(letters from January 5, 2006)
Dear Editor,
In a recent editorial on the discussions at OCS about creating a middle school, you wrote, “Secondly, the Middle School model -- which we could only eschew completely knowing that it would then set our students apart from a shared national and state experience -- suggests that mid-grade students learn best when in their own school, yet with access to the sports and classroom facilities of junior and senior high schoolers.”
I am puzzled by this assertion and by the school district’s interest in the creation of a middle school. The middle school model is 40 years old. The more recent educational research literature no longer supports the idea. It is a very expensive solution to the education of pre-teens and young teens, even if it is in response to declining enrollment at the elementary schools and difficulty in meeting State accountability standards at the junior high. If research is any indictor, it is also an approach that is not likely to work.
A newer idea is moving to a K-8 model. Aside from the obvious advantage of leaving grades 7 and 8 in a more nurturing, closer to home neighborhood school, it also would solve the problem of decreasing enrollments in the elementary buildings, and it would eliminate the disruption and annoyance that would no doubt be caused by shifting students and closing schools.
The idea of special middle schools to serve adolescents became popular in the 1960s. Schools vary in how they define a middle student, but generally the middle grades can include grades 5 through 8. Although there is no exact definition, middle schools usually serve students in either grades 5 or 6 through grade 8. Some districts have junior high schools instead of middle schools. Junior high school most often focuses on grades 7 and 8. About 20 years ago, educators became concerned about the significant challenges faced by middle grade students. Research followed that focused on middle schools and suggested reform was necessary. Creating new middle schools was not advocated, but instead attention was given to fixing the problems of existing middle schools.
The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development published Turning Points (Report of the Task Force on Education and Youth Adolescents, New York) in 1989, which highlighted the importance of children's transition during the middle grades. It has sparked debate and additional research on the middle school years, including Great Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, New York, 1995). These publications and other research pointed out that the organization and curriculum of middle and junior high schools are often inconsistent with students' intellectual, emotional, and interpersonal needs. For many young people, this change means leaving the neighborhood elementary school to be thrust into a much larger, possibly more impersonal environment some distance from home.
The Carnegie Council concluded that the middle school curriculum does not encourage critical, complex thinking. They advocated the creation of learning teams, a core academic curriculum, the elimination of tracking (sorting students according to their ability level into homogeneous classes, rather than placing them in classes containing a mixture of ability levels), and the hiring of teachers who have been specifically trained to teach in the middle grades. In 1998, the Center for Collaborative Education in Boston (CCE) began to develop a school reform design that would be based on the research and work of the preceding nine years. In 1999 the U.S. Department of Education awarded grants to seven organizations to develop models of school reform. This support, along with funding from private foundations, meant research continued on the issue. In Turning Points 2000 (Teacher's College Press, New York, 2000), Anthony Jackson and Gayle Davis examined the progress being made and the experiences of middle school teachers and administrators. Turning Points 2000 builds on the original Turning Points, with added emphasis on improving curriculum, assessment, and instruction.
The Turning Points model includes seven points for middle-grades school reform: rigorous standards and curriculum, equitable and excellent instruction, preparation and support of expert teachers, schools organized into small units and instructional teams, democratic governance, a healthy learning environment, and schools linked with parents and communities. According to the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, in 2005, 71 schools in 13 states (California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin) were implementing the Turning Points model. According to the National Forum to Accelerate Middle School Reform, in Illinois, there was a rise in student achievement and fewer student behavior problems, and in Massachusetts’ middle schools, the Turning Points schools had gains in the Massachusetts Educational Assessment Program.
According to the RAND corporation (Rand Education, Problems and Promise of the American Middle School, Rand Research Brief, Santa Monica, California, 2004), in spite of these reform efforts, middle schools continue to have challenges. The transitions required by a separate middle school may cause problems that affect students’ development and academic achievement. RAND recommends that states and school districts consider alternatives to the 6-8 structure.
According to Education World (Sharon Cromwell, K-8 Schools: An Idea for the New Millennium?, 1999) Colorado Education Commissioner William Moloney reported that adding two grades to K-6 schools is less costly than building new middle schools, and in Higley, Arizona, a growing town near Phoenix, the school board decided to build five new K-8 schools rather than elementary and middle or junior high schools. A school board member stated that it makes sense to keep adolescents in the elementary school setting. School officials reported that older students in K-8 schools are less likely to be influenced by negative peer pressure than they are in middle schools and junior high schools.
According to Programs and Practices in K-8 Schools: Do They Meet the Educational Needs of Young Adolescents? (C. Kenneth McEwin, Thomas S. Dickinson, and Michael G. Jacobson, National Middle School Association, Westerville, Ohio, 2004), Cincinnati and Cleveland, Ohio; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Memphis, Tennessee; Baltimore, Maryland and Milwaukee, Wisconsin have plans to transition students from middle schools to K-8 schools. According to the author, there is no data available yet on whether young students in K-8 schools perform better than they do in middle schools.
The jury is still out on the K-8 model, and while it might be true that a separate middle school is preferable to a 7-12 building, there is no good evidence to support your assertion that middle grade students learn “best” when in their own school. Yes, it is a good idea to “set our students apart from a shared national and state experience” when that experience has not been a positive one.
Gina Giuliano, PhD
Castleton & Samsonville, NY

Dear Editor,
President Bush confirmed on Saturday that he has authorized the spying on Americans without a court order, which is stipulated under the Foreign Intelligent Surveillance Act of 1978. Instead, the Administration is claiming that he has the authority under the Constitution, but if you read the Constitution, you will not find any mention of spying on Americans. In reality, Bush’s authority came from the Yoo memo, which was written by John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, which basically says that the President has unlimited authority in a time of war. But just because a lawyer writes a memo saying it is so, does not make it so.
This is the most outrageous example of an activist executive completely disregarding the Constitution and Congressional oversight and must immediately be addressed by the American people. This policy of spying on Americans translates into a criminal act by the Bush Administration and is one that Bush readily admitted and said that he would continue. He has openly declared his dismissal of our nation’s laws when he stated that "America would be a lot better off if it were a Dictatorship as long as I am the Dictator." It seems that he is much closer to that end than we imagined.
Kelly Keck
Stamford, NY

Dear Editor,
Although my heart goes out to hurricane Katrina’s victims, my heart aches for my daughter, her husband and their three children (ages 12, 6, 2), who lost their home to the April 2005 flood.
It took, what seemed like, forever for them to find a house they could afford that was big enough to fit their family. Finally in October 2003, just a few weeks after their third child, Dakota, was born they went to closing on their house. The house was small, on a very quiet country road in the town of Phoenicia. The Esopus Creek was just across the road and has a great little area for fishing. It was a wonderful little spot in the mountains and, although it was hard to maintain and the mortgage payments were steep, all the effort and insanity to get the place was worth it.
They hoped someday to upgrade the place and possibly add on. The windows needed repair, the yard needed work, but it was good enough to raise three children and start a little day care for young kids in the area. They decorated, planted flowers and dreamed of expansion..
Needless to say, that time didn’t come. Instead 5 inches of rain fell. The Esopus ran to flood stage and the creek, having no place to go but through the open area across the road, swept through the house like a raging river. The walls and floors were soaked and covered in silt. The foundation was bowed and a footing to the foundation was undermined. Even though they lost just about everything, the income earned from the day care was lost and the mortgage payments were still due, they felt secure in the knowledge that: they had flood insurance; the area was declared a federal disaster; FEMA would help and they would be able to repair their home.
What they didn’t realize is that it would never happen. They have been stuck in a quagmire of bureaucratic inconsistencies. The County condemned the house. The flood insurance company determined that the damage exceeded more than 50% of its value. The town zoning codes and the 100 year flood plan developed by FEMA now required that the foundation be raised eleven feet.
They hired an engineer to develop plans to raise the foundation as required. He determined that the house was not structurally sound enough to raise and suggested that the house be torn down and rebuilt.
And the fun part begins! The insurance company only covers the damage created by the flood and the eleven foot foundation, leaving them approximately $24,000.00 short to rebuild. FEMA and RUPCO have denied their request for funding; SHARP can only offer a low interest loan, Catholic Charities has not responded to their application, the $580,000.00 granted to the County by Governor Pataki is solely for the benefit of
those victims who owned trailers; and the Red Cross offered approximately $5,000.00, provided they exhaust all other remedies.
The low interest loan may seem like an option to most but they have had to continue making their monthly loan installments of $1,100.00 for a piece of damaged ground; their additional income is gone; FEMA has only allowed rental monies for a one bedroom cottage to accommodate two adults and three children; and the heating bill is breaking the bank.
There have been many loving and generous people within the community, particularly from friends and co-workers at Onteora School District. We have been in constant communication with assistants at Congressman Hinchey’s office and Senator Clinton’s office who are working with us to see if there is any chance to obtain further funding from FEMA; and County Legislators, Peter Kraft and Brian Shapiro, have made numerous calls in an attempt to find the funding necessary to rebuild.
However, the new year is upon us; it has been nine months since the flood; there is a whole in the ground and in my heart; and my daughter, her husband and their three children need their home.
John Parete has offered the Boiceville Inn for a benefit; I am hoping to find members of the community and musicians willing to donate their talent and energy for that event; and bank account has been opened for the Ryder Family Relief Fund at Ulster Savings Bank, Twin Maples Plaza, Route 9W, Saugerties, New York 12477 for any of those who might want to give financial assistance.
For further information please call me at (845) 657-8171 or write to me at 65 Piney Point Road, Boiceville, New York 12412.
Pat Stroh
Boiceville, NY

Dear Editor,
In his live weekly radio address from the White House on Saturday, December 17, President Bush stated that two of the hijackers who flew a plane into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hamzi and Halid al-mihdhar "communicated while they were in the United States to other members of Al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here until it was too late."
This was Bush's reason for ordering the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the U.S. without first obtaining warrants.
The Presidential Daily Brief received by George W. Bush on August 6, 2001 was titled: Biin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.
"Al Qaeda members - some of whom are U.S. citizens - have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks..."
The August 6 brief clearly states that a cell, people acting as members of a cell, existed at that time.
The president asserts that no advisor told him about a cell and that during the first half of 2001 he "asked his briefers if any of the threats pointed to this country." The record is clear that from September 2000 and on, Bush was repeatedly told of just such threats.
You know what those quotation marks mean? That it is all in the report for anyone to see. Bush and very much so Cheney are continually trying to keep our citizenry in a state of fear. That was the Nazi's technique and bragged about to keep the German people docile and in control. You can fool most of the people most of the time? Do the leaders of countries regard their people as stupid, easy to fool? As long as you don't interfere with the people's 'mashed potatoes and gravy,' ask no sacrifices like the current Iraq tragedy, you can rip off and waste billions of dollars and get thousands of men and women, who are anonymous to the war makers (notice their children are not in harm's way) killed and tragically maimed.
Do you remember that look of transfixed and almost catatonic pleasure that Bush had when he was told in the Florida Kindergarten class that terrorists had struck the World Trade Center? Do you remember how proud and pleased Bush was that he now was a 'wartime' president?
So what do we have? A president who is a liar; a delusional president, or as one of his top aides said, "we create our own reality..." It is extremely difficult to publicly call a sitting president a liar. The 9/11 Commission could not do it, though they certainly knew it to be the case. Bush realizes it and he appears to be willing to push the envelope as far as he can, unless that is really overestimating his intelligence. The question is not what Bush ahs to lose (there is a lot of agreement that he is the worst president we have ever had) but what will the American people lose and for generations to come? Leave off the Democratic/Republican debate. That's not where it is at.
Robert Jacobson
Mount Tremper, NY

Dear Editor,
A man who was strongly opposed to my counter-recruiting, anti-war activity in front of the recruiting center at the Kings Mall asked me to remember why I served in the army during World War II.
I remember very clearly; we were fighting fascism then. I believe that this country has been moving closer to fascism under Bush than I have ever before experienced and now it has happened here; the revelation of secret spying on American citizens without judicial or congressional oversight. This is unadulterated fascism and the claim that congress was consulted is bullshit. Several handpicked senators were told; there was no debate in closed committee or otherwise.
The "Big Lie," Adolf Hitler's tool for manipulation of public opinion, is practiced here, and too many Americans seem to be eager to accept Bush's lies. Remember what the 'good Germans' said after the war? "What could we do?"
What we can do is to have access to more information than our government would like us to have, to think clearly, to remember history, to vote against the war profiteers in congress, to speak out without any fear.
Jay Wenk
Woodstock, NY

Dear Editor,
“Together, America Can Do Better.” That’s the Democrats’ new slogan. (They actually paid a messaging team to come up with it.) This insipid new slogan is coming from a leadership of people, who, for the past several years, run on a Democratic platform and then support the Republican platform most of the time. How do they not blush in the presence of their constituency they so routinely betray? Indeed, America can do better.
Notice from the grass roots Dems to the DC leadership: “It’s time to drop the politeness and say it like it is: You have made yourselves irrelevant. It is time for a change in our country’s ‘leadership.’ And the determined new political force for change cannot be found on more meaningless sloganeering, or in the dysfunctional, pandering, and weak-spined, ‘opposition’ party called the Democrats. Who was it that said ‘Effective politics is about developing a disciplined organization. Good politics is about developing a message and educating voters. Smart politics is about knowing how to lead with both’? That’s it. Lead, or step out of the way.”
We can no longer tolerate business-as-usual politicians—in either party—who are at odds with their electorate, who will not act to restore our civil liberties now under siege, end the illegal occupancy of Iraq, reassert the constitutional restraints on executive power and, finally, put impeachment on the table so the American people can claim they did all they could by demanding accountability from this rogue administration.
To the muted and feckless Dems—though so courageous in voting down their voting base—afraid of risking privilege for principle, and to those who persist in challenging the patriotism of those who refuse to cave in to the status quo, we must remind of the words of Theodore Roosevelt: “To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, it is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people.”
So? Then, too, we must remind and hold Bush to his own words, now the neo-conservative mantra: “Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.” Good grief, Bubble Boy is literally challenging us to impeach him! Who will challenge him with the truth? If the latest flaunting admission by the Administration about illegally spying on American citizens isn’t enough to evoke an unrelenting, unabashed, unstoppable tidal wave of outrage and exposure of the truth by the Democrats, we are doomed—and so is the Democratic Party. Bring on the rebels, says William Greider in The Nation this past week in talking about the growing insurgency and intraparty challenges within the Democratic Party. Here, here! Remember the mantra in 2002 (and again in 2004) from Dem leaders in Washington? “Follow the leaders and shut up.” Absolutely any talk of disenchantment with the party or the party leadership or the candidates was seen—even among the rank-and-file—as treasonous and an endangerment to the Party’s chance of regaining a majority in the House or Senate. Such continued logic (if one can call this logic) will ill serve the Democratic Party, which has managed to lose both houses of Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. Not because of weak Party unity. But because of the Party’s weak substance, empty agenda, lame candidates, lack of courage to speak truth to power, lack of concern for those they serve, and by not challenging the thefts of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections and, ultimately, by the utter contempt they display for the office they hold and the Constitution they swear to uphold by cowardly abdicating their most basic responsibilities. If the Dems mean business (and little so far points to this) they need to start making some noise, plot a strategy and stake out a position and do so boldly. No one would mistake the Washington Dems’ vacillating positions for strength. Strength is finding your voice. Having the courage of your convictions. Fighting for what you believe. This is not a time for caution, or timidity, or politeness. It is time to lead, to take chances, to be resolute, to fight back savagely—not to be hostage to corrupt advisors and the next elections. What have they got to lose? Certainly not elections. Certainly not any moral or political authority. They’ve forfeited that by abetting this Administration through their silent, and not so silent, complicity. And unless we all, as citizens, hold both the Repub and Dem leaders accountable, their big lie becomes ours. A Buzzflash editorial a while back had it right on the mark: “The Bushevics know this: tell a lie five times and it becomes truth; barrel ahead and you will eventually ride into another news cycle and the press will ease up and the public will forget about your latest crime against the nation; the party that shouts the loudest and the longest wins; intimidation, bullying, slander, fear and dirty tricks work.” So, maybe telling the truth five times, with committed, fiery passion, will work as well. And maybe the Dems will have to play a little dirty themselves.
NEWSFLASH: Politics is dirty business. Always has been, always will be. And the winners are always active risk takers—highly motivated toward a goal. Not wimps. You know what a wimp is: He’s the one who won’t fight under any circumstance. Ask him what he wants, and he just sighs. Poke him, and he flinches—and retreats. Confront him with a big problem, and he fumes and fusses and can’t make a decision. He’s far too ambivalent, and just sits around to see what happens next. (If that don’t describe…) So, Dems, hear up from Buzzflash:
“Start screaming at the top of your lungs and don’t let up, don’t back down, and don’t cut and run. If you don’t express passionate anger and inform the public at every turn, with every detail of Bush’s ongoing betrayal of the nation, they won’t be outraged; they will accept it as normalcy. Worse yet, they won’t even know they’re being duped by five years of the ‘big lie’ from the ‘boy in the bubble’ and his handlers. Because the ‘big lie,’ absent a sustained onslaught of the truth, becomes the truth. Pull the fire alarm and keep pulling it.” Yeah, bring on the rebels. Because nothing short of a dead-serious, full-scale, and determined-to-win rebellion will get rid of the dead weight dragging down the Party and our democracy; nothing less can revive the national Democratic Party and save it from the “ineffective big-money beast it’s become,” and the complete irrelevancy to which it’s heading. What’ve ya got to lose?
Barbara Ellis
Olivebridge, NY

Dear Editor,
I am an avid hunter (bow hunter) and have been for fifty years now. What I am about to say will definitely alienate some of my hunting buddies and some neighbors, so be it.
Big Game season is over. Why are the bags of corn and the crates of deer apples no longer flying out of the supply store doors? The act of feeding deer for past two years has been deemed illegal by the DEC. Baiting has always illegal and yet it and feeding are rampant. There is very good reason for both activities to be illegal. The primary reason for DEC implementing the feeding ban is to prevent the potential spread of Chronic Wasting Disease, which has been found in the Midwest and in a few deer in the Western part of our state. The DEC feels that feeding the deer concentrates them in small areas, where the com and apples are laid out and could enhance the possibility of spreading the disease. Research by DEC biologists and others has shown that artificial feeding can have other negative impacts on herd health. Feeding corn is often detrimental to the individual animal because their gut is programmed to digest browse.
So why does a lot of the “feeding” suddenly cease at the end of deer season? Because in reality it is “baiting.” Why do the pick-up trucks that go up and down the road at fifty mph suddenly on opening day of gun season are now going fifteen mph? What ever happened to “hunting?” Why not hunt by the rules? That big eight pointer so proudly displayed if shot over a bait pile or from the road is no trophy and nothing to be proud of.
A neighbor who openly feeds (baits) claims that he does it so the grandchildren can see the deer. Well, my response is end the “feeding” and take those grandchildren out into the woods away from the computer games and television, and let them see the deer in the wild if only a white tail. Their curiosity and enjoyment of the outdoors and all its intrigue will be greatly enhanced along with their physical fitness.
If we hunters want to continue to hunt and pass it on to the next generation we better recognize that these activities only give fodder to the anti-hunters. Feeding and baiting is not only illegal for good biological reasons, but unethical and unfair to the neighboring land owners and hunters. We have a lot of new landowners in the Catskills and most are from urban areas with strong anti-hunting sentiment. These folks have little or no understanding of ecosystem balance and how hunting plays into it. If we play by the rules and dialogue with these folks in a civil and rational manner our sport of hunting may survive.
If we retain a reverence for the creatures we kill and abide by the rules of fair chase we can be on firm ground when arguing our case (of which there will be much in the future).
Jack McShane
Andes, NY

Dear Editor;
When I learned American History in our one room school ['32-'39] in Olivebridge it included a course or two of the United States Constitution. Over some 67 years since then I have seen the Constitution which includes the 27 amendments, twisted, warped, scorched and ignored. Our Republican democracy has been through some rather testy trials by our congresses, by our presidents and indeed by our various judicial levels.
The latest attack on our "rights" is being waged by a president who now believes the constitution was written and implemented to favor my/our government over the people. He has his justice department [not a part of the judicial] hound dogs on the trail of those traitors who exposed his criminal act(s) just as [king] Richard Nixon and [emporer] Lyndon Johnson did; break the law and then hunt down those treacherous swine.
We are to be quiet when we see a violation of the 4th amendment not only by a misguided president but by a congress who proposed and passed the infamous "patriot act" which allows the illegal entry and search of our private homes, communications, travel, bank and church records, job sites and wherever we may go, eat or pray without the required and traditional search warrant. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, a Republican conservative and board member of the NRA is outraged by this "break and snoop" tactic.
We have war heroes in Congress whose patriotism is being questioned by a draft dodger in the Executive; 5 deferments add up to draft dodging. And our ambitious president is not off my hook as far as juggling service in the Air National Guard between Texas and Louisiana. Nat. Guard and Reserve personnel do not bounce around or transfer that easily. I know. I've been there; active [WWII & Korean] and reserve until '86.
There is however a chink in the armor of those howling the loudest re: the 4th amendment. Those same accusers that insist the Constitution leans in favor of the people also and in the same breath would tell us the 2nd amendment is the only amendment [of 27] that protects the government and it's right to limit or prevent our ownership of firearms. [The framers must have overindulged in the hops and grapes that day].
Those of you that sort out the constitution to suit yourself are destined to destroy that same constitution. I highly recommend reading the Federalist Papers which were published in order to explain and promote those articles before voting on them.
I keep asking this same question and no one can answer it factually and/or accurately; why are we in Iraq? No WMD's, no nuclear materiel, no terrorists until we landed there [remember, Sadaam didn't indulge competitors]. But a CIA secret agent was "outed". A large corporation [Halliburton] is making [and stealing] millions. Our young men and women are fighting an unidentifiable force who want to be martyrs. Treachery is the order of the day by those we wish to enjoy our type of freedom. Murphy's Law is working overtime and our leadership fails to recognize it.
Glenn T. Anderson
Olivebridge, NY

Dear Editor,
Apparently, our current "compassionate" leadership has no problem murdering people, especially if they are not white! Even if 31,000 dead Iraqis can be
justified by war (which is ridiculous), how can anyone justify murdering people just because they are uninsured?
Remember when Bush left his vacation early to try to “save” Terri Schiavo and grab some much needed right wing fundamentalist support with Fox News headlines? It’s no surprise he never mentioned the law he signed as Texas Governor that permits doctors to discontinue life support for “economic considerations.” This is what happened to Tirhas Habtegiris, an African woman dying of cancer in a Plano hospital. Yes, the cancer was consuming her body, but she was conscious and her one dying wish was to die in her mother’s arms. The hospital, using Bush’s law, told her family they had
10 days to pay the bill or the ventilator would be removed. That was not enough time to get her mother all the way from Africa and the ventilator was removed. She was killed, without having her mother by her side, because she was poor. How compassionate!
Renditions, torture, chemical weapons, death by lethal injection, compromising lives of undercover agents, killing poor people, letting hundreds die in floods, indefinite imprisonment with no charges, etc… no wonder the rest of the world considers America a rogue nation that threatens the world. They see the TRUTH that our leaders will do ANYTHING necessary to retain POWER. Guess what? We have nukes! How could anyone believe Bush has the compassion and restraint not to use them? I for one am very scared. Regime change IS necessary, but more importantly than in the Middle East, in our own Capitol!
The only way to peace is through peace. Impeachment = a gift to the world.
David J. Turan
USAF Veteran Iran/Iraq War
Stamford, NY

Dear Editor,
I think Bob Cross hit a home run last week with the list of long-term objectives he sent to voters with his post-election letter.
Among other things, it forces me to face up to some of my own mistakes.
Fifteen years ago, when the results of the Route 28 Corridor Study were in, my partners and I started putting together some business ventures for the region. From the very outset, we recognized that our plans would not work out well unless it was a two-way street. If we were to benefit, the people of Shandaken and Middletown had to benefit, too.
So as part of our approach to planning the Belleayre Resort, we pledged to invest one-third of our eventual profits in civic projects and we started by setting aside a quarter-million dollars for immediate spending. As managing partner, I then did my best to figure out how to invest it in projects that would mean the most to the people of the region.
We still believe that approach was the right one. But trying to figure out all by myself how to spend that money was a mistake.
So let’s try something different. You decide by writing your town supervisor. Tell Bob what you think the town needs most to make it a more attractive, a more enjoyable, a more prosperous place to live. To take that the next step, I’m recommending that Bob appoint a small committee to put together the best combination of your ideas that will do the most good for the most people. As a result, you will be in control, not me.
I’m not necessarily talking about throwing a lot of money at problems. We do have money left in the original set-aside and we’re willing to invest more. But the matter is not so much about money but identifying what you need, what you want.
We can then see where it goes. Maybe a little seed money here and there, maybe some organizational support where that would help.
One possibility is a task force to attract more tourism-based enterprises to the area. Another is organizing a grant writing effort to attract public money for such things as community improverments for Phoenicia and Pine Hill. Or maybe there are other things I can’t even guess at.
What do you say?
Dean Gitter
Crossroads Foundation