Editor:

This letter was sent to the Yates Town Board on Jan. 28, 2015.

My family owns property on Lakeshore Rd. Our mother grew up on the Ridge and we have been vacationing on Lake Ontario since 1941. We originally rented a cottage on Haight’s farm in Barker.

In the 1970s our mother (Mary Kerr Dudley) purchased Fire lane 1 from her aunt, Gladys Eggleston. This property became a haven for her extended family, a place where children, stepchildren, nieces, nephews, grandchildren and now great-grandchildren gather to enjoy the peaceful beauty of Lake Ontario.

Her children invested in additional lake property to accommodate the expanding number of family members. Cousins purchased property on Peter’s Lane. Our grandparents, great aunts and uncles are buried in the Bates Road Cemetery. Our mother will be laid to rest there as well. This is “home” to grandchildren whose childhood involved a lot of moving. The “Lake” is a constant in our family.

We are a family of environmentally conscious members. We recycle. We conserve energy. We conserve water. Two of us have Master’s degrees in Environmental Education and make our living teaching children to be environmentally conscious.

We support alternative energy sources with the caveat that they are environmentally and economically responsible, that they will not destroy natural resources or natural habitats, or cause economic, mental, or physical harm to surrounding populations.

We were stunned to find that Apex Clean Energy has progressed so far in approaching our neighbors regarding installing an unspecified number of 570-foot wind turbines to provide a small amount of electricity into the NY state grid (originally estimated to provide electricity to 53,000 average homes. In NY state this about 0.7 percent of all homes). This electricity will go into the NY state grid and is not necessarily used for homes (only 1/3 of all generated electricity is consumed residentially) or used locally.

Many of the lakeshore property owners are seasonal. We pay high taxes for the privilege of owning our lake property. We are proud of our contribution to Lyndonville’s excellent school system. We shop locally; we hire local people to help maintain our property. We enjoy the rural atmosphere, the benefits of a smaller town, and the summer activities including our famous 4th of July celebration.

We extoll the virtues of Lake Ontario and are rarely without visitors. Anything that might threaten this sanctuary concerns us and we want to make educated decisions regarding the options we have.

Advertised as the largest wind turbines to be installed in NY State, do we really know the risks involved to our land, our health, and our wildlife resources? What will we be sacrificing now and for future generations?

Section 102 of the Yates Zoning Local Law states:

Purpose:

To protect the open, rural, and natural character of the land.
To preserve the town’s natural resources and habitats.
To guide and regulate the orderly growth, development and redevelopment of the Town of Yates in accordance with a well-considered plan with long-term objectives, principles and standards deemed beneficial to the interest and the welfare of the people.
To encourage the use of alternative energy systems and protect solar and wind access.

I respectfully submit at this point in time we cannot forget, ignore, or bypass items 1-3 in order to appear to accomplish number 4. This project is not an alternative energy solution for Lyndonville and Yates.

We need a Board dedicated to researching and analyzing the pros and cons of a huge wind farm partially located within our boundaries. We need to protect the asset we have in the Lake Ontario shoreline and it’s natural beauty. We need a solution that protects the rights of all residents, human and otherwise, to a safe and healthy environment, a solution that allows our town to continue to attract and keep residents, sportsmen, and visitors year round. We need a Board that stands up for the right of Yates to determine it’s own future.

You took the time to add an extensive section on wind turbine zoning in 2008. Please take the same care evaluating the Apex proposal and the documentation supporting arguments against such a development in our town.

As summer residents whose hearts are always “at the Lake” we put our trust in the board to defend the rights of our citizens, our wildlife, and our lakeshore to exist in a healthy environment unpolluted by the noise, shadow flicker, and unsightliness of enormous wind turbines that are not providing “clean” energy in a significant or cost effective manner.

Sincerely,

Susan E. Dudley
Lyndonville

Editor:

I am writing in response to the question posed to the public concerning school tax reductions for military combat veterans. On its face, it is a noble and respectful suggestion. Actually, it is divisive and unfair to all who pay some of the highest educational taxes in the United States of America.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a combat veteran. I served in Vietnam and would be affected by this policy. I think it is important to point out that this is my opinion and I do not speak for any other individuals or organizations.

An article in The Hub outlined the potential reductions and, more importantly, mentioned that the lower costs for vets would be offset by higher rates for non-vets and a reduction in the percentages available in the STAR program.

I would like to go on record as opposing this entire concept and if it is enacted, I will not participate. I have to wonder who thought this was a good idea in the first place. I cannot, in good conscience, place myself above, and place a higher tax burden upon young families with children, farmers, fixed income seniors and business and property owners in the school district.

I do have, what I think, is a better idea.

We pay some of the highest school taxes in the nation. Please Google any database comparing various tax rates across the nation. An example would be www.syracuse.com/data/property-tax-rates. In conversations with individuals knowledgeable in school budget procedures, I found out that approximately 90 percent of local school budgets are comprised of state mandated costs.

I would like to propose a new program. It would acknowledge all who struggle to pay their school tax every year. It could be called the Military Mandate Minimization Model or M4. The state would cut mandates 50 percent this year and 10 percent every year going forward.

I think this would accomplish at least three things:

Cut everyone’s school taxes
Increase local control of school policies, costs and academic programs
Accomplish the thoughtful and noble goal of the original plan

I will not hold my breath waiting for M4 to become law. I would, however, like to ask my fellow VFW members, whether you belong to the organization or not, to weigh in on this veterans school tax exemption plan.

I know and you know, vets talk to vets. Think about it from a “school tax paying community” perspective and let the school board know what you think. The school board meeting is tonight, Feb. 10 at 6:30 at the high school or give them a call at 798-2710.

Thanks and welcome home.

Paul J Blajszczak
Medina

Editor:

According to Lindsay Graham (1/30/15 on CNN), “Without responsibility, freedom leads to chaos.” That may be overstatement, but when Eisenhower reportedly repeated that “Freedom is nothing more than the right to exercise self-discipline,” he said something that should not be easily dismissed.

According to our often irresponsible media, the popular response in France to the Charlie Hebdo killings has been to support the magazine’s freedom of expression. Certainly there is no justification for the murder of its staff members. But I am NOT Charlie Hebdo.

What we hear from our often admittedly sensationalist mass media about “The Interview” has suggested some think it a “patriotic duty” to see the movie. The thinking apparently is that we should affirm our commitment to freedomof expression, in this case. North Korean outrage notwithstanding, we need to show them that their objections are not going to intimidate us. Some would say they should learn to “get over” the potential assassination of their leader, and they just do not understand “comedy.”

“The Interview” may not rise to the level of inappropriateness that the “Borat” movies did, but, to me, such irresponsible freedom of expression is harmful to American interests. “Borat” misinformed Americans who thought “Borat” was good for some laughs. Make no mistake, it further irritated the Muslims it stereotyped.

What was the price paid for a few laughs? Such things further the same end as did the pastor in Florida who unquestionably had a right to advocate burning the Koran. But, are these the types of things that people who care about this nation should encourage? Should we prioritize profit and selfishness over the best interests of our country?

We are obviously free to spend our money to support that which is damaging to the national interest. We can hide behind our “right” of free expression. To me, it is my patriotic duty NOT to reward irresponsible, undisciplined, and selfish freedom of expression by making it any more profitable than it often is.

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent
Albion

Editor:

Congratulations to Tom Rivers for his excellent coverage of Delia Robinson’s recent “Tea With Dee” discussion of abolitionism in Orleans County. (Click here to see “Orleans County favored abolition long before Civil War.”)

If her talk is any indication, there was a time when people here were more progressive than they appear to be today. The creation by government of an Alms House and the socialist notions that we should take care of those less fortunate and educate the poor in public schools (as provided by our Founders) adds credence to a growing suspicion that we may be regressing. The strength of the anti-alcohol effort (Temperance Movement) provides further confirmation of a strong social consciousness in Orleans County.

I guess the energy required to sustain such enlightenment gave way to “Progress.”

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent
Albion

Editor:

On Thursday night I had an automobile accident. It was the first major accident in my 40-plus years of driving. I encountered a very slippery road and despite reduced speed and early breaking I slid through an intersection and a ditch and landed in some trees!

The blow was significant enough to blow out the driver door window into me! I was stunned and quite upset as my car is one month shy of a year of ownership.

The very first person to help was a town of Shelby snowplow operator. He was concerned enough to inquire as to my well being and if I needed to call for help. I assured him I was OK and had a cell phone. I called 911 and was connected to Niagara County, who got Orleans on the line for me.

A wrecker from Lyons Collision in Medina was dispatched, as well as law enforcement. I called my wife and asked her to come to the scene to take me home after everything was properly settled.

Lyons arrived first with a tow and flat bed. The drivers had to wait for law enforcement before they could do anything. However, their concern about injuries and my comfort was outstanding.

Soon, a State Trooper arrived. I actually was a little afraid, as they have a reputation for toughness. Trooper Radford was extremely professional and very compassionate. He brought my wife to the vehicle and let her listen to all his instructions and questions, as well as being safe and warm. He saw no wrongdoing on my part and issued an accident report.

I went to Lyons Collision on Friday morning to clean out my car and authorize an estimate and arrange for my insurance company to deal with them. I can only say that I was treated very well. They are the best to if you need help after an accident.

Bottom line, we have great residents in Orleans County that care for others! If I had to have an accident, I am glad it was at home! Thanks to all who offered help, including some other passersby!

Sincerely,
Dayton Hausman
Medina

Editor:

With the recent arrest of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on alleged federal corruption charges, the culture of deceit, lies and bribery in Albany has been brought further into the public spotlight.

It is unfortunate that a few members of the legislature refuse to follow the rules and fall victim to money and power. Scandals such as these bring a pejorative perception to the already tainted Albany culture and make it difficult for the rest of us who truly want to do what is best for all New Yorkers.

If the recent news regarding Speaker Silver has demonstrated anything, it is that we need ethics reforms in Albany now more than ever. It goes against the very function of our government to have a single person hold as much power as Sheldon Silver.

Silver has omnipotent control over which bills come before the Assembly for a vote and how taxpayer funds are used. The length of time Silver has been in office, more than 20 years, has allowed him to accumulate significant wealth and power. Now we have discovered that much of his wealth and power allegedly was either illegally obtained or used to promote his own private interests.

If we are to truly reform Albany’s culture of corruption, we need to pass the Public Officers Accountability Act. I sponsored this legislation last legislative term, along with almost all of my Assembly Minority colleagues, because I know that abuses of power such as these should be handled proactively.

This legislation limits the time a member of the legislature can serve as a committee chair or legislative leader to eight years, bans elected officials from future employment for certain felony convictions, and requires the return of campaign funds to donors or charities upon certain felony convictions. Furthermore, I sponsored Assembly Bill 4935 of 2014 that proposes stripping pension and retirement benefits from public officials convicted of certain felonies.

Until these bills are taken up for a vote, we are leaving the door open for further abuses of power and theft from the public coffers. The last thing we need is career politicians who have lost interest in benefiting their constituencies in exchange for padding their own pockets and ensuring their own re-election.

The only way to handle serious ethics violations is with a serious ethics reform bill, and the Public Officers Accountability Act provides a plethora of reforms that will prevent these abuses before they happen again.

State Assemblyman Steve Hawley
Batavia

Editor:

In regards to the veterans’ exemption for school taxes (click here), shame on the NYS Department of Veterans Affairs Director, the Governor, and our local representatives for allowing this to happen. (Click here to see “Medina schools leaning towards tax exemption for veterans.”)

When we elect our representatives to office we expect them to have moral courage among other things. This NYS legislation demonstrates a lack of moral courage on the part of our elected officials in Albany by shifting the burden of decision-making and funding on this issue to local officials and community members.

As prior military, disabled and a veteran, I, by NYS definition, qualify for this benefit. However, how can I in good conscience accept it? Besides, the reduction in school tax is most likely offset by a rise in fees in other areas – so it’s a shell game in my opinion. My point, and the intent of this letter, is to put the spotlight on the weak-minded decision-making on this particular issue that did not consider the impact of decisions at the local level.

It is further dividing communities and is further driving a wedge between the voters and all veterans. Remember, approximately 0.45 percent of population served post 9/11 that is “damn few” as we know it in veteran circles. In this case, the tax relief being directed by NYS law puts pressure on local communities to provide an unfunded (non state reimbursed and designed to reduce current state funded school STAR credits) tax break to gold star survivors, combat, and disabled vets.

To use veterans and gold star survivors as a method to lessen the reimbursement of STAR tax credits to schools is a flat out disgrace. The winner is NYS – not the veterans nor gold star survivors nor even non-veterans. This is shameful, cowardly, and just plain weak can’t the NYS Veteran’s Affairs Committee find ways to trim the NYS budget to fund this? Why the shell game to reduce school tax reimbursables to school districts?

Why hide behind veterans? If my neighbors are saddled with deciding on this tax break for me without the prospect of a break for themselves then I’d have to decline it. Again, the burden of shame belongs with the director of the NYS Department of Veteran Affairs, the NYS Veteran Affairs Committee, our assemblymen and women, our senators, and our governor.

I can only speak for myself and say that I will again shoulder my share of the task 100 percent and then some. So, how about this: increase my school taxes to help fund rising NYS education costs by the percentage of my disability etc. The greater cynic would ask, “Why trim waste when you can set veterans benefits in conflict with voters, force local districts into an ethical quandary, and then benefit either way the decision is made?” This is a disturbing trend that is trickling down from other federal efforts.

The director of NYS Veterans Affairs and the NYS Veterans Affairs Committee should have looked deeper with regard to the social impact of this law on local school districts.

Regards,

Steve Bunch
Medina

Editor:

When County Legislator George Bower retired, the Nursing Home experience he had left with him. In my second term, it is not a stretch to say that he was the only legislator who knew the operation fairly well.

Now what? Legislator Lynne Johnson congratulated her fellow legislators at the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Luncheon on the sale of the County Nursing Home. She called it “a job well done.” “The sale of the nursing home takes the pressure off. We can rebuild our bridges and culverts.” Was she saying that we could not have rebuilt them otherwise? (Click here to “Legislature leader says selling nursing home one of county’s best decisions.”)

Yes, Lynne, the Orleans County Nursing Home just got privatized (January 1, 2015). Taxpayers may be interested to know that at any point during our operation of the publicly owned County Nursing Home at least $2 million in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement was owed them. That would have been the case on Dec. 31, 2014. It would not surprise me if that was news to some of our current legislators.

Here is the $2 million question: Now that the taxpayer-created Orleans County Nursing Home has been handed over to a private operator, who is seeing to it that the millions owed the taxpayers will end up in county coffers? Do we still have county employees pursuing reimbursement and accounts receivable? Or has the new owner been contracted to do it for us? And when will the final accounting take place?

It seems to me that taxpayers get information about the ongoing operation of Orleans County on a need-to-know basis. For example, were taxpayers ever told what the facility housing the County Nursing Home, Board of Elections, Public Health and unused storage space was appraised for? Why not? Was it an oversight? In the absence of any real accountability, why would taxpayers need to know that anyway?

Did the deal to sell the County Nursing Home for $7.8 million include the right of the new operator to recover $2 million in delayed reimbursement owed the taxpayers? Do we have a contract with them to do so on our behalf? Is that something we need to know? Is it more, or less, important than giving the taxpayers an appraisal of the County Nursing Home property before selling it for $7.8 million?

The theory the County Legislature operates on is one akin to “Ignorance is bliss.” After all, it was proven conclusively in 2013 that a majority of taxpayers either do not pay attention to truth, or cannot handle it when they hear it.

Your County Legislature has been reassured that it can do whatever it pleases. That is our “bad,” and the fact that Lynne Johnson thinks selling the County Nursing Home was a splendid accomplishment does not make it one.

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent
Albion

Mr. Kent is a former Orleans County legislator.

Editor:

During the discussion on the Medina dissolution and even now that the referendum has been defeated, I hear the leaders of the various communities talk about Shared Services as a way to reduce costs.

Personally I see Shared Services as proof that you have too many bosses – one boss loaning equipment and workers to another boss tells me you have too many bosses.

Also, I don’t understand why some folks think that with dissolution they will “LOSE THEIR COMMUNITY.” My thoughts on this are if lines on a map define your community maybe you don’t have the community you thought you did.

And if you really want to save some money you should be discussing merging all three governments of Shelby, Medina and Ridgeway into one. Then maybe some real cost savings could be found.

I completely understand why dissolution is hard because change is hard especially when you have community leaders who aren’t united in the process.

John Beckingham
Holley

Editor:

Finally someone has answered the question regarding calls answered outside the Village by the MPD. Thank you! (Click here to see “Shall the Village of Medina, NY, vote to dissolve?”)

The entire piece is exceptional reporting! It really tells the story without the emotion of those involved.

I think that you have taken no sides. There are many points you raised that I also have posted in my own musings on Facebook.

When I vote on Tuesday, I will take the route you suggested, try to do it together one more time. Four years is an eternity and most of today’s players will no longer be involved. In the mean time we should all work closer together with our village government. We all need to be more involved in our future and look for ways to invigorate our village, not just downtown, but the entire village!

I would hope that village unions will offer some act of good faith to help in the near future, that the county will see the light with sales tax, and Albany will rethink the fate of rural NY.

I also on Tuesday will not hold any ill will for those who passionately feel dissolution is a step to the future! Only good and honest people would try such a bold step. There is merit in the concept. It is simply not the right place or time!

Thank you Orleans Hub, once again, for your contribution to providing a source of news in Orleans County. I also wish to add a side note to Orleans Radio for their recent contribution. I see a bright future for this endeavor also!

Dayton Hausman
Medina

Editor:

The debate has been ongoing, contentious at times, and a necessary part of the democratic process. Anyone who has followed the coverage of the dissolution of the Village of Medina knows that there are no easy answers or a neat road map to a destination. One thing is clear: Not all entities have invested the time or effort to inform the public.

I would like to thank Tom Rivers, editor of The Hub; Howie Balaban, former Journal-Register reporter; and Jim Krencik of The Daily News in Batavia. As part of the democratic process, information and transparency are necessary and expected in the gathering of facts.

When Mr. Rivers and Mr. Balaban were labeled as biased by Town of Ridgeway officials, I offered them an apology as this assault on their professionalism did not sit well with me. When efforts to gather facts (FOIL requests) and report accordingly are ignored or openly thwarted, every person depending on unbiased media coverage is DENIED freedom of the press. We still, I think, live in a democracy.

Similarly, when an email was circulated several months ago by a Town of Ridgeway official directing numerous demeaning, derogatory comments at the mayor of Medina, I once again stated that this unprofessional leadership did not represent many Ridgeway residents. Civility and cooperation have not been forthcoming from some elected officials.

It has been alleged that the dissolution committee was not representative of the entire area. I would counter that by simply saying you will be hard put to find a more ethical, fair-minded individual than Chairman Don Colquhoun. He and his committee were faced with a Herculean task and met it with open minds and deliberative purpose. I trust that they did their homework, researched and drew conclusions based on factual information.

One would hope this was the case based on cooperation from other entities! Thank you to this committee as I know firsthand how thankless volunteer service can be at times. Your desire to help find ways to improve, or perhaps even save, our area is appreciated.

After reading, researching and trying to stay informed, one issue remains overwhelmingly frustrating for me, especially after attending the theatrical performance Wednesday evening at the high school. Why are the taxpayers forced to pay for a PR person to orchestrate what should be open dialogue between citizens and elected officials?

As is my usual practice when attending a meeting, I prefer to stand in the back. This vantage point opens an amazing assessment of the dynamics of the event. So I have a few questions that result from my viewing of the event. (The event was billed as a Q & A.)

Why did our elected officials surrender their responsibilities to a PR person, failing to speak openly throughout the process rather than at a staged event? Were their prepared statements written by each individual or the PR person?

Why were the little slips of paper containing questions turned over to the PR person in the back, edited and then given to another person for further review?

Why were the men with the microphones directed, by the PR person, to certain members of the audience?

Why did the men with the microphones totally ignore one individual in particular? Was it because this individual would have opposing views? (This individual moved three times, visibly trying to be recognized and finally succeeded.)

Why were individuals who had supporting comments allowed to read lengthy statements while others were cut off?

And Why, when no announcement was made by the moderator, was a seated member of the audience told by the PR individual NOT to video the proceedings? The out-of-town TV personnel were tripping over their camera tripods videotaping throughout the meeting and yet the PR person had the authority to tell a member of the community not to do so!

My observations of this event is it was staged, manipulated, a waste of taxpayer money, and saddest of all our elected officials see the need to talk through a hired representative rather than doing their job of personally representing their constituents.

As a resident of the Town of Ridgeway for nearly all my life having been raised in the village, now a rural resident, I believe this affords me at least a reasonable perspective of what this way of life has meant to me. My husband and I currently pay taxes on a home and 78 acres. Previously, we farmed several hundred acres. I understand the different lifestyles and value each.

However, in today’s world survival may be measured by an ability to see the bigger picture, looking beyond policies which once worked or dwelling on territorial enclaves.

This is best done when people are represented by elected officials who do just that: represent – not a paid PR individual who, in my opinion, just may have orchestrated more divisiveness than unity.

Our community of Medina, Ridgeway and Shelby deserves better. It could be ONE when open minds work together.

Maureen Blackburn
Town of Ridgeway resident

Editor:

If dissolution and consolidation made sense, and a good plan was put together, I would be the first one out there promoting it. The dissolution plan does not do that.

I cannot stand behind a plan that is blatantly incorrect. Whether you like me or not, or the stance the towns have taken on this, I have to stand by what I know to be right. The dissolution plan is not worth the paper it is written on and every board member in Shelby and Ridgeway is in full agreement.

Our community is being torn apart due to one man’s agenda, his combativeness, pride, refusal to acknowledge the towns and the concept that we might have better ways to reduce taxes for our constituents, without dividing a community.

We were told this week that “hiring a media consultant is what rich people do when they are trying to hide the truth” but I stand by all of our decisions and hiring our consultant, with deep roots in the area, is what real people do when they need the truth to come out and they aren’t getting a fair shake.

If villagers enjoy their level of services, especially fire, ambulance and police protection, you should VOTE NO to dissolution because I cannot guarantee you will be able to enjoy them as you do now, if the village is dissolved.

I’m no attorney. I’m just a regular guy who just wants to do the right thing here.

As a father, businessman and town councilman, I am committed to the long-term vitality of Medina.

I am confident, that with the support of so many like-minded residents on Tuesday, along with those village trustees who also support shared services, that we can effectively reduce the tax burden without the finality of dissolution.

Please consider this when you vote.

Steve Seitz
Shelby Town Board member

Editor:

The members of the Shelby Volunteer Fire Company recently had a discussion about the upcoming vote on dissolution. We wish to explain our concerns on dissolution and why we feel it wouldn’t be in the best interest of public safety to have the village dissolve.

To start off with, despite what has been said, everyone loses their jobs when dissolution occurs. When Medina dissolves, so does every employee contract. That means some of our strongest allies in public safety are lost, and then we have to hope to get them back and in the same capacity.

As firefighters, when we get called out for a medical emergency there is nothing better than hearing the Medina ambulance crew calling in route. Medina operates four ambulances and the possibility of losing just one of those units during a restructuring after dissolution is too great a risk.

Those against dissolution have said we are using scare tactics to get people to vote no. However, it is us who are worried. Shelby, Lyndonville, Ridgeway, East Shelby and Medina Fire are intertwined with our operations to keep you safe. Firefighters are planners; We have to be to jeep us alive at a fire, and what is being proposed with dissolution has too many variables and would put us all at risk.

What happens if you lose a department, or even part of one, is it will begin to tax the manpower of your surrounding fire companies. What follows are increased response times, less manpower to a scene, and the greater possibility for loss of life and property.

The line officers of the Shelby Volunteer Fire Company have discussed what would happen if we had to take over 30 percent of the village in the event Medina Fire or Medina Ambulance does not return to full capacity because there is no guarantee that they will. The determination was that we may not be able to maintain the service level that Medina Fire and Ambulance provides to the area due to extra call volume, which would be catastrophic for public safety.

When firefighters arrive to a burning home, we don’t blindly rush into it hoping for the best. Our chiefs do a size-up, then form the plan of attack that will be the safest and most effective. We do a 360 of the scene, walking around to get a full picture of what is happening. During that time a plan begins to take shape, and then a risk vs. reward calculation is done. How much risk is involved, and how much will the reward be?

The members of the Shelby Volunteer Fire Company have done our 360 walk around and size-up of dissolution, as well as risk vs. reward calculation. We have found that the risk of dissolution – the dismantling of a great team of firefighters, ambulances, and paramedics at the Medina Fire Department is not worth the reward, especially for a reward that is not set in stone, a reward that doesn’t make mathematical sense, a reward that just puts all of us at too great a risk.

The Shelby Volunteer Fire Company cannot support dissolution because of the potential impact on emergency services and public safety is too great.

Gary Lamar
President of Shelby Volunteer Fire Company

Editor:

Kudos and accolades to the Hoag Library Board of Trustees for their recent ‘dismissal’ of Director Jeff Davignon. Although I don’t know Mr. Davignon I’ve seen the effects of his actions during his short stay with us, and heard enough stories about him, to believe that the Board’s decision was justified.

I feel confident that the Board will pursue, and be successful in finding, a qualified and acceptable replacement.

Joseph Gehl
Kent

Editor:

My wife and I moved into the village a year ago, although I have always lived in the area. In that year we have appreciated the services provided to us.

We had a carbon monoxide detector go off late one evening and we were amazed by the response time of the Medina Fire Department. This is something that would not have happened with a volunteer fire department simply because the volunteers generally do not staff the fire hall around the clock.

Thinking we may lose our wonderful fire service and village police department due to dissolution scares my wife and me. We don’t want to wait for a police car that is across the county.

There are services I expect to have living in the village. If the village dissolves we would be starting from ground zero. The OneMedina group claims all services will remain and taxes will go down. It seems far-fetched that we can eliminate all of these services, then while saving tax money, get all of the services back. Do not dissolve our village. Vote no on Jan. 20.

Brett J. Goheen
Medina