Editor:

As a former resident of Terry’s Corners, I was pleased to see recognition of Les Washbon in the Retired category at the Crusaders Motorcycle Club awards banquet!

He was lost to us suddenly in this past year. His accomplishments as a racer were many! Thank you for the local recognition Crusaders!

Dayton Hausman

Medina

Editor:

Having read the article in the “Letters to the Editor” section of the Orleans Hub by Mr. Sidonio pertaining to the exorbitant tax “rate” increases (second straight year) in the Town of Murray and the article in the Batavia News pertaining to the Town of Murray Town Board meeting held on Feb. 9, 2016, I have to expand on the issues.

So, what could be the reason or reasons for these tax “rate” increases which in total amounts to a 15.5 percent increase in the last two yours? Is it a poor bookkeeping system? Is it a lack of the Town Board members’ knowledge of what it takes to try to reduce the stress on their people and businesses in the town? Are the board members making decisions and voting on their own? Is it entirely a “One Man Show”? Do they even care?

The Town of Murray tax “rate” has risen from the lowest third in the county to the sixth highest in the last two years. The Town Board on Feb. 9 stated that it is considering cutting services or raising taxes in 2017.

Mr Sidonio pointed out ways to cut costs in fringe benefit areas to elected officials but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Murray it seems would rather pay elected officials thousands of dollars to receive payments for not taking health insurance particularly to those who are covered by spouses working at the county – in other words double-dipping.

A Town Board member and former school administrator that has experience in presenting budgets to the public in such a manner that forms a “Rose Colored Picture” so that the budgets will pass, talked about the 40 other towns in the western NY region. Forget about that scenario and concentrate on the towns in Orleans County which make up our real community.

This academic uses the liberal ideology of manipulating the facts to reach the desired results for his personal agenda. This same individual makes light of and glosses over the NYS Comptroller’s audit reports of both the Orleans County EDA – remember no “recapture clauses” – and the Town of Murray Capital Projects activity.

The two audits highlight the lack of accountability of the elected and appointed individuals to the taxpayers they represent. Thanks to Mr. Sidonio, an independent thinker who saw through the smoke and mirrors and posted the real local facts in front of us.

You would tend to believe that the Town of Murray being the “prime residence” of the Orleans County Republican Party chairman, the chairman of the Town of Murray Republican Committee and the Town of Murray Highway Superintendent all being the one individual would be a showplace of Republican values like “limited government” and “less taxation,” but that is not the case.

It is time the residents of Murray called their election district representatives, aka Murray Committee men/women and demand to know what in the sam hill is going on that makes it so important that taxes have to be raised by such a large percentage.

The former school official will accentuate the fact that I am not a Murray resident like he did with Mr. Longers letter on the Orleans Hub. (This was done verbally at the Murray Town Board meeting). I don’t care to see this type of mindset take root in other towns in the county or more so in the Orleans County Legislature. Hopefully the Murray residents will nip this practice in the bud.

If your election district committee person is unknown to you, call me at 659-8382 and I will get the information to you.

In closing, I would like to thank Mr. Sidonio for bringing this circumstance to the public’s attention.

Allen Lofthouse
Kendall
(Mr. Lofthouse is chairman of the Orleans County Conservative Party.)

Editor:

It has come to our attention that comments have been made in the local media about the tax rates in the Town of Murray. While we encourage healthy conversations about spending and services, we think it’s important that factual information be used to fuel this discourse across our county.

Listed below is just a summary of some of the facts. More detailed information is available at the Town Clerk’s Office or soon to be published on our website.

When comparing the tax rate of the Town of Murray for the past 5 years, (2012-2016), the Town has ranked in the top third of towns in Orleans County with the lowest tax rate. In most of those years, the Town of Murray tax rate has been below the average of all 10 towns in the county. Yes, the taxes have gone up in 2015 and 2016. The unexpended balance used to offset tax revenues has been depleted. That unexpended balance has been used in past years to keep taxes low and services high.

It has been suggested that the Town return to the days of previous administrations where “stretching a dime into a dollar” was the norm. When you actually compare the tax rates for the four years (1994-1997), those rates, (adjusted for inflation), were higher than the current 2016 tax rate – higher in some cases by over $1.15 per thousand! Perhaps the dime didn’t really stretch as far as we remember.

We always look forward to engaging dialogue with our community on methods we can employ to keep taxes low while maintaining the level of services our residents are accustomed to. We do believe however, that factually based, positive, respectful conversations will generate much more productive results than statements made in half-truths used to inflame community residents and service private agendas.

We will continue to work hard to provided the BEST services for the residents in the Town of Murray at a rate that is acceptable to all.

Murray Town Supervisor John Morriss
Town Council members

Paul Hendel
Kathy Case
Ed Bower
Lloyd Christ

Editor:

Another week has passed, and three more defendants have been charged by this office with producing or receiving child pornography. A 14-year-old girl murdered in Virginia. These and other cases share the common trait of alleged predators luring and manipulating children over social media.

It’s common to see teenagers attached to their cell phones throughout the day. Everyone knows that today’s device is a powerful internet access tool capable of connecting users to others throughout the world. Most seriously underestimate the frequency with which their children are exposed to sexually explicit texts and photographs.

According to one university study, 20 to 30 percent of teens will send or receive sexually explicit texts. Seventy percent of teen-age girls will be asked to send a naked picture. As our investigations demonstrate, such requests come from both peers and predators seeking contact with vulnerable youth.

Neither denial nor ignorance provide any protection for children caught-up in a perfect storm of technology and vulnerability. Rather, safety lies in constant parent/child communication, and adult education and familiarity with computer applications, teen-age realities, and even language.

As internet dangers have multiplied, parents today must be as conversant in discussing “bytes and bits” as they are in discussing the “birds and bees.” Kids are warned to avoid strangers, but they also need to know that strangers lurk online and online messages and photographs can be preserved forever. Not hitting “send” is the best defense against future regret.

I urge parents to take full advantage of parental controls to monitor usage, media activity, and who your child is contacting. Learn to detect vault applications and icons used to conceal explicit videos and photographs.

Finally, know the common social media sites and terminology used. Some are shocked when they discover what the code words and symbols being used by their children really mean.

Being a teenager can be exciting and difficult. Today’s technology and social media enhance both realities. By becoming a technology expert, parents and adults help children navigate these challenges before our office gets involved.

U.S. Attorney William Hochul
Buffalo

Editor:

Hungry for recycled taxpayer money funneled into the so-called “green” energy agenda by state and federal subsidies, Apex (no so) Clean Energy LLC apparently brought in an invasion of union workers to chastise the Somerset Town Board at its own hearing on Feb. 1.

The reason? Somerset amended its own local zoning law. As a Somerset resident and farm owner, I resent the intrusion of union workers who do not live in Somerset. It would appear that Apex paraded them into our public hearing meeting to protest Somerset’s amended local law.

Industrial wind turbine facility would effectively make my town unfit for habitation of people, and irreversibly damage the ambient quiet countryside that I moved here to enjoy.

Somerset town residents pay town taxes, and therefore have the right to have a say in our own town government. The Somerset Town Board was very accommodating to the influx of iron workers apparently invited to our public hearing by the wind corporation.

One construction worker said that Apex had contacted many local construction companies about potential jobs. Actually the reality is that in many wind projects, out-of-state construction crews are brought in by the wind company.

In February of 2015, Vermillion, Illinois, not only did Apex bring in out-of-state contractors to construct their wind project, the leaseholders there ended up with mechanic liens on their lands, as Apex did not pay them at that time.

With Apex’s reputation in other wind projects akin to snake-oil salesmen, it’s obvious that the Town of Somerset is correct to do its due diligence to protect the natural environment, its own people’s health, safety, welfare, and property values, along with the comprehensive plan of the town.

An unbiased ad hoc committee was drafted to write this new zoning law. It had included the two Apex salesmen, along with citizens on both sides of the issue. Somerset tried to come up with a protective plan for the town suited to its character and its people. These meetings, taking place over a six-month period, were open to the public. The new 54-page law can be found on Somerset’s website.

The first in a long list of town findings states: “Short-sighted planning has often resulted in creation of problem industries that adversely affect public health and quality of life. Examples are found in Somerset, as well as in many other areas of Western New York. Wind energy facilities are not exempt from these findings.”

We will not sacrifice our homes, farms, and natural environment for a few pieces of silver. We have seen repeated lawsuits occurring in other wind turbine facilities because of negative impacts such as noise, that drive people out of their homes.

We are thankful that the Somerset Town Board is striving to preserve the valuable Lake Ontario natural migratory flyways, environment, along with protection of our property values. Once destroyed by slipshod placement of an industrial wind turbine facility, any attempt to rectify the situation then is impossible. Forever too little, too late.

The biggest insult is that the out-of-state Apex LLC tried to intimidate the Somerset Town Board with a veiled suggestion of a lawsuit. Despite the questionable ethics of Apex’s history of mechanics liens on unsuspecting farmers, their attempt to craft the local law by intimidation Monday night went beyond the pale when they suggested that this revamped town zoning law would not hold up in court.

Thank you, Somerset Town Board for your patience and loyalty to your citizenry.

I have lived through a carelessly sited wind project in Wyoming County. The result of living in too close proximity to 450-foot turbines resulted in destruction of the rural character, quality of life, and many other negative impacts mentioned in the findings of the Somerset amended local law. You cannot mitigate the damage done to relationships between family members, as well as the damage done permanently between lifelong friends and neighbors, dividing the town forever.

Therefore I agree with Somerset’s due diligence in the amending of the local law and agree with this statement when they say, “Local communities have, through site plan approval, regulation, and careful planning, been primary protectors of their citizenry.”

Cathi Orr
Somerset

Editor:

I am so furious. I went to the “hearing” on the proposed wind law in Somerset last Monday. To call that a hearing is a joke. The Town Board called in no experts, heard no testimony with facts and had no briefing. What kind of hearing is that?

Basically they heard people on either side give their opinion and now they are going to vote on a law that has a bunch of opinions in it like, “Wind Energy Facilities are, by their very nature, not aesthetically pleasing.” Or, “Commercial/Industrial Wind Energy Facilities represent potential for extreme adverse aesthetic impacts.”

I think they are great to look at. Next thing you know they will just decide that they don’t like the color red, make up some supposed harmful health impacts and pass a law banning barns.

Linda Fisk
Lyndonville

Editor:

Thank you, Karen Jones. Had it not been for your defense of Jim Simon’s integrity, I might not have looked at Susan Campbell’s appallingly cynical letter questioning the motives of Simon, the Yates Town Supervisor and SOS member.

Ms. Campbell even suggests that Simon may be on the payroll of some mysterious shadow conspiracy group! Perhaps The Concerned Citizens of Orleans County are paying him!

There are obviously people who cannot comprehend those who do what they do, and take the positions they take, for no other reason than a desire to do what they think is right. I owe nothing to Mr. Simon and have spoken with him a grand total of 10 minutes in my lifetime. It would not surprise me for an instant if Mr. Simon was, for all intents and purposes, a relatively selfless man.

For Ms. Campbell to say that he surely does not represent the people of the Town of Yates begs two questions. For one, what do repeated survey results tell us about what the people of Yates think? Secondly, what does a successful write-in campaign for Supervisoragainst a popular incumbent Republicantell us about what the people of Yates think?

Ms. Campbell sounds like any number of disaffected citizens who want to “take their government back” when elections and the democratic process produce results they disagree with.

Sincerely yours,

Gary F. Kent, a.k.a. Don Quixote
Albion

Editor:

Mr. Burke, I never mentioned in my article not to pursue expensive audits or legal action. Just use judgment when exercising that option.

Would you care to inform the public the cost Gaines incurred in your action against the turbine and your own staff members?

Ed Urbanik
Lyndonville

Editor:

I am writing to defend the character of Jim Simon, who was unfairly maligned by Susan Campbell in her letter posted on Feb. 1. She clearly doesn’t know the man.

Here you have a person who, for the public good (more funding available for the town of Yates for other needed things), decided not to draw a salary. Instead of asking him personally about it, she turns something good into something suspect. She says, “What if he is being paid by someone else and his main objective is to oppose the Lighthouse Wind Farm?”

Really?

I know Mr. Simon. Since he is the Dean of our two local community college campuses, Mr. Simon has been my employer for the last 10 years at Genesee Community College. As such, I feel I can speak pretty confidently as to the person he is, and I can tell you two things that he puts before everything else: God, and family.

If Ms. Campbell had even a 20-minute conversation with him, she would see his quiet character shining through immediately. Frankly, I suspect his moral fiber is the number one reason he was elected as a write-in candidate: because the people that met him recognized goodness when they saw it. And, they trusted that he would act in their collective best interest in his capacity as a town leader.

Incidentally, if Ms. Campbell were truly interested in knowing Mr. Simon’s rationale for opposing the wind farm, perhaps she should go back and review the very thorough article on the Orleans Hub on Jan. 14. Click here to see “Yates Town Board officially opposes ‘Lighthouse Wind’.”

Lastly, I find it ironic that Ms. Campbell dismisses Mr. Riggi and Mr. Simon and says that neither are motivated by some “saintly” duty. Well, let’s see: they’re both brave enough to take on the established order; they both play David to Apex’s Goliath; they both act for the greater good from modest means, and neither expects a financial reward (but for the reward of God’s green earth and open sky, unbroken by naught but the flight and gyre of birds)

I don’t know! I think many of us’ll have to disagree, Ms. Campbell! They both sound kinda saintly to me!

Respectfully,

Karen Jones
Medina

Editor:

There’s been some talk about the Attorney General wind farm code of conduct agreement, urging people who are landowners in the Lighthouse Wind project who hold public office seats to recuse themselves from any voting.

What about those who are active members of SOS (Save Ontario Shores)? I think they should also have to recuse themselves from voting. We don’t know their motive(s) for opposing the wind farm.

We at least know that landowners in the project are being paid by Apex to host turbines on their property but we have no idea why SOS members are so incredibly active at opposing the Lighthouse Wind Farm. Maybe they are being paid off by other companies we don’t know about or other public interest groups. Who is funding their efforts?

Jim Simon, the new Yates Town Supervisor was backed by SOS during his campaign and John Riggi, new Yates town councilman, was president of SOS. This to me is just as much of a conflict of interest. Also, Jim Simon is not accepting any pay as town supervisor. What if he is being paid by someone else and his main objective is to oppose the Lighthouse Wind Farm?

Opposing the wind farm isn’t some saintly duty that these SOS members love to cry about. Who are they really representing because it’s definitely not Yates residents. I believe SOS is playing a game of smoke and mirrors, and playing it well.

Shining light on Apex activities when in actuality they are the ones acting from a place we can only imagine. They are not being held accountable at all like Apex is by state and local citizens.

I am truly thankful for the Article 10 process because clearly this topic has become so emotional I don’t think anyone in this area could make a rational decision. Everyone’s got their hand in a least one cookie jar.

Susan Campbell
Lyndonville