Originally Posted by
takethepowerback
If I were a Lancaster resident, I'd be considering a Article 78 filing against the town. According to NYS OPRHP's Alienation Handbook, this use of the park is requires an "alienation" which means the state must pass a bill approving the change in use. It's an alientation requiring state approval for a host of reasons...from the Handbook
1. "It is also worth noting that grant contracts with municipalities involving the development of recreational facilities with State or Federal funds require the municipality to obtain alienation legislation."
2. Size of the change in use is irrelevant.
3. This is determined by the courts.... "The lease of municipal park or recreational facilities, especially one to a private profit-making concern, even though the resource may continue to be used for public park and recreational purposes."
4. The Court of appeals has ruled that buildings are appropriate in a park only if they are consistent with park purposes AND if they “facilitate free public means of pleasure, recreation, and amusement and thus provide for the welfare of the community.”
It's not that an alienation might not be granted, its the arrogance displayed by Lancaster officials in ignoring the law that's dismaying. Complete and continual disregard for state law, environmental assessments, and good old fashion cost benefit is why taxes continues to climb and as the town tries to build its way out, it really is only making the problems worse.