To the Editor:

In the last several weeks, I’ve read a number of letters to the Gazette concerning the Village
Board’s December 8, 2009 meeting with Harmon area property owners to discuss the recently
enacted zoning amendments affecting the Harmon area. I didn’t attend this meeting, and thus,
offer no opinions regarding what was said that evening. Rather, I wish to express my agreement
with several points raised in a letter published in the January 7-13, 2010 issue of the Gazette,
written by Eileen Henry.

First, I agree that no citizen should be required to provide evidence of their opinion as a
prerequisite to the expression of their opinion on a public issue in a public forum. Thus, I agree
that it was inappropriate for Robert Wintermeier to attempt to put Ms. Henry to her proof simply
for stating her opinion. It should be noted, however, that Ms. Henry’s seeming outrage at such an
“attack” – to use her word – would not ring quite so hollow had she not ended her letter by
similarly challenging yet another one of her critics, Maria Cudequest, to present evidence in
support of Ms. Cudequest’s quite different opinion on the matter.

Second, I completely agree with Ms. Henry that personal attacks launched upon citizens
who choose to speak their mind on matters of public interest are repugnant and have no place in a
civil, substantive debate. I specifically condemn anyone who would personally attack Ms. Henry
or anyone else for having expressed their opinion regarding the Harmon rezoning amendments
(though I do not consider mere expressions of substantive disagreement to be tantamount to an
“attack”). My viewpoint on this issue has been informed by the experience of having been
immediately and personally attacked by an anonymous internet blogger after offering my
comments regarding the Harmon proposal at the Village Board’s public hearing on November 2,
2009. What was more disturbing, however, was that this same anonymous blogger, who
expressed strong support for the rezoning proposal, also posted an explicit threat to immediately
and continuously harass and intimidate anyone who would seek redress of their legitimate
grievances concerning the rezoning proposal through access to courts of law – a right just as
fundamental as the first amendment right that Ms. Henry defends in her letter. This type of
attempt to intimidate opponents of the rezoning proposal absolutely smacks of the kind of
McCarthyist tactics that Ms. Henry alludes to – apparently correctly – in her letter. After all, if a
threat against the exercise of one’s constitutional rights in opposition to the actions of a one-party
government by an anonymous shill of the administration isn’t patently un-American – to borrow a
phrase – I don’t know what is.

Finally, I believe the true lesson to be taken from this exchange of letters is that, if there is
blame to be assessed for the lack of a public record of this meeting, that blame must be placed
squarely on the shoulders of the Village Board, who chose not to videotape the December 8, 2009
meeting, even though they, as well as members of the Village’s Economic Development
Committee, were speaking to the public in their capacity as Village officials that evening.
Hopefully, this dialogue will serve to raise the consciousness of the members of the Village Board
to the fact that the Harmon rezoning amendments continue to be a matter of intense public interest.
Perhaps the public debate enfolding on these pages will place the Board on notice that, from now
on, any time they address the public on this issue, creating a public record of their comments
would be advisable.
Roseann Schuyler
Croton on Hudson