2010-08-18 / Front Page
Voters save Village
Village says no to dissolution
Nearly 100 people turned out to watch as the votes were tabulated. When Mayor Mary Lowther announced the results shortly after 10 p.m., the room erupted with cheering and whistling.
Government reform activist Kevin Gaughan was also in the room with a handful of his supporters. After the results were announced, he maintained his stance that villagers would have benefited from dissolution, while resolving to do things differently in the future.
“I disagree with the decision, but I respect it immensely,” he said. “I’m going to work harder next time to convince people this is the greatest community in America, but we’re dying and we have to do something about that.” He took much of the blame for the results of the vote. “I’m going to think long and hard about how to do this better. I let those folks that believe in the future of the community down. I’m never going to do that again,” he said.
The dissolution proposition also failed in the Village of Sloan, with 1331 residents voting no to dissolution and 236 voting to dissolve.
“I’m looking forward to the law being looked at again. To vote without a plan in place doesn’t make sense,” she said.
“The public has spoken,” said trustee Jeffrey Kingsley. “The government will continue, but the status quo will not. We’re going to continue many of the projects we’ve started,” he said, mentioning specifically the consolidation of the water system with Erie County and the transformation of the water mill to a village square.
Polls were open between noon and 9 p.m. Throughout the day, voter turnout was strong. Several spaces in the municipal lot behind Village Hall were reserved specifically for voters. Many went to great lengths to vote. Village resident Dave Pennington, who lives in one of the high-rises, spent his day shuttling his neighbors back and forth to the polls in his car. Pennington stated that he is disabled himself and returns to the polls in his wheelchair after his final shuttle run of the day.
“We came here at 20 to noon and we were number 30,” said trustee Basil Piazza. Members of Friends of the Village of Williamsville spent the entire day passing out flyers urging people to vote no. Amy Alexander, co-founder of the group, characterized the public response as “very positive.”
“A lot of people said, ‘I don’t need your flyer, I’m voting no,’ ” she said. Members of the Williamsville Fire Department were also urging a no vote.
“Why change something that works?” village resident Roberta Doyle asked. “If you change something, and it turns out not to be good, you can’t get it back.”
Village resident Joseph Zbytek also voted against dissolution. “I think that everyone has the right to do what they want, but the village is functioning fine,” he said. “It’s a historic place. We have a lot to offer and the village does a good job of providing services. I’m happy with the services I get.”
Not everyone voted against dissolution, however.
“I’m new to the village, but I’ve lived in Amherst for years,” said one woman who declined to give her name. “I think we’re overladen with administrative layers. You can surmise from that how I voted. My neighbors urged me to vote, and I did, but not the way they wanted me to.”
Under the provisions of the recently-changed law on petition-initiated dissolution referenda, four years must pass before another petition can be circulated on the topic of dissolving the village of Williamsville.




Print Edition













