The answer to the ills of democracy is more democracy, the late Gov. Al Smith used to say. When it comes to the Kingstonian approval process, not nearly enough democracy has been involved, and we think that needs to change.

We know there’s a distinction to be made between a “true democracy” and a republic. We know people are elected to make decisions on our behalf.

But it seems with the Kingstonian, the parking garage/apartment complex/hotel and retail project proposed for where the old parking garage once stood on North Front Street in Uptown, there’s a pretty severe disconnect where strong dissent among the citizenry isn’t being reflected by its representatives on the Common Council. Though there’s no way to be certain, after following this matter closely from the get-go, we figure there’s something close to a 50-50 split among Kingston’s citizens on whether the Kingstonian should be allowed. Maybe more one way, maybe less the other, or vice versa.

Yet, recalling the votes the council has been called upon to make during this process, you can count the number of “no” votes on one hand and still have a finger left over to, well, use your imagination. Again nodding to the concept of representative democracy embodied in the republican form of government, it seems council members are superimposing their own judgment, rather than heeding what (we figure) about half their constituents feel about the project. We know this is commonplace, but is it truly representative?

The Kingstonian will massively and permanently change life in Uptown Kingston, shifting the small and historic neighborhood to another magnitude of population density. Considering that, and that it is in essence a public-private partnership between the city and developers, we think something new should be tried — a binding public referendum on the project itself. Just a simple question on this fall’s ballot will suffice: Do you approve of the construction of the Kingstonian project? If it’s yes, then full speed ahead. If it’s no, then the city should cancel the deal.

(This of course will not happen — if there’s one thing New York State law is good at, it’s throttling direct, meaningful public participation in government. It’s called “initiative and referendum,” look it up and ask yourself why we don’t have it here in the Imperial, er, Empire State. Those versed in the law, howling in fury about the infringement of due process and property rights, would almost certainly get a referendum invalidated. But we can dream, can’t we?)

For many, the Kingstonian question is easy to answer — few civic matters in recent memory have raised hackles and stoked passion like this one. But for us, accustomed by decades of journalism to looking at things from more than one side, it’s not as simple.

The Kingstonian will be good, of course, for some. About 200 people, maybe more, will enjoy living in one of the best neighborhoods in the Hudson Valley, with everything they need within walking distance. Businesses in the neighborhood will obviously benefit from more shoppers, who, if they can afford to live in the Kingstonian, have disposable income. (This could be the most controversial/damnable thing one can say nowadays in Kingston, where gentrification has rubbed raw the nerves of many, but there is an upside to people with money moving into a city.)

While a lot of property has changed hands in the neighborhood of late, there are still a few local long-hauler folks who believed in and stayed in Uptown when its forlorn decay made it feel like it belonged more in a Mad Max movie than atop the “New York Times Best New Brooklyns List.” We do not have it in our collective editorial heart to be anything but happy for local businesses’ improved prospects.

There are, though, a few things that remain stuck in our editorial craw.

First, the “neg dec” from the Kingston Planning Board. To try to express it simply, planners in 2019 made the call that building a new parking garage and adding 143 homes to the Stockade District would have no impact meriting further looking into on the environment and so the project doesn’t need a more thorough review. (We lament the fact that if planners had voted the other way, the project would have been thrown into what they call in the movies “development hell,” delaying it for years. Some kind of streamlining of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is one of many, many things in New York that need to happen so local planning boards are not faced with stark choices such as this.)

A judge might overturn this decision as it’s currently being challenged in an Article 78 lawsuit. But while the “neg dec” could fly in court, it flies in the face of common sense to legally affirm that the Kingstonian will have no significant impact on its environment.

And, the PILOT. For the IDA board to make up a rule so the Kingstonian could get a $26 million tax break and then change the rule when the first one didn’t work — well, that’s the kind of thing that encourages a dangerous disbelief of and cynicism toward government at all levels. Everyone who signed off on this ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The larger point being, if a project with this kind of impact has to have the process contorted to this extent to get it approved, maybe it’s not right for Kingston. And that’s a decision everyone, not just elected and appointed officials, should make.