To the editor:

I believe that the annexation of the property on Route 20 to support a proposal to build retail and senior housing at the Route 20 East site should be denied for the following “substantive” reasons:

First, it’s disappointing to see our community prioritizing a proposal like this rather than identifying ways that we can support the development of innovative and small businesses.

The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes a healthy mix of businesses in our community. We are not providing enough support to our small businesses. What happened to Kimberly’s and Circa? The small business owners I’ve talked to have said “No” to this proposal, “we don’t need it.”

In order to thrive in the future and strengthen our character as a community, we need to develop a focused program on small business growth and innovation.

• How can the members of our farmer’s market further grow their businesses?
• How can we use the tremendous talent of our teachers like our “Engineering Teacher of the Year” faculty member to seed a new business?
• How can we advance the efforts of the group of community leaders who have sought to seed innovation in the community?
• What new businesses can take advantage of the conference center that is growing up in our midst?

Second, is this a fair deal — “properly balanced” from an income and wealth transfer perspective.

The proposal is put forth by members of the Cazenovia community who stand to gain as a result of implementing this proposal. To date, we have been offered very little information about what the members of the community will gain (and lose) economically as a result. I could find no information on the town and village of Cazenovia websites about the specific economic impact. The Cazenovia Republican provided vague promises of “bringing in jobs” and “hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue each year.” Informal estimates were provided at the community meeting.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit; but let’s be fair. And let’s be open about it.

The question of wealth disparity has come to the forefront of our national dialog and we deserve, as a community, to examine it clearly and in a transparent manner here.

I do believe that we should reject the proposal and the annexation outright and focus on other things. But let’s develop a process for assessing economic fairness of our community’s similar projects.

• Show us the money trail. Document it; make it public.
• How much profit will Muraco, Sphere partners Widrick and Wendler, Aldi’s and Rite Aid make?
• How many jobs will be created? What types of jobs? What wages will be earned?
• What are the estimated tax revenues for the village and the town? What new expenditures will the village and town have as a result of the project?
• How will we invest net new tax revenues (if any)?
• When we see all these numbers, is it fair? Do the members of our community believe it’s fair?

John M. Druke

Cazenovia