Editor:

My family and I would like to thank everyone who attended and contributed to the benefit held for me on January 27th at the Carlton Recreation Hall.

The absolutely outstanding show of support and financial generosity will tremendously help to finance my heart and liver transplant! Thank you!

We would also like to thank all the volunteers who put their time, energy and talents to work to make such a beautiful and successful event. We can never say thank you enough! You have forever touched our lives!

God bless you precious people!

Love,

Matt, Rhonda and Nate Grammatico

Albion

Editor:

I agree with Mr. Remley that everyone is entitled to their opinion. There is a big difference between the word fact, i.e. water freezes at 32 degrees F, and science which uses study and theory to develop a temporary conclusion. Science is not a fact.

President Obama did not write Plan 2014 but he signed off on it or gave his approval. It seems apparent that the enviro groups and shipping industry had the sway in Plan 2014. Extending the shipping season and 64,000 acres of marshland had more clout then individual property owners and their concerns.

I appreciate the opinion of the two professors mentioned but there are thousands of land owners who have watched and studied the lake every day and know that something was major league different in 2017. Climate change has been going on since the beginning of time. Although it has come a long way weather science cannot predict the weather tomorrow absolutely.

If Plan 1958D kept Lake levels artificially high, as stated in his letter, then Plan 2014 was 37 inches above the normal which was already high. Mr. Remley stated that Plan 2014 allows for a more reactive posture in the face of dangerously high-water levels. If that is true then they failed miserably. The IJC continues to fail with Lake levels almost one foot above last year comparing January 2017 with January 2018.

In a summary memo written by IJC co-chairs Gordon Walker and Lana Pollack titled “New Plan 2014 Protects People, Environment and Economy on Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River.” Everybody interested in this subject should read it. Three particular statements in this summary are interesting. (1) After 16 years of scientific study the IJC was moving forward with Plan 2014. (2) Plan 2014 is a modern plan for managing water levels and flows on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. (3) Under Plan 2014, the most extreme high-water level on Lake Ontario is expected to be about 2.4 inches higher the under plan 1958D – That was a pretty bad guess.

Plan 1958D was started in 1963. That is 54 years of climate change. We have had rain, snow, drought, hot, cold and even a small amount of flooding – but nothing like 2017. I have wondered what happened to Plan 1958 A, B, C? I think plan D was an improvement and that we should see a Plan 2014A so last year is not repeated.

I think it depends on where you live to determine if your front yard is important. This is a major issue with property owners who have or will pay thousands of dollars to keep their front yards. Property owners and politicians from both sides of the Lake tried to be heard before Plan 2014 happened and were dismissed. I appreciate the County chairwoman standing with the property owners.

Ray Watt

Yates

Editor:

I’m writing this response to Cathi Orr’s letter to the Orleans Hub and the Union Sun in regard to my comments during the public hearing on Jan. 29 at the Town of Somerset.

First of all, I realize how much it cost to remodel an old farm house, we did the same to our house when we moved to Somerset. We also built a 54’x56′ barn. That being said, even with the capital improvements, Ms. Orr did not lose money on the sale of their property in Orangeville.

My second point in question, farmland in 2012 was at an all-time high. Farmland was selling between $5,000-$6,000 per acre. As a result of Ms. Orr actively opposing windmills in the towns of Orangeville and Sheldon, farmers were not willing to buy their property at market value. Ms. Orr’s 100-acre farm was undersold, when the asking price was lowered to an extremely low price, due to her activism and emotions.

Yes, I am a signed leaseholder with Lighthouse Wind (Apex Energy). With a property tax increase of over 300 percent since we moved to Somerset, including a 11.85 percent increase alone in town and county taxes. I fear that we will see a substantial increase in school taxes due to declining revenue from the power plant.

Where will the money come from? Lighthouse Wind will bolster our community, help with tax relief and offer landowners individual payments. It would offer needed revenue for our town and school system.

Somerset has had multiple opportunities to bring business to our town to generate a tax base and revenue to our community. That’s a subject for future discussion!

Floyd Koerner

Somerset

Editor:

The residents of the Towns of Somerset and Yates at a Public Hearing on January 29 have again resoundingly spoken out against Industrial Wind Turbines. In a packed room of over 60 individuals, 40 spoke out. By a factor of 3:1, supporters of the proposed tightening of the existing Industrial Wind Turbine Laws outnumbered those opposed.

Opposition arguments again fell flat as the same rhetoric Apex has been peddling for the last four years fell on deaf ears. The Somerset Town Board unanimously passed the revisions exercising our right to home rule. They are to be congratulated.  Article 10 siting board take note.

Mr. Taylor Quarles, Apex spokesman, is quoted as saying in part, “The laws … carry a very clear intent to wholly restrict any wind project from ever being built in the Town of Somerset.” Mr. Quarles is absolutely correct. The residents of our quiet, rural community do not want to be invaded by Industrial Wind Turbines. Numerous surveys, public hearings and countless meetings have shown this through the last four years. Project Lighthouse Wind and the like are not necessary, nor welcome, in our community. The physical and environmental damage will be far too great.

The Public Service Commission is requested to terminate all activity related to Lighthouse Wind. Our lake shore community is not the place for them. Our local laws reflect this and must be recognized.

James C. Hoffman

Somerset

Editor:

There was a recent a letter that claimed the Gaines Town Clerk got an “effective” hourly wage hike. The letter said there some sort of Town Resolution that governed her hours. It also inferred that last December something underhanded went. It claimed tax bills under the last administration were changed in December. My response is “wow” – how could someone come up with that. Balderdash.

In fact, New York State Law provides the clerk is salaried a‎nd the law details the clerk’s duties. Neither a town resolution nor local law can set the clerk’s hours or convert the position to hourly. (All elected officials have legal responsibilities to discharge 24-7. If that were the case every supervisor, mayor, and legislator should be in the office when it’s open.) Gaines tried and failed to use a resolution to trump state law with its old planning board. It seems pretty cavalier to do it again and I wonder if all its resolutions need to be “vetted” to see if there are others that are illegal.

As for tax bills, I hear someone neither could not read revenue receipts or add. Either way that is bad stuff. Whoever caught it should be congratulated as otherwise the Town would have had to borrow to cover the shortfall created to pay for approved budgeted expenditures.

Now MY question comes up because Judge Schmidt’s web page makes a point that most Towns have two judges. He is the only one there and has no back up. Was there a private bill in the Legislature to undo the two judge requirement or did someone simply fail to certify the position vacant? Gaines needs two judges in my view. The issue needs to be publically aired and if Gaines is not in compliance it should be.

The issue is getting the job done right and in compliance with state law and regulation. That’s what got voted on last November. This stuff now is very sour grapes.

Conrad F. Cropsey

Albion

Editor:

At a January 29, 2018 Somerset public hearing to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Somerset residents, the town voted unanimously to pass local law revisions to limit noise and height of tall structures.

This, in keeping with the World Health Organization’s guidelines for daytime and nighttime noise, within the one and a quarter mile siting from residents’ homes, and to preserve the rural character of the town of Somerset. The Town Board also chose to follow guidelines of US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding safety of migratory species which frequent the Lake Ontario corridor.

Thank you to the Town of Somerset!

Unfortunately, at this same public hearing one speaker chose to attack me by citing personal financial information, public record about a farm I had owned and sold in Orangeville, NY, in an (albeit unsuccessful) attempt to make his point that property values do not suffer from industrial wind turbines.

I choose here to address Mr. Floyd Koerner’s lack of complete and accurate information regarding the sale of my Wyoming County farm after a wind project there had been erected. He claims I made a substantial profit. He conveniently omitted some salient facts from what I will now supply as the real story.

Coincidentally, in the interests of full disclosure, Mr. Koerner has a signed contract with Apex. Signers with wind developers are aware that the contracts stipulate that leasees will support and promote the industrial wind project even in court, which explains his cheerleading the Apex cause at Somerset’s public hearing. Since 2014, I have been very vocal in my new home of Somerset in relating my experiences with industrial wind and its effects on my Orangeville neighbors, I make a convenient target for Mr. Koerner and for Apex.

I now, once and for all, would like to set the record straight!

Deciding in 1991 to restore a house built in 1863 despite the cost, my husband and I gutted the Orangeville house to the timbers, built an addition, stripped the roof and replaced it with new plywood and shingles. We also added new plumbing, furnace, electrical, and septic. We built a new 30’ by 50’ barn, restored an old barn, and painted others.  We hired someone to rework 30 acres of land, as my horses would have been severely injured on the rough fields.

Mr. Koerner attempted to make the case that in purchasing the property for $55,000 and selling it for $245,000 that I had made a substantial profit. Without the details, it would certainly appear that way, but since he omits mention of those costly improvements, it is meant to mislead.

Well, which is it, Mr. Koerner? You allege that wind farms boost property values. That means my 100-acre farm which brought only $245,000, should have brought $500,000 to $600,000. You proved my point, also illustrated by Michael McCann, a certified 30-year real estate appraiser who has conducted oft-cited studies of plunging real estate values in proximity to industrial wind projects all over the US. Evidently, Mr. Koerner’s figures were the equivalent of shooting himself in the foot.

Mr. Koerner evidently enjoys referencing my farm at public events.  He has brought it up at a Yates Town Board meeting as well. What’s more, my farm was also featured in a color brochure (again, without details) sent out a few years ago by none other than Apex. Maybe it’s time for Mr. Koerner to beat a different drum when he speaks in public forums.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! Pictures of renovation upon request!

Cathi Orr

Somerset

Editor:

When Letters to the Editor are signed as Supervisor or Councilman/Councilwoman for the Towns of Yates & Somerset, it is an unfair representation.

I certainly do not agree with your way of thinking in Yates and I am sure there are some residents in Somerset who would also agree with me. I think you have a right to your personal opinion, however, as board members you do not speak for all residents of both townships.

Therefore, your letters should be signed as a resident only.

Rebecca Winters

Town of Yates

(Editor’s note: Orleans Hub will often note the titles of writers if they are elected officials.)

Editor:

The fact that Orleans County Legislator Ken DeRoller considered the interests of Orleans County residents and recently weighed in on the future of the Lake Ontario State Parkway was a breath of fresh air whether one agrees with his view or not. (I heard today from a charter boat owner first hand that the condition of the Parkway is affecting tourism adjacent to the Lake.) DeRoller’s statement represented a much-needed dose of leadership.

It would be/have been refreshing and appropriate in my opinion to have County Legislators reveal similar leadership instincts where disgraceful Canal tree cutting is/was concerned. Perhaps I missed them, but where were our Legislators on that disgrace? It didn’t take a degree in rocket science to anticipate what would very likely happen once the cutting progressed in Monroe County. Looks like those who stand up really do get counted on occasion.

Where have our overpaid Legislators (Ken Longer’s comments on the Gaines Town Board may apply elsewhere as well) been on turning Yates and Barre into industrial wind farms (Sorry, but wind ‘farms’ are for abandoned oil fields and barren areas good for little else)  to the detriment of the County’s environmental and wildlife habitat assets? Oh well, giving away County assets hasn’t cost them yet.

When have we heard any of our Legislators—and I may have missed them—indicate where they stand on the somewhat controversial proposed stone quarry in proximity to The Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge in Shelby? What if it actually does “drain the swamp”? Of course, it would be impacted negatively regardless.

The selection of an “old guard” Legislator to chair the group (in place of one who had nothing to do with past errors in judgment) suggests that, rather than look forward, the majority has decided there are no regrets about the many errors in judgment made by the three who are way past needing replacement.

When you’re good at shifting the blame, it just keeps working.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own science or facts. In spite of this axiom, there is a chorus in Orleans County that continually spew their own misinformation, or in this political climate, alternative facts. I am specifically talking about the “abnormally high” water levels recorded on Lake Ontario during 2017.

The misinformed chorus, which includes the newly-minted chairwoman of the Orleans County Legislature, would have us all believe that the reason for the rise in the lake level is former President Barack H. Obama’s Plan 2014, which was created by the International Joint Commission.

Make no mistake, the IJC’s Plan 2014 will allow for lower lake levels in the long term than the previous water level management plan, which came into effect in 1958. Don’t take my word for it, take the words of two SUNY College at Brockport Science Professors – James M. Haynes, PhD, and Douglas Wilcox, PhD – who together have over a century of research and study of the Great Lakes under their belts.

The St. Lawrence River Board, Dr. Haynes, and Dr. Wilcox categorically reject and refute the ignorant nonsense that YouTube scientists and conspiracy-theory peddlers proclaim. The informed conclusion? The high lake levels observed on Lake Ontario during 2017 are a direct result of global warming and climate change, not the IJC/Plan 2014.

In August 2017, Dr. Wilcox explained to a small group of south shore residents that the previous lake level management plan kept water levels artificially high, while Plan 2014 allows for more variation in water levels. You heard that right, Plan 2014 actually allows for a more reactive posture in the face of dangerously high lake levels, than the previous plan did.

Furthermore, Dr. Wilcox and Dr. Haynes explained, Lake Ontario is a drain lake, and as such, it bears the brunt of increased water inflows. The science is quite simple – imagine five beakers partially filled with water suspended at different elevations. Lake Ontario is the “bottom,” or lowest elevation, beaker, which means that as the other four beakers fill with water and eventually overflow, they naturally flow into the fifth beaker. What makes matters worse is that there is little-to-no control over the inflows from the other four beakers thanks to Niagara Falls. Accordingly, Lake Ontario receives all of the runoff and inflow from rivers and tributaries flowing directly into it (think the Genesee River), plus all of the inflow from Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and Lake Erie, and their respective rivers and tributaries. Due to gravity, water will always travel to the lowest natural point.

Last year was an unusually wet winter and spring across the regions, whose runoff feeds into the Great Lakes waterway system. Therefore, as late snows melted (remember the mid-March snow storm?) combined with unrelenting rainfall, the water levels on Lake Ontario rose. Last year did break the record for highest lake levels in recorded history, but this is not because of the IJC/Plan 2014; rather, the high lake levels are a direct result of climate change and global warming.

Does the chairwoman and her cadre not understand that the reason why more water cannot just be let out of the Moses-Saunders Dam is because that would present a serious flooding hazard for the City of Montreal and its over 4 million residents?

From a humanitarian standpoint, your front yard is not as important as 4 million Canadians. Perhaps the reason why this “blame Obama” mantra has predominated the discussion is because people are averse to science? Or maybe it is a lack of empathy for foreign nationals, or a general aversion to former President Obama, personally?

Andrew Remley

Albion

Editor:

I’d like to take a few moments to respond to Assemblyman Steve Hawley’s reply to your editorial, “GOP State Senate blueprint for NY should include equitable AIM funding for villages.”

Currently, village residents are terribly overtaxed compared to our non-village neighbors. This is directly a result of how localities can tax, how services are provided, and how the state distributes aid to correct for any inequities.

The county taxes all county residents. The towns for the most part tax all town residents (except for paving town roads). The villages can only tax village residents. When villages provide services themselves that means that the county and towns need to provide fewer services. Comparable services of the county and towns get redirected outside of the villages.

The unfairly high village taxes are a prime reason why the tax base has continued every year to gradually shift away from the villages. Every time a person decides to buy a home or property the market corrects for this unfairness by depressing sale prices in the villages.

Mr. Hawley’s response mentioned Medicaid, but the local share is a county expense and hits all county residents equally in the county tax rate. It doesn’t adversely impact village residents.

Mr. Hawley mentions a few bills that he has sponsored. I read each bill and it looks like the first two address any future state programs and doesn’t help correct the existing overtaxing of village residents. His response claimed that the third bill would redirect extra AIM funding to villages, but when I read the text it seems to redirect extra AIM funding to towns as well – so, again, no correction to help overtaxed villages.

I expect that if we fail to address the existing unfairness of our local government structure then you will see further decline in the villages going forward. Our state representatives need to start work cooperatively with the state to fix this situation – and lay off unproductive insults of the governor and “downstate politicians.”

Our local leaders need to be willing to go outside their comfort zone and consider reorganizing how local governments provides services. A county where all localities thrive is going to be more attractive to outside investment that one with struggling villages.

Jason Dragon

Village of Albion