A reader reached out after last week’s column about housing, civic disengagement, and the widening disconnect between local realities and local decision-making. At first, I assumed she simply wanted to vent about the housing market. That’s become increasingly common. But after spending nearly 40 minutes on the phone with her, I realized the conversation was about something much bigger.
It was about the growing gap between what elected officials say they understand and what they’re actually willing to do.
Or more accurately, not do.
The reader, Donna Kennedy of Yates County, originally spoke during public comment at a Penn Yan Village Board meeting about her family’s struggle to find safe, stable housing. She said what frustrated her most afterward was not disagreement from officials. It was the complete absence of commitment to do anything.
“Nobody committed,” she told me. “A couple people made a comment about how they were aware there were issues, and that was it.”
Then came the part that should concern every resident who still believes public engagement matters in local government.
“I went up to them afterward and asked, ‘So nobody’s going to commit to any of this?’” Kennedy added. “They didn’t even say yes or no. They just brushed me off.”
That exchange perfectly captures the moment many communities across the Finger Lakes now find themselves in politically.
Officials increasingly acknowledge problems publicly because they can no longer credibly deny them. The housing crisis is too visible now. Young families are leaving. Workers cannot find housing near jobs. Rentals are scarce. Home prices remain disconnected from local wages. Entire workforce sectors are being squeezed.
But acknowledgment and action are not the same thing.
And many local governments still behave as if recognizing a problem aloud is enough.
What struck me most during our conversation was that Kennedy did not sound ideological. She did not sound partisan. She did not sound like someone looking for a political fight. She wasn’t even particularly upset at any one person. In fact, she openly admitted she had not fully understood how severe the housing problem was until it happened to her own family.
That honesty matters because it mirrors exactly what I wrote about last week: Many people still assume these problems are exaggerated until they experience them personally.
Kennedy described unexpectedly entering a housing market she barely recognized. At one point, Kennedy said her family spent time split apart between relatives after temporarily losing housing entirely.
Today, she says they are paying roughly $1,200 a month for an apartment that is significantly smaller than anything her family had previously called home.
And here’s the part local leaders need to hear carefully: Kennedy doesn’t qualify for subsidized housing assistance. She and her family fall directly into the widening gap that more communities are pretending not to see.
“We have two incomes,” she said. “You would think that would be enough to live on, but it’s not.”
That sentence alone probably explains more about the modern housing crisis than most public hearings or planning documents ever will.
Because the reality is that this is no longer primarily a crisis affecting only the poorest residents. It’s increasingly affecting working households that exist in the space between public assistance and market affordability. The tourism economy throughout the Finger Lakes depends heavily on workers making moderate incomes. Yet many of those same communities continue resisting new housing while watching prices climb further out of reach.
At one point during our conversation, Kennedy brought up something else that deserves serious attention: The sheer number of short-term rentals throughout Yates County.
“There’s over 640 short-term rentals in Yates County,” she said.
Now, to be clear, short-term rentals are not the sole cause of the housing crisis. They’re one factor among many. Supply shortages, zoning restrictions, aging housing stock, rising construction costs, infrastructure limitations, and years of underbuilding all matter too.
But the broader point remains important. Communities throughout the Finger Lakes have spent years aggressively building tourism economies while simultaneously resisting the housing growth needed to support the people who work in this industry.
Eventually those contradictions collide.
And increasingly, they already are.
What also emerged during our conversation was a growing frustration not just with housing policy, but with transparency itself. Kennedy questioned why more local meetings are not livestreamed or fully recorded. She questioned why official meeting minutes often fail to reflect the actual substance or tone of public interactions. And frankly, she’s not wrong to ask.
This is another uncomfortable reality local government increasingly struggles with: Trust erosion.
Residents attend meetings, speak publicly, follow the rules, and increasingly walk away feeling unheard anyway. Not because officials necessarily disagree with them, but because the system often appears structured to absorb frustration without producing action.
That’s dangerous territory for any institution.
Especially local government, which depends almost entirely on public trust and participation to function effectively.
None of this means every housing proposal deserves approval. None of this means every development concern is illegitimate. Communities absolutely should ask questions about infrastructure, utilities, traffic, environmental impact, and long-term planning.
But too many communities are still approaching these conversations as though they have unlimited time to avoid hard decisions.
They do not.
The most important thing Kennedy said to me may have been this: “It’s not just me I’m fighting for. I worry about my kids.”
That’s the real story unfolding across the Finger Lakes right now. Not abstract debates about “density.” Not Facebook arguments about “community character.” Not endless procedural fights between municipalities.
The real issue is whether the next generation will realistically be able to remain in the communities where they were raised.
And increasingly, many local governments still seem far more comfortable acknowledging that problem than confronting the scale of change required to solve it.
Thanks for reading In Focus! Subscribe for free to get the latest delivered to your inbox each week!
