<> Safety is key to Malta downtown initiatives | The Daily Gazette
 

Subscriber login

Letters to the Editor

Safety is key to Malta downtown initiatives

Safety is key to Malta downtown initiatives

*Safety is key to Malta downtown initiatives *Jackson's policies led to Indians' genocide *Trump: Al

Safety is key to Malta downtown initiatives

The front page Regional section of the May 15 Sunday Gazette carried an article about Malta, "A downtown destination?"

Stephen Williams, the reporter, did an excellent job of covering the interview.

Unfortunately, because of my responses to specific questions and my failure to strenuously articulate the major reason for seeking speed reduction and on-street parking in "downtown Malta," the focus of the article highlighted benefits to retail businesses. That error is on me.

It is true that lowering speed limits and providing on-street parking in front of Ellsworth Commons will enhance the commercial climate in that area of our town.

The top priority was implied and I didn't think needed to be stated. It is safety. Safety is the top priority of local Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner, the state Department of Transportation and town officials. Assemblywoman Woerner and staff of Mark Luciano and Amanda Seres were integral in coordinating and, hopefully, achieving success in our efforts.

Safety was and continues to be paramount in all of our deliberations -- safety for children entering/discharging to and from school buses, pedestrians and drivers.

On-street parking is one technique that has a "calming effect" on traffic, along with strict enforcement and signage, etc. An added benefit would be assistance to retail businesses, which, in turn, will encourage filling empty storefront spaces in Ellsworth Commons. Ellsworth Commons and the "downtown Malta" concept existed here prior to the new town board taking office this year.

So whether popular or not, depending on individuals' perceptions, it's here to stay. To use a cliché', we're looking forward and intending to make lemonade from any existing lemons.

Vincent R. DeLucia

Malta

The writer is the town supervisor.

Jackson’s policies led to Indians’ genocide

In his April 26 column defending Andrew Jackson, former Virginia U.S. Senator (2007-2013) and 2016 presidential candidate Jim Webb, quoted historian Vernon Louis Parrington, who wrote that our seventh president (1829-1837) was "our first great popular leader, our first man of the people."

Webb wrote that in 1832, when South Carolina threatened to secede from the United States, Jackson responded by promising to invade the state with 100,000 federal soldiers if the state dared to leave the nation. South Carolina backed down.

Quoting Jackson biographer Robert Remini, he said Jackson's motivation for forcibly removing Indians then living east of the Mississippi to the west side of the river was to "end the increasingly bloody Indian Wars and to protect the Indians from certain annihilation at the hands of an ever-expanding frontier population."

If President Jackson could force South Carolina to remain in the United States, why did he not make it clear to American settlers that he would use federal soldiers to protect the borders of Indian nations? Was the U.S. military strong enough to keep South Carolina in the United States but too weak to prevent settlers from invading Indian lands?

Whether Jackson's intent was genocidal is something we can discuss. But the result of his Indian removal policies was genocidal, as were the many other forced Indian removals later in the century.

Had Jackson (or Washington or Jefferson) set a precedent insisting Indians had a right to remain as self-governing nations living within secure borders on their ancestral lands, subsequent presidents might have done the same and the United States might be a much different nation today.

Tom Ellis

Albany

Trump: Allow guns at GOP convention

Donald Trump recently received the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. In his acceptance speech, he said that as president, he would help abolish all "gun-free zones."

As a citizen of our great nation, he is entitled to his opinion. And to help implement his resolve and prove that he is no hypocrite, he should insist that all participants at the 2016 Republican National Convention be allowed to carry firearms.

It would add a certain charm and authenticity to see those proud delegates carrying around and demonstrating an AK-47 or M16 or Browning Automatic Rifle or Colt LE-901 or Beretta CX4 or that great armor-piercing handgun, FN Model Five-seveN.

It would also guarantee that their convention would have a record number of TV viewers.

Arnold Seiken

Schenectady

Ten good reasons to support The Donald

I am not a real fan of The Donald. However, we only have two choices come this November and my choice is easy. I'm for The Donald because he is on the right side of 10 very substantial issues:

1) Put conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

2) Support horizontal drilling/fracking and oil/gas pipelines.

3) Lower the corporate tax rate to make American business globally competitive.

4) Install territorial taxes for American corporations similar to all other developed countries.

5) Secure our borders and stop sanctuary cities by enforcing existing immigration law.

6) Strongly support the Second Amendment.

7) Rebuild our military.

8) Repeal ObamaCare.

9) Remove restrictive regulations, especially those from the Environmental Protection Agency, on navigable waters, carbon dioxide and coal.

10) Restore education to state control and minimize federal influence in public education (especially self-proclaimed gender bathrooms and locker rooms).

Hillary Clinton is on the other side of The Donald on all 10 issues and that's why it's a no-brainer for me to vote for Trump. Plus, I believe that success for The Donald on those 10 issues will make America great again.

Bob Lindinger

Guilderland

Country doesn’t need this kind of diversity

I'm sitting here listening to the U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch declaring that diversity "is what the country needs, and transgender people have the right to use any public bathroom they feel is necessary to use."

This federal law was shoved through by Obama and his progressive liberal Democrats. Civil rights are being talked about. But in reality, it has nothing to do with civil rights of 1960s. To have a man walk in as a woman where little girls might be is crazy. No common sense. To Cuomo, Obama and all people who want this, there is no room in our nation for twisted failing.

Let common sense and states work it out. No need for feds to butt in. Please speak out against this foolish idea. To transgender people -- live with it -- majority rules.

Albert Marvell

Scotia

View Comments
Hide Comments
0 premium 1 premium 2 premium 3 premium 4 premium article articles remaining SUBSCRIBE TODAY

You have reached your monthly premium content limit.

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