Let me be clear upfront: no one questions the seriousness of cancer, and no one questions the worth or character of the property owner involved. They are well known, active in the community, and deserving of compassion—just like anyone facing a serious illness.
That’s exactly why the Snug Harbor Civic League’s recent decision to host a chili cook-off and bake sale to benefit a single property owner raises serious concerns.
This is the first time the Civic League has ever organized a fundraiser for an individual resident. And while the intent may be kind, the implications are troubling.
The Civic League exists to serve the entire community, not to selectively champion one resident—no matter how respected or well-liked they may be. Once an organization sets a precedent of fundraising for one property owner, it opens the door to an unavoidable and uncomfortable question: If they do it for one, why not for all?
What happens when the next homeowner is diagnosed with cancer? Or heart disease? Or suffers a devastating accident? Will the Civic League step in every time? If not, how are those decisions made—and by whom?
That’s where the issue of favoritism comes in.
Even if unintended, this fundraiser creates the appearance that visibility and involvement determine who receives community-backed financial support. Quiet residents, renters, newcomers, or those less socially connected may reasonably wonder whether they would receive the same consideration in their moment of need.
Community organizations must be especially careful not to blur the line between compassion and preferential treatment. Charity is admirable, but when it’s conducted under the banner of an official civic league, it should be guided by clear policies—not popularity, familiarity, or emotion.
Private fundraisers organized by friends, neighbors, or family members are entirely appropriate. A civic league-sponsored event benefiting a single individual is not.
Good intentions do not erase bad precedent. And if Snug Harbor truly wants to be fair, inclusive, and representative of all property owners, this is a line that should not have been crossed.
Sometimes the hardest thing to say is also the most necessary: this isn’t about the person—it’s about the principle.
About the Author
