Dear Editor,
In response to Neil Eisenberg's letter in your last issue, I would, ALSO, like to extend my best wishes for his continued success in any new and future endeavors;and to thank him for his past volunteer work on the Onteora School board.
Rita Vanacore, Onteora Trustee
Shokan, NY

Dear Editor,
This letter is in response to Brian Hollander's comments on my letter to the editor on page 26 in the June 30 issue of the Woodstock Times. Brian declined to publish this letter siting their policy of keeping letters to about 300-500 words.
First Brian, let me appreciate that you took the time to focus on this Large Parcel issue through the medium of my letter. In addition I'm happy that you gave my letter, your reply, and thus this painful issue such prominence in the paper. I hope that any dialogue that this stirs up will assist in bringing our various community elements back into more harmony.
Now to my response to your comments. I must say that while I assumed that you would want to publish a response to my letter, I had [naively apparently] hoped that it would be done with a sense of seriousness rather than the snide tone that permeates many of your responses [when you are not just quoting Cahill's letter]. I guess snideness is what passes for 'good' rhetorical tricks in your way of doing things. Your reply contains an air of flippancy that I think does you disservice when addressing such a profoundly painful and communally disruptive situation and is one of the points I made about your editorial tone on June 16th. As you mentioned, as editor, you can print most anything you want. Please try looking at this issue with a bit more of your journalistic hat on. While I did mention your editorial in the June 16th issue, I also mentioned other comments that have appeared in the Times [you mentioned some of them in your response]. In
addition, while an editorial column is obviously a place for your personal views, you still haven't addressed the central point in my letter which is that you seem to ignore straightforward facts that 'contradict' your views. Editorial or no, truth counts Brian. This is not something that reflects well on you.
Simply quoting Cahill and leaving it at that with no reference to where the letter is published [unless it is private communication to you, of course], is not real journalism. Would you be willing to print the letter from Cahill or at least give a reference so that interested persons can read it in it's entirety and understand the context of the quotes you use? While he is an elected official and thus his utterances rate some exposure, a good journalist would check him out on his facts and do some back ground work to put what you find in context. If you had done so, you would know that in some of the quotes he is not telling the truth in some cases, and in other cases, he is using the 'truth' to obfuscate. As a journalist, and someone likely to be hip to 'political speak' you should be on to such tactics. You even referred to your awareness of this kind of tactic in your reply to my letter. Why haven't
you checked him out? Is it because of this anti Olive bias that 'clouds' your journalism? Is it because of your long friendship with Cahill [which is fine with me if it is, but as a competent journalist, you need to put that out front, no?]?
If you were trying to get at the truth, Brian, you would go to the trouble of reading the legislative record IN IT'S ENTIRETY and know that, while the Large Parcel Law 'passed unanimously', ALMOST ALL legislation used to pass that way with almost NO legislators present during the voting process due to the rules of the legislative houses [this is one of the things that has drawn such public ire about Albany, which I'm sure that you know, and the rule used in this instance was, when this law passed, that if a legislator wasn't present in the hall at role call time, which most legislators weren't, their vote was counted as a YES vote]. Why didn't you challenge that 'quote' from Cahill as any good journalist would do? Did you actually check to see if he was present on that vote or was it a 'default' vote? Do the journalism Brian, please. You owe it to your readers, Woodstockers or not?
And by the way, you have missed the point again when you imply that the State Association of Counties supported the bill. That was true of the bill as originally proposed which is something that I would do as well. The problem is that it was not worded as it was 'approved' when
the law was actually voted on. Check it out.
You say that you want only that equally appraised houses in each town pay equal taxes. That is a consistent point in your print words, BUT why do you not check to see if that is the actual intent or even the likely outcome of the Large Parcel Law. I have done the research and can assure you that it was not either the intent nor the likely outcome of the law, quotes from Cahill not withstanding. Would you be willing to do that same THOROUGH research [you can use the same public record that I did] and do a true, unbiased story on this point? I would love
to see THAT in print in the Woodstock times! On the other hand, if you are not, then obviously the public, including Woodstockers, can not expect to get a straight story from you. That would be sad given the pain that you are contributing to in the school board as members continually face the pressure of this screwed up law.
I note, as you point out in your response to my letter, that Paul Smart has done a piece on the reval going on in Olive. I don't know if it was in response to my letter or not, but it clearly does not show that Olive is dragging it's feet. However, I also note that you are still implying in your response to me, that there is a bit of foot dragging going on. Perhaps, as a comparison, you could do some simple research and find out how long it took from the absolute beginning of the idea to a full completion of the last reval in Woodstock. I note in Paul's story that Olive's reval is expected to complete in about two years from a dead start beginning. How does that compare with Woodstock's record? Isn't this about average? Do the journalism, Brian?
So, in summary, Brian, you have simply repeated your mistakes when you say the Large Parcel Law "should not be repealed because it has worked. Properties of equal value are [for the moment, while Large Parcel is in force] closer to paying similar amounts of school taxes. And the sword of large parcel disappears when Olive completes the revaluation." You have not shown either of these to be true, but are simply repeating the 'conventional wisdom' of those who have gained a momentary 'benefit' from this screwed up law with out doing simple fact checking. You have also 'hedged your bet' by using the word 'closer' which is basically meaningless. If this law was intended to achieve the parity that you say you want, then you wouldn't have to resort to such
slick use of words. When you are interested in doing the journalism [NOTE: throwing in a few anecdotes about comparing a single sale in Woodstock with a single sale in Olive won't cut it. Anyone can cherry pick the data to 'prove' a bias. Journalism is about getting the WHOLE story.] I think that you will find that you are wrong that Onteora will be out from under the "the sword of large parcel ... when Olive completes the revaluation". Again, as in my last letter, I ask you to do the math and the story. Check your facts [please let's not hear more quotes from Cahill, but instead, straightforward journalistic research on your part quoting, if you need quotes, competent professionals on what the law really means.] The pain and disharmony will continue as long as the Large Parcel is not changed or repealed. It will not end with Olive's reval. Is that what you want to contribute to?
You propose that all will be well once Olive has completed its reval [and by the way, just when is it that you are going to 'go after' Shandaken to reval?]. I hope, though it is a dim hope given your responses to my letter, that you will have done a bit of research when you discover that after the Olive reval is completed that it is not the solution to the Large Parcel's distortions in our community and begin to
help in the search for a true solution.
Jac Conaway
Olivebridge, NY

Dear Editor,
I n the past two-plus years, since the Large Parcel option became known, Woodstock Times has published 31 articles on the subject, more than 31,000 words, written by six different writers, not to mention seven editorials, and about a hundred letters to the editor.
Beginning in June, 2003, in print:
We've discussed the bill jacket arguments; have repeatedly discussed Olive's perceived plight; discussed it with state Legislators on both sides of the aisle and in both houses of the legislature; have discussed the issue with the Catskill Watershed Corporation, the Catskill Center, and officials of all the towns included, including many Olive officials. We have repeatedly laid out the exact provisions of the law, and examined what other states do in terms of funding schools; we’ve written about the political implications; and about how the Ashokan Reservoir valuation figures into it, including a two-part interview with the New York City Commissioner of the DEP. We have allowed comments from all segments of the population, and have kept our opinions to editorials and columns, but out of the news stories. We published a 2,500 word back-and-forth with Dr. Conaway, and felt that other voices also deserved to be heard, though we extend to him and all readers of The Olive Press the invitation to be heard in our letters to the editor column.
Brian Hollander, Editor
Woodstock Times

Dear Editor,
When interviewed by the press for his response to the Large Parcel lawsuit, Woodstock supervisor Jeremy Wilber attempted to defend his own position by publicly attacking the character of Charles Blumstein. This appears to be typical of Wilber’s tactics.
Wilber in the past has continually accused Olive residents of cheating, of “getting away with” not paying their “fair share”. He has convinced many that Olive was to blame for high Woodstock taxes. He has caused angry recrimination against Olive by residents in other towns in order to justify his own active support and promotion of the “Large Parcel Law” -which has been interpreted to mean that property taxes paid by New York City for its Reservoir holdings in Olive, are to go not to the town of Olive, but to be apportioned throughout the school district and county.
The constant spin put on this issue by the Woodstock Town Supervisor has almost totally obliterated basic facts. New York City has paid taxes to Olive ever since it purchased thousands of properties from tax-paying Olive residents and businesses in order to build the Reservoir. NYC thereby became a tax-paying Olive property holder just like everyone else. Wilber found this situation reprehensible on Olive’s part. Wilber insists that the NYC half of Olive’s tax revenues rightfully belongs to all residents in the School District and in the County, a somewhat bizarre line of reasoning.
The effect of the Large Parcel Law and of Jeremy Wilber’s policies has been devastating. Goodwill and cooperation between local communities is turning into dissention and conflict. For Olive residents there has been a huge tax increase; for residents in other towns a fairly minor decrease. Only owners of sizeable and extremely high value properties in Woodstock like Jeremy Wilber, of course, stand to benefit substantially from the Large Parcel Law. t
Marlene Colgate
Shokan, NY

Dear Editor,
This letter is in response to a quote by Jeremy Wilber where he assassinates the character of Charlie Blumstein and Dave Patterson in the article that appeared in the Woodstock Times titled: Tell the judge--Olive resident files large parcel suit I am particularly disturbed by his comments about Mr. Blumstein.
Wilber says: ". . . Blumstein is on his way to earning the title of the Blanche DuBois of the Onteora School District. Having so long lived off the kindness of strangers, the poor man is now confusing it for an entitlement. How fortunate for him that we have school board members like Dave Patterson who are willing to completely abnegate their responsibilities so that these poor individuals like Mr. Blumstein can continue to prosper."

In the play Jeremy Wilber is probably referring to, Blanche is a social pariah due to her indiscrete sexual behavior. She has a bad drinking problem, is destitute, insecure, and is a dislocated individual who lives in a state of perpetual panic about her fading beauty. She is raped, and lives the rest of her life in an institution. And this is who Mr. Wilber is comparing Mr. Blumstein to? And he says that Dave Patterson is irresponsible ?
Please tell Jeremy Wilber that in his attempt at defining Mr. Blumstein, he has well defined himself as an evil, mean-spirited, inhumane and ugly individual.
Judith Boggess
Shokan, NY

Dear Editor,
I was delighted to read in the recent advertisement of Crossroads Ventures LLC, of this company's great generosity to our community. We have a great deal to be grateful for in their support of so much that is valued by our community and that shapes its vitality and individuality. I do hope that the donors are aware of our appreciation and will feel encouraged to continue their very generous support of
initiatives and services so central to the well-being of our community.
The proposed resort however is of a different scale, character, and impact on our community than the causes to which donations were made; many of us express very real concerns that such a development, everything that comes with it, and that it opens our home to, would destroy the very aspects that we value most about living in this very beautiful state park, recently acknowledged as a bio-gem of our planet. This area also provides life-shaping experiences of wilderness for many who do not reside here, and is of paramount value as a rare fresh water supply for ourselves and for a great city at a time of exponentially escalating planetary shortages of unpolluted drinking water.
If we pride ourselves on being a democracy, then it is essential that all must be encouraged to speak freely of their concerns, listen to all others, be listened to carefully and respectfully by all others, and
that we discuss issues central to the shaping of our lives and future of the area until action can be taken on the wishes of the majority with the minority's consent — however long this takes. I sincerely ask
that the developers not to be impatient, but be prepared to go through a truly democratic process on matters profoundly affecting us all.
After all, everyone of us wants the same things — a vital and nourishing community able to work respectfully with dissension and difficulty, an example of how to provide for our children, our grandchildren and our neighbors a non-violated, challenging, and profound life embodying the very best of human experience that we can make possible. For the majority of us, this includes intimate contact with the inspiring and healing wholeness of a rich natural environment to which we are rare, and most fortunate, heirs in Shandaken.
Ros McIntosh
Mt Tremper, NY

Dear Editor,
Dean Gitter deemed it necessary to pay for a full page ad in the Phoenicia Times to try to malign our quiet neighbors at the Monastery. Why?! Because they take their civic rights seriously enough to take the time to understand and be involved in the local political “process”? Because HE thinks they have “no visible means of support? Is commercialism the only means of support that counts? He states that the members of the Monastery “toil not, nor do they spin”. Instead of bloviating about his good works, he might learn something about the support services that the Zen Monastery offers quietly, without boasting about it in full page ads. Perhaps he is familiar with the phrase “Let not your right hand know what your left hand is doing”. Now, that is TRUE charity.
Crossroads has spent lots of money hoping to make the town “grateful”. (See his long ad listing all the ways Crossroads Ventures keeps trying to buy the town’s favor.) The donations of this self-named “greedy developer” do not make his opinion the only valid opinion. To keep bragging about the amount he has spent on this project already only goes to illustrate how much Crossroads intends to “reap” if the project is ever completed. Mr. Gitter complains about “loud opponents”, yet he takes a full-page ad to brag loudly about the crumbs he has thrown us to try to buy allegiance. Why does he claim virtue in supporting “every local cause from Little League to the Shandaken Theatrical Society” when local townspeople have been supporting these causes for years with their own efforts and regular donations? These are business deductions for Crossroads, and don’t cost him a cent personally.
Good grief! I’ve tried to keep a low profile, not having energy for all the worthwhile projects surrounding and enveloping us every day, but Dean Gitter’s arrogance and accusations (not to mention quoting of Scripture!) are just beyond tolerance. We UNDERSTAND Crossroad’s and Gitter’s motivation -their job is to make tons of money - that’s not the issue. The rest ofus are entitled to our own opinions and motivations as least as much as he is. Anne Nissen Shandaken, NY
Dear Editor,
Why is the New York State Health Dept (and the powers above them) against health? An estimated 6,000 New Yorkers die annually from infections they get in the hospital.
The Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths (RID) and other patient advocates worked hard to win legislative approval for a bill providing the public with hospital infection report cards. These report cards are needed. If you must be hospitalized, you should be able to find out which hospital in your area has the highest infection rate.
At the final hours of the legislative session, the health department insisted lawmakers delay making the report cards public for four years!! That's outrageous. Every delay will cost more lives. It's time government was on our side, instead of on our backs.
Betsy McCaughey, Founder
Committee to Reduce
Infection Deaths
New York, NY

Dear Editor,
Rita Dee's marvelous sculpture, Atticus, should not be removed from in front of the Ulster County courthouse because it is a powerful and very personal artistic statement. I am an art historian, college professor, and museum curator with undergraduate and graduate degrees in art history from Harvard University. I am a specialist in the interpretation of religious art. I am also a liberal democrat, an atheist/humanist, and a member of the Hudson Valley Humanists, as well as a member of the Art Society of Kingston. I am strongly opposed to putting the Ten Commandments, or any other religion's message, in any government sanctioned space. But this is an entirely different matter. This sculpture is dominantly an impressive work of art, not a religious statement. As a liberal and a humanist, I would strongly condemn any effort to remove it. The fact that, when you inspect this work closely, you encounter some, but not all of the Ten Commandments, and some other Judeo-Christian phrases, does not in any way make it a clear-cut statement in favor of any religion. Like most art, its meaning is ambiguous, and can go either way. I originally interpreted Dee's work as an anti-religious satire. Many a religious person might object to these sacred messages woven into the body of a horse. And the work of art itself is in direct violation of the Second Commandment. "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." (Exodus 20, from a Jewish Bible.) The Second Commandment is conspicuously absent from the sculpture. After all, this is an image of a horse. So the sculpture could be interpreted as demonstrating why the Ten Commandments cannot be simply considered a general code of good behavior. The Second Commandment is clearly against realistic art. The first and third commandments, about only worshipping the one true God, and proscribing the veneration of images, would be offensive to half the religions of the Earth. To remove this wonderful work of art from in front of the courthouse would be to follow in Rudi Giuliani's footsteps, when he tried to close down the "Sensation" exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum.
James K. Kettlewell
Saratoga Springs, NY

Dear Editor,
Recently our Ulster County Election Commissioners have been empowered by the State Legislature to make the decision of their lives - and our lives.
The New York State Legislature has told the two election commissioners of each county to choose the type of voting machine to be used from now on. No, we cannot stay with the good old lever system that has served us well.
As a citizen of Ulster County who wants my vote counted, I ask Commissioner Castiglione and Commissioner Turco to insist on a Paper Based Optical Scan system, not the Touch Screen Electronic (DRE) system which the manufacturers have been enthusiastically selling them on for months. I demand, also, that our Ulster County Legislators, and those now running for that office, take responsibility for ensuring the most trustworthy and economical choice.
A Paper Based Optical Scan system based in our precincts is not perfect, but it is the best option available to ensure our precious right to vote. We need a system with a paper record, not written in computerese, which will be available for recounts by the people.
Election results must be known at the precinct on Election night, not clicked away to a mysterious Central Command. Voter mistakes must be correctable in present time. Each ballot type (Regular, Provisional, Absentee) should be clearly marked in words, not code. Provision must be made for disabled voters. The six states now using Paper Based Optical Scanners know that those only fulfill these criteria. They are simple and proven reliable.
Paper Ballots/ Optical Scan is also the only choice which will not bankrupt the taxpayers of Ulster County! Projected comparison of costs per polling place: Paper based Optical Scan: $10,250, Touch Screen (DRE): $24,000. Not to mention costs of complicated DRE maintenance, replacement, storage, extra poll workers, and long lines at the polls. All borne by the county - us.
This Spring The Miami/Dade County, Florida Supervisor of Elections recommended scrapping their $24,000,000 DRE system because of flawed vote counts and tripled election day costs since their installation. (see nyvv.org/documents for lots of such reports).
This is not brain surgery, as they say. I will, and we all must, hold our Ulster Election Commissioners accountable for their choice, which is supposed to be made by September!
We Americans joke about politicians, but we still trust that our votes count. Let's face it, a centrally located, corporately controlled, easily hacked DRE computer system is an enormous temptation. We do not want to be licking our wounds, looking dazed, wondering what happened to our precious democracy. Call or write to your County officials and campaigners. We can't leave it to "the other guy." The other guy is a well paid salesperson.
Joan Walker
Woodstock, NY

Dear Editor,
It is my opinion that there is an urgent and pressing need for more restrooms in the Catskill Region. Whether I am streaming down Rt.28 or Rt.23 I notice a plethora of shops and stands, yet there are few legal places to relieve oneself. Everyone wants to sell you drinks, but where is all that liquid supposed to go? After inquiring about a restroom, I'm bowled over as some drip behind the counter tells me they have no bathroom. Where do they go, in a bucket? Maybe they're just yellow and are afraid some tourist will soil their personal porcelain. Keeping a bathroom clean can be draining, but providing one for money-spending tourists can be an asset to their business. It doesn't take a wiz to figure out that more people will drop in if they can use the facilities.
Will shopkeepers make customer relief a number one priority? Depends. If they poo-poo the notion that providing relief will increase the flow of traffic into their shops, then no. However, if they are privy to the needs of their customers,they should take the plunge, remove those "out of order" signs, and open those doors! Thats all I can say for now as this took a lot out of me and I'm pooped.
Paul Misko
Woodland Valley, NY

Dear Editor,
What better way to unwind and cool-off at the end of a summer's day than to go for a swim at the Olive Town pool? The privilege of being able to enjoy this wonderful facility makes me feel like a member of a country club.
At 4:00 when Recreation is over, the pool is turned over to the townspeople. The trouble is that the Recreation users have left the locker rooms a shambles. The whole place is soaking wet: floor, lockers, benches. The mats are awry and there are bits of refuse strewn about.
Granted, summer is a time for high spirits and fun, but it is no excuse for abusing this wonderful asset and ruining it for the enjoyment of others.
Counselors and parents must be made aware that they are responsible for keeping the children under control and teaching them to repect others and to appreciate how fortunate they are to have this fine facility.
Joe Holdner
Krumville, NY