While federal law prohibits the publication of misleading information in commercial advertisements, political ads are generally considered to be protected free speech. So what’s a Town Board to do when special interest ad buyers post false claims about essential issues?
First of all, readers are pretty discerning when it comes to decoding bonkers opinions. So while it’s dismaying to see ads peddling falsehoods alongside those for real estate and restaurants, savvy readers know that “Friends of” signals politics, and nothing is below the belt in that realm.
The Town Board could ask the publisher to vet information presented as facts more carefully. But there’s a strong financial incentive to accept full-page ads. That, combined with an admirable bias in support of free speech, tight deadlines, and staffing constraints, makes it unlikely that publishers will ax political ads for containing misbegotten opinions.
[Editor’s note: We reached out to Times-Review Publisher Andrew Olsen to explain his company’s policy for vetting the accuracy of such ads; he has not yet responded to email and telephone messages.]
And, you can always call on editors to provide space to balance published untruths. Ambrose Clancy did that when he gave Supervisor Gerry Siller a front-page column in the July 7 edition of The Reporter. Siller used the space to refute wrong information contained in paid ads by special interest “Friends of” groups and Letters to the Editor.
But like the monster that grows two heads where you cut off one, Siller’s article seems to have prompted even more such ads.
Five full pages from “Friends of Shelter Island” and “Friends of Coecles Harbor” comprised 14 percent of the newspaper’s July 21 edition. Hilariously, there was also an editorial critical of the “condescending and absurd” content in ads and letters; it helpfully pointed out that posting lies is “no laughing matter.”
Members of the Town Board discussed these provocations in meetings on Tuesday and were undecided about how to proceed. Tune in at the work session on August 2 at 1 PM to find out what, if any, other strategies they’ll employ.
Tipping the balance
For perspective, the July 21 issue had only about 10 pages of editorial content — that’s all the headlines, subheadlines, bylines, stories, editorials, letters to the editor, photos, photo captions, lines that separate columns, and surrounding white space that makes the text easier to read.
While editorial content took up only 28 percent of 36 pages, the “Friends of” ads amounted to another 14 percent of the total. (And yes, it’s a wonky thing to tally editorial copy versus ads, but it’s second nature after decades of paying close attention.)
Generally, local newspapers aim for a 40/60 ratio, with about 40 percent editorial content. The other 60 percent is ads, from splashy full-page displays to tiny classifieds.
Commercial advertisers work to make their products stand out — the whole point is to catch a reader’s eye. But political ads — especially about complex issues that require explanation — aim to blend in as editorial content.
From a publisher’s perspective, they’re an easy source of revenue at a time when overall advertising is in decline. In addition, they don’t require a lot of graphic design and typically are in black and white, so they’re cheaper to print.
Other than a small tag that says “paid advertisement” at the top and a “paid for by” disclaimer at the bottom, these ads mimic a newspaper’s style. Sometimes a solid border around a paid ad will serve to set an ad apart from editorial content. But not all paid ads are boxed, and editorial content can also have decorative borders, adding to the potential for confusion.
Debunking false claims
At Tuesday’s meetings, the Town Board agreed that these “Friends of” groups risk misleading the public about critical issues. But members differed on how to respond.
Supervisor Siller said he wants to meet with the groups to debunk falsehoods; Councilman Jim Colligan (who persisted in calling the ads “articles”) agreed but said he prefers “not to rehash.”
Councilwomen BJ Ianfolla and Meg Larsen said they’d rather discuss the idea of holding such a meeting at their next work session. Deputy Supervisor Amber Brach-Williams did not offer her opinion on whether to invite these groups to a special meeting. Still, she said, there is a need to respond to each published falsehood.
And there are many to address.
One particularly egregious claim that demands immediate correction is the Friends of Coecles Harbor assertion published in a July 21 paid ad that the Town “would divert part if not all of the approximately $15M cash accrued in the CPF accounts into uses that promote high-density developments.”
Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., who authored both the Community Preservation Fund and Community Housing laws, says that’s simply not true.
“They can’t do that,” Thiele said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “It’s a dedicated fund. The Community Preservation Fund can only be used for the purposes of acquiring land for open space, farmland, parkland, and preservation — those four categories. And then there’s also the provisions that the voters approved that up to 20 percent of the money can also be used for water quality projects.”
Read more in “Thiele debunks published claims about Community Housing.”
Public input bypass?
But if the board responds to ad pressure by hosting a special meeting with “Friends of” groups — as Siller and Colligan proposed — it risks creating a public input bypass for people who can afford to pay to amplify their opinions, no matter how off-base.
Two issues currently drawing fire are the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Community Housing Plan. In both cases, the Town Board did what state law calls for and appointed volunteers to serve on committees to review these inherently controversial matters.
These committees are tasked with researching the issues, gathering public input, and making recommendations to the Town Board. Both offer ample opportunities for public input. Below is a synopsis of what they’re doing and how to get involved.
[A third issue getting a lot of attention is the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), but there’s been no definitive action in this area beyond the issuance of a request for proposals seeking a consultant to draft a TDR program. Follow this link to read more.]
Comprehensive Plan Update
In keeping with state law, two members of the Town Board serve on the Task Force managing the Comprehensive Plan Update (CPU), along with one Planning Board member. The Task Force works with an appointed committee of 10 community volunteers; the idea is to balance the Town’s municipal interests and expertise with input from citizens. Where needed for specialized study, the team can hire consultants.
Last year, the Town Board put the update on hold after a division emerged between the Task Force and members of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Some CPAC members wanted more authority over the plan and hiring and firing consultants. As a result, three people resigned — two from the Task Force and one from CPAC.
The Town Board revived the effort earlier this year, with newly-elected Councilwomen Ianfolla and Larsen joining the Task Force. Before being elected, Larsen had served on the then 12-member CPAC. Down two members, but having already covered a lot of ground, the citizen volunteers agreed to continue with just 10.
The Task Force and CPAC hold evening meetings at least once per month, open to the public. People can attend in person or via Zoom. In addition, anyone can review materials on the Town’s CPU webpage and submit comments at specific times during meetings or at any time via email or regular mail to the project’s clerk.
Last week, there was a meeting to review and gather input on draft chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, last formally updated in 1994. The next meeting is Monday, August 22 at 6:30 PM. Use this link to find the details such as contact options, Zoom login, and materials up for discussion.
In response to requests from those unable to attend, the Town began posting the meetings on its YouTube channel.
Community Housing Plan
Meanwhile, the Community Housing Fund Advisory Board (CH-FAB) — with volunteers appointed in keeping with state law — is holding public open houses to gather input about the Community Housing Plan.
A Community Housing Plan, enabled by a long-sought state law passed in October, is similar in structure to a Community Preservation Plan. Both follow state parameters for what must be included, with flexibility for each community to reflect local preferences. CH-FAB is working with a consulting firm on a Housing Needs Assessment to gather data that can help inform local housing strategies.
In expending revenues from its Community Housing or Community Preservation funds, the Town is constrained by what’s allowed under each fund’s plan. In other words, towns can only spend money from a fund on things expressly permitted under that fund’s state law and local plan.
While the two funds stem from related issues — the need to preserve community character and ensure an adequate supply of housing opportunities for all segments of the community — they’re entirely separate.
CH-FAB aims to make the Community Housing Plan available for Town Board approval before a vote during this fall’s general election on a related — but not required — 0.5 percent real estate transfer tax. This is in addition to the 2.0 percent paid by buyers in support of the Community Preservation Fund.
If the new transfer tax is approved, the minimum threshold for real estate trades affected by the combined transfer taxes will rise to offset the impact on property buyers at the lower end of the market.
Like the Community Preservation Fund, the Town’s Community Housing Fund may also be supported by other revenues — such as grants, general fund balances, and gifts. Voters weigh in only on the 0.5 percent transfer tax. The Town Board has already set up a Community Housing Fund and has sole discretion to adopt the Community Housing Plan recommended by CH-FAB.
And, as with the Community Preservation Fund Advisory Board, the Town had to find representatives with specific backgrounds to populate the CH-FAB board. As a result, the committee represents a cross-section of the community while ensuring that it includes people with local expertise in housing, such as real estate, construction, and banking.
CH-FAB is holding public open houses on Saturdays to give people who can’t make it to their weeknight meetings a chance to provide input on the Community Housing Plan. The next one is Saturday, August 6 from 3 to 5 PM at the Shelter Island Presbyterian Church.
CH-FAB has also posted an online form that any Islander can fill out to add their feedback on housing. The committee has made printed copies available for those who aren’t computer savvy. CH-FAB’s next regular committee meeting is August 18 at 7 PM. Find details on the CH-FAB’s Town webpage.
Once CH-FAB completes its work, the Town Board will hold a public hearing on a formal resolution before adopting the committee’s recommendations. Likewise, the Town will hold a public hearing before enacting recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan Update (not expected until next year).
Fear of change
Given that CPAC and CH-FAB have been tasked with gathering public input and have established systems to do so, what do these new special interest groups hope to gain by demanding direct engagement with the Town Board?
Bill Derrough, speaking at Tuesday’s meeting for Friends of Coecles Harbor, said his group disagrees with the Town Board’s strategy of moving ahead simultaneously with the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Community Housing Plan, and an investigation of Transfer of Development Rights.
While he’s entitled to his opinion — and many others may share it — that doesn’t give “Friends of” groups license to publish false information.
Bob Kohn, who speaks for (and may be the only member of) Friends of Shelter Island, is an attorney who surely knows he can say pretty much whatever he wants in a paid ad. And his ads are chock-a-block with fear-mongering dubious assertions. Kohn regularly engages in testy exchanges with public officials. They should know better than to take the bait, but his prosecutorial style often devolves into insufferably strident nitpicking that’s hard to sit through quietly.
Before Kohn began buying ads, he had a lot to say about Community Housing. For anyone needing a refresher on how he feels, read “Bob Kohn’s Big Idea: If you can’t afford to live here, leave.” And the follow-up, “Town Board removes Kohn from Community Housing Board.”
It bears mentioning that there is one more recently-formed “Friends of” group that’s also been dishing up ads. “Shelter Islanders for Clean Water and Responsible Zoning” appear to have cadged the first portion of their name from a project undertaken by a group of regional nonprofits called “Shelter Islanders for Clean Water.”
But the new group is not affiliated with that project, which advocated here last summer for the widespread adoption of modern septic systems to replace aging systems.
On behalf of SICWRZ, Patrick Clifford has been in regular attendance at Town Board and committee meetings. When Derrough asked for a special meeting to hash out his group’s concerns, Clifford pointed out that the Town Board should invite all the new groups, including his own.
Weaponizing anxiety
Taken as a whole, the “Friends of” ads appear to have this in common: They express understandable fears relating to change but by including falsehoods, they weaponize anxiety to the possible detriment of the Town’s democratic processes, which appropriately include citizens actively engaged in decision making.
The committees tasked by the Town Board with researching and recommending where, when, and to what degree the Town of Shelter Island should make changes engage in robust debates and have demonstrated sensitivity to people’s legitimate concerns.
But by throwing money around and claiming special status, “Friends of” groups play into what’s potentially the most corrosive facet of Shelter Island’s resort community nature — the false underestimate that this is an “us” versus “them” place.
From our vantage point, Shelter Island is at its best when it pulls together in support of the shared values that make this a great place to live, no matter which part of the Island you occupy and whether you’re here for a week, a month, the entire summer, three seasons, or all year long.
If these groups would behave like actual friends, they’d bring their concerns — along with expertise they’re willing to share — to the tables where their neighbors are doing the messy work of hashing out differences to find common ground.
[Editor’s note: I don’t usually speak up at Town Board meetings, except to ask for clarifications, but I did respond at Tuesday’s meetings to comments by Bob Kohn and Friends of Coecles Harbor. You can read what I had to say here.
