The Town That Couldn't Vote Straight

I've, been reading the email traffic on the Copake Politics Forum these last weeks following the vote about disbanding the Copake Police force. The voters spoke and The Police force is to be disbanded. Now there appears to be a question about trying to obtain an injunction against the result of the vote.

Can people really be serious about launching an injunction; a lengthy and costly battle in the hamlet of Copake over a vote that is done and decided? Will that include fund raisers to pay for lawyers to research, argue and file all sides of the judicial argument, or will the council have to defend the outcome of a legal and settled vote at taxpayers expense? Will we have signs along the highway proclaiming which side we're on? Bumper stickers? T shirts? Can we look forward to shouting matches at Town Hall like we've had for four long years? Will we enjoy seeing the articles and letters in local and regional newspapers about "The Town That Couldn't Vote Straight.?" or "The Town That Couldn't Make Up It's Mind?"

Yes, let's have an injunction. Then we can become a truly divided village, mimicking the dysfunctional political relationships we see statewide and nationally. We can reinvent ourselves not as The Land of

Rural Charm, but as the town that like Congress, can't get out of it's own way, does nothing productive and above all, still resolves issues based on partisan politics. Anyone who thinks a vote they're unhappy with merits a revote, should take a long look at our national and state politics and ask themselves if they'd like to saddle our town with the precedent it will set for both sides to default to when they lose a

vote in the future and saddle our town too, with the costs each injunction will bring and the unbridled, emotional enmity that will surely follow.

Ian Jarvis