Editor:

I would like to address those who would have you believe that the SAFE Act somehow stands contrary to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

New York State, through the legislative process (votes by state senators and assemblymen), passed a law that would do numerous things to help keep us safe from gun violence. This gun violence we have seen far too many times in school massacres, shopping mall shootings, etc.

Among other things, the SAFE Act prohibits magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Mass killings have occurred in the US when the shooter (with magazine capacities of 30 rounds) didn’t have to reload and could keep on killing innocent students and teachers, children, women and men.

Since the SAFE Act went into effect, a local gun shop mistakenly sold 164 AR-15 assault rifles to various citizens allowing the 30-round magazine to be utilized. The New York State Police intervened, as well as the Orleans County District Attorney’s Office and those 164 assault rifles had to be modified to only allow 10 rounds per rifle – a safe modification bringing those guns into compliance.

Why would a shooter need more than 10 rounds unless they plan to take out a bunch of innocents. As for the rights of gun owners being infringed, I call baloney! What about the rights of those students and teachers who were gunned down? What about the rights of those parents who thought they were sending their children off to a safe place?

Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a citizens’ arms race when they said the people have a right to bear arms. And this certainly doesn’t mean that anyone can buy any gun, anywhere, in any quantity without background checks. To this day, we still do not have a universal background check system in this country.

The SAFE Act is here to stay and will not infringe on my deer hunting season with my son this fall.

Thank you.

Al Capurso
Gaines

Editor:

Just a quick note to thank the Orleans Hub for the feature article on the Medina Memorial Garden (Click here). The Hub continues to fill the void of local media in Orleans County in a very capable and positive fashion! I for one appreciate your efforts, and hope that you continue to grow!

A special thank you to Sue Cook for her article and photos. She was very easy to speak with and is certainly an asset to the Orleans Hub.

Sincerely,

Dayton Hausman
Medina

Editor:

Just a few years ago, the Orleans County Legislature added “Truth in Taxation” to our January tax bills. It was supposed to help convince us to sell our County Nursing Home, and it may have helped (though, without the political cover incumbent legislators received by hiding behind their support of S.A.F.E. Act repeal, the voters likely would have voted out a majority of them.) Now that our legislators have gotten their way, they are dropping “Truth in Taxation.”

That does not mean our Legislators are no longer interested in being truthful. The truth is that it is difficult, putting it mildly, to eliminate something (“Truth in Taxation”) that never existed. . . the “Truth” that is. Those who have been paying attention for the past three years likely know what I am referring to.

Based on recent at-large election results, a majority of Orleans voters does not appear to recognize the truth when they see it. When the “canary” keels over, the truth is there is a pretty fair chance that not all is right in the “coal mine.”

For the minority who do pay attention, what follows might be considered actual taxation truth.

In 2004, the County Legislature fought to prevent sliding scale senior property tax relief from coming to a vote (It eventually passed unanimously). While trying to discourage me from pursuing the matter, the current Chairman told me that providing low-income seniors with modest tax breaks would “increase the taxes on the rest of us.” I do not take quotation marks lightly. The truth was that, once the right thing was done in the case of senior tax relief, taxes on the rest of us did increase by $.60 (sixty cents) per $100,000 of assessed valuation!

The truth is that greater tax fairness for most people in Orleans County would cost those who are better off a bit more.

In 2008, Gene Outterson conducted a one-man crusade to reduce/eliminate the sales tax on home heating fuel. That July, fuel oil was $4.89 a gallon and a fill up could easily add $40 dollars to a fuel bill.

The County Legislature even stonewalled the Clarendon Town Board when it sent us a letter asking that the home heating fuel sales tax be reduced. At least two legislators expressed amusement over the Town Board’s appeal. Later, the Conservative Party of Orleans was similarly rebuffed.

The truth is it could be done responsibly by a Legislature that saw a public interest in doing it.

If I recall correctly, the truth is that not all counties have a sales tax on home heating fuel.

Then there is the “Vehicle Use” tax. The truth is that an unemployed County resident driving a ’93 Ford Escort to find a job pays the same “Vehicle Use” tax as a millionaire driving a small BMW or a Mini Cooper. Is the “Vehicle Use” tax a “State mandate?”

None of this matters, of course, because your legislators have concluded they are “untouchable.” Besides, a majority of Orleans voters cannot handle the truth. Until the majority grows weary of being “played,” our Legislators will continue to do what they do.

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent
Albion

Mr. Kent is a former Orleans County legislator

Editor:

Once again New York State attempts to dictate how a local government should handle it’s affairs. (“Comptroller faults Medina School District over big reserve funds,” Posted on Aug. 25, 2014.)

I for one feel that the Medina School Board has worked hard to position itself for what the NYS Legislature fails to do: deliver on time realistic budgets with adequate funding for public education.

I also believe that one lawsuit could wipe out that balance in reserve funding in a heartbeat. With the state of government funding in constant flux, having funds to address any situation is commendable in my opinion.

I do wish for additional taxpayer relief, and the report should stipulate that in the future. The eventual sale of the Towne school building will also add to the coffers. I would recommend further debt reduction to prepare for future downturns in the economy. The potential for further actions together with the Lyndonville school district could lead to temporary costs that should be prepared for in case it becomes a necessary action.

In summary, let us handle our own business in Medina! Kudos to the recent Boards of Education for a realistic approach to handling the education funding in our community. Thank you for your service! Your foresight allows Medina to offer first-rate facilities, and our own busing service leading to more community employment.

Butt out Albany and return local control to locals!

Dayton Hausman
Medina

Editor:

Members of OneMedina are now circulating petitions throughout the Village of Medina in hopes of getting registered voters to sign to force a referendum or vote on the dissolution of the village. In addition to the OneMedina members, they have encouraged others to help them get petitions signed.

If you are approached to sign a petition I urge you to get the facts before you affix your signature. Ask the individual presenting the petition if they can fully explain the process of OneMedina. Who has to dissolve? Who has to consolidate? How is it done? What happens if one of the processes breaks down? What are the state requirements? How does the village benefit if it consolidates with the towns? Will the ‘promised’ state aid still be there? I have not heard a firm explanation of the process as of yet and I don’t believe I read one in OneMedina’s mailer.

Ask them if they can approximate the costs associated with long-term pensions and health care benefits. Those costs will become a debt load for the village and will be paid by village residents only. Ask them if they are aware that the towns are currently happy with their police and fire coverage and have no desire to pick up additional costs for the village perhaps leaving the village with minimal ambulance, fire and police coverage. Once again, costs that will revert back to village residents. Ask them if all the village departments and employees will be retained if the village dissolves. Who will go, who will stay?

If, after discussing these issues with the presenter and you feel your questions have been answered, then it becomes your decision on whether or not to sign. If you have further questions of the OneMedina group and want more clarification I urge you to contact them personally. The members have listed their names on their web page.

Recently the boards of Medina, Shelby and Ridgeway met to further investigate sharing of services. All three entities agreed to meet further. The supervisor for the Town of Shelby, Skip Draper, presented many good ideas to move the shared services program along. He had asked for information from the village regarding the public works department in order to make a formal presentation that would alleviate some village taxes. It is a start.

The next meeting is scheduled for the beginning of September at which time Draper’s ideas will be revealed. Apparently that does not fit the timeline of the OneMedina people as they would rather take matters into their own hands.

We elect representatives to run our governments. We need to trust them to do what is best for the community. We elect them, pay them and monitor their doings daily. If they are not doing what we want or don’t like their decisions, we will not re-elect them. Plain and simple. But governing by referendum, such as what OneMedina would like, cannot work. Try to imagine every decision, no matter how large or how trivial, being made by a public vote.

As a matter of record, I am a former Medina Trustee. I am not in favor of dissolution but am in favor of shared services and limited consolidation. And I am a firm believer if my elected officials are not doing the job they should be replaced.

Owen Toale
Medina

Editor:

I am troubled by the recent editorial (War on Drugs is an abject failure) that appeared to be a personal attack on Judge Punch and his courtroom approach to drug offenders. I, for one, would like to see harsher penalties for drug offenders, particularly, those that are selling illegal drugs to those under age 21. I applaud the tough love that Judge Punch is showing in the courtroom and for Orleans County.

Orleans County appears to have a culture that marijuana and anything softer than heroine is acceptable. I wonder if that culture is perpetuated by those that are selling marijuana, ecstasy, illegal prescription drugs, cocaine, etc.?

The most common reason I hear from young people on why they do these drugs is because everyone else is doing them. It is this culture within the County that has me wishing I never moved to Orleans County 30-plus years ago.

My high school age son has been arrested for drug-related offenses. He has attended sessions with the probation department, performed community service, attended numerous counseling sessions at GCASA, attended numerous professional counseling sessions, a mental health evaluation, and numerous courtroom visits.

From my experience, he has been given numerous chances to move away from dangerous behaviors. I would also say he has been given too many chances. That has caused me to question if there is an adequate level of concerted effort among the numerous agencies to help young and the more mature drug offenders.

In the course of all the visits and meetings with my son, I have repeatedly heard that numerous agencies cannot do much of value to help your people who are making dangerous choices. I believe that defeatist attitude has limited the success of my son and his friends in similar situations.

The Search Institute has found that developmental relationships and assets are essential for the success of young people in education and life. The relationships and assets revolve around family and non-family members who care about them.

I would encourage that an increased effort of collaboration be done between our police agencies, probation department, schools, courts and other counseling offices to work together to make Orleans County a better place for our young people to grow up and for parents to want to raise their children. Judge Punch has provided an excellent model for caring. Let’s rally around that effort rather than putting up any barriers.

A few other comments about Mr. Remley’s editorial:

Anyone who has lived with a drug user or abuser knows it is NOT a “most frequently victimless crime.”  Most every burglary that goes through the court the defendant is stealing items to get money for more drugs.

How many marriages and families have been ruined due to drug abuse and dependence? I can name many from Orleans County. How many accidents or deaths have occurred due to drug use and abuse? I can name several in Orleans County.

The comment was made that the war on drugs is an “abject failure” and inferred we should just give up because the illicit use of recreational drugs is so profound. That is the ultimate low point in the “us” vs. “them” argument.

Just because $400,000,000,000 is spent on illegal activity we should just give up the effort to improve our communities?  Because so much money is spent then you are now the “us” in power to make the decision? That is irresponsible to our nation. If nothing else we should give that much more effort to turn it around. I am certain most all would say that money could be better spent in any number of ways.

The biggest problem with the editorial was the lack of seeing the big picture. Let’s stop looking at problems though our own selfish wants and desires and start to look at what will make Orleans County, the State, and the nation a better place for us all.

I do definitely agree that drug users, abusers and addicts need help from our communities, churches, and non-governmental organizations.  We have this help in the Orleans County. I strongly believe that it needs greater coordination, a vision, and action plans.

Who will lead this effort?  My money is on someone like Judge Punch who sees the big picture, who sees a need for change, and who has the fortitude to make the tough changes and decisions.

Editor’s Note: The author’s name is being withheld to protect the identity of his children.

Editor:

Like him or not Andrew Meier, the mayor of Medina, is leading. He has been called arrogant, pushy and smart.

Last night our towns and the village came together in front of us to discuss what they can do to help alleviate the tax burdens and complexity we have. The reason they came is because they were pushed to.

The discussion centered on sharing services and transferring some of what Medina does to the towns. The result of this would be a lower tax for the village and higher costs for the towns. It is good there is some movement toward sharing costs and services.

Personally I give credit to Shelby Supervisor Draper for bringing some things to the table. The silence from Ridgeway was disappointing. Andrew Meier pushed the discussion and I was glad he did.

There are several certainties that cannot be debated. Three governments will cost us more now than one. Three governments will cost more in the future than they do today. Three will be more complex than one. Three governments will not help us navigate the future better than one.

Another certainty is there will be a vote on dissolution in the village. This will come from either the Village Board or a petition to put it on ballot. If the village residents vote to reduce their tax rates, the towns will be left to decide what we need and what we want.

Change is hard. Change brings uncertainty, fear and hope. This is true in governments, business, non-profits and life. Those who create change are often called arrogant, pushy, smart, stubborn, but often in the end are correct.

Dean Bellack
Medina

Editor:

A daily, quick scan of the news media outlets, including this one, in and around Orleans County leaves at least some readers, i.e. me, in a state of angered bewilderment.

Trumpeted as heroes for “cleaning up the streets,” local law enforcement and the Orleans County judicial circuit pride themselves on the number of arrests and prosecutions for criminal possession of this substance or that in the 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 4th degrees.

Hardly a day passes when there isn’t a headline story about another vanquished “drug thug.” Orleans County Judge James Punch lays down a heavy gavel on the throngs of troubled abusers that file through his Courtroom. Going so far as to even call the addicts’ lifestyles the “scourge of our community,” and he frequently raises bail on drug “offenders.” Apparently, mercy and empathy are virtually non-existent under the storied, porticoed dome.

Juxtaposed to this perception of the problem, is reality. Federal and State governments, along with the Courts, like Judge Punch’s, must surrender to the fact that the “War on Drugs” has been an abject failure and wasteful exercise in futility.

As evidence of this, every year, Americans alone snort, inject, inhale, or ingest nearly four hundred billion dollars, (yes, you read that correctly, $400,000,000,000) in illicit, recreational substances. The United States is by far the number one consumer per capita of both illegal and prescription drugs in the world. Taken by itself, the illegal drug market is the fourth or fifth (depending on one’s source) largest financial market in the country, after energy, health care, and financial services/banking.

World-renown addiction expert, Dr. Charles O’Brien, an Endowed Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), has been performing research on the harm inflicted and likelihood of dependence from the use of substances for decades. His findings? Irrefutably, marijuana is more safe, less addictive, and less destructive than either alcohol or cigarettes even when adjusted on a per capita basis.

Dr. O’Brien has directed the Center for the Study and Treatment of Addiction at UPenn for over 30 years, and in that time he has written well over 600 published academic papers and books on the psychological, physiological, and sociological effects of illicit substances and their illegality. His conclusions are undisputed in the academic and scientific community, substance abuse & dependence is a public health issue, not indicative of dereliction, deficiency, or criminality.

Furthermore, his research demonstrates that criminalization and mandatory minimum sentencing have only served as a blatant, institutionalized mechanism for disenfranchisement, social ostracization, and dehumanization of the most vulnerable minority groups in our society. Normative pressures have relegated those most in need of help to the recesses of 8 by 10 cells in this repugnant “off the street/out of sight, out of mind” mantra. So this begs the question, why does the United States take such a non-empathetic, hard-line toward individuals who are in need of support and help?

I believe the answer to that question is unbridled, hypocritical, and superficial Puritanism. It is this completely unsubstantiated belief that “they” (drug abusers and dependents) are a menace and a danger to society, while “we” (the criminal justice system and the enfranchised) are not them; “we” are above them, as contributing members of society.

The shortsightedness of this approach is, on face, hit-you-over-the-head obvious. Psychiatrists, including Dr. O’Brien, call this societal phenomenon “in-group/out-group homogeneity,” which basically means that if you perceive yourself to be a part of a particular group, those who you perceive to be outside of said group are all the same (= homogeneity), and in this case, those outside the group are “unworthy” and “possess little societal value.”

The problem with this set of beliefs is that they fly in the face of reality, as one-in-four Americans will abuse an illegal substance at some point in their lives, and while currently 33 million of the “in-group” are abusers of prescription pills in an equally illegal fashion, but they do so largely with impunity. Yet, an even larger hindrance to our collective understanding is how wholly inaccurate popular perceptions are about the (legal) substances the “worthy” ingest, or inhale.

Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the first world, period. If you think and proclaim that alcohol is better for you and safer to your health than marijuana is, I have a cheap, beautiful (shrinking) piece of property to sell you on Greenland’s ice-shelf.

The Honorable Judge has fallen victim to the aforementioned, unlearned binary; he sees the state of the County in an “us” versus “them,” in-group/out-group paradigm that promulgates injustice and further denigrates the true victims of the real menace, addiction.

Substance abuse & dependence is most frequently a victimless crime, and only by virtue of its state-sanctioned illegality is there any collateral damage inflicted on society. By definition, criminality, psychologically speaking, is contingent upon someone taking an action that adversely affects another, unwitting party with the intention of benefiting oneself. By this metric, and by many others based in scientific fact, substance abusers and addicts are inexorably not criminals.

In the last three years, two other countries have taken the lead on this issue and they have set the gold standard in drafting and implementing sensible, non-criminal drug policies in their respective countries. Portugal and Uruguay came to a national consensus and decided that no longer would mentally ill, self-harming drug users and addicts be treated like vile, degenerate, and dangerous criminals. Their collective conscience is an inspiration and a calling to the rest of the world to follow suit.

We, as a community and as a nation, must leave the glaring failure that has been the War on Drugs behind. We must stop throwing good money after bad in fighting the distribution and use of goods that, Economists note, have the most inelastic demand curve of any good or service that can be economically measured. And we must cease to find personal significance and value in denouncing and judging the lifestyles of others.

Drug users, abusers, and addicts need help from their communities, churches, and non-governmental organizations. They need social support and they deserve our empathy. Undoubtedly, what they do not need is a Judge on a personal campaign for additional notches in his proverbial belt.

Andrew “Drew” Remley
Former Albion resident who now lives in Brooklyn

Editor:

Words escape me when I am angered. Brian Napoli is elected to represent all the residents of the Town of Ridgeway. His comments toward the Village of Medina’s attempts to resolve excess tax for service are vitriol, not the act of an elected official. (Click here to see “Shelby, Ridgeway won’t discuss dissolution with Medina.”

If you task someone with an agenda, do not be critical of the outcome! I believe Mr. Napoli was elected to represent the people of Ridgeway, not just those living outside the village limit. While I acknowledge that the village adds a layer of government, that is the whole purpose of the discussion.

Either eliminate a layer of government and get on with it (sorry fellow town residents) or reduce the duplication and cost of services! This bickering is just childish!

On another note, perhaps we should look at secession from the Town of Ridgeway. How would that help your taxes???

Dayton Hausman
Medina

Editor:

The attendance that has been present at the meetings involving dissolution has shown us the interest is high and people all have an opinion.

We have village residents that are part of the towns that cannot understand why the Village Board is not listening to their desire to vote. We have town residents that want to put this issue to bed.

Also unfortunately we have town elected representatives who do not want to do anything but take tax dollars and fund mailers, public relation firms, and then refuse to release information after inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act. They have no motivation for change. They have no desire to act.

One Medina (with a dissolved village government and consolidated towns of Shelby and Ridgeway) over time results in lower costs, less duplication and greater simplicity.

One Medina will always cost less than three. All of monies used to fund or efforts are coming from people who believe that One Medina is the best path for us all.

It’s time for a vote. Let the people decide.

Dean Bellack
Medina

Editor:

I am concerned about some media outlets aggressive coverage of Senator Maziarz being investigated by the U.S. Attorney regarding campaign expenditures. I do not know the Senator personally, although I have met and spoke with him on a couple occasions.

I am a registered Republican. However, I have always voted for the folks that I thought would represent me the best. Senator Maziarz  has represented Orleans and Niagara counties well during his long tenure in office. He has, as expected, brought home the “bacon” to our area, and has represented the needs of his constituency with due diligence. If campaign spending was inappropriate, I doubt it was for personal gain.

The whole investigation smacks of political tomfoolery. A Democratic administration starts a commission to check on appropriate spending, then is shut down after allegations, not investigated, are made. Then, a U.S. Attorney is intrigued and begins an investigation to nail down the facts.

If there was an issue, I suspect the government would have been on it like hotcakes. If wrongdoing was done, then the piper will need to be paid. However, before any facts are in, the innuendo in the media is very unsettling to the folks that have seen the Senator’s interest in his people.

I just ask a little respect until all the facts are in.  If the senator is indicted, then let the “chips fall where the may.” In the mean time, report facts and leave the rest to investigators! Just my opinion.

Thank you,
Dayton Hausman
Medina

Editor’s Note: Mary Bannister, a retired English teacher at Albion, wrote this poem after a fierce storm whipped through the area last month.

Taking its sweet time to bring it on, bring it on.
Anticipation building as the distant rumble
peaks my interest.
A storm is coming.

Everything is stock still but not for long, not for long.
Sounds of tires on dry pavement will mutate soon
to ‘splish’ ‘splosh’ dampness,
as drivers heighten their awareness,
while wormlike rivulets abound.
A storm is coming.

Sounds seems very distinct right now, right now,
but soon that vibrance will be muffled by the gyrating raindrops
and mocking wind.
Leaves will do the twist and show the silver side of dullness
which seems to harmonize with the steel gray clouds and sky.

Some birds take one last opportunity to boldly proclaim this featured event,
but they too will vanish as soon as they smell the storm’s wet breath.
Fleeing to the safety of a sturdy branch or the haven of a well built nest
is their best option.
Daredevils take chances, but these aviators have studied the invisible face of
air and know the odds.

As for me, the porch seems a suitable retreat to wait and listen.
A marvel of nature is about to unfold and I want a front row seat.
This seems an ideal place to view the performance.
A storm is coming.

Mary Bannister
Albion

File photo by Tom Rivers – The sky was dark over downtown Albion as a severe thunderstorm barrelled through the area on June 17, knocking down trees and taking out power.

Editor:

I look forward to the public meetings on the proposals regarding shared and consolidated services between the Village of Medina, and towns of Ridgeway and Shelby. With that in mind I have yet to see an agenda of topics to be reviewed or who is going to mediate these sessions. Also will there be a public Q&A?

I believe this agenda should be made available in advance. This will provide an opportunity for all board members and public alike to research the details of the anticipated outcomes as well as lead to a better informed debate and constructive contributions to the conversation.

Additionally if for some reason a resident is unable to attend he/she would then be able to inform the board with any concerns regarding particular anticipated outcomes.

Timothy Elliott
Medina

Editor:

I have followed the discussion on village dissolution since the first committee was begun years ago. At that time, everyone from village and both towns rolled their sleeves up and worked together at one table. I was on that committee for a period of time, so I saw it with my own eyes.  Never could I imagine the factionalism that would follow.

As I read the email comments that were made public regarding a meeting between officials of the towns and the village, I noted that Mr. Napoli (Ridgeway town supervisor) stated that dissolution was not a topic to be discussed. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room!

As I read that, I realized that the leaders in the towns are not representing the totality of their constituents as they draw these very deep lines in the sand. What if some of us in Ridgeway would like dissolution to be discussed?

Have the towns done a survey of their constituents to see how what the public sentiment is about the matter of dissolution? Surveys can be done very cheaply these days and I would much prefer money spent on that than on a disinformation campaign and public relations guru.

I have seen signs up outside the village limits that support One Medina.  Thus, the elected officials have taken sides that do not necessarily represent their constituents. Who has given them their marching orders?

I believe Ed Weider’s letter hits the nail on the head. We’ve come to the table many times on this matter, and now that are elected officials, who are supposed to be representing all of their constituents, are picking and choosing what they will discuss for us. Let’s move on to the ultimate form of a survey – a vote.

If the village decides to dissolve, we should not take a moment to despair in the towns. There are people in the village and towns that can help – we have vast amounts of talents within our borders. We do not need p.r. specialists nor I might add do we need consultants any longer.

We have the ability to work together, we have proven it for almost 200 years. Let’s move beyond the petty bickering, realize that we can face the future challenges, draw on all of our skills and talents of young and old, and face the future with confidence.

Sincerely,

Ann W. Bunch
Resident of the Village of Medina and the Town of Ridgeway

Editor:

As former Medina Village Trustees, we wish to offer our thoughts on the proposed dissolution of village government.

We served on the Village Board at various times in the last 30 years. We know first-hand how difficult it is to maintain services while holding taxes steady.

The math is simple: without rising home values, new construction, or annexations that expand village borders when needed, tax rates must climb. This is not sustainable, and we need to act before it’s too late.

The plan prepared by the Dissolution Committee preserves our services and lowers taxes. It is a credible option that deserves serious consideration.

We urge the Village Board to put the plan up for a public vote so that people – not the politicians – can have the final say.

James Hobbs
James Lustumbo
Judy Szulis
Bernard Amos
Wilson Southworth
Kelly Kiebala
Patricia Crowley
John P. Anderson
Robert Rice
Adam Tabelski
Norma Huth
Susan Squires
David Barhite
Timothy Cooper