they wear,
because of how they look, because of what someone else might think they are thinking.
That's wrong. That's just wrong. And we're not going to tolerate that.
So those are the forces that brought us to work on this resolution, and I have
to say a lot of it came from members of the community. People spoke here,
worked on it. We wanted to consider it. As we looked more into the laws, we found
there were little or no impediments to do this. And I guess you could question it,
but a lot of us thought there was a very strong reason for doing it. People have
mentioned consistently that we shouldn't choose which laws we obey and which
laws we don't obey. And I'm going to say I agree, but I want you to understand
This resolution right at the beginning says we are committed to adhering to the requirements
of the United States Constitution, the New York State Constitution, and of State
and Federal law.
And we are committed to doing that.
There is nothing in this resolution that violates the law, nothing that violates
current law and nothing that may violate law in the future.
We are setting procedures that are positive, and we are making a statement
about being a welcoming community.
We have looked at
President's executive order, we went through it, we went through the Attorney General's review of it,
and we looked at it and we borrowed from it for some of the points in this resolution.
A lot of the points in that don't apply at all because we do not have a jail.
We don't keep people in detention for periods of time, so we're not in that part of the sanctuary city's movement.
And we've looked at it in terms of aid because we don't want to do anything.
that was one of our first questions that could result in a loss of aid for the town
of Bethlehem. And I must tell you that I see absolutely no possibility of that,
okay? First of all, we're not violating any rules. And though the President's
executive order says we do not like in Perenn sanctuary cities and may withhold
aid from them, it goes on to specifically identify parts of the immigration
law that we would not violate, that we are not arguing that we would violate.
And so there's no issue there. If it were the case that something else comes down the pipe later, which may be the case,
our resolution doesn't find us to anything there. What it nearly says is we are going to hold these practices,
there's town policy to hold to them, and they are for good criminal justice reasons.
Many people said you don't want your neighbor or someone on the street failing to call the police because they see a crime.
Many people have said we don't want people who are victims of crime, of crime,
failing to report to the police. Several people said that the immigrant community
is more likely to be victimized than not, and there were many examples given that
with some people with some labor background. So we know that. We want to be a
community that cares for everyone. And that doesn't mean that we are going
to sanction any way law-breaking. A lot of people were concerned that somehow
this resolution would tell the police or others that we should not be
enforcing law. That is not the case. The police do enforce the law. If a person commits
a crime, a misdemeanor or a felony, they are immediately fingerprinted. Their records
go up to the FBI, to IC, to others. That is a procedure that will continue to be followed.
So most of the complaints I heard were on kind of things that were misunderstood,
I'm going to say, and I do want, we will talk about this more, and I don't
want to talk too long, but I wanted to give you the very basics of it.
So we do have, have I left anything out, Major, I think I went through most of it.
I urge you to look at the resolution. For some of you, it may, it may be, well, we want to do more for others.
It may be, okay, well, I still don't like the sound of this. We know that we do not control federal immigration law.
We're not even experts in it. But we are thinking about the message we want to send to the community.
We are thinking about the message we want to send to others.
And that, as we do care about you, we will take care of you, and we expect you to help
take care of the rest of us.
If you see something wrong, we want you to be able to call the police.
If you are being victimized, we want you to be able to reach out to us.
If you commit crimes, yes, of course.
You will be caught by the police, and you will be prosecuted.
And we will share data.
Nothing is going to prevent our police force from doing what they need to do to protect
public safety.
They're going to continue to work with federal and higher-level officials to make
sure that we are as safe as we can be, and we'll go into more detail on that.
So those are the big pictures.
I don't know, Jim, do you have anything to add to the
aid practicalities?
No, you summarized it perfectly, John.
Okay. I'll accept that. We're not worried about that at all.
So, Commander Hornick, if you could come up, I think part of the questions
that people are most concerned about are the police practices and what I've learned
in some detail that you know much better than me, is that many, perhaps most police
agencies follow the same practices that BPD follows and that are described in the Chief's memorandum.
First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for their support of the police department
tonight. That's really great to see as well as up on the town board. So thank you for that.
Second of all, to echo the sentiment of the town supervisor here, this does not change
any current standing policies or procedures of the Bethelman Police Department.
As we know, and through our law enforcement experience, crime knows no boundaries, and
that includes boundaries of ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, or any other defining
characteristics of individuals.
And it is our job to maintain the law, maintain all the laws, and treat everybody equally.
That's something that our department does, the men and women of our department do on a
daily basis, and they continue to do that with the highest level of excellence.
And they will continue to do that, whether this resolution is passed or not.
We will continue to share information with CVP and ICE as related in the Chief's Memo.
I think it very clearly defines the role of the police department, what our duties
are, as well as what we will continue to do, and we have been doing for an extended
period of time.
One of the other kind of big concerns I've had, people seem to be reading this or react
to it.
You, the chief and his memo makes the straightforward statement, we do not enforce immigration law,
which may be interpreted wrongly, but you were explaining to me earlier.
In general, municipal police departments don't enforce many aspects of federal law, tax
law, and things of that nature.
Absolutely.
Basically, not just that immigration law, but as local or state law enforcement officers,
we do not have the power to enforce federal laws. We would have to contact federal agents
or an agent that has the authority to enforce the U.S. Code to that extent to actually bring
those accusatory documents or charges forward in any federal law, not just the immigration law.
Okay. I've had an opportunity to talk to you about what other board members like to ask questions.
No question? Okay.
Very clear.
All right. Thank you. Thank you, folks.
Thank you, Commander.
So I'd like to start out with a motion and a second, therefore, if we go to discussion, we can amend or deal with otherwise.
But is there a motion on the resolution?
So moved.
Second.
Okay.
All right. So it's open for board discussion.
We've heard a lot tonight. I'm not counting
so much the biais and nays among the audience, but thinking about what they said as well
as what led us here. And also, there's one question came up, I think one individual
said, could we vote on this? And the answer is there is an answer to that, and it's
coming up.
Well, the answer is no. I mean, the way town law is structured is the citizens
elect the town board, the town board passes the law, the town board passes resolutions.
We're not set up as a referendum form of government, so that's not provided for in town
law. It's also very expensive to hold an election on every issue in its area practical.
And I will say, although we're very aware that the-
There are diverse, sharply divided opinions on this issue. I hope that as folks look at
the actual resolution, what we're doing, some of those go away. All the time, the town
board has to make judgments on issues without knowing with certainty what the public
vote would be if there is. That's just the atmosphere we have to operate on. We are
not a single United Board. We often have very, very different opinions on issues.
And that improves products, usually, that we work about.
So we really, on this issue, we want to hear what everyone has to say.
We want to take it in consideration.
But we do generally have to act in all the actions we take as a town board
without perfect knowledge of how the public would vote.
But we do appreciate very much all of you coming out tonight
and telling us your stories and your views.
That is very helpful.
It's the biggest crowd we've had, I think,
certainly this year,
are probably in five or six.
As soon as you like that.
It's only the third or fourth.
So other discussion from board members?
I would like to say that I feel I'd
like to have a little more time to research the sanctuary
community practices of, say, San Francisco
and other areas where they do have established
sanctuary communities.
That's a concern to me.
The legalities, the police department portion, there really is no change.
That policy is in effect currently, in effect the way I understand it has been for many years.
But I know very little about the sanctuary communities established.
And that makes me feel I want more time to research that.
Are we, are we positioning ourselves as labeling ourselves as a sanctuary city?
I mean, I don't see that in the title of the community practices.
I don't know. Do you know about sanctuary community practices?
Well, I don't know if there's a legal term, I mean, the legal definition, but it's
a really fine one.
No. But, but.
So you're, so you're, I'm just, is you're concerned with that word?
I mean, yes, I have trouble with the word, that word.
Correct.
Yeah, correct.
But I need to see what that meant in Vermont. Exactly. I mean, I do, I do have
I have to say that when I was, you know, starting to read the e-mails that we'd gotten
over the course of this week, you know, the word sanctuary is a loaded word, and I
find it a little difficult to wrap your head around a word that is loaded yet doesn't
have a definition, because it's really hard to go with that. But then when I look
at the one mention of where it is in this resolution, you could take that
whereas out, take those two lines out, and then that's the only mention of the
and I would be fine if that's the only thing that's stopping us, is that term because
it comes with this whole other layer of loadedness. I don't think it's necessary in this
resolution. I don't think it drives our goal further to have that word in there. So if
that's your only concern, we can discuss that.
My concern is the human rights section and the laws with it that are there for the
police department. They're straightforward. As I said, it's the I agree that I
I would like to see that removed. It causes confusion.
I was, when the resolution first got presented, you know, I thought it was good and I
agreed with it, but once I got framed up into the word sanctuary town or sanctuary
city, then I had trouble with that. These, Beth and police have been following
the protocols that are in this resolution forever. So I just don't know whether
declaring us a sanctuary town, sanctuary city, you know, that has global implications.
And I'm not 100 percent sure I feel that that's the way I want to look at right now.
And we're not a city.
No, we're not a city.
I guess I'm not reading it as us declaring ourselves as a sanctuary city.
David, what do you think?
We're not.
And this has been a consistent point of misunderstanding that I've been seeing throughout the comments
this evening, comments both before and against the resolution.
Bethlehem is not declaring itself in this resolution as a sanctuary city, but we are declaring
that the fundamental values of fairness and the community policing policies that
that our police department has been following for a long time are the policies that
guide or that follow the guidance of our town. I think that, you know, the one of the
challenges of being on the board is that we have to filter through emotions and
tangents and misunderstandings and try to get to the nub of making decisions
that can actually have a positive effect on our town. And, you know,
So in a number of the emails that I was receiving throughout the day today against it, a lot of people are saying,
if it's not changing anything, what's the point of passing the resolution?
And that's a position that I can understand. Unfortunately, our town is set in a broader context.
And when you look at the broader national politics that are going on in our country right now,
There's a lot of hate, there's a lot of fear, there's a lot of paranoia, and it's being
fomented with alternative facts, and I feel that it's important when we make decisions
in our community that we be guided by facts, we be guided by data, and we be guided by
the good judgment in the situation of law enforcement of our law enforcement officers.
And they've been practicing the very things that we feel are fundamental and important
for quite some time now. And because we have policies or we have practices that have been
going on for years that we feel are right, we feel that now is a good time for the town
to say, this is the way our town is, and this is the way our town operates.
You know, I understand the fear. I have children. You know, we worry about our children going
out all the time. But this is not a decision that should be guided by fear. And in fact,
In fact, this is a decision that John has pointed out repeatedly that is actually going
to help make our community safer, because it's going to be saying to all of the people
in our town that we are going to be operating under the same practices that we have been
for the last several years, despite all of the maelstrom that's going on at the federal
level.
And that's why I think this is a worthwhile resolution for us to be passing right
now.
Now, the term Sanctuary City is a tripping point for everyone or for a lot of people
right now. And if clipping out that whereas is going to make it more palatable for
folks to get past that distraction of the national stuff, I say take it out.
I also would like, John, to suggest that in the first two black bullets under
in the resolutions, that the Bethelman Police Department change does to will continue
to not engage in activities. The next one down, Town Personnel and Volunteers will continue
to neither inquire. I think it's really important for us to stress this is a continuation
of the way our great town has been operating for many years.
So just procedurally, do we need to, Jim, do I need to make a motion to change
to make those changes?
It would be a motion to amend.
We can, in the past, we've done some editing, but I don't know.
I certainly, if we remove a motion to amend, we should do that.
I do, I'd like the thoughts I'm hearing on all sides here.
And I do want to say, emphasize for everyone,
sanctuary is not a defined term.
The New York State Attorney General has said so,
and what's more Wikipedia says so.
And, you know, looking at what we could, the process of evaluation was we understand
our citizens want this, what is it going to be mean, what's it going to mean?
One of the people who spoke said, you know, I'm okay, certainly with not asking
people from, with encouraging people to come to the police and to the town, but
what does the rest of this mean? The rest of it, there isn't really that much.
We are making affirmative statements value statements, which we do occasionally and we think is very important this time as a town board
But removing that term
I know there will be some will say well, but you know that's what we wanted and others will say well
That's good. That's different. The truth is in what we've got here in this resolution and what we're doing in our practices
They are those type of practices you can call them
Sanctuary if you want you can call them nice practice, but the removal of that single term
really won't change anything at all on this, and we'd like most of all to give a positive
and a unified message to the community, and we'd like to try and do this as well as we
can and keep doing the positive things that our town employees have been doing.
So I guess if we have one whereas that people have talked about removing, which would be
the fourth.
So do I make a motion?
Well, let's see if we can get those other changes in two of them on one.
I can do it. I got it.
You got it?
I can multi-task.
I move that we remove the fourth whereas, and under the first black bullet we change
does not to will continue to.
Not.
Continue to not.
Well, yeah, that word's already there.
So for you right, I take it out.
Sorry.
Does, the leak does it will continue to.
Okay.
And then under the second bullet, we will change.
We will insert.
Continue between will and neither.
Two, yes.
So that's your motion?
Yeah, that was clean, wasn't it?
I'll second.
It's not as easy as it looks, is it?
So I guess now we vote on the motion to amend.
Correct.
And then so.
So moved.
No, I think we have that already.
So on the motion to amend the resolution before us, all in favor, aye.
Does anyone oppose?
Okay.
But we still need to now talk more and then vote later on the actual resolution.
Okay.
Go ahead.
So we haven't amended resolution conversation?
I mean, I want to do this.
I mean, I think it's, you know, we start off when we first got emails in November
asking us to consider that concept of a sanctuary city.
I frankly, my reaction was very similar to a lot of peoples.
I don't really know what this is.
I am concerned about how it's going to impact our police force
and I certainly don't want to mess with our town funding.
So, you know, I was disinclined to really do anything about it
and then, you know, time passed and, you know,
but I feel like as we see this climate in our nationwide,
the climate of intolerance of focusing on peoples ethnicity
and immigration status is something important
And to make determinations about it, it just feels to me like it's an important time to
make a stand.
And that's why I feel like I felt very differently when we started discussing this again last
week about considering this resolution.
I think it's not going to change practices, and that's fine, but I think like David said,
it is going to allay fears and concerns that people have and that we need to say that
publicly that this is a safe place for people.
And I feel like it's a necessary and timely thing for us to do, so I'm glad we're
doing this.
I would very strongly second that thought. I had a similar evolution, if you will.
And as I said earlier, we are in an environment. It is highly charged. We respect that there
are different opinions, and we certainly respect the law. But to me, making this statement
now is incredibly important. These are challenging times. There are things that
are happening that make many of us very, very uncomfortable. And we want to say to
everyone who is either in this community or might come to it, that we will take care of
you, we will see your needs, we will also observe the law and we will do everything we need to
do to protect the community. I don't see any inconsistency between those and I think it's
very important to make the statement now.
I'm sensing we're ready to vote.
So it would be a motion to approve the resolution as amended.
So I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution as amended.
So moved.
I'm going to ask for a vote. All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Does anyone opposed?
Okay.
May.
Okay.
Resolution is passed. Thank you.
And thank you all for coming and sharing your opinions with us.
it's very important and we appreciate it.
We do have a very interesting agenda item
coming up,
but we will take...
Oh, no, we're not done yet.
We're not done yet.
Isn't your teacher going to make you stay for the whole thing? There's so much more
fun happening. I mean, come on.
We're supposed to get a sign.
Yeah, you are, but we're not done. We still have more. The meeting isn't over. That
took forever.
Doris would never, when Doris was here, she would never sign early. So if you
You guys want to sign early, it's on you.
I have a question.
Of course, it was a teacher.
It's just on her.
I don't know.
I'll sign her to your homework.
It's kind of not question time, I'm sorry.
We can answer you after.
And we will.
Oh, my goodness.
All right.
Wait.
Oh, yes.
But seriously, if you need to leave, Nancy will sign.
Go back to Nancy and the booth.
Is the board ready to proceed?
Yes.
Okay.
Nobody needs a break.
Good.
All right.
We are now to line item number two, and I hope Rob's still here, there he is.
Don't know, it's not Rob's yet.
That's a request from the Administrator of Parks and Recreation to award the bid.
For sodium hypochlorite, that's pool chemicals, to the low-bitter, surpassed chemical
company incorporated. May I have a motion and a second, please?
So moved.
All in favor?
Aye.
Item number three is a request from the fleet manager to authorize the purchase
of 1,217 Chevy and Palace sedan, 2,217 Chevy Tahoe PPVs for $85,973.93 from the New York
State vehicle marketplace. You have Brent's memorandum. Brent could not be here tonight,
but Commander Hornick is here in case you do have questions. May I have a motion
in the second place?
So much.
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Okay.
Anyone oppose?
The motion carries.
Item number 4 is a request from the Director of Planning for the Town Board to authorize
the supervisor to sign a contract with MJ Engineering for open space planning services.
Rob, could you give a brief overview of what this item is about?
We talked about the tour.
Thank you.
Just because I think Nancy left.
but could you just address the concerns that she raised as far as what exactly is this going
to be doing mapping versus targeting lands versus, you know, all of that that keeps coming
up?
Sure.
So just what you have before you is a contract provided by MGA Engineering, which is based
on my memo that was submitted to you and discussed with you at your November.
No.
Is that better?
Okay.
Yeah, I think it's on Nancy. Is it on just say something? Hello. Hi Rob.
Sure. So, okay.
So what you have before you is a contract from M.D. Engineering, which is really based
on a memo I submitted to the board and we discussed at a November 9 town board meeting
with regards to open space planning efforts for the town. These efforts really associate
with mapping. What we're looking to do is utilize MJ Engineering and the GIS services
to provide open space mapping services to the town. We'll look at areas of community
importance from a standpoint of community values, so areas that are valued for water quality,
so looking at our stream corridors, the Hudson River, areas that are important for farming,
areas that have, you know, good farmland soil.
Taking a look at the town from a perspective of what are ways we can look to preserve open space in town with willing landowners.
But in order to do that, we really need to identify what it is important to us.
What areas of the community are important to us?
Is it flood protection along streams?
Is it preserving water quality?
Is it maintaining, you know, keeping good farm soils out of development?
Is it looking at areas to recreate places that we enjoy from a scenic value?
So we have a lot of data that's out there,
whether it's data for wetlands and steep slopes and prime farmland soils.
And past open space services have mapped those.
but we've never really done an analysis of what it is we as a community are looking to,
I'll say, recognize as being significant to the town.
And so it's really taking the past open space efforts one step further
and looking at these open spaces from a value standpoint.
And MJ will be able to help us with that.
We'll have a working group of myself.
We now have a part-time person who's helping us out with some open space efforts.
the conservation easement review board has certainly willing to participate in
efforts to act as an advisory group. And so phase one would really be the mapping
effort. Phase two is then holding workshops with the community to discuss
the mapping effort, getting the community feedback, and then finally
putting together a document that incorporates all the open-space mapping
efforts and talking about what are the next steps to implement a program.
We have somewhat of a program now where we have a conservation easement agreement where
folks can sign up to put a conservation easement on their property.
Identifying areas in town that are important to us will certainly help the conservation
board in their decision making on one best to approve or one best to recommend an
approval for conservation easement.
And so these open space mapping efforts will be providing guidance to both the Conservation
Board and the Town Board at a time of financing efforts or funding efforts that may be in
place to purchase property, purchase easements, or put conservation easements on property,
all with willing land owners.
We're not looking to restrict someone from developing their land.
This is only intended to help inform the Board at times of preserving land with willing
land owners.
Yes, Rob, some people have voiced some concerns to me, mostly with large landowners, which
I happen to be one of them, but I don't think they want to see, and I don't think we're
going there, but they don't want to see, like, a map identifying their farm or their
property or something as being, say, a target of wanting to keep this as open space,
because maybe in the future their family may want to sell a property or something
like that, and that would, you know, put shed poor light on that.
And actually the irony on that, Giles, is that a lot of land trusts don't like to
show the areas where they want to protect because they're afraid that it will
create a bidding war and drive up the value of a property.
Yes.
If you've got multiple people that are interested in a property that doesn't
to depress the value of a property, it tends to increase the market value.
Kennedy, I could see that, absolutely. But, sorry, excited to talk to you.
Sotomayor, but it might make them feel targeted before they're ready, like they're
not thinking about it, this is their family land, and all of a sudden now it's
labeled, ooh, good land, and then that's scary, because they don't want, you
know, it's, again, sort of like, unknown that.
Kennedy, they're concerned as long as we get, put those concerns and consider
them when we start mapping this stuff out or whatever.
Right, I think one way to address that concern is to avoid putting property lines on any
maps that are made.
That can be, you know...
Yeah, I can see that.
That can be a good idea.
But, you know, past open space efforts have gone back to 2008 and maybe even beyond.
We do have maps that are out there on the town website, as it was mentioned earlier,
that identify lands that are currently under agricultural use.
It's under a tidal report cover that says report on open space needs and opportunities.
I mean, I've been with the town for 10 years, I have not seen any result in someone being
denied the ability to develop their property based on using maps that are out there now.
And I certainly don't see a change in that dynamic as we move forward with this effort.
One of the other things that I think Nancy Neff raised that I wanted, she kind of took
the view that well, a consultant was hired to come up with a comprehensive plan.
That's true.
that's normal and other plans were done with the consultants and here we're
looking at a consultant for mapping but it is never the consultant's plan it's
the town plan nothing happens without the town board adopting it the whole
process would be guided by public input back and forth both through the local
waterfront revitalization plan the group we have and all the public
engagement for that and anything else that we would add to that to design
an open space plan for the whole town.
It would be something the board and the town does,
not that the consultant does.
So saying that, you know, you're using a consultant
means it isn't really correct.
And in this case, we are getting,
I don't want to go too far,
but it seems a rather good value.
It's less than we were expecting to pay
for something that we've not been able to come to ourselves.
We have one GIS person who was kind of taken up
for the county E911 project,
project and is now involved with other projects. And meanwhile, while he's been doing
that, everyone else has been waiting. So there's a lineup from engineering and for
other tasks. And using this resource that has great experience in this area will
really help us move forward a lot more quickly. So it's a matter of efficiency
for the town. The funds would come from our local government efficiency
fund. So it's not that we're, you know, raising taxes. This is all from the
reward money that we got several years ago, and I see it as a very effective way to advance
to the next steps of open space planning. But I did want to address that. I'm looking
at my notes. Is there anything else we left out that Nancy had raised?
Actually, Rob, I have one question for you. And this builds on a point that Ms.
and that is the town and the Hudson Valley are littered with plans that were finished
and forgotten. And when I read the contract, I don't, it's unclear exactly what the final
product will be from the consultant. And so my question to you is how are we going
to ensure that the plan that we develop with these funds and through this process will result
in a product that actually helps us make decisions in the town, as opposed to sitting on a shelf
forgotten.
Well, when you look at the final task of phase two, it talks about incorporating all the
activity from the previous phases, which includes the open space mapping, the public
work-stop efforts, inculminating that into an implementation strategy of how we're going
to implement this open-space preservation effort we have.
And so I expect that we'll take a look at what ways can the conservation easement board
can be engaged to help the open-space efforts, whether it's more advertisement of the conservation
easement program and that maybe these lands that are on the preservation map are eligible
for a conservation easement, but it's identifying funding sources, maybe the town board would
be encouraged to take a look at funding sources to purchase conservation easements with willing
landowners, purchase land with willing landowners.
But we'll have an implementation plan in that final document that gives us next steps
on how to move forward.
That's the initial thought.
It certainly is flexible as we move forward with the project.
You know, I think the benefit of not using a grant from a state agency or an agency that
has a scripted process, you've got to follow this step, and then once you're done with
that step, you've got to follow this step, we can be flexible in our process as we
go forward.
So as we hear things from the public at the public workshops, the direction that
I'm telling you now about the final product may change.
And that's in response to what we hear from the public.
So while there is some vagueness in the contract, I think it's a bit of a benefit
fit to be flexible as we go forward and get into the process with the public?
I agree, especially as it allows us to be more receptive to input from the community,
which I think is going to be key. And as you know from listening to me talk about
open space for the last decade, this is a process I'd very much like to be involved
with if that would be possible.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
I would say, actually, we're making steady progress. I wouldn't say the plans are
sitting on a shelf. A lot of what was done and packed for that group didn't come to
consensus about, you know, ultimately what we would do. A lot of that work led to
other work. We now are one of three-shown statewide with a conservation easement
program. We're proceeding with an open space mapping initiative that I don't know
that any of our other surrounding communities even have that. I mean,
in the immediate area. And so I think we get to an accept. Ultimately, it will come
to us, and there are some hard decisions out there. We had a tremendous amount of people
on one item today, but there have been big crowds for open space, too, in sharply
divided opinions. So we're proceeding to a point where the town board will be in
a place to make a decision after a lot of public input, and I see that as very
positive.
What is the action we're taking tonight, Rob?
This would, the action would be for the Board to authorize the supervisor to sign
the agreement, sign the contract with MJ Engineering for the open-space planning
services.
And did the supervisor properly read that motion and was it, I don't think I did.
I feel like you just called Rob up.
I did.
Yeah, I don't think I did.
So,
yeah, let's see, where is my agenda?
Can I, I'll read it.
Yeah, well, great.
So request from Director of Planning for Town Board to authorize the supervisor
to sign a contract with MJ Engineering for Open Space Planning Services.
So, Ms.
All in favor?
We're now to new business.
I've located my agenda.
And given the time, I'm loath to bring it up, new business, but I'm going to mention
a couple things that we'll be doing at the next meeting in February.
We'll have a report out on overtime for the town generally and also BPD specifically.
We'll be doing 2016 transfers.
That's the year ending transfers for 2016.
We will have a report out on a contract on a sewer odor consultant.
And that's important work because we want to make our sewers work as well as they possibly can.
plan. And we'll have a capital bonding presentation. There are a number of items that we've been
working on for some time. They're in the capital plan. They're not new, but we get to the stage
of bonding. So make that sort of announcement. And I also wanted to complete something we
raised at the last meeting, which was the governor's local
Local government efficiency proposal. I have since then located the budget language
which specifies the program, and it's not much more than you would read in the one paragraph
that describes it. The county executive, in our case, is expected to come up in consultation
with mayors and supervisors with a plan for efficiency, and that plan will go to the
the county legislature, which will work on it and put it before the voters for a vote.
And if the voters turn it down, then it will come back to the county executive for reconfiguring.
And the last time I was fairly positive about, you know, if you're supporting the general
direction that we ought to look at efficiencies, which I think we all are.
We ought to keep an open mind with regard to what might be there.
Now that I've seen the Article 7, that's the budget legislation, which really doesn't
add any greater clarity than what I just told you, I must say my open mind, and this
is dimmed a little bit because it's hard to see how this would work.
We have had meetings at the county level to try and reach efficiencies.
We've even had the potential of aid together.
But without some real push from that level, I don't think it will happen.
And I think the program would work much better if New York State really had some
skin and some effort in the game, if you would, if the State was out there helping
municipalities and counties and towns look at ways to save money and helping us get
there. That said, I will go to the meeting on Valentine's Day. It's a lovely
way to spend it. And I will report back on how it goes. But it doesn't appear
that there's a substantial program developed in legislation.
I'll await Jim's review, but I'm still not sure it's technically legal because, you know,
but it's an amendment to the home rule law, so maybe it is, but, you know.
You're right, Johnny.
Basically, the county executive has developed a plan.
It goes to the county legislature.
If the county legislature approves it, it goes to the county voters.
If they disapprove it, it goes back to the county executive, then back to the county
legislature, and then it's considered in 2018, and then if it's not adopted then, then presumably
it dies.
If the plan provides for, for example, the elimination of any elective offices, which
it could, then you have to follow the procedures of the State Constitution, Article
9, Section 3, which I was just trying to read furiously as we were going through
this, because I just got the law.
I haven't had an opportunity to take a look at that yet.
Well, any one thinks of what the county legislature would have the power to compel
and isn't really very much of all.
If, for example, you went to eliminating elective officials, but let's
pick something more pedestrian. Let's say they decided we should consolidate
police forces. They don't have the power to require that, as far as I know.
Kennedy, Jr.
That's one thing I'll have to look at in this, because this does have language
at the beginning of it talking about, you know, notwithstanding other laws.
So this seems to be, the intention here seems to be to draft a superseding
law, but the devil's in the details. And, you know, I just looked at this
and haven't had an opportunity to review that, but that would be a potential concern.
And it's not, by the way, that I think that's a likely outcome.
But even the most pedestrian things which won't save us much money like getting together
on purchasing, which we'd like to do, and then we have some examples of big savings,
I still don't see those as being within the purview of being required.
And for these things to work, you have to get consensus from the group of municipalities.
And usually you have to offer them a win-win for a town or a city or village
to give up something, you want to get it cheaper, better, working better. And without that happening,
they usually don't go very far, very fast. Moreover, the time that's been allocated
to this, given what I've seen in other efforts, just simply isn't enough. This group won't
be getting together until the spring, and it's supposed to have something together
by, I think, July 30th. I just don't see that happen, you know, in any level
detail. But we will go to the process, our report back. We'll keep trying. There are some
old ideas that have been around that might be picked up and dusted off. And we'll see
also if the legislature adopts it. We don't know if that's going to happen.
So that's my report back. And looking at both sides of the table now, I think I'm
ready to, and we all are, to entertain a motion to adjourn.
So moved.
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
You can come up here and talk to us afterward.
Thank you very much all for coming tonight.