Dear Editor,
I am a homeowner in Swan Lake for more than twenty years, my parents having met as teenagers there in the 1950’s. I am also the president of a charitable organization, The Catskill Clean Water Fund which has raised and spent over $110,000 over the past 12 years to combat an invasive water chestnut plant in the lake. What started out as an effort by locals to preserve Swan Lake through grass roots activism has become a model for other lakes and rivers facing the issue. Thus, it was with great interest that I saw your story. Unfortunately, however the story only begins to scratch the surface of what is truly going on.
The “Hamlet” of Swan Lake has over the past twenty years gradually been overrun by developers. Worse, they are developers of high-density multi-unit housing. Thus, when one thinks of the beautiful Catskills and of course a “Hamlet” like Swan lake the last thing they think about is what is being proposed here. 180 homes all multi family. The number alone should be enough for any reasonable person to wonder how a rural community could handle it. Obviously, it can’t.
While we could spend quite a bit of time explaining why the proposal to change the zoning to accommodate the developer surely would not pass scrutiny under the current statutes, what is most disturbing is that it likely will pass at essentially the sole urging of one man, Liberty Supervisor Frank DeMayo who has maintained relatively unchecked power by way of being in his “elected” position while running unopposed. Perhaps one might consider asking Mr. DeMayo why he would be and has in the past, been so quick to grant applications such as this to build high density housing units in a rural “Hamlet” despite opposition from the few people who become aware in a timely fashion that something is occurring right under their noses which could forever alter the character of a place. The few residents who have spoken out have never received a satisfactory answer.
The lake itself, in case you are unfamiliar with it, is a pristine and unspoiled part of nature that is about to be overrun with construction, multi-unit housing, and of course, waste. When Mr. Demayo states as he did in your article that the developer is “considering” the possibility of creating a “conservation easement” so “it would be forever wild,” it should cause one to laugh if not for the fact that if you live in the area, you are more likely to cry. It is an astonishing, insulting statement. This rare, beautiful, unspoiled part of the Catskills is about to be forever spoiled, no longer “wild” in any sense, and conserved only for additional high-density development. Apparently Mr. DeMayo also failed to mention that in addition to the “consideration” of creating a “forever wild” easement, part of the arrangement being considered is also a rather shockingly open payment (payoff?) of $2,500 per home (yes, you read that correctly and it is in the submitted plan) whereby the developer will “contribute” $2,500 per home in order to secure approval which “may” be used to create a “recreation fund” which no resident of Swan Lake would either use or wish for. One must wonder what other promises a developer might be willing to offer to secure permission to build.
While I’m certain your paper has perhaps other more pressing issues to cover, I was quite pleased and surprised to see that you decided to mention what perhaps at first blush appears to be a relatively small story. Regretfully in reality it is not. When one small “Hamlet” is beset by powerful developers who can openly pay for, bully or dangle false promises for the right to destroy the previously unspoiled beauty of an area that can only rely on that unspoiled beauty for continued vitality, it is dangerous to us all. And shameful.
Very truly yours,
Paul Edelstein
Swan Lake
