Subscriber login

Welcome to our new site. You will need to reset your password if this is your first time logging in. Please click here to reset your password.
Letters to the Editor
What you need to know for 01/20/2017

Senior housing is the last thing village of Schoharie needs

Senior housing is the last thing village of Schoharie needs

*Senior housing is the last thing village of Schoharie needs *Farley wrong on publicly financed elec

Senior housing is the last thing village of Schoharie needs

Once again, the Schoharie Planning Board, along with Kingston-based Birchez Associates, is recommending a senior complex on Route 30 in Schoharie, just south of the former Great American Parking lot [“Housing project getting $4M boost,” May 9].

Fifteen years ago, this was brought before the public, and because of wetlands and people’s dissent, it was not built.

We already have two senior complexes in the village and do not need another 72 units to use up our water or overuse the sewer system.

What we need is housing for young families — people who will volunteer for the fire department, the ambulance corps, the promotional association, PTA, churches, etc.

I am a charter member of the Scho-Wright Ambulance Corps, and at 85 years of age, along with these seniors, could not actively serve. It will be a great burden on the volunteers and on the medical clinic in town.

I have lived just south of this site [for] 66 years and have seen many floods, spring thaws and rains running through here. In 1989 a tornado caused lots of damage in this same area. The raising of this land four feet will back the water up on all of us. We lost houses and land in [the] 2011 flood and now we won’t be able to get to our homes.

At least last time people were able to come together to voice their opinion. This time it’s hush, hush and no meetings with village residents. When I did attend a planning board meeting, I was told not to ask any questions.

We need younger people to make this village grow, to put the 2011 devastation behind us, and once again become a beautiful valley to live in.

Arlene Vrooman

Schoharie

Farley wrong on publicly financed elections

I read in disbelief Sen. Hugh Farley’s statement in the May 7 Gazette that his constituents don’t like the idea of publicly financed campaigns.

Over the years polls have shown that a majority of New Yorkers support public financing. To clarify the matter, I called Mr. Farley’s office and asked for the details of the poll he was referring to. To my amazement, Mr. Farley personally returned the call and very kindly informed me that he was referring to a Siena poll, conducted recently, but could not cite the specific date.

I then checked recent Siena polls and did find a poll published March 11, the results of which show the majority of New Yorkers support publicly financed campaigns. The introductory summary to the poll says: “Support for public campaign financing remains strong — 61 percent to 33 percent — with two-thirds of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and a plurality of Republicans behind it.”

Either Mr. Farley is not well informed, or worse — he is misleading the public.

Bahram Keramati

Galway

The writer was an unsuccessful Democratic challenger to Farley in 2010.

Like Farley’s bill or not, at least it’s in the open

Re May 7 article, “Mailing slams Farley bill pushing check-cash loans”: Regardless one how one feels about the merits of this bill, anyone in favor of open government should commend Sen. Hugh Farley’s actions.

It has become all too common, especially by the governor and his operatives, to keep bills hidden until pushed through in the middle of the night.

Good government requires that actual legislation be available to legislators, the administration and the public. If the so-called Working Families Organization and Citizen Action of New York oppose this bill, it is their right to do so, but they can rationally oppose (or support) this bill only because it has been introduced, and people can read the text.

We will be far better served by careful consideration of proposed legislation than “feelings” about nebulous concepts [where] the details are hidden in the back rooms of the governor’s office.

Joseph O’Malley

Rotterdam

Players’ proper response to medical emergency

Something I observed May 6 is a real example of sportsmanship.

I went to my granddaughter’s varsity girls lacrosse game at Burnt Hills’ home field vs. Guilderland. The game became intense, with a score of 5-5 right before halftime. Suddenly a coach yelled for the timekeeper to stop the clock, and we could see a man who was sitting at a table at the side of the field keeping stats start to keel over. Instantly, about four or five Burnt Hills spectators who apparently had medical expertise ran down to the man, and the Burnt Hills coach called 911 for an ambulance.

It appeared the man had a stroke, and it also became apparent that he was the father of one of the Guilderland players, who was visibly distraught.

I was very impressed by everyone in the crowd, including student spectators, staying completely silent until the ambulance drove away with the man and his daughter.

At that point, officials agreed that the game should not continue. All of the players from both teams then went to the middle of the field and stood in a circle, holding hands, apparently praying for the father and daughter.

Both teams then lined up, like teams usually do after a game to shake hands, etc. Instead, they all hugged each other as the lines passed. Spectators stood and clapped, being very proud of the true sportsmanship and human compassion exhibited.

Hats off to all involved. In my opinion both teams should be considered winners in the [standings]. They are all winners no matter what, though.

Linda Gaida

Glenville

Right to bear arms ‘shall not be infringed’

Re Kernan Davis’ April 25 letter, “Limits on gun rights hardly unconstitutional”: I disagree with his hypotheses on what our Founding Fathers may have meant when they penned the Constitution and amendments.

Mr. Davis clearly overlooks the wording of the entire Second Amendment to draw his conclusions. Our forefathers clearly identify the need for a well-regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free state. However, and this is where he misses the point, they took it one step further: To ensure the safety of the people in that free state, they wrote, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

They had the opportunity to use other words such as, “while engaged in the militia, may be infringed,” or “can be infringed,” but they chose “shall not be infringed.” They knew the language and used it for a reason.

Before the Founding Fathers established the Bill of Rights, they fought a dictator, King George, who was trying to disarm the people of his nation. The Second Amendment was added to keep any future dictatorial government from disarming the people of a free state.

There are, in my opinion, numerous legal and judicial interpretations that serve to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for those who choose not to exercise their Second Amendment right. These interpretations are the penal laws on both the state and federal levels designed to combat gun crimes.

New York has the toughest gun laws in the nation! I suggest we start pressuring politicians and prosecutors to look into enforcement of existing gun laws rather than passing new ones in the dead of night to advance certain political agendas.

Patrick T. Aragosa

Glenville

Media continues to bury Benghazi story

Watching the CBS Evening news on May 5, I nearly fell off the couch. The lead story was about (gasp!) Benghazi, the terrorist attack last Sept. 11, so deftly ignored by the mainstream media.

Specifically, three State Department whistleblowers, whom the Obama administration is scrambling to discredit, have reported what actually happened based on their firsthand knowledge.

[Former Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton’s “what difference does it make” statement concerning the Libyan terror attack is curiously the same nonchalant stance of the mainstream media.

Imagine if the same attitude were displayed after the terrorist bombing in Boston.

The mainstream media once again has dropped the ball.

Barbara Hyatt

Caroga Lake

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: www.dailygazette.com.

View Comments
Hide Comments
You have 0 articles 1 articles 2 articles 3 articles 4 articles 5 articles 6 articles 7 articles remaining of Daily Gazette free premium content.

You have reached your monthly premium content limit.

Continue to enjoy Daily Gazette premium content by becoming a subscriber.
Already a subscriber? Log In