My dad would be proud he asked Mike Hammond to run for supervisor 40 years ago
To the Editor:
A letter to the editor in last week’s edition of The Enterprise opined that Mike Hammond has served too long as Knox’s supervisor and that, because of Mike and Councilman [Nicholas] Viscio, businesses are not welcome in Knox.
I’ve lived here for 71 years and I have never been aware that these two gentlemen wield such power.
The origin of Knox’s zoning laws occurred during the latter part of the 1960s and became law in the mid 1970s, during Mike’s first term as supervisor. The town board during the l960s was made up of a Republican supervisor, two Republican councilman, one Republican justice, and one Democratic justice. The zoning was requested by town residents mainly to halt the creation of trailer parks within the town. The only change in the makeup of the town board in the mid-1970s was Mike being elected supervisor.
During the subsequent years between then and today, the town board has asked various individuals to serve on the town’s planning board and the zoning board of appeals. Through all those years, the Knox residents who have served on those boards have been both qualified to serve and conscientious in performing the required duties of those boards.
While the town board appoints the members of the planning board and must vote to amend or add to the law, it is the members of the planning board who recommend those amendments or additions to the law. That board is given as much leeway as reasonable to perform its duties.
It’s true that Mike has been supervisor for 40 years. I remember that during Mike’s first term he found a source of revenue that his predecessor apparently was not aware of (an action which is an example of being diligent).
I also remember him stating that he always wanted the town’s financial records to be in order. He has always lived up to that standard. Mike has served diligently, honestly, and with integrity, and certainly deserves another term in office.
My dad was Democrat leader during the 1970s and he asked Mike to run for supervisor. I doubt that he ever entertained a notion that Mike would still be supervisor 40 years after that first win, but I believe that, if Dad were alive, he would still be convinced that he made the right choice back then and he would be proud to cast a vote for him again in this year’s election.
Mike’s opponent does not have a track record of any kind in public office. She has jumped on the bandwagon of a few hot-button issues, but that does not guarantee she will do a good job as supervisor. I wonder if she has an inkling of how involved the required duties and workload of the office of supervisor really are.
It’s much more than a mere sandwich, ice cream cone, gallon of milk or a gas pump, or a reading of the supervisor’s manual.
In an earlier letter to the editor, in opposition to the SAFE [Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement] Act, his opponent commented something to the effect that an apparent collective “we” are going to take our country back, town by town. I wonder who specifically took the country away from that collective “we” and further, when was it taken away?