By Russ Tarby
Contributing Writer
Yesterday, Tuesday, June 21, the village of Liverpool conducted its most dynamic village election in recent history.
As I write this on Saturday, June 18, I’m predicting that several hundred voters will turn out to elect two trustees and make their voices heard on the future of the village justice court. That anticipated turnout stands in stark contrast to the usual 60 or so who cast ballots in village elections for each of the past dozen years, when most candidates ran unopposed.
The village is currently home to 1,525 registered voters.
(Editor’s note: Village of Liverpool residents resoundingly defeated a resolution to abolish the village court, voting 370 to 138 against the proposition. In addition, voters elected newcomers Matt Devendorf and Brad Young to the board of trustees with 328 and 293 votes, respectively; incumbent Jim Rosier, with 236 votes, was not returned to the board.)
Referendum prediction
Interestingly, what drew voters to the polls Tuesday was not a hotly contested choice between candidates but a referendum on the village board’s April 14 resolution to abolish the village court as of July 4.
My guess is that the abolition of the court will be overturned by a margin of some 300 “no” votes to less than 100 “yes” votes supporting the trustees’ decision.
As to the two trustee seats, seven-term incumbent Jim Rosier ran for re-election challenged by newcomers Matt Devendorf and Bradley Young. Devendorf and Rosier are Republicans while Young ran on the Residents’ Party line last used by Anthony LaValle when he first ran for village justice against George Alessio in 2008. LaValle was re-elected as judge on Tuesday, but he ran as a Republican without opposition as he did in 2012.
Trustee Nick Kochan, whose seat was also up for grabs Tuesday, had been defeated by Devendorf at the May 2 village Republican caucus.
New blood needed
While the race to fill the trustee seats took a back seat to the court referendum yesterday, it’s certain that at least one new trustee will be elected. That transfusion of new blood is desperately needed, because the present board abdicated its leadership role this year by ignoring its constituents’ opinions on two important issues — by allowing drive-thru restaurants in the business district and by attempting to dissolve the village court.
It looks as though voters stood up for their village court Tuesday, but it remains to be seen how the Dunkin’ Donuts proposal will play out on Second Street.
Dunkin’ Donuts fiasco
On March 21, the trustees accommodated Dunkin’ Donuts’ request for permission to operate a drive-thru window at the proposed location at 105-113 Second St.
The trustees unanimously OK’d the drive-thru despite the fact that nearly a dozen residents, including former Mayor Jim Farrell and current Zoning Board Chairman Mike Romano, publicly spoke out against allowing drive-thru restaurants in the village, which is already overwhelmed with traffic.
Not only did the trustees ignore its residents. They also failed to fulfill the vision of the village’s Comprehensive Plan 2025. Adopted in 2007, the comprehensive plan proposes to quell traffic here to make the village more pedestrian friendly.
Even Onondaga County planners seemed to care more about the village traffic problems than did the trustees. The county board urged village officials and the Dunkin’ Donuts applicant to “increase adherence to the Village Comprehensive Plan 2025 and to ensure more appropriate traffic flow within the village.”
Who represents residents?
When the trustees demonstrated their lack of leadership by bowing to the applicant’s drive-thru desires, they effectively abandoned the citizens whom they ostensibly represent.
Both of the new trustees candidates — Devendorf and Young — have indicated their opposition to the Dunkin’ Donuts plan. In his campaign statements, Devendorf clearly stated his intention to hold true to the Comprehensive Plan. And for his part, Young wrote, “In March, the board changed the [village] code so that Dunkin’ Donuts could operate a drive-thru on Second Street despite multiple protests, despite the county’s warnings and at variance with our own Comprehensive 2025 plan.”
So here’s hoping that if either Devendorf or Young or both are elected village trustee, the new village board will become reinvigorated with a sense of what’s right for the people of the village — what’s right for the village, not for businessmen who are more concerned with profits than with people.
Dunkin’ thumpin’
While villagers anxiously await the results of a state DOT traffic-impact study, the Liverpool Village Planning Board continues to evaluate a site plan submitted by ESW Realty for a planned Dunkin’ Donuts on Second Street between the Vine Street traffic light and the Cypress Street traffic light.
The planning board is scheduled to meet at 7 p.m. Monday, June 27.
If you think that a restaurant with a drive-thru window will negatively affect traffic flow here, you should make your concerns known to village planners by attending the meetings and/or writing a letter to the Village Clerk’s Office, 310 Sycamore St., Liverpool, 13088; or via email at [email protected].
The columnist can be reached at [email protected].
