In last week’s article “Highland to hold hearing on proposed law,” it was reported that some landowners are complaining that the Town of Highland, NY is moving too swiftly to pass Local Law #3-2012, a zoning amendment that would ban high-impact industrial uses like horizontal hydrofracking throughout the town.

In fact, this law has been a long time coming. The town set up a task force on natural gas drilling in 2008, and also enacted its first moratorium that year. In 2010, there were several town events on gas drilling, including a heavily attended town meeting in September at which the comments were virtually unanimous against it. Also in 2010, the Highland Committee on Energy and Environment (CEE) was formed, which in February of 2011 co-sponsored, with Lumberland’s CEE, the initial meeting at which attorneys David and Helen Slottje gave the presentation that provided the template for Tusten and Lumberland’s similar ordinances—which have already passed.

In March of 2011, the Highland Town Board approved a motion to request the Slottjes’ assistance in reviewing and formulating its comprehensive plan and any pertinent zoning modifications (March 13, 2011, “Highland makes headway on gas protections.”) In April of 2011, another moratorium on gas drilling was approved by the board on the basis of overwhelming support expressed at a public hearing just prior to the vote (April 20, 2011, “Highland approves moratorium on high impact industrial uses.”) And on page 45 of the town’s comprehensive plan—for which a task force was formed in early 2011, and which passed in March 2012 after a lengthy public process (October 19, 2011, “Highland hearings scheduled”)—we find the goal: “Define and prohibit industrial uses that compromise the natural resources in the town, specifically the high quality water resources.”

In short, there was plenty of time and opportunity to provide input for those who wished to do so.

But this type of complaint—and its lack of grounds—is something we’ve seen a lot of lately. It was made against both the Tusten and Lumberland zoning rewrites as well, for instance. Frequently in this kind of case the charge is made that, because the speakers were not involved in the process up to the point they started complaining, that process must be undemocratic; in extreme cases, you will hear people saying that the whole process happened “behind closed doors.”

In all these cases, a committee of volunteers, chosen by an elected board, worked on something for months or years, in a process requiring (and receiving) public notice, public meetings, public hearings and sometimes even statistical surveys and sampling. And in all these cases, at the tail end of the process, when the panel that has been working on the project has come within sight of the finish line, a bunch of critics wake up, are aggrieved that they weren’t included in the process, and want everybody else to slow down while they catch up.

This problem is not limited to zoning. Similar remarks have been made about the waterfront revitalization project in Narrowsburg—and, in that case, as noted in the March 29 article “Esplanade plan dates back 20 years” and the Tusten Town Board’s FAQ printed on the op-ed page on April 12, the project has been on the table in one form or another, and open to public scrutiny, since 1996.

Woody Allen once wrote that 90% of life is showing up, and in the public arena that is especially true. It can be tiring. It can be boring. We all have many things we would rather be doing than sitting through a zoning rewrite meeting or a subcommittee work session. But unfortunately, if you really want to participate in the democratic process, that’s what you have to do. You could even just try reading the local newspaper; the articles referenced above would have told anyone who bothered to read them what was going on (visit www.riverreporter online.com for live links).

But if you’re willing neither to show up nor to read, you should be prepared for the probability that there are a lot of municipal projects that will get down close to the finish line before you even realize they are happening, let alone have a chance to say anything about them.

If, at that point, you have criticisms, it is absolutely your right to communicate them. But don’t think you have the right to complain about the “rush,” or about the fact that nobody showed up on your doorstep to draft you onto a committee. You want to know who winds up on those committees? The ones who show up at all those boring monthly meetings and are in the audience when the invitation to volunteer is extended. (Or again, read the paper: Liberty residents, see page 2.)

And by the way, there’s still time to make yourself heard before the Highland law is “rushed through;” see below for details.