Editor:

I just read your editorial about the two towns’ response to the possible dissolution of the Village of Medina. I am surprised that you would state that, “the towns should put out their plan for what would happen with a village dissolution.”

That is exactly what they did in their letter. There they said, for better or for worse, that they will not cooperate with the village and its plans. I am uncertain as to why you think that it is the responsibility of the towns to present  the village’s point of view. Isn’t that the village’s job?

You are certainly right in saying that, “The towns for years have paid little attention to the village, despite village residents accounting for about half the population in the two towns.” Their plan certainly continues that tradition.

But the important information that the residents of the village need to have to decide on this issue is what savings will there be or what services will we lose if the village goes away. The towns can’t tell us that, only the village can and up to this point, rightly or wrongly, the village has not.

John Grimes
Medina

Editor:

I am writing in reference to the method of dismissal of Susan Rudnicky by the board of the Hoag Library.  I have been involved at the executive board level of several organizations and while there are many ways to cease employment of an employee, I would suggest that public humiliation is the worst for both the severed employee and also for the entity itself.

I have no frame of reference as to the issues which precipitated the decision to terminate this employee, nor do I know Ms. Rudnicky, but certainly there were several better ways to end a career.

I would also suggest that the irreparable damage down to Ms. Rudnicky is equal to that done to the reputation of the decision makers.  This is a black mark on this small town and it reverberates and cannot be erased or diminished.

Karen Watt
Albion

Editor:

I read that the Village Board of Medina was upset because the two towns of Shelby and Ridgeway sent out a letter explaining how they would deal with the dissolution of the Village of Medina.

I am a bit confused, isn’t information like this important to help residents of the village make the decision whether or not they want to get rid of the village? I certainly am glad to know what our costs or loss of services will be if we do choose dissolution.

Sincerely,

John S. Grimes
Medina

Friends and Neighbors of Medina:

We are seeking re-election to Medina Village Board on the Village Party line, and would be honored to have your support on March 18.

We are proud of our accomplishments in our brief time on the board. Downtown continues its boom. Businesses have breathed new life into abandoned buildings left for dead. Outsiders look to Medina for fresh ideas on how to make their communities stronger.

These successes are beginning to fulfill our vision for Medina to become a forward-looking community that capitalizes on its unique assets to create new opportunities for residents and businesses alike.

If re-elected, our next steps towards this goal include:

1. Fueling Downtown’s Continued Rebirth. We will continue to promote our burgeoning downtown through support of the Chamber and MBA, and changing the zoning to accommodate emerging winery, brewery and distillery businesses.

2. Continuing to Address Neighborhood Blight. In the last year, we demolished two problem structures on Genesee Street to clear the way for new investment, and collaborated with the county on the successful ongoing redevelopment of Jubilee (now Evans Ace Hardware) and the former Territory Wholesale warehouse, both on East Center Street. In the coming year our sights will be set on the former Starlight Drycleaner and Bernie’s Laundromat downtown, and the many mansions throughout the village that lie dormant in foreclosure limbo.

3. Growing Non-Tax Revenues. Some village infrastructure has significant excess capacity, such as the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and we need to attract more paying customers from throughout our region. More revenues from outside Medina will reduce village taxpayer’s maintenance burden. We must also develop strategies to grow ambulance revenues.

4. Upgrading Efficiency of Existing Infrastructure. Strategic investments that promote efficiency will trim operational costs in the long run. A comprehensive leak detection program throughout our water system is one of our priorities in the coming year.

We must also remove barriers to new private investment. Our high combined village/town/school/county tax rate drives business and residents out of the village. While we continue to do our very best to keep taxes in check despite declining village tax base, Medina needs a significant tax reduction to thrive in the long run.

To this end, we will seriously consider the Dissolution Plan once it is released, and we trust our committee of Don Colquhoun, Charlie Slack, Mark Irwin, Cindy Robinson, and Thurston Dale to diligently investigate every option. Until their important work is done, we must reserve judgment.

Nonetheless, in order for us to support the eventual plan, it must:

1. PRESERVE SERVICES

2. PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR VILLAGE WORKERS and

3. SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE TAXES IN THE VILLAGE.

If these elements are present, then the village voters should have the final say at a referendum on the plan. We have enormous confidence in our residents to balance the interests and determine our destiny.

We love this village. To us, Medina is so much more than a boundary line. Rather, it is defined by her people, shared history, institutions, and sense of place. These will remain with us forever, regardless of the outcome of any election. Our goal is make these stronger, so they may endure for generations to come.

We need your help and confidence to keep our momentum rolling, and would appreciate your support on March 18.

Andrew Meier
Mayor

Pat Crowley
Trustee

David Barhite
Trustee

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

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:

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