More observations and additional background on the previous post about the County Dems’ wasted $23,500 in funding of losing candidates
: : : : : :
UPDATE #1: It’s worth also noting that two candidates who received some of the County Dems’ largest expenditures actually may have harmed other Democratic candidates.
Few expected Gene Keeler to win the District Attorney’s race—and indeed, he lost by a wide margin, despite the CCDC’s $12,500 contribution to his campaign.
As such, the main impact of Keeler’s futile candidacy was to activate the Czajka campaign and the Republican County committee. Mass-mailers and other get-out-the-vote efforts for Czajka almost certainly caused some Republicans countywide to turn out who otherwise would not have done so. These voters almost certainly then continued voting on Row B for GOP candidates further down the ballot. In close races in places like Copake and Ghent, where every vote counted, this narrowed those races.
A number of Dems pointed out early in the process that running a candidate who had lost multiple times before, and who was all but certain to lose again, would have the effect of boosting Republican turnout. However, CCDC leadership went ahead with backing Keeler with their largest donation of the cycle.
Meanwhile in Ghent, local Republicans attempted to bring a Chatham issue into the neighboring town race, putting up signs saying “Keep Chatham Zoning Out of Ghent.” This referred to dramatic and unpopular zoning changes proposed in Chatham which led to Maria Lull’s ouster—Lull being another beneficiary of the County Dems’ largesse, to the tune of $5,000.
After receiving many concerned inquiries from voters about the Republican signs, the Ghent Democratic candidates then had to spend considerable time neutralizing a problem not of their own making.
Matheney and Zan did so by (a) providing voters with a detailed run-down of proposed Ghent zoning changes, which arose from a multiyear process, and had nothing in common with Chatham’s; (b) pointing out that Ghent’s zoning revisions had bipartisan and unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans on the Town Board; and (c) cleverly, turning the tactic around on the GOP by putting up their own signs with the same message (Keep Chatham Zoning out of Ghent).
This then led to some County and Chatham Democrats furiously denouncing Matheney and Zan, just for distancing themselves from another town’s controversy. After some of the Ghent Dems’ signs were stolen and dumped in a supporter’s driveway, the pair requested that law enforcement investigate, and thanked D.A. Czajka for initiating such an inquiry. This then led to another round of denunciation of the Ghent Dems, both in private and in the minutes cited above.
In short: In the Ghent race, the County Dems’ backing of Lull and antipathy toward two longstanding Democratic candidates doubly or triply harmed them. Ultimately, the tenacity and thoroughness of their campaign organization allowed them to overcome these hurdles.
: : : : : :
UPDATE #2: Partisans of Lull have claimed that Lull has changed her registration from Republican to Democrat. However, that was not reflected in the 2019 voter rolls, obtained directly from the County Board of Elections.
It is possible that Lull filed to make that change, but such requests do not take effect until after an election cycle is complete; so anyone changing their party remains in their existing one until the next election. This is a longstanding Election Law rule intended to prevent voters from switching back-and-forth constantly to participate in another party’s primary, or for other short-term gain.
A flavor of how zoning issues roiled Chatham can be gleaned from minutes of a public hearing last May, which can be found here. (The transcript includes, among other things, what may have been the last public comments from Judy Grunberg, a frequent participant in County issues, before her death in late August.)
Longtime resident and attorney Mark Greenberg noted what others have mentioned to this site, that the controversial changes appeared to have been driven by a group of residents in the Thomas Road area, who had come together to oppose a camp for underprivileged children several years before.
GREENBERG: When I first heard that this short term rental law was something cooked up by just a group of citizens from one block, I found it truly hard to believe But now I have to say that I really do get the feeling that this law is really to benefit just a very small, very, very small minority of the town, against what I understand to be the wishes of the rest of the town. And that's why I do wonder, as some have commented already this evening, whether the board is truly being a representative board at this point.
Resident Julia Veronezi similarly observed:
VERONEZI: I believe the laws have been designed to benefit a few select individuals while every citizen of Chatham will be impacted by these laws... A particular concern are the revisions named in Article 5 which will create hardships on our citizens. The provisions in Article 5 go as far to restrict our personal behavior and our actions within the walls of our own homes, let alone within the boundaries of our property. In addition, I question the board's lack of concern for transparency... I see this as a plan created by and intending to serve a small group of elitist citizens.
