Editor:

I am a concerned resident of Barre, New York.  Please inform all the residents of Barre, New York that if the wind turbines come to our town and the Town of Barre Wind Laws does not have a ban for the following items, right of domain will occur!

Landowners will lose the right to use their land as they wish. A resident will have to go to the zoning board for variances and ask the wind company to allow their request. Wind companies have requested ROW Permits in other communities; when a statement has not existed prohibiting the granting of these ROW permits within the town wind laws.

The Right of Way Permit, if the town does not ban, will allow the wind company to come on your land even if you do not want them to install lines, cables or whatever, cross your land for construction purpose, operational and maintenance of the turbines and all equipment in spite of the fact you do not have a lease with them. You lose your rights of your land. The wind company may or may not give you a one-time payment.

This type of permit could have a negative sale market, if you should want to sell.

The Town of Barre must state in the Wind Code that the Town of Barre bans ROW permits.

De facto is portion of land around the turbine that is not allowed to be built on and in some cases may not be allowed to be used. This radius of land is derived from the manufactures’ safety code. The usual safety zone is 3 times the turbine height from base to tip of propeller.

If you have a 500-foot turbine the de facto radius would be 1,500 feet. Now if a turbine is placed and part of that radius falls on your property and you do not have a lease with the wind company, you would still lose the right to that land, even though you own it and pay taxes.

This could result in a  negative sale impact of the property.

The Town of Barre must state in the Wind Code that Barre bans defacto permits. Without this permit ban, the wind company can request a permit to kill more or less at will, without any restriction of type of species and pay no fines.

We need to protect endangered species of bats and birds and the habitat of Barre, New York, which is a migratory flyway. It is the duty of our town officials to protect this fly zone and keep our American heritage.

I urge the readers to send their comments to the Barre Town Hall to be read at the Town Board meeting.

Alexander Nacca

Barre

Editor:

I read, with great interest, the editorials posted by those reading my editorial letters. The feedback is welcomed.

To reduce confusion as much as possible a few short comments are offered:

• DPS Comments Assessment from year end 2017 and as posted in the Orleans Hub show a one-time commenter breakdown as follows: Opposed to Lighthouse Wind: 74 percent; In support of Lighthouse Wind: 26 percent

Mr. Hyde’s one-time commenter numbers (66.6% Opposed, 33.4% In favor), though he excludes certain comments, are not significantly different from a statistical point of view for data generated over 4.5 years. In fact, both sets of numbers fall within the historic Opposition vs. Support percentages as exhibited in surveys put forth by both Yates and Somerset.

• Regarding the assessment performed on Apex’s bird death mailer referenced by Mr. Pierce; in fact the number of bird deaths reported and calculations made in the letter to the Hub were all referenced to peer-reviewed studies and are accurate estimates.

Unfortunately, with all the energy expended by our Town and its constituents in fighting or supporting this Industrial Wind Turbine Project, there seems to be little interest in the progress being forged in the Town of Yates:

• Implementing corrective actions from the State Controller Audit of town finances and fixing the errors of the past.

• Ensuring a robust update to the 18-year old Comprehensive Plan that will improve our town as we move into the future via clear direction toward our  goals.

• Vital work on updating our 22-year old Local Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, which will ensure the Town of Yates becomes a destination for tourists, vacationers and sports enthusiasts.

• Full and committed support of our Fire and Ambulance Services to ensure exemplary service.

• Completion of construction of the final steps in ensuring public access to clean and pure water to all Town of Yates constituents and visitors.

• Update of the 20-year old Employee Handbook and successful unmediated negotiated contract with employees.

• Initiating comprehensive update of 30-year old Emergency Plan for the town.

• Garnered $400,000 grant to remediate the damage to the shoreline of the Town park and two other town locations resulting from the flooding on Lake Ontario.

In all, I am honored to do my part in helping the Town of Yates realize a successful and prosperous future.

As I have indicated numerous time in the past, I am willing to speak in person with anyone at any time on the issues facing our Town.

Thank you,

John B. Riggi

Councilman, Town of Yates

Editor:

I was very impressed  with the tone of Hans Hyde’s Oct. 16 analysis of Mr. Riggi’s “statistics.”  Mind you, I’m not saying I know for dead certain that Mr. Hyde is correct, nor that Mr. Riggi’s analysis is incorrect.

To do that I’d have to sit down and go over Mr. Riggi’s analysis in detail. I still wouldn’t be done. I’d then have to compare my results with Mr. Hyde’s.

But my gut tells me Hans Hyde’s analysis is much closer to the truth. Mr. Hyde, my hat is off to you.

Dennis Seekins

Lyndonville

Editor:

Now that Apex has unveiled a layout of the 47 massive industrial wind turbines proposed in the towns of Somerset and Yates, SOS is re-committed to opposing this ill-sited project.

Based on comments Apex officials made at their recent forum at Lyndonville High School, we know this project is very far from being finalized and approved. It is still in the pre-application phase. Apex is now saying the application will be submitted in the winter of 2019; that date keeps changing. The turbines would soar 591 feet, making them the largest structures in the state outside of New York City. Apex officials don’t even know that Tiger Paw Airport is located in the town of Yates.

We also know local opposition to the industrial wind turbine factories remains high; a majority of Somerset and Yates resident remain opposed, as are the Somerset and Yates town boards and the Orleans, Niagara and Erie County legislatures. The POWER Coalition is a staunch opponent. POWER members include, among others, the American Bird Conservancy, Great Lakes Seaway Trail, Orleans County Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Niagara USA Chamber and the Rochester Birding Association.

Last fall at the Independent Power Producers of New York Inc. conference,

Public Service Commission chairman, John Rhodes, stated the following about the Article 10 process: “No, it’s not a stacked process and, no, not under this governor are we going to force people in a police state mode to do anything.”  We are holding Chairman Rhodes, and ultimately, Governor Cuomo, to his word.

When the tide began to turn in favor of the Allies during World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

The battle against Apex is now in a similar place, and we remain resolute in our commitment to stop this project!

Pam Atwater

Somerset

President, Save Ontario Shores, Inc.

Editor:

At the Yates Town Board meeting in May the board voted 3 to 2 to join with the Town of Somerset with a 50/50 split on all attorney fees going forward. They fired Mr. Dan Spitzer as the Town wind attorney and hired Vacco.

At that meeting I stood and said, “This is the biggest mistake this board has ever made.”  On Sept. 28 the two town boards filed an affidavit against Lighthouse Wind to see the turbine location maps before the public would see then at a forum on Oct. 2. Questions? What did this cost and why?

Mr. Spitzer would never advise to do this. Just another money grab by Vacco! Wes Bradley and Jim Whipple voted against this move.

On Oct. 2, Lighthouse Wind held a public forum to unveil the location of the turbines with company experts available to answer questions. Again the only two representatives from the two Town Boards were Wes Bradley and Jim Whipple. As a project this big, I would think town officials should obtain all the information so  they can to make educated votes in the future!

I also agree with Mr. Ralph Smith and Mr. Ed Urbanik that the Town of Yates should withdraw from the 50/50 attorney agreement and at best go with a 20/80 agreement.

Riggi’s letter of Sept. 17 on the Apex Bbrd mailer is full of untruths, and his letter of Oct. 7 about the DSP Comments and Assessments again is flawed statistics as I have been saying since the beginning.  The letter posted on Oct. 16 by Hans Hyde is a realistic assessment of the PSC website.

On Oct. 19 I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the Town of Yates for attorney fees spent to date to learn the Town has spent $8,059.60 so far. With $19,000 in the 2018 town budget  for attorney fees, this is one more reason to get out of the 50/50 Split with Somerset. Our town doesn’t have the money in the budget.

Lastly the state audit of town spending and record keeping is back. It showed that the financial records and reports are not adequate. This is the job and sole responsibility of the Town Supervisor. Mr. Simon, there is more to your job than just fighting the Lighthouse Wind Project.

Howard Pierce

Lyndonville

Editor:

Since January 2017 I have attended multiple events protesting Chris Collins. I have visited his Geneseo office, where he was, of course, absent.

I have participated in a district-wide organized town meeting where he refused to show. He is arrogant, dismissive of any constituents other than his wealthy donors. His actions in Congress have hurt the people of our district; he voted in favor of repealing Obamacare, and his support of SALT injured many New Yorkers. He is crooked and self-serving. In short, he’s an embarrassment to the 27th.

I have also attended multiple meetings where Nate McMurray was present, starting in early 2018. He has made himself available to any who sought him out, including making a recent visit to the Retsof salt miners.

When my husband and I met him at a house party in our remote corner of Orleans County, he spent at least 20 minutes sharing with us his love for WNY, his hope to make it a place our children will want to stay and prosper, and his wish to level the playing field for people of all ages, backgrounds, ethnicities.

He’s real and he’s one of us. We need him to represent the 27th honorably and intelligently.

Thank you.

Sandy Chenelly

Albion

Editor:

If I may, I’d like to elaborate on Mr. Paul McQuillen’s recent opinion piece on Congressman Chris Collins. Our elected officials are gifted with a unique entitlement not available to the ordinary citizen. Most of us have seen this entitlement in action but perhaps not all of us fully appreciate it.

When an elected official is caught breaking the law – they can resign. Their resignation is effectively a “get out of jail free” card – a card available nearly exclusively to elected officials. Space and time do not permit an exhaustive list, but some random stories reveal that which I’m speaking of.

In 2015, New Mexico’s Secretary of State, Dianna Duran, was charged with 65 counts of public corruption. She pled guilty to six of them. She was allowed to resign (and keep her pension) but avoid any jail time. In 2017, it was determined that probable cause existed that Alabama’s governor, Robert Bentley, had broken campaign finance laws. He pled guilty, paid a $7,000 fine and was forced to resign.

West Virginia’s Supreme Court Justice, Allen Loughry, resigned after a federal grand jury handed down a 22-count indictment against him that involved false statements, wire fraud and witness tampering. His resignation was accepted in exchange for foregoing any sort of criminal prosecution. In 2018 a delegate from West Virginia was forced to resign to avoid jail time relating to the mishandling of $150 million meant to go to flood victims.

Everyone knows of a crooked politician who played his or her “get out of jail free” card by tendering their resignation. New York has seen our fair share. I would add Collins to this potential list. Mr. Collin’s got caught red-handed working an illegal insider-trading deal.

We presume innocence until proven guilty but in some cases this is merely a formality. If I’m caught driving around in a vehicle I’ve just stolen, I’m innocent too. But let’s face it, this would be merely a temporary procedural status.

I disagree with Mr. McQuillen’s assessment that Mr. Collins will “use his seat in Congress as a bargaining chip.” I’m not sure Collins could do this and it isn’t necessary at any rate. Mr. McQuillen observes that Mr. Collins’ return to the campaign trail is “disingenuous.” I don’t believe it is, but it does make sense. It makes sense because Mr. Collins must get elected in order to resign – and remember – it’s an elected official’s resignation that’s allows him or her to throw down their “get out of jail free” card.

Mr. McQuillen is entirely correct that “Collins isn’t campaigning to represent the people of NY-27.”  He’s not. Collins is campaigning to get re-elected, only so that he may resign and avoid prosecution. If Mr. Collin’s doesn’t get re-elected – then he’s an ordinary citizen and therefore loses that unique elected-official entitlement of resigning vs. being prosecuted.

What this boils down to is that a vote for Mr. Collins isn’t a vote for his policies, it’s a “jury vote” that says you desire that Mr. Collins avoid potential prosecution for the things he’s done.

It’s high time we stopped allowing unethical elected officials who abuse public office to “resign” and accept that all is now forgiven. And full disclosure, I currently hold a publicly elected position.

Respectfully,

Darren D. Wilson

Lyndonville

Editor:

The Town of Shelby held a public hearing on Oct. 9 for a newly-proposed solar law. A Local Law Regulating Solar Energy Systems reads like fairly utilitarian legislation, but two sentences on the last page reveal the town is “opting out” of the New York State Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) section 487 exemption, removing any incentive solar providers may have to locate in Shelby.

So, contrary to its stated purpose – to properly regulate solar energy so as to provide a readily available and renewable energy source beneficial to the Town of Shelby – this proposed law would render Shelby non-competitive for hosting solar energy facilities.

Unlike officials in the nearby Town of Yates, Shelby officials never assault the airwaves with persistent public man-trums on local zoning matters. Which is how the Town of Shelby is quietly becoming a sleeper cell of over-regulation.

Between the 28 technology, commercial and industrial bans included in both Local Law 3 and Local Law 5, segregated zoning laws the Shelby Town Board unanimously enacted without providing proper notice to the public in 2017, this latest zoning proposal will certainly cement Shelby’s development status in the region as Orleans County’s BANANA:

Build

Absolutely

Nothing

Anywhere

Near

Anyone

RPTL §487 provides a tax exemption for qualifying solar, wind and other alternative energy sources for a period of 15 years as an incentive for their development. The property is exempt from taxes on the increased value owing to the alternative energy installation. For example, if a property is valued at $1,000 before the installation of a solar array and is valued at $5,000 after the array is installed, the solar provider would be exempt from taxes on the $4,000 increase for the first 15 years of operation.

Despite the exemption, a town can require that an energy provider enter into a PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) agreement with the town for annual payments in some amount less than what the taxes would be – a negotiated agreement between the town and the energy provider.  In that way, the provider still has an incentive to locate in the town (because it would be paying less than it would in taxes), but the town is not left without any revenue benefit from the installation (because it would be receiving PILOT payments).

A town may also “opt out” of the RPTL tax exemption – that is, it may require that any provider locating within its borders to pay taxes on the total value of the property with the solar installation on it. In doing this, the town effectively removes any incentive solar providers may have to want to locate in the town.

Yates has a solar regulatory law, but Yates did not “opt out” of the tax exemption. Ridgeway has a solar law that is virtually identical to Shelby’s 2018 proposed law, but Ridgeway did not “opt out.” As a result, solar providers are much more likely to locate in one of those neighboring towns in western Orleans County, rather than Shelby, to take advantage of the favorable tax treatment they would get in Yates or Ridgeway.

Shelby’s newly-proposed solar law is identical to Ridgeway’s solar law, and the town’s existing solar law is very similar to Yate’s solar law. These commonalities should not be lost on taxpayers. All three towns are currently or have been advised on renewable energy by Buffalo’s biggest law firm – Hodgson Russ LLP. If Shelby’s law was cribbed from legislation written for another town, taxpayers should get a discount for what is tantamount to two computer clicks – cut and paste.

This law, like two others developed by the same law firm which the town is currently defending in three New York Supreme Court lawsuits, conflicts with the town’s comprehensive plan. New York Town Law section 263 mandates local zoning laws must be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan.

In October 2017, the majority of those surveyed to update the Western Orleans Comprehensive Plan responded that “development and/or improvement of sustainable and efficient energy” in Shelby was “important” to them and property taxes were a paramount concern. This current law violates Town Law §263, defies the wishes of the public and ignores the stated goals of the comprehensive plan.

Enacting this law in its current form is a mistake and yet another regulatory measure that would have the effect of depriving Shelby’s citizens of opportunities that their neighbors in nearby towns have. Shelby’s legislation over the past 24 months shows officials more concerned with their individual agendas than cultivating projects and industries that will expand the tax base and ensure long-term sustainability.

Bans and overregulation are not the answer. Shelby should remove Section 4 “Solar Exemption Opt-Out” so citizens can compete on even footing with neighbors in Ridgeway & Yates for the siting of solar facilities on their property.

Andina E. Barone

Snyder

Mindful Media Group

Editor:

Taxes are a burden. Some people say taxes are government oppression and government harassment. But taxes are what connect people to their government.

Taxes pay for schools, roads and road maintenance, police and fire protection. Taxes pay for our military and national defense and some of our taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare. Taxes are a community burden that pays for goods and services we all use and need.

Perhaps, the reason Republicans, like Congressman Collins, refer to Social Security and Medicare as entitlements is because they shirk their responsibilities as citizens. Perhaps, Congressman Collins, is not connected to the community.

Mr. Collins voted for $1.5 trillion tax break to large corporations and now he wants the citizens of the 27th congressional district to pay this tax burden. Congressman Collins does not represent the citizens of the 27th congressional district.

We need a new congressman, elect Nate McMurray. Thank you.

William Fine

Brockport

Editor:

Fellow friends in Gaines, we have several challenges ahead in our town that require an intelligent, proven innovator. Someone that is able to see several sides of an issue and focus on the best solutions. Someone who can put ideology aside and vote for common sense. That person is Democrat Joyce Riley.

She appreciates our historical heritage and treasures, and knows the diligence it takes to preserve them. Joyce understands the workings of both a planning and zoning board and how we need both.

Joyce will take a stand against the “good ole boy” way of doing things. You won’t see her vote for wasteful spending and short-term gain.

A caring leader is what Gaines needs.

Thank you,

Al Capurso

Gaines

Editor:

As a Town of Gaines citizen, I request the Town Board to put a moratorium in place in response to Dollar General’s proposal to build in the Cobblestone Historic District.

I am writing to encourage Joe Grube, Mary Neilans, Tyler Allport and Jim Kirby – members of the Gaines Town Board – to stop environmental destruction and new manufacture of structures in the Cobblestone Historic District.

This moratorium should begin with an immediate halt of any and all attempts to create new buildings in the Cobblestone Historic District, with the purpose to be used as a retail store, followed by phasing out any future attempts.

Stopping the construction of the Dollar General would preserve the integrity and honor of the Historic District. Our town is a thing of beauty and a National Landmark brings in thousands of people each year into the town.

The residents of the town have shown our pride for what we have through many celebrations and bicentennials. Those same residents have also shown remorse against having a Dollar General in their Town, with over 1,000 who have signed petitions, showing that the town’s citizens don’t want Dollar General within its Cobblestone Historic District.

Therefore, I urge the Gaines Town Board to take action on this impending issue by calling for an immediate moratorium.

Kenny Capurso

Gaines

Editor:

Abortion is murder. It is an act of tyranny sanctioned by government.

In 1973 the US Supreme Court ruled, “the decision concerning when to terminate the pregnancy is to be made between the woman and her doctor.”

After Roe vs. Wade, society instantly turned it back on the plight of infants born as a consequence of a premature termination of a pregnancy. New York State laws actually prevented doctors, nurses, and the public from providing for and caring for these babies. Nurses cried as babies were literally left to die on a shelf. Some were even dumped upside down in a bucket of water so they would not suffer death because of exposure and starvation. Our government turned its back on this crisis.

When the NYS Legislature failed to act, doctors devised their own solution. They simply changed their procedures. To terminate the pregnancy, they would make sure the fetus (which was the term used to refer to a live baby inside a mother’s womb) was dead. Thus, with saline injections, suction, and many other gruesome procedures babies died.

The premature termination of pregnancies began to mimic what is known as an abortion. The “termination of the pregnancy upon demand” came to be called an “abortion.” The US Supreme court did not sanction the slaughter of babies – not inside and not outside of the woman’s womb.

Our laws since have since focused only on minimizing the visibility of the slaughter taking place. Clearly, as a society we can do better.

Here are three definitions I live by:

Abortion is murder. It requires the death of the child. It is an act of abandonment of the child when the child is most vulnerable. It is an act tyranny sanction by the state.

Pro-choice pertains to the termination of the pregnancy. I believe women should have the right to choose when to terminate the pregnancy. But keep in mind, the US Supreme court did not authorize the killing of babies (fetuses).

Pro-life is the focus on the health and care of the mother, both before and after the termination of the pregnancy, and the care of the baby when the pregnancy is terminated prematurely. It is not just “anti-abortion.”

We can do better for both mothers and their children. Our laws should be changed to reflect a respect for life. We should be willing to incur whatever expense is necessary to save the baby’s life when a pregnancy is prematurely terminated. As it was stated to me once, “We should be harvesting babies, not body parts.” I agree!

When I am your Assemblyman, I will work to end this tyranny. I will work to make New York State a pro-choice, pro-life state.

On November 6th, start at the bottom of the ballot. Look for the Statue of Liberty. Then look for and vote for Mark Glogowski for Assembly.

Let’s end the tyranny!  Vote Libertarian.

Mark E Glogowski

Hamlin

Libertarian Candidate

139th Assembly District

Editor:

Voters in Murray, you have a chance to show the good old boys’ club that you are paying attention while, at the same time, keeping your voice on the Town Board by voting for Joe Sidonio.

He is a person who truly puts the people of Murray ahead of the party. That is why the Republican party ran their “pick” against Joe in the primary. If you care about your voice being heard in the town, vote for Joe on the Conservative line.

Ken Longer

Kendall

Member of Orleans County Conservative Party Committee

Editor:

Yates Councilman John Riggi continues to deceive the public and manipulate data regarding the Lighthouse Wind Project (LWP) proposal in the Towns of Somerset and Yates. According to his latest post, “Yates councilman says…” on 7^th October, he claims to have performed “an empirical assessment of public comments made to the DPS website” between “January 1, 2015 through September 30, 2018.”

The New York State Department of Public Service – Public Comments section is not a quantifiable survey or “voting” mechanism.

Having questioned Mr. Riggi’s previous posts here on OrleansHub.com, without response…  Having listened to Mr. Riggi manipulate data regarding bird mortality at the Yates’ Town Board meeting in September…  Having heard his question about a supposed “concrete leaching” threat read and answered unequivocally at the Apex presentation in Lyndonville…  Having read numerous comments and public postings questioning the validity and integrity of two other surveys recently conducted….

I decided to examine the DPS data itself.

Since the first Public Comment on November 3^rd, 2014, there have been 1,508 submissions to DPS Comment No. 1642 on Oct. 12, 2018. Mr. Riggi claims there were 1,483 “votes” through 3^rd Quarter 2018, and 26 “votes” were submitted since his accounting… 1,508 versus 1,509. This confirms Mr. Riggi’s input data is well defined and consists of only public comments on the DPS website.

All comments were read and “vote” ascertained. Less than 5 were excluded for lack of position clarity.

There are 750 “Unique Submission Names,” indicating 750 “votes” should be considered.  Impartial surveys should attempt to minimize double voting in order to be credible.

If the DPS Public Comments are to be a measure of public support, even though this is not the intention of the DPS website at all – holding an election, I have omitted votes/voters for the following 3 reasons;

1) elected or government officials,

2) any agency or group claiming to represent voices of others, and

3) employees/representatives of vested interests; i.e., APEX Clean Energy.

Results of “Votes” removed…

Submissions

Unknown –  1

Agency  –  20

Somerset or Yates Reps  –  65

Niagara/Orleans or State Reps –  7

Apex  –  1

As the DPS does not consider elected officials “public,” something Councilman Riggi knows, given he is listed in the DPS Party List, as are most other, but not all, elected officials, he should have excluded these “votes” himself.  He has not.

There are now roughly 1,400 votes.

For each “unique submission names” identified above, each was examined over time to locate that person’s first submission. It was registered as a “vote” in support or opposition accordingly. All “votes” after the first submission for each person have been excluded.

This resulted in 596 “votes,” not the 1,500 confirmed above.

Here are the results of a “One Person, One Vote” tabulation;

Number of Submissions  –  1,508

Support/Opposition Unknown  –  0

Unique Submission Names  –  708

Unique Family Names   –  431

Unique 1 Person, 1 Vote Submissions  –  596

In Support  –  199  (33.4%)

In Opposition  –  397  (66.6%)

All eligible submissions, including repeat “votes” were organized by date, in a manner consistent with Mr. Riggi “survey” results.

Here are the results.

One Person, One Vote

Quarter         Support      Oppose         Support

4Q14               0                      1                      0%

1Q15               0                      32                    0%

2Q15               0                      49                    0%

3Q15               26                    60                    30%

4Q15               54                    62                    47%

1Q16               22                    40                    35%

2Q16               0                      7                      0%

3Q16               12                    18                    40%

4Q16               1                      3                      25%

1Q17               0                      6                      0%

2Q17               0                      29                    0%

3Q17               4                      8                      33%

4Q17               9                      4                      69%

1Q18               16                    18                    47%

2Q18               2                      8                      20%

3Q18               51                    47                    52%

4Q18               0                      7                      0%

Totals              197                  399                  n/a

Repeated Votes

Quarter         Support     Oppose     Excluded        Totals

4Q14               0                 0                0                      1

1Q15               0                  9                6                      47

2Q15               0                 36              8                      93

3Q15               9                 70               7                     172

4Q15              8                  112             11                    247

1Q16               12                 75              23                  172

2Q16               1                  21               7                     36

3Q16               9                  45              5                     89

4Q16              0                   17               6                    27

1Q17               0                   18              1                     25

2Q17               1                   34             5                     69

3Q17              1                    11              2                      26

4Q17              15                    15            4                     47

1Q18              19                    47            4                     104

2Q18              7                      78            7                     102

3Q18               20                  104           7                    229

4Q18              1                      12              1                    21

Totals              103               704           104               1,507

In real terms, only 103 Support “repeat votes” were submitted in stark contrast to 704 Oppose “repeat votes.” Repeat OPPOSE submissions occurred 7 times as often as repeat SUPPORT submissions.

Reading multiple letters recently in the Orleans Hub, where opposition parties claim irregularities within 2 other surveys conducted recently showing a roughly 50/50 split in Support versus Opposition, we all must be made aware the only other “survey” conducted and promoted, as seen on countless Save Ontario Shore’s signs, “Survey says…” is in fact the numbers and results published by Councilman Riggi from data obtained from the NYS DPS “Public Comment” section.

Analysis of the “One Person, One Vote” data over time, although not showing overall Support for Lighthouse Wind Project exceeds that in Opposition, does reveal the data trend in Support is growing.

Councilman Riggi’s analysis of DPS “Public Comments” is extremely flawed. “Public Comments” are not “votes” and were not intended to be used as data for “surveys” as the Councilman has done and Save Ontario Shores has embraced and promoted his (their?) “results” publicly.

Save Ontario Shores’ “Survey says…” signs, require modification to read…

“One Person One Vote Surveys Say… Opposition is Greatly Exaggerated!”

Hans Hyde,

Lockport

Barker High School graduate

Editor:

Let’s not be fooled – Chris Collins is selectively back on the campaign trail for one reason and one reason only – Chris Collins!

Collins isn’t campaigning to represent the people of NY-27. He has never concerned himself with anyone other than himself, his family, his investors and his donors. Any thought that Collins’ campaign to return to Congress to do the work of the people is foolish.

That Collins, on the advice of his criminal attorneys, has decided to hit the campaign trail is disingenuous. The reality is that Collins will stroll into various select safe havens, Republican booster clubs and candidate affairs, VFWs and of course, gun clubs. You won’t find him where the average working men and women, single moms, seniors or students are to be found.

Collins will make his grand appearance, genuflect to the altar of the most corrupt administration in American history, attack his opponent and leave.

In contrast, Nate McMurray has been all over the district meeting voters of all stripes. By all accounts Nate is a decent, well-educated, family man; a credible Congressional candidate who has been out among the voters all across the 27^th district for months, not accepting the kind of corporate money that Collins shills for. And Collins refuses to debate – no surprise. You will remember that Collins would not attend a student-led forum after the Parkland shootings.

The reality is that Collins needs something to offer prosecutors in return for his guilty plea in an effort to stay out of prison. His seat in Congress, our seat in Congress, is his bargaining chip.

Should Collins be elected he will trade his seat, and our representation, for a plea deal, leaving our district without representation in the House during a very turbulent time in our history. But we are used to being unrepresented in this district.

Paul McQuillen

Hamburg