The last thing Malta, Round Lake need is more roundabouts

Saturday, March 23, 2013
Text Size: A | A

The last thing Malta, Round Lake need is more roundabouts

In the Malta and Round Lake areas, everyone is driving around in circles. The 13 roundabouts already here are overkill for this area. One can become dizzy before reaching a sensible stretch of roads.

The Malta Town Board’s latest whim is how to quickly ram down two more of these monstrosities on the residents of Round Lake Road.

A Feb. 7 Daily Gazette article states that the town has contracted for [a study to determine if] not one, but two traffic signals [should be installed] at the Raylinsky Road and Chango Drive intersections. The article also states that a number of local residents have objected to the idea of roundabouts at those spots.

What happened to the idea that people [should] have a chance to vote on expenditures like these?

Several years ago, one of the board members running for a seat stopped at our apartment to ask if we had any concerns about Malta. I complained about the roundabouts, especially the one at Routes 9 and 67. I said, “If you are coming up Route 9 approaching the roundabout between 4:30 p.m. and 6 p.m., it is nearly impossible to enter the roundabout because of the steady stream of vehicles driven by workers coming off the Northway.” His answer was to jump right into the roundabout. How is that?

One thing I would love to see is for a group of the Town Board members to try to use a pedestrian crosswalk at that time of day. I have yet to see anyone attempting to use a crosswalk at one of the roundabouts, yet that is what they propose for the new ones on Round Lake Road.

Forget the roundabouts and the studies, and save taxpayers a lot of money! Most people I speak to, hate them.

Thomas Totten

Ballston Lake

Plenty of consolidating could take place at state

In the March 16 headlines, Gov. Cuomo is quoted as saying: “If you are a school district, or a city, or a town or a county, and you are looking for a fundamental financial reform, consolidation is one of the obvious ones.”

I suggest the governor use that thinking on our state government. We should merge DOT [Department of Transportation] with DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] and the Thruway Authority; Civil Service should be part of Labor; OASAS [Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services] should be part of DOH [Department of Health]; state police with Department of Corrections and Criminal Justice with Parole.

Why do the people at the bottom have to tighten their belts? The cost cutting should start at the top.

John Barkowski


No good reason to oppose Keystone Pipeline plan

Opponents of the Keystone Pipeline choose to ignore several irrefutable facts to the potential detriment of our nation’s economic health.

First and foremost: Canada has made clear its intention to proceed with tar sands development, whether or not the United States approves construction of the pipeline. If need be, Canada will utilize an alternate route to the West Coast and export their crude to, in all likelihood, China, our main trade competitor. Consequently, carbon emissions will not be reduced one iota if we fail to act.

Furthermore, putting aside the potential for thousands of construction jobs, as well as the opportunity to lessen our dependence on Middle East oil, it’s a statistical fact that transporting crude oil via pipeline is much safer for the environment than doing so via tanker ships [crossing] thousands of ocean miles.

To pretend otherwise is illogical.

John Gargano

Clifton Park

Learning English should be prerequisite for voting

Re March 11 letter, “If Hispanics want vote, they can learn English”: Shirley Guidarelli is spot on.

If you cannot read English, you have no business voting. This is all socialist Democrat baloney that started with LBJ and his Great Society.

No other country in the world goes to the lengths we do to assist people with the language barrier. Voting is another matter. How can you make an informed choice [about] who to vote for if you cannot read or understand English?

I’m sure the socialist Democrats would be happy telling them to vote only [on their line].

Don Vanderwarker


Cartoon with exploding senator in poor taste

What are we supposed to make of the March 12 [editorial] cartoon showing an exploding U.S. senator [Rand Paul]?

I [can] think of several interpretations, none of them clearly favored over another, and I don’t like the way any of them are delivered. I object to the cartoon.

What concept were you trying to convey?

Stephen Healey


Letters Policy

The Gazette wants your opinions on public issues.

There is no strict word limit, though letters under 200 words are preferred.

All letters are subject to editing for length, style and fairness, and we will run no more than one letter per month from the same writer.

Please include your signature, address and day phone for verification.

For information on how to send, see bottom of this page.

For more letters, visit our Web site:

Share story: print print email email facebook facebook reddit reddit


March 23, 2013
4:06 a.m.
janesjoys says...

Re: Gargano - Tar sands is NOT crude oil. It is sticky, full of sand and so thick that they have to shoot steam deep underground, to change the consistency enough to a liquid form, to mine it. It produces three times the greenhouse gas emissions in order to do this. Also, any spill of tars sands is far more devastating to our environment than crude oil. Check out Kalamazoo, MI, July 2010, to see how the cleanup is going, $800 million and almost three years after their spill.

Do you think that oil prices will actually decrease ? The whole idea is that now prices are so high that the process of extracting tar sands is profitable. Do you really believe that anyone besides the oil companies and their executives will profit financially from this?

March 23, 2013
7:12 a.m.
muggy says...

We have over 2.3 million miles of pipelines in America, safely transporting hydrocarbons in various states of matter to our homes and businesses. The Keystone Pipeline is being held up by Barack Obama because it would benefit the country he is so deperately trying to TRANSFORM! Face it. The only reason Keystone isn't being given the ok is due to the President.

March 23, 2013
7:49 a.m.
wmarincic says...

If the U.S. used it's oil resources we would have $1 a gallon gas or less. There are two reasons that we don't. One is that politicians take billions in kickbacks from enviromental groups and the largest reason is simple math, if we use our own vast oil reserves and the price of gas goes to $1 or less, the government would lose billions of dollars per year in taxes. The average ammount of taxes in the U.S. are 49 cents per gallon of gas and a whopping 67 cents per gallon in N.Y.

March 23, 2013
2:37 p.m.
Fritzdawg says...

Joe Garango:
Keystone leaves us with all of the risk, and none of the benefits.
Your rectally produced "statistical fact", is one of the stupider things I've ever heard.
If a tanker goes down in the ocean, the oil will eventually disperse, however if the pipeline bursts, it has the potential to pollute the aquifers that this country depends on to grow quite a bit of it's food.
Those "thousands of jobs" that you've been lied to about, would be temporary.
The contamination of our farm belt would not be, and I'm not willing to face all the inherent risks for the next century or so, for the sake of a few temp jobs.
If they put FIVE of those pipelines in tomorrow, it still wouldn't lessen our perceived "dependence on Middle East oil",because none of that oil was ever destined to even be used on this continent.
We could curtail our "dependence", simply by limiting the export of oil produced in The United States.
Our current oil production is at a 17 year high, and we are one of the largest oil EXPORTERS in the world.
Drill baby drill?
What a joke. They got the permission, and they still aren't drilling.
Oil and gas companies are currently not using 72 percent of the total acres leased offshore and 56 percent of the total acres leased onshore.
We could be energy independent almost immediately, if people like yourself weren't so gullible.

March 24, 2013
11:38 a.m.
wmarincic says...

Again it is because of taxes, the Government want high prices, the higher the cost of gas, the more money in tax and fees.

Log-in to post a comment.

columnists & blogs

Log into

Forgot Password?