Editor:

I am one of those despised “Lake People,” who pays the highest tax rate to support a “town with no potential.”

Unlike a current Yates Town Board member, who voiced this sentiment to a boardroom full of residents, I was born, raised, worked and raised my own family a few miles down the road in Medina.

I had some great Lyndonville friends, and my grandfather, aunts, uncles and friends owned tiny seasonal cottages on the lakeshore. I didn’t inherit any of them, but I always thought of Lake Ontario as our lake too.

I never realized, until we purchased a small cottage here 11 years ago, that the “Lake People” were so resented. Most lakefront communities capitalize on their asset, even if it is seasonal. They “make hay when the sun shines.”

In the eight years I have lived here year-round, I have not found Lyndonville to be the friendly, welcoming community I had hoped for. There are exceptions, of course, but there are enough individuals who degrade those who live on the lake shore, labeling them the “rich people” or “outsiders” because they are not 4th generation Lyndonville people, that it seems they have become the attitude of the community.

I, personally, am thankful for all that the Amish and Mennonite communities have brought to the area, and I am constantly taken back when I hear the resentment voiced by so many. I feel they are a huge asset, and I find kindness within their community that I do not feel elsewhere in Lyndonville.

I have met some new friends, recently, and I am beginning to see a ray of hope. Kind, intelligent, generous, hardworking people have come forward in the past months as we have seen Apex weasel its way in, threatening to destroy what little remains of the fabric of this town. They don’t toot their own horns. They do nice things for the village, such as donate new flags for Main Street, and they support every remaining local business.

The upcoming election may also bring hope of a brighter tomorrow for Lyndonville and the entire Town of Yates, by replacing what I view as complacency, cronyism, and lack of foresight; men who won’t state their position or vision for tomorrow, who look only for a quick fix of a dying town, by inviting sleazy, money hungry, carpet baggers with only one valid promise: to spend your tax dollars to pad their pockets, before they sell out and leave.

I will vote for men with intelligence, integrity and foresight. These candidates would never suggest voting for less than a full town board, as the planning board member, with questionable personal interest, recently did in a scathing letter to the editor of Orleans Hub.

Write-in campaigns are challenging, but certainly not impossible. Medina did it last year! I urge you to write-in your vote for Jim Simon, Supervisor, who, by the way, is not one of us “lake people.” He is a college dean, history teacher, family man with children in the Lyndonville School District, one having graduated as valedictorian and one salutatorian.

Vote for John Riggi, the Republican-endorsed candidate for town council and Conservative candidate, Glenn Maid. These men have already shown us they are willing to fight for this town. They will be on the ballot and require a simple X or a check mark. All of us deserve the very best leaders to strengthen this community.

Cynthia Hellert
Town of Yates

Editor:

We want to thank the Albion, Carlton, Barre and Medina fire departments for their quick and diligent responses to the fire at the Harding House at the 5 Corners Sunday afternoon.

It took quite an effort to contain and control the fire and they were excellent at doing both.

Karen and Chris Watt
Gaines

Editor:

This letter is in response to a few that have posted here the last few days, bashing the local government of the Town of Yates.

First of all, blaming the local government for businesses closing in downtown Lyndonville is not only wrong, it’s moronic. To name a couple, the Pennysaver closed because the owner’s husband was ill and, in her best efforts, kept the doors open long after she should have. Explain to me how that’s John Belson’s and the Town Board’s fault?

Another example is Crosby-Whipple, which closed due to the owner’s retirement. Again, explain to me how that is the fault of the above mentioned?

If you haven’t noticed we live in a very depressed and poor town and county. With one-stop shop box stores invading, our quaint and charming downtowns are in trouble.

I’m sure it doesn’t seem that way sipping coffee overlooking the lake every morning, but that’s the reality of it. This just goes to show you how uninformed some of the residents are in this town.

This board and its members are all dedicated to what is best for this town. These people have dedicated their lives to bettering the community. They have grown up in, and raised their families here.

I’m also still waiting to receive my SOS survey. Maybe it was lost in the mail?

One other note: I took a drive around town today and saw many, many signs in support of John Belson, NOT accompanied by a “Fear Not The Wind” sign. Funny, I even saw a re-elect John Belson sign next to an SOS sign.

Make sure to do your research next time you post an attack ad. I, like other people in this community, am more than proud of our current representatives!

Patrick McKenna
Lyndonville

Editor:

Election Day is drawing near. I have read the many articles and letters to the editor in support of each candidate for Orleans County Sheriff and I have listened to each of these candidates speak.

I’ve been paying close attention to this race and what I keep coming back to in my mind is only one candidate truly has a plan for what he would like to accomplish when he gets into office, and that candidate is Randy Bower.

Besides providing the public with a detailed plan – a plan he has been straight forward about since day one, and is not piecing it together as he goes – Randy is detailed, organized and appears to have already gained the respect of those who would be his subordinates.

I have heard ad-nauseam that Randy Bower has no police experience – besides the fact that he has 29 years work experience in the Sheriff’s Department and is keenly aware of our public safety needs. I am surprised that many people are unaware of the fact that the County Sheriff’s position is an administrative position.

Many of these same naysayers are the first to speak very highly of our former Sheriff Dave Green and tell us what a great job he did serving the people of the county. I’d like to ask these same people, how this can be possible, when Mr. Green had no police experience before being elected as sheriff? The answer is simply this: You do not need to be a police officer to lead the Sheriff’s Department.

Our sheriff needs to an administrator with an open door to the public because the public is who he serves and works for. He needs to be someone who understands public safety.

With 29 years as dispatcher for the county, Randy is more than qualified. Our Sheriff needs to be a leader that all employees can look up to, someone who motivates, inspires and encourages his workers. That person is without a doubt, Randy Bower.

Other candidates may claim to be more qualified, but no candidate seems to be as serious about being the next Orleans County Sheriff as Randy Bower does. If you have just one conversation with Randy, you walk away knowing that he truly cares about serving the people of Orleans County. There is no one that is more passionate and prepared to lead the Sheriff’s Department.

For all of these reasons and more, on Nov. 3, I am voting for the Republican candidate, Randy Bower, to be our next sheriff, and I urge you to do the same.

Cindy Oliver
Holley

Editor:

I am glad to hear that one of the candidates for Orleans County Sheriff has stated that he will uphold the law. As a Republican I am sorry to say he is a Democrat. I keep hearing a few people say that the SAFE Act is unconstitutional but none of them seem to be able to explain why they believe that.

Perhaps if one of the right wing candidates could shed some light on this it would help. I am unable to vote for anyone who refuses to do his or her job if elected. If anyone, candidate or not, can explain this to me I would be most appreciative.

If you are serious you will need to quote both the sections of the act that you feel are unconstitutional and the sections of the Constitution that make those sections of the act unconstitutional.

John S. Grimes
Medina

Editor:

There are many, many laws on the books, so many that a person cannot get through the day without violating several of them unknowingly.

Every day, police officers make a judgment call on what to enforce and what to let slide. Have you ever gotten just a warning, rather than a ticket? Is that not someone “not enforcing the law?”

Because of the way the government currently works, we have “laws” that infringe on our Constitutional rights. If you are a farmer with a field of standing water and you want to drain it, you cannot without the EPA’s permission.

If you have a dispute with the IRS, whether you are in the right or not, the IRS can seize your assets. Under the NDAA, the federal government has given itself permission to take everything you own and incarcerate you with no charges, indefinitely.

And NYS has put into place an illegally-wrought and unconstitutional law called the SAFE Act. Yes, there are aspects that seem good, but the entire piece of legislation was enacted incorrectly and illogically. Does anyone remember that in the beginning it made LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) felons as well?

A Constitutional Sheriff does not “pick and choose” the laws as we understand the phrase. He will study the Constitution as it relates to law enforcement, examine which laws are held up by the Constitution, and act accordingly. He stops tyranny and oppression of the people of his county, both at the state and federal level.

Is it not tyranny when a state agency threatens a local business to turn over paperwork or have a visit by a SWAT team? Is not eminent domain tyranny? Is seizing assets not tyranny?

We have not seen a great deal of federal oppression here because there is not as much federal land in this county. But we do not live in a bubble, so rest assured, it is coming.

A Constitutional Sheriff will not have a lawless county, but a safe one. He will not only work to keep the people safe, but he will put himself between the people and outside oppression. It can be a dangerous act and he needs to have the courage to do so.

And do not be misled in thinking that the judiciary has the last say in understanding the Constitution. The legal industry has long forsaken the Constitutional precepts, or has buried them in endless legalese. The people no longer know what freedoms they should have, and because of their lack of knowledge or understanding, they easily give them up, because “it’s the law.”

Make no mistake, the Constitutional Sheriff is not god-like. He will agree to training in the Constitution from an accepted program, such as the one Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association or KrisAnne Hall offers.

And he will require his deputies to do the same so that there is uniformity on the job. He will bring freedom to this county instead of oppression and fear.

Judith Larkin
Ridgeway

Editor:

In reading recent letters regarding the debate and comments of sheriff candidates for Orleans County, I would begin with one simple question: What does the “Safe Act” have to do with qualifications of the ability or the integrity of holding the office of sheriff? It’s a simple question.

Why is it an issue? I think I know why: political talking points that distract from more important and prominent issues. After all, all of you who put “Repeal the Safe Act” signs in your yard voted for Republican candidates. Two years later, did you get your wish?

And if that is the only thing your mind is focused on, did you consider that these “representatives” are developing legislation on a lot of other issues that affect us all? It’s just a distraction.

No one is coming after your guns. They give you that fear to draw your attention away from the issues that you should be more concerned about. Like what kind of sheriff are you putting into power?

When you take a good look at how justice is administered in our society, and right here in your own front yard, are you really going to vote to put a man in office, who blatantly says he will violate the law? Are people so ignorant? Are you electing a dictator who makes up his own rules?

How long will Orleans County be dominated by a “good ol’ boy” mentality? Justice is a key in our society. If our law enforcers make their own rules, is that justice? Are Mr. Drennan and Mr. Bower more qualified than a federal judge or a state judge about constitutional law? Are they obligated to uphold the law?

Well, yes, they are yet, they are also saying they’ll do things their way. Can you or I say that and escape jail? If I don’t like the law, can I just ignore it? No, of course not. They’re saying they will.

What other laws will they ignore according to their own whims? What other policies will they put into place that reflect “their” idea of justice? Are either of them a good example of obeying the law and then administering it? Or are they playing politics upon your fears and making you look the other way while you miss the bigger points?

Electing the next sheriff of Orleans County has nothing to do with the SAFE Act. But, maybe, just maybe you can figure out which candidate will enforce the law, better the department, and not continue in making Orleans County a dictatorship of old school thought.

Taking care of our community, taking care of our officers, that’s what’s important. I can’t help but notice that Drennan and Bower missed the points that we citizens truly rely upon. Don’t worry about your guns, worry about who you elect to office who carries one and makes up his own rules.

Maybe you should give Don Organisciak another look. He said he will uphold the law, not look under your bed to take your guns.

Just a thought,

Jay Rothmund
Batavia, a former Albion resident

Editor:

I am writing to address some issues that arose during the sheriff forum sponsored by SCOPE and New York Revolution – both being extreme anti-government, pro-gun groups I had expected the agenda to be very one-sided when it comes to gun control and keeping our citizens safe from gun violence.

In my research of both groups leading up to this event, the only vague plan I found in their propaganda is to put more guns in the hands of more people in more places. Truly a recipe for disaster.

As we entered the forum we were encouraged to write questions on 3-by-5 cards for the three candidates to address. Mine was “What are the best ways to keep our citizens safe from gun violence?”

The first and only gun question actually asked of our sheriff candidates ran something like this: “Will you, as sheriff, enforce the unconstitutional SAFE Act which violates gun owners second amendment rights?” Stop the train and everyone get off!

First of all let’s set straight SCOPE and REVOLUTION’s false premise and their house of cards falls apart. The SAFE Act is constitutional, and doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. Who says so? Federal Judge after Federal Judge. State Judge after State Judge. One court case after another.

Reviews of legal and constitutional scholars have determined, that while parts of the SAFE Act need amending, the basic premise behind it, namely the need to control unlimited access to unlimited firearms and ammunition by anyone at any time in any quantity runs contrary to protecting the public safety, and therefore the SAFE Act remains the law of New York State.

Extremists have argued that gun laws only hurt those who obey the law. Remember, everyone is law abiding until they cause the massacre. So logically the issue is ACCESS TO GUNS.

The rest of the argument is subjective (opinion) and a circus side show. The clowns in this circus are played by the extreme factions within the NRA, the Tea Party and other ultra-conservative groups. They fail to grasp the concept that the framers of the US Constitution did not guarantee a citizens arms race with unlimited access to firearms.

The founding fathers, as they had stated, envisioned each state (The People) forming and being allowed to form a militia for protection. Former Chief Justice Warren Berger was right when he said “The NRA committed the greatest fraud against the American People, and I emphasize the work FRAUD, when they corrupted the 2nd Amendment to mean unlimited and unfettered access to all manner of weapons.”

So down comes the house of cards. The Second Amendment is not under attack and the SAFE Act stays. No one is coming after your guns.

The answer to gun violence is NOT more weapons in the hands of more people. That is a recipe for the destruction of society. The answer lies in restrict access to certain weapons by certain persons. Closing the loophole of being able to purchase weapons at gun shows. Making background checks for gun and ammunition purchases universal.

During the sheriff forum, candidate Don Organasciak was the only speaker with the guts to say it right, “The SAFE Act (limits to access to large capacity assault weapons and the requirement of background checks) is the law in New York State, and as Sheriff, I will enforce those duly enacted laws, including the SAFE Act.”

Randy Bower was wrong when he said, “If you, the citizens of Orleans County don’t want me to enforce a law, I won’t enforce it.” What means does Mr. Bower plan to utilize which will give him a scientific and therefore accurate pulse on public opinion on the myriad of issues before us in this county?

I am a gun owner, a hunter and conservationist. But I see no good to come out of allowing military type weapons in our community. When you see “Repeal the SAFE Act” signs littered about, remember their house of cards, their fraud, and let me add, their paranoia. But use your common sense.

Al Capurso
Gaines

Editor:

Tom Rivers did a commendable job of reporting the Orleans County Sheriff’s candidate forum. As he noted, there were several areas where Tom Drennan, Randy Bower and Don Organisciak seemed to basically agree. More revealing were the areas in which they disagreed.

They disagreed on the importance of accreditation. While Randy had his doubts about its merits, Don and Tom appeared to think it more worth pursuing. As I recall, among other things, Don said it might help secure grants and lower insurance costs and Tom stressed uniformity of service.

Another subject of disagreement involved the County’s Drug Task Force, which is currently under the direction of the District Attorney. Drennan and Organisciak offered rationales for keeping it that way. Bower took the view that the Task Force should operate under the direction of the Sheriff.

To me, Bower’s position showed independence and courage, as he questioned the status quo.

A question about diversity was asked. Tom Drennan took the question after Randy and Don had basically interpreted it in terms of gender diversity. There was the usual talk about the civil service exam and the difficulty of getting people to take it. Tom was the only candidate who suggested the importance of having minorities apply. None of them addressed the possibility of recruiting.

I was personally disappointed that none of the candidates seemed to appreciate the need for greater ethnic diversity, though Tom mentioned African-Americans. Randy did note, accurately in my view, that, depending on the situation, female officers can often be more effective, as they may be perceived as far less threatening.

At the beginning, a question was asked about enforcement of the S.A.F.E. Act. The responses were enlightening. None of the candidates indicated any interest in breaking down the doors of otherwise law-abiding people in order to seize AR-15’s. The notion that, because sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement professionals, they should take their cues from the people who elected them was raised. This view discounts the principle set forth in Article VI of the Constitution that states are bound by the Constitution and Federal law. It similarly discounts the idea that State law applies to all the jurisdictions within the State.

Despite the fact that S.C.O.P.E. co-hosted the event, Don Organisciak made it clear that, as Sheriff, it was his job to enforce the law regardless of his personal opinion about it. He could not pick and choose what laws he was to enforce even if pressured to do so.

Interestingly, a question about off-duty recreational use of marijuana brought unequivocal agreement from all the candidates. To what degree did their answers reflect the status of marijuana under the law?

Legislatures make laws. The courts interpret them, decide when they apply, and determine their Constitutionality. Sheriffs, as an arm of the executive, carry out the law. For example, under the S.A.F.E. Act, if a judge orders someone under an order of protection to seek mental health counseling, a sheriff would be in the position of having to enforce the judge’s order. If a judge ordered such a person to turn over his/her firearms, the sheriff might become similarly involved.

To me, all this is about respecting a system that has worked for over 200 years.
Sheriffs are supposed to lead. Sheriffs are usually thought of as enforcers of the law. Each of the candidates found the marijuana question a no-brainer. After all, how can respect for the law be taught when a sheriff openly defies the law? What type of example would such a leader provide? One might ask, “If a sheriff can defy the law, why can’t I?”

Don Organisciak showed his maturity and courage by not saying what the bulk of this audience may have preferred to hear. They nonetheless showed him respect. And he should be respected, even if one disagrees with his view of what a sheriff’s proper role is. As an aside, the civility shown by everyone at the forum was a tribute to Orleans residents and the democratic process.

Anyone who attended this event with an open mind had to be impressed by the seriousness of these three candidates. I continue to believe they are all capable and qualified.

Sincerely yours,
Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

When I bought my property here 15 years ago, Lyndonville was a quiet, friendly and attractive community. The people were kind, the village was quaint and offered its conveniences.

I loved coming here and until retirement looked forward to getting here as quickly as possible on weekends and for summer. Now I am here year-round.

In the last 10 years the village has changed. We once had a grocery store with fresh meat and dairy together with anything else you may need including hardware, paint and tools. I can’t tell you how many times I saw people buy things in there and the owner or her staff recorded the transaction in a loose leaf book until the next pay day! IT’S GONE.

There was an ice cream stand next to the Penny Saver at one time. IT’S GONE.

There was a very handy and well stocked drug store that sure was a godsend when the kids got sick or you needed a last minute gift or greeting card for a special occasion. IT’S GONE.

I miss having a service station right in town. I bought my tires there, got my oil changed and more than once had an irritating noise checked out. IT’S GONE.

Remember the little restaurant next to it in the same building, the only restaurant in the village open year-round? IT’S GONE.

I know businesses come and go, but in this town they just GO.

As I have just read Mr. Belson’s ad stating that he brings 9 years of experience to the job, I am reminded about what we no longer have in this town for conveniences and pleasure in that same time period.

The leadership of this town board is the essence of the definition of insanity. Why would we vote the same people back in and expect a different outcome?

We need new blood, new ideas and a new commitment to the Town of Yates. It sure as heck isn’t working with the current one.

Tanis C. Bolick
Lyndonville