Unifying Pelham’s two villages and one town should be goal of all municipal officials

To the editor:

Pelham unification just naturally appeals to many people. The continued division has its defenders. I doubt that either perspective is dependent on some mathematical calculation. People’s’ attitudes rarely are.

The original three villages in the town were incorporated in the 1890s to provide neighborhood services in the different population centers in Pelham that the town taxpayers, through the town council, were unwilling to pay for. It was the horse and buggy era, and even a few blocks were a time consuming distance if you needed a policeman or fireman. One hundred years ago, we had three train stations and three police lock-ups. Time moves on. Since 1975, we are down to two villages and two lock-ups and one train station.

Is there any good reason why we have three municipal governments in Pelham? The defenders of the present set up have their own reasons—whatever they may be. After 70 years in Pelham and having owned homes in all three original villages and in the new Village of Pelham, I have my attitude. Now and for the greater part of my life, I have lived in Pelham Manor. I am here because I like it here, as I liked it in the other villages while raising a family. In fact, I just like being anywhere in the town. I’m content with one school district, one chamber of commerce, one little league and one Junior League.

So that’s my attitude. As a result, I think unification should be the goal of each of the 17 incumbent municipal officials. Having two or three of everything in the smallest town in the state of New York is inefficient and expensive. I know the very substantial benefits of unification from my years in village and town government. But it is my attitude that animates me.

Michael Treanor

Former Town Supervisor

622 Pelhamdale Ave.