Editor:

The Trump tax plan is the biggest fleece job in history. The CBO says it will  increase the deficits about $1.5 trillion. But it’s without any offsetting benefits for you or me!  Let me explain.

When I was a young man the Republican Party focused on cost, good management, and damage to the deficit. But back then there was also a far right extremist group funded by the Koch family called the “John Birch Society.” Taxes, government, one world government (whatever that is) and fluoride for starters were all communist plots. It even pushed the notion that President Eisenhower was a “traitor” and that both his Presidency and, later, the Vietnam War were part of a “communist conspiracy to undermine the United States”.

Over the years the Koch family money among others swung away from the Birchers and into Republican coffers. Blind adherence to some of the Bircher’s tenants followed the money.  The test regarding taxes came when President Reagan cut taxes.

The US floated extra debt due to the cuts but investment boot-strapped the US (and the World) out of the then economic doldrums we had settled into after Vietnam. Those tax cuts went into investment and not people’s pockets!

But unfortunately people have forgotten that at that time our tax code made it profitable to invest the tax savings into capital investment – into jobs and industries which Congress believed would either promote jobs or promote the long-term national interest. In fact, those tax cuts went into investment and not people’s pockets! It’s an important lesson.

Things are different now. Money from tax cuts has not been directed into investment since Reagan and not one tax cut has worked since then. Some economists think that the Reagan cuts were a one off in that the stimulus outweighed the harm to the deficit. What we know it that investment is what fuels job growth and wages.

Tax cuts at the national level without changes in program management only ends up pushing costs onto municipalities which in turn have to raise property taxes to cover the shortfall.  Tax cuts by themselves do not make government more efficient.  But tax cuts make those who invest in financial instruments richer.

Currently corporate American admits that these tax cuts will not result in greater investment. Why should they when the money they do not put into investments will increase their stocks trading price and go into their personal investment portfolios and stock incentive programs.

This proposed tax cut comes at a time when our nation’s deficit is currently projected to hit 100% of the entire country’s annual income in just a few years. That is where faltering Italy is now and not far behind bankrupt Greece.

When elected officials, including our own Representative Collins, say they “all” will be “out” if the cut does not go through, the response should be “That is price you pay for putting big business and big donors interest over those who you represent.”  This swindle is simply “A Bridge Too Far.”

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion

Editor:

The conspiracy theories continue to escalate in Jim Simon’s recent letter to the editor. Now, it’s not just Lighthouse Wind but all the Renewables on the Ground participants that “invite division, acrimony and toxicity.”

From what I have read, the Roundtable involved a diverse group of stakeholders including NY towns, environmental groups, state agencies, and energy developers. They worked together for close to a year ensuring all opinions were considered as they discussed how to responsibly achieve New York’s exciting renewable energy goals.

The final report is online and I encourage folks to check it out if they are interested. There was a huge focus on consensus building, including the hiring of staff from the Consensus Building Institute.

There is no consensus building with Jim Simon, John Riggi and SOS. They want their way, and if they cannot get it, they create the illusion of conspiracy or wrongdoing. Mr. Simon refusing to participate in a responsible manner reflects very poorly on the town of Yates. Perhaps he and others should make more efforts toward consensus building rather than hurling insults?

Harvey Campbell

Lyndonville

Editor:

We wish to extend a heartfelt thank you to all of the people who supported us in our write-in campaign during the November election.

Thank you for greeting us at your doors and talking with us.  Thank you for letting us know how you feel. Most of all, thank you for taking the time to go out and vote.

We know write-in voting can be confusing and we thank you for persevering and coming out to support us. We wanted to make a difference for you and we hope we still can in some small way.

Congratulations to our opponents, whom we feel will do their best to serve the needs of all Town residents.

Again, thank you,

Wendi Pencille and Gerry Zinkievich

Shelby

Editor:

Thank you more than I can say to all those who showed me such support during my long campaign season.

Thank you to the Orleans County Conservative Party for your endorsement, to each of you who signed petitions, allowed me to use your lawns for signs, those who made donations, shared Facebook messages, placed door hangers, addressed mailers, and the many who have taken the time to encourage and pray for me, and of course for your votes!

Your support and care have overwhelmed and delighted me and I am grateful for the opportunity to continue my service.

Warmest Regards,

Amy Richardson

Kendall Town Clerk

Editor:

Everyone who knows me knows I have always been someone who cares about the earth and how we leave it for our future generations.

The battle cry of the anti-turbine folks is, “No one would want the turbines unless they are getting money as a lease holder.”

I stood up at the Town Board meeting and said, “I support the turbines and I will not be getting any lease money. I support them because I love my grandchildren and want to ensure them a livable earth.”

On her way out of the meeting one of the women who usually speaks out against the turbines every meeting said to me, “If you really loved your grandchildren you wouldn’t be for the turbines.”

How dare she!

I want to know what anyone on the other side of this issue and our Town Board is doing for the future of this town or our earth for the benefit our children and grandchildren.

Almost every one of the people who stands up to speak against the turbines at OUR town meetings are not from OUR town!

The turbines will be good for our town. They will bring in money that can be used for tax relief or infrastructure improvements so that we can be capable of drawing new businesses here.

The same people speaking out against the turbines made the statement, “We don’t care how much taxes go up as long as we don’t have turbines.”

I don’t know about everyone else in Yates, but I know I do care how much taxes go up. Especially when there is nothing here in the first place. We need something here so our children and grandchildren won’t have to move away to make a living.

Investments into our schools will benefit all of our children.

When you add to that the positive impact Wind Power has in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, the reduction in air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels and the security issues caused by our dependence on foreign sources for that fossil fuel, the turbines are a win/win situation!

I am fighting for these wind turbines to come here because I love my earth, I love my town and, yes, I do love my children and grandchildren!

Susan Campbell

Lyndonville

Editor:

Orleans County residents—including those who live in Yates—should be thankful that Jim Simon and John Riggi have shown such unselfish commitment to promoting the best interests of the residents of their town. They are doing their best to educate their neighbors regarding the Siren song of wind energy development in a County as richly endowed with lush wildlife habitat as ours.

I recall when researchers from the Nature Conservancy described migrating warblers “dripping from the trees” in Lakeside Park just a few years ago. Bernie Daniels, the President of the North American Bluebird Society, told me about a month ago that the only place he had ever seen a gallinule (such as the one found on our road and sent to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology a few months ago) was in Costa Rica! He asked me to affirm three times in a half hour conversation where I lived (on the Atlantic Flyway)!

Some will fault any democrat for taking issue with the Governor by opposing wind energy development in Orleans. But, as someone who is tired of seeing the County’s assets frittered away by those in power locally, I am unequivocally opposed to clearing hardwood woodlots for the purpose of siting wind turbines. Having gone through this when, as I recall, Jack Gilman was Kendall Town Supervisor, I have concluded that is inevitably what will too often happen due to wind turbine setback requirements.

As Dr. Richard Perez from S.U.N.Y. Albany told us last summer, the future is in energy generated by increasingly more efficient solar panels. According to Dr. Perez, the Chinese get it, even if many here do not. In the not too distant future, wind turbines will be regarded as the energy equivalent of dinosaurs better suited to moonscape environments than one that is as rich as that of a County such as Orleans.

But, make no mistake. For some, the “joke” will be on the vast majority of Orleans residents. Sound familiar?

Quite sincerely yours,

Gary Kent

Town of Albion

Editor:

Jim Simon’s latest letter to the Orleans Hub shows his juvenile way of looking at things. When the results aren’t what he wants, he quits. The Renewables on the Ground Roundtable is just one example.

He and John Riggi also both abstained from voting recently on Apex’s final met tower. Apex bent over backwards to cooperatively work with the town’s requests over the past year and a half, and they can’t even vote!?

And, as to Riggi’s latest Letter to the Editor…There are those of us that see Simon and Riggi and members of SOS as the greedy ones. There are those of us that are grateful for this opportunity to better our community, to bring development, revenue and infrastructure to our hometown that is dying.

John Riggi, you may have your view that Apex “pretends” to care about the community, but what have either of you done to bring new development here? Why would you criticize a company that is allowing children and their families a free meal at soccer games, presents on Christmas morning, food for the needy…not to even mention the substantial revenue a potential wind project could bring to our town and school system, both of which could desperately use it?!

Just because you don’t want to look at them!  Now who is being greedy?!

Lighthouse Wind supporters include leaseholders and others who care about the town’s prosperity and future. The Town of Yates needs to remain open minded and embrace opportunity before it is too late.

Linda Fisk

Lyndonville

Editor:

After having some time to let the election results sink in, I would like to take this opportunity to thank so many! I appreciate all the votes from the residents. It wasn’t the outcome I hoped for, but I gave 100 percent. I ran a clean campaign, with honesty and a whole lot of dignity.

I would like to thank all the babysitters who watched the boys in my absence, it definitely was hard to be away from them. I would also like to thank Patty Woodworth, Cheryl Tuttle, Ann Bunch, Patty and Lance Mark, Maureen Blackburn, Dave Sevenski, Mark Traxler and all the Ridgeway workers who supported me with endorsement letters.

Special thanks to my parents who helped and gave encouragement and family and friends who helped in every other way possible. The 4-H Fair, Meet and Greet, signs, literature, t-shirts, signatures and door to door would have never been possible without family and friends.

Lastly, I would like to thank “my person” Julie Cecchini who gave 100 percent of her time with tireless dedication. She managed to work full time, care for family, go door to door, and still bring new ideas to the table. I’m so glad for our friendship.  Cecchini Family, thank you for giving up your wife and Mom for all those weeks. Thanks again everyone and I apologize if I’ve forgotten anyone.

Tara L. Albone White

Ridgeway

Editor:

There is a simple answer to Governor Cuomo concern over the impact of New York taxpayers with the GOP Tax Plan. Reduce your spending.

Why should New York’s budget be $70 billion more than Texas or Florida? Both states are larger in size and population. Divide that number by 236,000 New York taxpayers and see how much we could save.

Tax exempt private activity bonds will be less attractive with a reduction in the corporate and individual tax rates being proposed. These bonds will still be in demand, the effective rate may not be as attractive. Our Governor just doesn’t get it.

Corporations are leaving the United States operating in countries which have a reduced tax burden. The same reason New York state is losing population to states which don’t overtax their residents. Our youth are leaving this state an alarming rate because the jobs are not here.

Reducing the tax burden will free up capital to expand business in the states. His corporate job growth plans include the Riverbend project which has produced how may new jobs?

Ed Urbanik

Lyndonville

Editor:

What more does APEX need to know?!?

They are not wanted in our town and if they are as community conscious as they say, they should leave.  But they haven’t left. What does that tell you about APEX? I can let you know what it tells me.

It tells me that after:

• all of APEX’s exhortations that they will not stay where they’re not wanted,

• all of the surveys, statements of opposition and multiple election cycles reinforcing opposition at the ballot box,

• all of the multiple invitations and attempts to convince the APEX Clean Energy Principals, Mr. Sandy Reisky, Mr. Mark Goodwin, Mr. Jim Trousdale and Mr. Steve Vavrik to visit our town and discuss our concerns, were utterly and completely rebuffed,

• Governor Cuomo gave all of New York State 30-mile turbine setbacks,

• Lieutenant Governor Hochul went on the record stating that we must protect our Defense bases from encroachment of all kinds,

• Department of Public Service Chief Counsel Paul Agresta admonished Industrial Wind developers in New York that their “get the deal done at any cost” modus operandi was not winning them friends in Upstate New York or Albany,

• the same Mr. Paul Agresta, exhorted those same developers to “Go where you’re wanted”,

• New York State Department of Public Service Commissioner John Rhodes responded when questioned about Article 10 ripping home rule from the people:  “Not under this governor are we going to force people in a police state mode to do anything.”

APEX still darkens our doorstep!

Why do they still darken our doorstep? My personal view is that, even though they pretend to care about our community via:

• free hot dogs and milk after youth sports events,

• attempts (sometimes successful, unfortunately) to give money to local churches, schools and private organizations,

• holding parties for only their few friends and paid leaseholders,

Apex does not give one rat’s behind for the towns of Yates and Somerset or any of the 5,000 or so souls whose lives would be negatively and forever altered via planting of their massive industrial machines in our soil!

They only care about the money they can siphon from our pockets via State and Federal Production Tax Credits.

Let’s not fool ourselves, APEX (Lighthouse Wind) is and always has been synonymous with the Robber Barons of old.

Robber Baron turbine purveyors forcing projects into inappropriate locations and down the throats of residents who, for a myriad of reasons, don’t want them!!!

APEX, you need to distance yourselves from Lighthouse Wind and the Towns of Yates and Somerset. It’s bad for your business. You have enough egg on your corporate face and frankly you are embarrassing yourselves. Get out while you still have some semblance of corporate respect.  Lord knows, you never had any goodwill with the people, except for those you are paying to like you.

Thank you,

John B. Riggi

Councilman, Town of Yates

Editor:

I read the congratulatory letter by Jeanne Crane, chairperson of the Orleans County Democrats, to the winning Republican-backed candidates and she seemed almost wistful in the hope of Democrats one day being in the majority. I hope not.

In endorsing candidates for various offices in the county and towns, I read nothing about what the Democrats wanted to accomplish if they were elected. Now, from the county down to the villages, my view is that the governments have specific duties and responsibilities to the taxpayers and that they spend that money wisely. What would the Democrats do differently than that?

If one follows national politics, we have two major private parties with vastly different ideologies vying for control of the Federal government. We read about turning states and counties red or blue which is determined by the leanings of the members of those parties and eventually to control by Republicans or Democrats.

Trouble is, neither party is adhering to the United States Constitution. Both parties are travelling the road as Progressives ever since Teddy Roosevelt took the reins of power. Progressivism is not in the Constitution. Progressives do not like the individual liberties and freedoms espoused by that document.

We live in a blue state, not likely to go red. Because of the policies and taxation of the Democrats, people will continue to leave the state. New York State recently fell to fourth in population behind Florida, what state will be next? Being blue means paying more for Medicaid and other social programs. Cuomo is bleeding us dry.

So I would rather the county be red. I cannot take any more hope and change.

Jim Tuk

Lyndonville

Editor:

The Renewables on the Ground Roundtable, facilitated by the Consensus Building Institute and co-chaired by The Nature Conservancy and the Alliance for Clean Energy NY, just released its final report in Albany last month designed to help facilitate Governor Cuomo’s goal of achieving 50% renewable energy by 2030.

Readers beware.

I participated in most of the year-long series of meetings. I resigned from the Roundtable in July just as the synthesis working group of which I was a member was to begin making changes to the final recommendations and to draft the executive summary. In the event, going against the express guidelines all Roundtable participants agreed to at the last meeting, a participant intentionally released an unauthorized draft of the report in order to gain favor for wind turbine developers with state agencies. This unconscionable step was the last straw for me. Interestingly, the final report does not list me as a participant.

I implore the Roundtable participants, Orleans County readers, the state agencies responsible for siting renewable energy projects and those responsible for preserving Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station operational airspace and radar coverage, Governor Cuomo and all those seeking the common good to avoid accepting the false narrative of a broad consensus in the final report.  Despite the good faith efforts of many of the Roundtable participants, key questions remain.

Why was there a lack of rural upstate participation in the Roundtable when it is those communities who will be facing industrial wind turbine projects? Why did the Roundtable assume that every community would embrace industrial wind turbines if only they were provided enough “education?”

Why wouldn’t industrial wind developers earnestly strive to earn a social license by achieving “broad stakeholder agreement” with host communities, conservationists and state agencies concerning reasonable zoning regulations, stipulations and study methodologies? What environmental and procedural justice safeguards will protect rural towns from suffering inequities in the face of poorly sited industrial wind turbine projects?

Finally, who should decide how each NY town will contribute to a more sustainable future? If your answer is the wind turbine companies and the leaseholders, then you invite division, acrimony and toxicity, and you underestimate the power of subsidiarity, home rule and – most importantly – the people.

Jim Simon

Supervisor, Town of Yates

Editor:

I was embarrassed by the behavior of just a few residents at the recent meeting in Albion regarding the future of Law Enforcement services in our county.

Failing to grasp the fact that this was a simple overview of possibilities they continually interrupted the presentation with inane and clearly confrontational “questions.”

I question their motives.

My hope is that the majority of taxpayers will listen to the facts and make up their minds without the obvious bias by an overly vocal few.

As a taxpayer already covered by the Orleans County Sheriff’s Office, I will be taxed at a very minimal higher rate with some of the proposed changes.

I submit that these slight increases for non-village residents will be short lived. The 38 million dollars saved over 10 years by this transition will be repaid by increased property values.

I am also confused by villagers reluctant to reduce their tax burden by $6 to $8 per 1,000 simply to keep their local PD when the OCSO is equipped and prepared to provide superior service.

Thank you.

Bob Harker

Clarendon

Editor:

I found the subheadline “Outside-village residents would see about $2 increase in tax rate” to be pretty deceptive when that is really $2/1000 of property value.

That comes to $200 a year for a home costing $100,000, which is a pretty significant tax increase. Especially when it looks like those living in the village will experience a tax reduction of $4 to $6/$1000 after all is factored in.

The question then becomes: where does the majority of crime take place in Orleans County? Statistics show in the village. Yet Orleans County is considering having those outside the village tote the bill for the villages “big tax savings.” That is not right, regardless how you choose to hide it behind the subheadline.

Best regards,

Robert Napierala

Gaines

Editor:

I am one of two candidates for Murray Town Supervisor. The people of Murray have been very patient this election year. Not only have they had to endure a Primary for the Republican and Independence ballot lines, they have had to wait for absentee ballots to determine the outcome of not only that race, but now the General Election for Supervisor. For their patience, I thank them. While my opponent’s lead is large, I still hold out hope.

Regardless the outcome, I remain hopeful for Murray as well. In other venues of social media, we have been portrayed as a town divided. I instead look and see a town engaged. A town that values its civic responsibility, becomes involved, and participates in this most sacred of our guaranteed freedoms.

Most disturbing to me is that we have reached, apparently, a new plateau in political campaigns. Are the days gone when a small town candidate could spend a reasonable amount on their campaign, to present themselves and their credentials to the electorate and put their name out there? Call me old-fashioned, but I fear a future where this is not enough anymore.

When someone would hire a campaign consultant, put up what amounts to billboards, and spend inordinate amounts on mailings, flyers, postcards, and targeted social media, I get the feeling we are not in Murray anymore. I think this large expenditure unreasonably raises the cost of entry for any political office to a point beyond that of the average citizen. It has already happened to varying degrees at the state and federal level.

In a statewide or federal campaign, I understand that there are lobbyists and special interests that are willing to spend huge sums of money to finance campaigns in hopes of favorable treatment. I can only guess at the motivations involved in such a small town race. Have we degenerated into the type of campaign where people will spend many times the annual salary of the job, for the apparent purpose of what benefit it may afford them either now or in the future? I certainly hope not, or the age of the citizen public official is truly ended.

I congratulate the opposed candidates who campaigned with me. Mike Mele and Paul Hendel ran the type of race we are used to in a small town, word of mouth, with minimal expense for mailers, door hangers, and advertisements. Our type of campaign, with some homemade signs and the frugality typically associated with a race of this nature is in stark contrast to that of my opponent.

There has been much talk in this forum of having Murray maintain its character and individuality. That is one reason why those of us who live here have chosen to stay, and more still are discovering our little corner of upstate New York.

Will we allow “big-town” politics ruin our small-town personality? I hope not. Can we put an end to big time political spending that further alienates those who might aspire to public service? I hope so. The greater the selection of candidates in our elections, the higher the likelihood we can determine the best person for the job. Big spending on local campaigns would serve to prevent quality people from getting involved in the process. If that should happen, we will all be losers.

Regardless of the outcome of this election, the citizens have made their choice. Should I win, I can guarantee I will work hard for all the citizens of Murray, my opponent included. I have every confidence that he will do the same. Thank you for your support.

Respectfully,

Robert G. Miller

Candidate for Town of Murray Supervisor