To the residents of the Village of Medina:

Our names are Marguerite Sherman and Mike Sidari. We are adding our names as write-in candidates for Trustees on the Medina Village Board for the upcoming village election on March 18.

As concerned taxpayers of Medina, we have been involved in village government for several years. In addition to serving on the Zoning and Planning Boards, we have followed the former Government Reorganization Feasibility study with the Village and the Towns of Shelby and Ridgeway.

More currently, we are following the potential village dissolution process, only to discover that reliable, accurate information has not been forthcoming from the administration. Even though this information is open to the public, we have found it difficult to obtain. Just to obtain a petition to be part of the election was a very difficult process. Not only did we have to leave the village, we had to leave the county to obtain a petition from the village attorney, who has an office in a neighboring county.

The current Dissolution Committee members are working diligently to formulate recommendations for the Village Board, who will in turn, share them with the residents. It is our intent to insure that the Village Board presents all options within the dissolution plan, along with long-term projections of costs or savings to the taxpayers.

Dissolution meetings should not be held at 8 a.m. on weekdays in a building that is not handicapped accessible. We should not have to e-mail CGR to inquire why meeting minutes were not being posted. We urge residents to come forth and ask questions. Be a part of the process. This is what we are trying to do.

If elected, we will work to bring more transparency to the Village Board, as it is our feeling that information is not being presented properly to the public. We will come to the Board with open minds so as to make informed, conscientious decisions for the village.

We need your vote on Tuesday, March 18. We are running a strong write-in campaign. Please help us to protect the integrity of the Village of Medina.

Sincerely,

Mike Sidari and Marguerite Sherman
Medina

Editor:

Elections in the Village of Albion are March 18, with polls open noon to 9 p.m. As you know, voter turnout is often very low, along with enthusiasm, which we think reflects discouragement about the possibility for change.

It’s true these are difficult times, but that is no reason to give up on the future. There is much to do and business as usual will not get it done. We are in a fight for the life of the community, but cannot afford to continue to raise taxes as the primary response to the needs of our aging village.

We must demand a fairer share of County tax dollars and State aid to help stabilize our tax rate, work steadily to implement the 2013 Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and reach out aggressively to residents, adults and youth, in every way possible to join government in its efforts. Apathy and complacency will not provide the energy and drive needed for us to move forward.

Whether you are discouraged, cynical, bored or just very busy making a living, please show up at Village Hall to vote, and consider voting for us, Row A on the ballot. We are committed, motivated and ready to push for the action needed to help secure a more prosperous future. And, if you want to ask us directly what we’re about, come to our Meet and Greet, Thursday, March 13, at Hoag Library, 6:30 to 8:00 p.m.

Thank you,

Terry Wilbert, Pat Cammarata and Sandy Walter
Trustee Candidates, Village of Albion

Editor:

On Saturday, March 1, as I walked out the door of my son’s metal barn, I noticed a male bluebird leaving the underside of the overhang on the east side.  The only reason I can think of for his being there was to raid a wasp’s nest tucked into the corner. If that is the case, it is an example of how bluebirds survive a winter such as the one we have gone through this year.

Over-wintering bluebirds are actively looking for nest sites as we have entered the month of March, though my suspicion is that their search is merely being intensified at this time.

Those hoping to attract our State Bird, might consider installing bluebird boxes. These should be located in open space, away from hedgerows but with scattered perches available. Fences and wires are great. Avoid heavily populated areas and active livestock barns. Put them on their own posts.

Once a female bluebird builds a nest, consider greasing the pole to discourage predation. Boxes should have inch and a half entrance holes, much smaller drainage holes, and provision for ventilation. Locate the entrance about seven inches above the floor. Score the inside of the door (below the entrance) to permit very desirable tree swallows to fledge should they use the boxes. Do not include a perch, but allow for a three-inch roof overhang. Face the box toward the east, southeast, or northeast.

If you are not serious about attracting bluebirds, do not put up a nestbox. If you are serious, keep track of what is going on in your nestbox and evict English (house) “sparrows.” They are the only so-called “sparrows” to nest in cavities. They often destroy adult and nestling bluebirds. The three dozen or so varieties of “self-respecting” native sparrows do not use boxes.

Attend the Orleans Bluebird Society meeting this April. Its date and time will appear in the Lake Country Pennysaver.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent
Albion

Editor:

My name is Kenny Capurso and I am a hunter. I have legally gone through the process and have received my hunting license. I understand the arguments about the Holley “Squirrel Slam.”

I myself love to hunt and don’t look the other way when it comes to getting meat. I do it responsibly and respectfully. On one hand I am on the side of the people participating in the Squirrel Slam because I believe they have the right to hunt whenever or whatever they want, if they do it legally.

But on the other hand I feel that it’s wrong to go out and hunt for a fundraiser. I would support the Holley Fire Department having a bake sale or can drive instead of the Squirrel Slam.

Kenny Capurso
Albion

Editor:

I am in complete agreement with Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s plan to increase college education opportunities for the incarcerated. This seems to me to be a very wise initiative that will save taxpayers money.

It’s the simplest math: a year of a college program in a prison facility might cost the state $5,000 or so, but a year of incarceration costs at least $60,000. The cost of policing and courts for arresting and prosecuting recidivists should be added to the $60,000 figure.

It is as simple as energy conservation. There is an up-front cost for insulation, improved storm windows, and a variety of other measures, but what really matters is the long-term efficiency and savings. For example, my tankless water heater cost several thousand dollars to install, but over time it will cost me less to operate, and will put less strain on the power grid.

It is a demonstrated fact that those able to improve their educational and or vocational training while incarcerated are less likely to engage in the criminal behavior that would return them to the courts and to prison. That is an argument that thoughtful taxpayers should endorse.

I read a press release from Sen. Maziarz that opposes Gov. Cuomo’s plan. The issue he cites is that giving something free to the incarcerated is unfair to the families that struggle to pay college expenses out of pocket.

There are lots of things that appear “unfair” to taxpayers. For example, I could think that it’s unfair that I have to pay a large school tax each year when I have no children attending the Holley schools; let parents of school-age children foot the bill!

I could think that it’s “unfair” to pay for the local fire department because I’ve never had to make a fire call; I bought my own fire extinguishers and smoke alarms (and I don’t smoke), so why should I have to pay money for the people who are not as responsible?

I could think that it’s “unfair” for my taxes to fund libraries because I buy the books that I read; why should I have to pay for other people to read for free? I don’t need police services, because I’ve bought my own large arsenal of guns and ammunition to guard my home and property; why should I have to pay for other people who won’t arm themselves?

These are, of course, absurd arguments because quality of life in a community is not based on selfishness, but on care and encouragement for one another. I believe that it is an important part of our quality of life to provide opportunities for people to complete their term of incarceration with a degree. They are much less likely to require future incarceration.That’s something good for everybody.

I do agree with one part of Sen. Maziarz’ press release:I agree that it is a huge challenge for low and middle-income families to cover the cost of tuition and loan repayment, especially during tattered economic times with well-paying jobs so hard for young people to find.

The answer to this is not to set up a “straw man” argument that tuition assistance and loan programs can only be obtained by denying opportunities for incarcerated individuals eager to turn their lives around. Instead, I challenge the senator to look for other measures to address his concerns.

He is setting this up as an “either/or debate”. Why not “both/and”? His party typically accuses Gov. Cuomo of spending too much, but in this case the governor seems to have heard and is trying to reduce the costs of the criminal justice system. This is a proposal that should have come from the Republicans in the first place.

My father spent many years volunteering in prisons.He received many awards from the governor of North Carolina for this service.Though blind, he was frequently inside the jails of Raleigh doing everything he could to link the incarcerated with mentoring, addiction treatment, job training, education (GED and college), and helping lay the groundwork for a good return to society.

My father was not a “bleeding heart” liberal. His motivation came from being a businessman. To him it was obvious: the best thing for a community to do with regard to the incarcerated is to offer programs, training and education. Without these things there is a good chance that people will return to jail, and that would only increase the tax payers’ burdens.

Rather than attack Gov. Cuomo’s initiative, I would hope that Sen. Maziarz could find some common ground. That is what I look for in my legislators.

Sincerely,

James R. Renfrew
Holley

2^nd Amendment advocates have admirable goals

Editor:

I am writing in response to the Rev. Thomas E. Gardner’s letter on Jan. 17, in which he expresses a hope that in all the discussion of New York State’s SAFE Act, the problem of gun violence is not ignored. I can assure the Reverend that his hopes should be satisfied, because the NY SAFE Act has nothing to do with gun violence. I have two reasons for making this statement.

First, the term “gun violence” is meaningless. A gun, a contraption of metal, wood and plastic, is incapable of any emotion. It is a tool. Tools can be designed well or poorly, and used properly or improperly, but they are incapable of having a moral function until they are used by a human agency. Therefore, attempting to address a human problem like violence by placing limitations on tools is irrelevant and a waste of time.

My dad taught Driver Education in the Orleans County schools for 40 years, and taught Hunter Safety for almost as long. I remember him saying that he was trying to help people learn how to safely use two things they tended to kill themselves with. He often commented on the reaction to increasing deaths on the highways: pass laws making it a crime not to fasten your seatbelt, or mandating things like air bags and reducing the speed limits, all the while cutting funding for driver education. Dad would say that the only fix that you could make to a car to make it truly safer was to adjust the nut behind the wheel.

I believe that focusing on the tool rather than the user misguidedly absolves the user from responsibility. Just as you would not let someone drive a car who has not passed the requirements for a license, I support reasonable proficiency tests for firearm ownership. As NRA Certified Instructors, my son and I have followed in Dad’s footsteps, and helped many people gain that proficiency. Addressing human beings is the only productive way to solve a human problem like violence.

Second, the way in which the SAFE Act was passed and its contents are deeply offensive to many citizens of New York State. The speed with which it was rammed through the Legislature as an emergency measure, to try to take advantage of public outrage over the school shootings in Connecticut, was shameful. I was discussing this subject with several members of my daughter’s high school Debate team a few months ago. One of them had a particularly pithy comment. “When you say to me, ‘we have to act now, while peoples’ emotions are high!’ I hear you saying, ‘If people were calm, they wouldn’t go along with this.’”

The registration requirements of the SAFE Act are egregious. There is no recognized definition of an “assault rifle.” Nevertheless, if you own a rifle, bought legally years before this law was passed, that has some cosmetic features the law deems dangerous, and you fail to register it by a certain date, you become a felon. So the law criminalizes people for doing something that was legal when they did it.

Other parts of the law are almost as absurd, like the requirement for a background check for purchasing ammunition. There is no data to support the idea that limiting ammunition availability has any effect whatever on violent crime. In fact, if you look at statistics, the only laws that can be shown to reduce violent crime are laws that permit good citizens to carry concealed firearms.

Our society is being subjected to a coordinated effort to encourage us to believe that firearms are somehow evil or produce violent behavior. The “zero tolerance” reactions in schools may seem absurd, but they teach children that guns are scary, and people who like guns should be punished. This is what the opponents of the NY SAFE Act are reacting to. It is part of a deliberate attack on American exceptionalism and our traditional value of individuality. That is what we are fighting, and what we are defending.

I hope that the Reverend will consider these points, and be reassured that opposition to the NY SAFE Act is motivated by values and intentions that he could find acceptable, or even admirable.

Douglas R. Pratt
Lyndonville

Editor:

I would like to respond to the recent downsizing at CRFS where more than 60 people were let go of their jobs by phone calls on Saturday and Sunday.

First of all the employees were not just employees of Aerotek some were CRFS. Secondly, a lot of the employees were not hired by recruiters for Aerotek but recruiters for CRFS. They were sent through Aerotek because CRFS had to finish their contract with Aerotek. Aerotek handles payroll. CRFS recruiters did the interview, set your pay, position and platform.

We were also advised within 90 days we would officially become CRFS employees because of the contract with Aerotek. That is the way CRFS had to hire a person. The only people that didn’t have to go through Aerotek were management.

Yes, CRFS may have finished the contract with Aerotek but there is another reason CRFS did not want to further comment on releasing so many in what some consider a blindsided way: because a client did not renew the contract, therefore there was a lack of work.

The employees were told everything was OK and told to be ready for the move next door by Feb. 28. I don’t think they thought they were out the door again permanently.

Tammie Davey
Albion

Davey was one of the employees to receive a call on Saturday that she would no longer be employed at either CRFS or Aerotek.

Editor:

In response to the letter “Community can celebrate ‘Heritage Heroes’ while history is under attack,” I must agree with many of the points that the writer brings attention to.

The writer points out that overall, public value of an education in the field of history seems to be becoming ever more undervalued. The letter said, “History, it seems, does not matter in modern society.”

The sad realization is that there is much truth to this statement. In a world where science and technology are praised and seen as the most valuable occupations, we often forget the usefulness of the humanities. As a soon-to-be graduate of Allegheny College, I have been afforded the opportunity of a liberal arts education for the past four years. I am a proud History major, and an American Studies minor. History, like many other humanities disciplines, seems to be increasingly devalued.

Even at the collegiate level, many students of the sciences seem to reject the study of history as a relevant or rigorous undertaking. This could not be farther from the truth. While I do not spend time in labs, or conducting experiments, I have spent countless hours reading primary and secondary documents and books to learn how our current society has been shaped by past events.

The common assumption is that history is unimportant, that it holds no true purpose in our lives. But if one looks at our nation today, would he or she understand the implications of the past as a pathway to our current state? Culture, politics, economics, environmental issues, racial and ethnic tensions and regional disparities have all culminated over the past hundreds of years to create the America we live in today.

Therefore learning about our shared past will not only afford us with insight as to the evolution of the American experience, but it allows us to progress toward the future without repeating mistakes or failures from the past. History is everywhere – it’s in our backyards here in western NY, and it’s as far away as California and Alaska, and it is time that all of us recognize the implications history has had in our own lives.

Furthermore, a degree in history – something I will graduate with in May – is not as limiting as people like to believe. History majors can go on and have just as much of an influence in the world as science majors or engineers. History majors can be more than only museum workers or curators; they become lawyers, government employees, teachers, writers, journalists, archivists, movie and documentary producers, national park educators and much more.

As the writer mentioned in his article, “By subordinating history to lesser status than other disciplines, or eliminating it entirely, we are placing our young people at a significant disadvantage.”

Scientific disciplines are important and very valuable, but disciplines within the humanities are just as important. We must be cognizant that all disciplines are given equal treatment and standing, and should place no greater emphasis on one discipline than another.

Kristina Martin
Holley

The writer is a student at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pa.

Editor:

The Orleans County Economic Development Agency is about to give the Wegman Group, developer of the Cottages at Troutburg, a tax incentive. Based on some very dubious assumptions, the agency is claiming a 53:1 return on the taxpayers’ investment.

Assumption No. 1: The developer will build 400 cottages.

Consider the following:

You would not own the property, but would pay $495/month site rent.

Rent plus $2,500 tax = an effective tax rate of $8,440, for a small three season cottage!

What is to prevent future rent hikes?

What if the development is sold?

What if the development fails?

What if the development is a success? At 400 cottages, the development is highly congested and no longer a peaceful lakeside getaway.

Future resale value of a home in this development?

With sales of even the prime lakefront lots progressing slowly, I have to assume that potential buyers are asking these same questions.

Assumption No. 2:  The cottage owners will spend $9,100 a year and they will spend 100 percent of it in Orleans County.

The Cottages at Troutburg is sited on the Orleans/Monroe county border. My home is half a mile from this site, and from my own experience I can verify that at least 90 percent will be spent in Hamlin and Brockport, i.e. Monroe County.  The $9,100 figure also assumes “full time” seasonal residents, but many will be weekenders.

It is corporate welfare at its worst when a rich developer receives an unnecessary handout on the backs of taxpayers. Such a give-away is a slap in the face to the taxpayers in general, but especially to the poor and the elderly that need and deserve such a break, as well as to the students of the community that will lose school tax revenue.

The Orleans County Economic Development Agency needs to hear from taxpayers before their meeting on Feb. 14.   Please contact James Whipple, CEO of the EDA, at 585-589-7060 x105 or e-mail him at jwhipple@orleansdevelopment.org.

Sincerely,

Sean Harnett
Kendall

Editor:

Judging only by a “press release,” those charged with selling our Orleans County Nursing Home appear to have found a promising operator. Of course, things aren’t always what they appear to be. The sale will come at a cost to “hard to place” county residents. But, in this case, the LDC Board may have made the best of a questionable decision to sell “The Villages.”

LDC board member Richard DeCarlo called selling the “only responsible” thing to do. Only now and then does the County Legislature do what is clearly responsible. In fairness to the LDC Board, they didn’t create the mess in the first place, and it was a mess.

The run-up to last week’s announced sale was littered with actions that can hardly be termed “responsible.” Was it “responsible” to sell The Villages for $7.8 million when over $20 million has been invested in it in the past 20 years? Was paying a realtor nearly $200,000 to sell what another agent would have sold at a cost to the taxpayers of $50,000 to $100,000 “responsible?”

Was letting occupancy slip to 92 percent in 2012 – with the resulting cost to the taxpayers – “responsible?” Was using the Office for the Aging newsletter to deceive the public “responsible?” For that matter, was it ethical? Was consistently exaggerating nursing home losses “responsible?” It certainly wasn’t truthful.

How “responsible” was it not to have CGR (The Center for Governmental Research) do a feasibility study before deciding to sell The Villages?

Is selling something for much less than it is worth “responsible?” Yes, I read the $6.5 million figure. I’m just not sure where it came from and how real it is. Remember how the $2.1 million dollar “audited loss” in 2012 turned out to be $295,000? Was washing our hands of an obligation written into statute 183 years ago – without first rescinding the statute – “responsible?”

It may come as a revelation to some legislators, but services cost money. Caring for the elderly and infirm costs money. Public safety and emergency response costs money. Prosecution and incarceration costs money. Public/mental health services cost money. Taking care of our buildings and grounds and maintaining our roads and bridges costs money. Even assisting the indigent costs money.

As we pick winners and losers, it is interesting that counting losses becomes more of an issue when the service has to do with long-term care of the indigent elderly and infirm. Recall the immortal words of our Legislative Chairman, “We cannot make money (caring for the elderly).”

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent
Albion

Editor:

Recently the Orleans Hub carried a story updating the work of the committee to dissolve the village of Medina. As a member of the Conservative Party committee in Orleans County, looking at government spending at the local and county levels, I have several questions and comments.

This story stated “the sense of the committee is we want to continue the existing services.” Given that statement, on the surface, it would seem the end result would be a shifting of some of the expense of these village services to the taxpayers in the towns of Shelby and Ridgeway residing outside the village.

What other advantage would there be for the village of Medina? Town residents in Shelby and Ridgeway, please get involved and find out what the village has in mind!

In addition to the question above, it was stated the village received a $50,000 grant from the state to “pay for nearly the entire cost of the dissolution plan.”

First, it seems to us Conservatives that $50,000 is a lot of money to pay for “nearly the entire plan.” Second, how muchis that part of the plannot covered by the state grant going to cost the local taxpayers? Third, it seems, again on the surface, not only are the residents of Shelbyand Ridgeway going to help pay, but thetaxpayers across New York are going to pay as well. Any and all money any level of government has or spends is tax (our) money!

Finally, town officials in the towns of Shelby and Ridgeway stated they are not obligated to follow a dissolution plan put forward by the village, which makes this whole exercise, should it take place, a waste of time and more importantly a waste of our money.

Please, everyone, get involved, attend your local and county meetings. Make sure our representatives truly are working for us. We understand the village of Medina has financial problems. We also agree they are real and severe but the Conservative approach to these financial problems is to cut spending, which does mean a cut in services.

The alternative is to increase taxes, but that increase should be for those folks who receive the services and only after a vote is taken.

Ken Longer
Kendall
Orleans County Conservative Party Committee

(Editor’s note: The Center for Governmental Research is being paid $55,555 to work on the dissolution plan. Click here for a previous article about that.)

Editor:

Your editorial regarding the inequities of aid to villages was spot on (Click here to see “State shortchanges villages with aid, leading to their demise.”) I read the article and was in disbelief.

The current move in Medina towards dissolution of the village shows that this is reaching epidemic proportion. At the same time the state is offering incentives to remove layers of government.

I feel that the move is directly an attempt to give more control to Albany and less to the citizen. Other events and actions from Albany seem to back this up. For example the governor’s comments on “upstate,” and state infringement on the U.S. Constitution’s right to have guns.

While I do not want to sound like an anarchist or revolutionary, perhaps the layer of government that needs to be reduced lies at the state level.

Thank you,

Dayton Hausman
Medina

Editor:

Judging by my conversations, our somewhat “old-fashioned” winter has raised the level of concern about our winter birds. After all, they cannot seek refuge in front of a woodstove! They are dealing with “it” 24/7, and many have to do a lot of feeding to maintain body heat under the conditions we have been experiencing.

Many of us don’t worry about bluebirds in winter, as it is assumed they have migrated. That wasn’t the case with the ones seen at five different locations in Orleans County during the past month. In two instances, males were taking advantage of the break in the weather to inspect potential future homes. Just before our latest wave of single digit days, one was singing as though it were spring.

The nest box survey results for 2013 recently arrived from the New York State Bluebird Society. Region 1 (one of the largest, including a large part of western New York ) led the 10 regions with a reported 1,688 bluebird fledglings. Region 1 includes Genesee, Niagara and Orleans counties. The next closest region was Region 8 (the Capitol region) with 905. Orleans County accounted for 384 of the 1,688 (down about 75 from 2012). We also reported 209 tree swallows.

These numbers are far below the number of birds that actually fledged, as most are likely not reported.

For bluebirds that make it through winter, a new nesting season may begin in our area in early March, depending on the weather. April is normal.

The Orleans Bluebird Society meets in April and October each year.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent
Albion

Editor:

People use electricity in their homes and businesses every day and, since electrical power has been available to most of us for our entire lives, we also tend to take it for granted. Most people only think about the energy that powers their home once a month when they pay their utility bills, and in that case their typical question is, “Why is my bill so high?”

One reason that your bill is so high is New York’s antiquated and inefficient electrical transmission system that is badly in need of an upgrade. The last major transmission project in our state was completed in 1988 and 85 percent of our transmission infrastructure was constructed before 1980.

Due to the problems inherent in an older system, we cannot transfer power effectively from abundant upstate generation resources to the New York City market, where prices and demand are high. This scenario threatens upstate generation jobs and causes massive system congestion that increases energy rates across our state by $650 million a year. This means higher utility bills for individuals and businesses.

In 2012, the governor announced his Energy Highway initiative to address this problem. The goal was to develop transmission improvement projects that would ease congestion charges, allow the transfer of an additional 1,000 megawatts of power from upstate generators to New York City, and create thousands of additional jobs in the process.

As a part of this process the Public Service Commission initiated the AC transmission proceeding in order to vet various transmission proposals. As of this writing the PSC has whittled down the list of possible developers to just four and it is moving forward with the RFP and Article VII process on a dual track. I fully support this initiative and have expressed that support on the floor of the Senate, in press conferences, and in continuous filings before the PSC.

Let me be clear about the positive impact that the implementation of a successful transmission upgrade proposal would have in terms of our economy: This would be the largest statewide economic development driver that has been seen in decades. Here are just a two of the high points:

The implementation of a successful transmission upgrade proposal will generate more than $7 billion in economic activity in the state and will create 12,000 direct and nearly 38,000 total jobs.

The proposed transmission projects will facilitate the development of renewable generation. This, in turn, will generate almost $4.6 billion of economic activity and create an additional 8,000 direct jobs.

The benefits of completing these projects are not just economic, as there are also significant benefits for our environment. Emission of CO2 and NOX will be reduced by 370,000 tons and 200,000 tons, respectively.

These transmission projects are good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for working men and women in our state.

However, time and again steel-in-the-ground economic development projects that would benefit our state have been stymied in the regulatory process or succumbed under pressure from special interests. We simply cannot let that happen this time.

In upstate New York, we have seen industry after industry leave as jobs were outsourced to other states or other countries. Our power generation industry has been the one glaring exception. Upgrading transmission will allow this industry to continue to thrive, while reducing energy rates for all consumers and improving our environment. It is the kind of win-win scenario that we are always looking for.

The PSC should implement the governor’s streamlined siting process for transmission lines in existing right of ways and move forward on these upgrades as soon as possible. The stakes are too high for them to do otherwise.

State Sen. George Maziarz
Newfane
(Maziarz is chairman of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee.)

Editor:

So much of the news in the past year has had to do with the state’s new gun law that I wonder if the subject of the repeal is newsworthy any longer.

Anyone who reads the HUB or the other local newspapers is well aware there is opposition to the law. For the most part, regular readers and those interested in the issue would be familiar with the positions of those speaking out against the law which hasn’t changed much over the course of the debate.

The repetitive nature of the repeal message may be good strategy in an effort to change the law and good copy for the news outlets but it sends a terrible one-sided message to those concerned about gun violence (which I would like to believe includes everyone in Orleans County). The message it sends is gun violence is not an issue, is not important, and is not a part of the debate.

I don’t believe for a minute that anyone who opposes the law intends to deliver this message. It nevertheless is what one can conclude in the absence of any additional or clarifying information. During the course of the debate about the N.Y. SAFE Act, I have often wondered where the discussion about preventing gun violence is taking place in Orleans County. To my knowledge, there is none.

It would seem to me that gun owners and officials who oppose the law would also include in their message something about what they are doing to help prevent gun violence, if anything. I believe the prevention of gun violence cuts across all our deeply held opinions and positions on this matter and could be the one place to begin a county-wide discussion.

Time will tell whether the law is repealed or upheld. Whichever way it goes, we know that gun violence will continue to impact everyone in our county and country. It will take every one of us regardless of our positions on this law or gun control to help prevent gun violence.

Reverend Thomas E. Gardner
First Presbyterian Church of Holley