(letters from February 2, 2006)

Dear Editor,
I am writing to encourage members of the Onteora Central School District Community to attend the Board of Education Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 7th, at 7 PM at the Phoenicia Elementary School. At that meeting the architects who have been hired by the Board will be making an important presentation.
As you may recall, the architects have been meeting with Onteora faculty and staff members and PTA/Community Members and have been analyzing the condition of our buildings for the last several months. They have recently completed and submitted to the State a required Building Conditions Survey. Now they are ready to present a Master Plan Update to the Board of Education on Tuesday, February 7th. I hope you can join us for what I know will be an important step in the process being followed by our Board of Education to plan thoughtfully for the upkeep and improvements needed in our buildings.
If you are unable to attend the February 7th Board of Education Meeting, you may access the Master Plan Update the following day on our district website, www.onteora.k12.ny.us. We are maintaining on the website all of the presentations made by the architects so that community members can stay informed. This is an exciting time in the Onteora Central School District, because we have the opportunity to plan for future generations of Onteora students, and we hope that you will participate in the process. Please don’t hesitate to contact me at 657-8851 or jwinters@onteora.k12.ny.us if you have questions. I hope to see many community members at our February 7th Board of Education Meeting at 7PM at the Phoenicia Elementary School.
Sincerely,
Justine C. Winters,
Superintendent of Schools
Onteora Central School District

Dear Editor,
We have read many of the letters from our neighbors on Woodland Valley Road objecting to Mr. Poncic’s application for a Special Use Permit to Harvest water. We agree with the concerns voiced as to the safety issues arising from heavy tankers using Woodland Valley Road and as to the water in the stream in terms of recreational uses, environmental concerns and fire hazards caused by lowering the stream level.
But we write as lawyers failing to understand why the Planning Board is acting with such basic disregard of the clear mandates of the Zoning Law of the Town of Shandaken and logical and legal principles and procedures set up to protect the public.
The Zoning Law requires public hearings on any special use permit application. See Section116.42B. The State’s Town Law also requires such public hearings. Town Law Sections 264(1) and 265(1). See also Matter of Gernatt Asphalt v. Town of Sardinia, 87 N.Y.2d 668 (1996). A cursory review of applicable case law uniformly shows that such hearings are held for this type of application. There are many reasons for such a requirement, including, of course, the right of the public to see and hear what is being presented to our public officials. But, equally importantly, our public officials must be secure enough with their decisions to face the general public and engage in the appropriate interplay before rendering decisions.
Second, contrary to suggestions we have been hearing, the grant of a Special Use Permit is not a right to be given merely because the application process has been followed. Such compliance is only a prerequisite to the Board’s power to consider the application. A Special permit is available only in the discretion of the Board, after evaluating the applicant’s request in terms of the general standards spelled out in the Zoning Law. These standards include the public heath, safety and general welfare, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and the immediate neighbors in particular. Section 116-39. Applying these General Standards mandates the denial of this application. The Planning Board is a creature of the Law and may not act in a manner inconsistent with the laws grant to it of authority under the law.
We find it distressing that the Board appears to be acting so contrary to the Zoning Laws, and will require the Town to incur legal fees in order for the Board to learn to follow the clear mandate of the applicable and clear provisions of the enabling provisions. This is not in the best interest of the Town.
Nathan Z. Dershowitz
Marilyn B. Dershowitz
Phoenicia, NY

Dear Editor,
As 35 year tax paying residents of the Town of Shandaken with a family presence in Woodland Valley for over a hundred years, we wish to go on record in opposition to this ill conceived and self-serving plan (the Poncic Water Harvesting proposal) which directly flaunts the wishes and well-being of nearly all the residents of Woodland Valley. This plan unquestionably breaches both the intent and many specific parts of our town’s R-5 zoning laws, with clear intentions of misleading the Planning Board.
Do these laws not exist for the protection of both our residents and visitors, and our preciously precarious environment? Or are they written with loopholes for the benefit of commercial exploitation?
Switching from potable to non potable water trucking may have been a brilliant move on Mr. Poncic’s part but it also makes the purpose of his venture highly suspect. He can easily obtain non-potable water from many legal sources including Turco water out of Rosendale who will even truck it for him. We each have our suspicions as to his reasons but unfortunately they are therefore inadmissible at this point.
Simply on a superstructure basis alone it should not be permitted. Only recently 3 bridges serving Woodland Valley have been replaced and there are several aging smaller bridges and numerous culverts that, under the pounding of regular 30 ton trucks, will soon have to be dealt with – not to mention the narrow, winding road with perpetually crumbling, often shoulder-less edges, which on many curves (some blind) will represent a real hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. And there are the visual / psychological affronts we are supposedly protected against in our zoning and the definite threat to property values.
We ask each member of the board to seriously consider how you would feel about the project if you lived on Woodland Valley - or if this trucking venture were planned to interrupt your residential tranquility 4 times a day.
And my concerns go beyond Woodland Valley. The passing of this commercial encroachment into our pristine residential dead end road will set a precedent threatening all of our lovely hollows and valleys in Shandaken.
Mr. Poncic’s identified site plan is insufficient, misrepresented and does not meet requirements.
The very specs of his site plan are seriously misrepresented and appear illegal re: proximity to the environmentally sensitive Woodland stream.
A few years back Mr. Poncic himself led a campaign opposing the modest expansion of a pre-existing campsite because it would “detract from the wonderful rural nature of Woodland Valley”.
Only this past August (in spite of his hydrologist’s flawed representation) Mr. Poncic himself had a fire consuming an entire structure and even though it was raining at the time, our firefighters had to go a half mile down valley to find 2 pockets with enough water in the creek to fight it.
There have already been several tragic losses of life in auto accidents in recent years on our charmingly narrow valley road. I understand one of Mr. Poncic’s own relatives came close to losing her life in a bad roll over accident. Dare you even consider further burdening us with regular huge truck traffic which by necessity, must consume both lanes on several of our turns – not to mention turning them around just before our busy State Campsite, the fameous hiking “Long Path” and part of our National Trail System.
Please consider the wear and tear on our little road, its crumbling shoulders, ancient bridges and culverts; The added diesel fumes and dust pollution in our front yards 4 times a day and most likely idling while filling; The visual disruption in our bucolic valley of turn-arounds, storage hut and plastic pipe bridging our stream; The perhaps subtle but none the less disruptive impact on our fish, wildlife and vegetation; The sheer affront of the first purely commercial venture in six miles of our pristine valley, half of which is (supposedly) restricted as Residential, R-5 thus setting a very bad precedent for the rest of our residential areas.
As for the water itself which his hydrologist regards as “inconsequential”, he has only to witness our occasional droughts as a fisherman or firefighter.
We understand that, because of the close nature of our valley, it is virtually impossible for Mr. Poncic to meet legal setback requirements or to provide the legally required screening to avoid adversely affecting the natural, visual beauty of the neighborhood and several homesteads in particular - thus requiring immediate neighbors to continually endure his extractive operation up close from their front porches.
Please weigh the minimal ‘economic development’ advantages of this project against all the inconveniences, property value loss, ecological disruption and actual physical dangers this ‘water harvesting’ project threatens, and ask yourselves if this is the precedent this Shandaken Planning Board wishes to establish.
Our PB members must recognize that they not only have ample legal reasons to deny this precedent setting application, but an overwhelming public opposition to it as well.
And on a larger scale:
- We question how NYC’s DEP can permit the actual removal of “their” water (as defined when they insist on dictating our local usage as merely allowing us to “borrow” their water - on the condition that we return it to the ground using their standards);
- If you remember a few years back, NY State put a stop to Middle Eastern tankers from ‘stealing our’ Hudson River water as ballast, because they might be profiting from shipping it back to their arid countries.
- How can the DEC permit this incursion into “their” protected forest and stream (again) (when they won’t even let us protect our own properties from flood waters)?
- And how can our own town permit such a commercial precedent so negatively impacting the lives of some 400 plus tax paying residents for the sole benefit of one man’s profit, no tax base and who I don’t believe even resides here?
Is it a misconception that our zoning regulations exist for the protection of our residents and of our delicate environment? If you want to put up a shed on your property that is one foot oversize you must get the consent of your neighbors. But if a developer comes in and wants to drastically change the traffic, the landscape, indeed our very way of life for his personal profit, he is welcomed even though virtually all of his neighbors for six residential miles are drastically opposed to how his wanton commercialism will adversely effect our lives.
I ask the members of the Planning Board what they would do if they had chosen to make their home 6 miles up a quiet, dead end residential road in the geographic heart of our Catskill Park only to have that sylvan lifestyle disrupted by such a commercial venture; how they would feel about their property values being threatened; or how they would then have to time their country walks or jogging constitutionals so as to avoid the hazards of regular heavy truck traffic on our otherwise bucolic country road. And how would you feel when your Zoning Board refused to have an open public forum on such a controversial issue – and even refused to explain why!
Because of the controversial nature of this project we feel it is an affront to our residents not to have an open forum on the matter. All we can do is appeal to the consciences of our PB members and hope they can project themselves into our predicament. There are abundant legal reasons for you to simply deny this proposal.
Mr. Poncic’s timing is unfortunately typical but effective. Wait until the vacation season is over and hope the ‘locals’ won’t get it together in time to effect a legitimate opposition. But with the help of our compassionate PB members we trust we will be heard and his absurd proposal will ultimately be denied.
We have no objection to home computer businesses, B&Bs, cottage industries, and other inoffensive, low profile, ecological economic development in our neighborhoods but Mr. Poncic’s proposal is out of the question from any reasonable perspective.
We therefore beseech our Shandaken Planning Board zoning representatives to respond to the outcry of so many long time local taxpayers in and around Woodland Valley to reject this one-sided controversial proposal.
Dakin and Doris Morehouse
Woodland Valley, NY

Dear Editor,
I love my home in Woodland Valley. I love the quiet. love the smell. I love the fact that I'm living in a virtual wilderness area less than 2 hours from the most bustling metropolis in this nation. I love the fact that last September I delighted to look out of my kitchen window to the meandering stream that Mr. Poncic claims has no native trout population, and watch a spawning rainbow trout that must have been 2 ft. in length slowly make it's way upstream.
I'm a romantic. I'll admit it. But judging by the numerous conversations I've had with my neighbors and fellow residents over the past 13 years that I've lived here, I'm not alone. And I can state one thing with certainty. For whatever it's worth, and I can only trust that it is indeed worth something, the people of this valley categorically don't want this project to move forward.
I took the time to thoroughly read Mr Poncic's DEIS. I'll admit that it is very well laid out, but I'm sure that if we summoned our own "experts", we could come up with a very different perspective. And it is a matter of perspective, but who’s? Certainly the scientific conclusions that have been made regarding thermal load, effects of altered water levels on fish population etc. could be questioned ad nauseum.. Michael O'neil for one, who along with his father before him has spent more than a half century studying the ecology of the Woodland Valley Creek, would get my vote of confidence over a hired gun any day. And he has serious questions about the accuracy of that document.. There are simply too many questions about it. But I'm not sure that debating the science of the whole thing is really the point. The point is that we don't want it.!! Doesn't that count for anything? It seems unconscionable that the planning board is somehow finding justification to block a public hearing on this issue. We deserve to be heard. Could it be that you are afraid of what we have to say, or of how passionately we are likely to say it? We have to live in this valley and don't want huge trucks rumbling up the road, and unsightly tubes crossing our beautiful stream. Though Mr. Ponic provides us with data that suggests that the road is really perfectly well-suited for a 32.5 TON truck, logic and common sense would dicate otherwise. He states that it's ONLY four times a day.. I would say that four times a day is a hell of alot. I think others would wholeheartedly agree. Again, it's a matter of perspective. Who's perspective SHOULD be considered ,if not ours? It's really that simple. We live here. And furthermore, we don't like the precedent that it sets. While we all realize that economic growth is important ,and that each of us is entitled to exploit his/her own property, the feelings of the people need also to be considered.
We don't want it. We urge the Town Planning Board to seriously consider that fact...
Eugene Ruffolo
Woodland Valley, NY

Dear Editor,
I would like to take this time to address the issue of the proposed water bottling plant by Mr. Andrew Poncic. As the nations and especially New York States premier coldwater conservation organization, I find many disrupting concerns not only in the EIS, the process of this proposal and mainly the affect on coldwater fisheries protected by the Department of Conservation (DEC) laws and regulations on trout spawning streams.
First, I would like to address the fishery and the valley known as Woodland Valley. This is a pristine watershed that feeds the Esopus Creek. The waters from the head waters are an extremely integral part of the success of the stream to sustain the fishery during the months of the summer when dry spells occur and in times of droughts. Not only the fishery but the recreation and private use of the owners in and around the valley are being jeopardized. Also, in a stones throw of this proposed extraction facility is the DEC campgrounds an attraction for many years that will be drastically affected if this water plant is approved. The gathering of information is creditable to some degree but lacks true definition in respect to many factors. - The proposal is essentially a permit for water mining. This water use is unlike most others because it does not return the water to the stream, but exports it out of Woodland Valley by tankers to New Jersey avoiding New York Department of Health regulations. It is therefore an extractive use that does nothing to benefit the community. This use of water derives only benefit to the one individual that would be granted the permit, and the one individual that drives the truck.
- This project is a proposal to sell what is essentially a public good. This water drains from state land, and flows into a public stream. I disagree with allowing one individual to profit from a resource that is protected by all New York State taxpayers, and that belongs to a stream enjoyed by all New York state taxpayers in the form of recreation and fishing.
- The use of mean annual flow to calculate the impact of the water withdrawal from the headwaters of Woodland Creek is misleading because the natural world does not function in averages. Much of the streams mean annual flow is derived from spring runoff, large thunderstorms and infrequent hurricane or tropical storm events. Because of the large, steep mountains that make up the watershed, these short duration events result in tremendous volumes of water flowing down the channel. Removing water from the stream during these events would have no impact on the biology. The rest of the year, however, flows in the stream are relatively moderate. During the summer and fall, discharge drops to a fraction of mean annual flow, and the EIS does address how the proposed water withdrawal will affect stream flows during low water periods that are common throughout the summer, fall and winter.
- Groundwater is a relatively rare component of the total mean annual flow of Woodland Stream. As stated in the EIS, the topography is very steep and the soils are relatively thin with bedrock close to the surface. Therefore most precipitation that falls in the watershed runs off as surface runoff. The proposed EIS does not discuss the fact that groundwater is by comparison much more biologically important to the ecology of Woodland Valley stream than the relatively abundant surface runoff. Groundwater, which becomes surface water when it exits the ground in a spring or seep, provides all a streams flow after a period of time when it has not rained. Groundwater is extremely important in maintaining both stream discharge and the typical cool water temperatures that make Woodland Stream an excellent trout stream and a classified spawning stream. Because groundwater is consistently 40-45 F, it keeps the stream from freezing solid in the winter, and therefore is extremely important to the health of stream through a cold winter. One gallon of groundwater is worth much more than one gallon of surface water because it provides all the flow during low precipitation times, and it provides cool water in the summer and relatively warm water in the winter.
- The October 28, 2005 letter from Spectra Environmental Group to the chairman of the Shandaken Planning Board states that the intended use of the project is not drinking water, but instead for nonpotable use such as swimming pools. Why does the project seek to use the highest quality water for a nonpotable use, when it could hypothetically use surface water from any source for such a purpose? Why cant the trucks remove 11,000 gallons from the Esopus or other large body of water with a simple pump and not drive 6 miles up a small, winding road to obtain high quality groundwater subjecting the road to repairs in time because of the excessive traffic on a road constructed for pleasure, not commercial benefits?
Woodland Valley is classified B (ts) from the mouth up to trib 5a, a small stream entering from the west just a couple of miles below the source. The “B” indicates that the best use is primary contact recreation, and the “(ts)” indicates that it supports trout spawning. Above trib 5a, it is classified B (t), which means that it is suitable for trout habitation, but spawning has not been documented (maybe no info, or maybe too steep). Springs entering streams through the substrate, maintain base flow during dry spells, provide ideal spawning sites by percolating up through gravel and provide thermal refuge during the summer, when fish seek colder temperatures and congregate in spring holes.
I think the road and traffic issues are legitimate concerns, but that is not my area of expertise. I am not an expert but common sense and knowledge would indicate the road traffic will have degrading affects to the surface, stormwater runoffs will add pollutants to the stream and create negative affects to the aquatic and habitat life essential to the classification of this trout stream. As far as the project reducing ground water from the stream, I feel that “Springs” are generally defined as a place where ground water intersects the surface. “Ground water” sources near a stream almost invariably join the stream at some place, and provide base flow and cooling in times of need as was mentioned in drought. Sometimes the groundwater comes in as a defined in-stream spring, and at other times it is more diffuse entering the surface as is the case in this proposal and re-enters at some point. This needs to be determined where and how much. In either case, I believe that even small changes in the amount of groundwater may be significant during low flows and hot weather. I have visibly witnessed this in past seasons. It seems to me that a simple dye test I propose might help better define the linkage between the spring and the stream.
With these withdrawals, I see no check and balance to ensure Mr. Poncic will and his drivers will take only the required amounts. If it is not scrutinized and watched, I can assure you that abuse of the permit will be a possibility. By granting a permit you open the doors to others that will want to deplete our environments of the precious commodities which we all enjoy and appreciate.
The thing that troubles me most is the way this committee is planning to pass this through. As I have heard, it is going to be approved and will be a “payback” for the previous administrations actions deemed unacceptable by this board. Seems to me they had the community and truly the residents in mind making their decision to redo the EIS. I have also been told that it will be passed and a permit granted. Then, and only select people will be allowed to speak if any at a meeting later and after the fact. That is truly wrong and not in good sprit to the community. This is not an example of a true “Open Government”. I recall learning that elected officials are in position by election or appointment to represent the constituents and government is;
...by the people, of the people and for the people.
I would suggest that this matter be presented to an ad hoc committee of citizens and organizations to better recommend a position and what direction the Planning Board should take. This will make for a better solution to the bottling plant and its possible acceptability to the citizens of this community.
I want to express my appreciation for your acceptance and reading of this into the records at the next Planning Board Meeting. I also want it to be clear that Trout Unlimited is the eyes that protect coldwater watersheds and their fisheries. We accept economic development and the opportunity for persons to become contributors to the community. In this case it benefits no one or town but is transported away to benefit another state and town.
This board has many obstacles that are not essential to successful implementation of this proposal. Not to mention confliction of interest that is significantly apparent to many people. These springs are an invaluable aquatic resource. If lost, there is absolutely no way they can be replaced. This Board must protect this valuable resource and protect the valley.
Ronald Urban, Council Chairman
NYS Trout Unlimited

Dear Editor,
Paul Smart's glib report on the recent Coalition of Watershed Towns meeting (an article which he sold to publishers of Shandaken, Olive and Woodstock papers) omitted the comment of substance by the Town of Andes assessor: that invoking Large Parcel in Andes would destroy her town. I was sitting near her when she made the comment, and Smart also omitted the comments I made at the meeting. I said that the Coalition was a good place to bring the Large Parcel issue, because the member communities all have experience in watershed issues, and several of the towns have the liability to be crushed by Large Parcel. Neversink has the only exposure in Sullivan County and their county government invoked Large Parcel, saving the average Sullivan County taxpayer about $7, 1.38%, while raising Neversink's levy by about $400 per resident parcel, about 78%.
Delaware County has several towns with large parcel exposure, Andes, Middletown, and Downsville, but they all have single town school districts, so the fury of the Woodstock assault on Olive would not be replicated. The fine Delaware County gentleman referenced by Mr. Glib, excuse me, Paul Smart, observed that he did not believe Delaware County residents would ever inflict such intentional harm on their neighbors, such willfull nastiness. I clapped and the Woodstock contingent turned red.
The Woodstock contingent, including the two Ulster County legislators featured in flattering portraits in Woodstock Times, Shapiro and Gregorius, badgered the meeting with challenging questions before announcing their identities. Neversink was trying to show the impact of Large Parcel on their tax rolls, and giving a history of the law, relating through the words of the act's sponsors how it is being misapplied in reservoir cases, contending that the law is flawed. Gregorius, who is a very nice fellow, kept intimating that the CWT should keep its nose out of the issue, merely because it was divisive and contentious (and might pit one watershed town, Woodstock, against another, Olive). His feeling was CWT should only act on issues against NYC where all would be united.
When the sentiment of the board seemed to be running towards indignation about Large Parcel, the Woodstock representative managed a tabling of the issue, and the Woodstock contigent asked to make a report in support of their side, talking about 40 years of tax unfairness.
I have lived in Olive for more than nine years. I have also owned homes in Shandaken, Andes and Rosendale. Olive's tax situation was well known, realtors always billed it as "Low Tax Olive". If you don't want to pay Woodstock taxes, buy in Olive, its been an oasis of sanity. Want to lower your taxes in Woodstock? Build a tax base. Sell Comeau to Marriott, let them build a $200 million resort, you'll have your tax relief. You have a choice, and you choose bucolic rusticity. I respect that, I love Woodstock. But, Woodstock has issues, it strangles its supermarket and then complains when it leaves town. But, now, Woodstock lusts after Olive's reservoir tax base, its about half our town, and this Large Parcel thing comes along and Woodstock pounces.
Smart also failed to mention that an inventory of Large Parcel affected properties in New York State was disclosed at the meeting. It included a total of 25 parcels, 18 of which were power plants or hydroelectric installations, the rest were reservoirs in the Catskills. These reservoirs exist in towns heavliy impacted by their presence, with minimal commercial activity or growth. In some cases the reservors oblitereated the traditional centers of community life. How these inert bodies of water can be compared to power plants, heavily capital intensive industrial installations which are depreciated and sold on a manipulated market (ask California), is madness.
Hopefully, the Coalition of Watershed Towns will rise above the fray and decide to support the exclusion of reservoirs from the Large Parcel act.
Robert Selkowitz
Shokan, NY

Dear Editor,
The Woodstock Town Board, Gordon Wemp, and Brian Shapiro have taken their show on the road. It is the traveling Whine and Cheesy Show. They whine about how their taxes are too high and everyone else's are too low. They set out a cheesy smorgasbord of almost-true statements taken out of context all designed to benefit their town at the cost of all others. Whether it is the Onteora School Board, Ulster County Legislature, or the Coalition of Watershed Towns, their message is the same. They consider the misunderstood Large Parcel Bill to be their own personal "gift" and "present" to alleviate Woodstock's taxpayers' woes.
Frankly, Woodstock's taxes are the business of Woodstock only. Home Rule allows towns to set their own budget and raise taxes according to their evaluation and assessment. They are not named the benefactor of any other town' s fiscal obligation.
It is interesting to note that when the cast of this road show uses the pronoun "WE," they are referring to themselves in the plural. They have no alliance to any other group whether that group is a school district, County or coalition of twenty some watershed towns.
Woodstock uses the "Fair and Equal" mantra and points to exceptions or expired data. The Woodstock Town Board has suckered Shandaken's supervisor into partnership by NOT mentioning Shandaken's tax structure with 76% of its land owned by the state at an under-assessed value of $600. an acre. If that isn't a large parcel, I don't know what is! Instead it points to Olive and its Ashokan Reservoir. Now that Sullivan County towns are suffering and commiserating, Woodstock shows up for Act III of "Their Fair Share."
Woodstock attacks Neversink for not having a reval and reminds us that Olive didn't have a recent reval. Now that Olive has finished its data collection, its reval is the most current. Jeremy Wilber is cautious NOT to mention that Shandaken has not conducted a reval since some time in the seventies. Yes, politics sure does make interesting bedfellows. Robert Cross needs to look across the pillow and take a good look at the wolf in grandpa's nightshirt.
Kathryn Gardner
Shokan, NY

Dear Editor,
Can anyone tell me why the White House refuses to disclose the identity of the people former high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff met with at Senior Level Staff meetings? All Scott McClellan (Bush’s press secretary) can say when asked to provide information (again and again) is “No, this is sticking with our past policy. We're not going to engage in a fishing expedition.”
A fishing expedition!!
Fact: A man who has been convicted of buying politicians to create and pass laws in his favor, met with Senior White House staff members.
Fact: When the President’s spokesman is asked a simple question "who did he meet with?", the reporter is told he came to a couple “Hanukkah celebrations” and then gets accused of going on a fishing expedition. What is wrong with that question.
Who did Jack Abramoff meet with in the White House? Doesn’t the American public have the right to know which White House staffers have meetings with criminals? Why is it such a big secret? Oh right, everything with this White House is a secret. I forgot. I’m sure it must have something to do with spreading freedom and democracy throughout the broader Middle East via smart bombs, white phosphorous, torture and spying on Americans, since that seems to be all this administration can focus on. Lest we, the
people, not forget the culture of corruption is deep!
Please hold ALL of our leaders accountable to truth and transparency regardless of who you voted for.
David J. Turan
USAF Veteran Iran/Iraq War
Stamford, NY

Dear Editor,
Last year when I was evaluating the candidates for Onteora’s school board, I felt that all of them understood the need to reduce the tax burden in the school district. I guess understanding the need and what to do about it is a whole different ball game. It cost this school district $400.00 more per student then any other school in Ulster County and beyond. That’s an estimated$800.000 per year. Why should it cost the tax payers of the Onteora school district so much more to educate? Dave Patterson has said that one of his primary reasons to run for the school board was the escalating cost in our district. Some candidates even told me that if I had any suggestions that I should pass them along. I recently e mailed all the board members with a suggestion. Although I didn’t ask for a specific reply, I feel that I should have received some kind of acknowledgment from at least one board member. I thought surely after the second e mail that at least one of the board members would respond. I called one board member and had a very brief discussion, but as of this writing I have not received any correspondence from any board member.
The 2006/2007 budget review has started. The budget review is a big wish list from all those charged with input to the budget. Before the review process started the board could have, according to the New York State Board of Education, requested that the budget increase be held to a certain percent increase. It’s much more difficult to reduce spending after all the wish lists are presented and they all try to justify what they submitted.
There’s something else the Board of Education can do. They could be more careful of how our tax dollars are being spent. Tax payers paid to take a bus load of parents to Giants Stadium. In all fairness Superintendent Winters said that she asked Business Administrator, Victoria McLaren, to notify staff that the District will not be paying the cost for spectator busses. Now paying for a bus trip may not sound like it cost a lot of money, but how many other bus trips did the tax payers pay for? How many other bills have slipped through the cracks? Who knows, maybe tax payers even paid the admission price for that bus load of parents to get in Giants Stadium.
William Warnecke
Glenford, N.Y.

Dear Friends and Neighbors,
A thank you does not seem enough for what you have done for my family. Your generous donations made it possible to purchase a generator which is vital to have for Bruce's health. Dave Smith and his daughter Becky hooked it up for us. Everyone gave freely to help us financially and with moral support.
I hope everyone realizes what a wonderful group of people we live with, no matter what their likes or dislikes in a time of need they are always ready to help.
Without their help I don't think we would have been able to overcome.
You have made my family and I feel so very secure knowing you are always ready to help.
Again, I just want you to know we do appreciate all you have done for my family and myself.
We may be a small town but we have the biggest giving hearts in the world. Thank you all.
Linda Storey
Shandaken, NY

Dear Editor,
This is to put into words the thoughtfeelings I've had a number of times about the paper's POV space and that is, that it's a unique and wonderful gift the publisher is giving to the readers. No other newspaper I know of prints excerpts from the works of recognized authors from previous eras; even literary journals do not do this. What appears is usually pertinent to the time or emotional atmosphere and reflects the publisher's sensibility and extensive awareness of literature.
It came home to me powerfully with the end of James Joyce's, "The Dead" appearing in the 12/22 edition. I had read it some years ago and I had seen the film directed by John Huston a couple of times (I believe it was his last, while he was dying from emphysema and featured his daughter Angelika). It was one of the most beautiful and poignant movies I have ever seen.
I read it again while listening to a recording of the Irish actor, Jim Norton reading it.
There it was, stepping outside at 'four o'clock in the afternoon' on New Year's Eve, the whiteness of snow and the darkness of night falling together on my sculptures that were a presence from another world. I thought of my mother dead over twenty years.
"His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead."
Robert Jacobson
Mount Tremper, NY