Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor, Simply put, if the Catskill Corners project is allowed to go ahead it would put an end to life as we know it here in the Catskills. I think most people overlook the obvious. It's easy to see the impact this resort would have on general environmental concerns but how about the "energy." Yea, OK, I said it, the "energy." What I mean by the "energy" is the true reason why anyone lives in and Loves this area. It's the "energy" in these Catskill Mountains that emit a great and peaceful power for they truly are sacred mountains. They put off a subtle but powerful force, the same intensity you get when you go to the ocean or witness a hurricane or volcano. These are definable effects. The one undefined effect is the energy effect. It is a power everyone knows exists, but because it is from the element "Ether" rather then Water or Air or Fire, it is not easily understood or recognized but we all know it is there. Do not underestimate the effect this resort will have on this powerful energy in our lives. When you go to the top of any mountain in the Catskills at sunset you can see the energy. It is the purple mountain majesty. Why do you think it is so powerful here? Go south and feel the "energy." It is flat and cold and yellow. Here in the Catskills, it is warm, purple and mystical. I don't know about you but I don't go any where in the summer. Where can you go on vacation when you live in the Catskills? You are already there. This is the true reason for the resort. It is because the principles of the project see the power of it and they want to make money on it. Nothing is wrong with this practice if you are a true American. So far we Americans have demonstrated that everything is put here for our use. Kill it, cut it; or just bulldoze it away - it is our right as humans! Right? If you have more money and the right connections on the town board and in the NY Assembly then you should exercise your true rights as an American businessman and go for it. Well, I am an American and I can see what this resort would do to the energy of the area and most everyone who lives here. We have all made sacrifices to live here. Making money is just one of them. The winters are hard and we really can't have a garden and how about those black flies? But we all put up with it and why? Would it not be better to go elsewhere and make a living if money was the only issue? Why are we all here? It's the energy! Please do not allow a few people who have money interest to manipulate capitalistic powers to befit the few when so much is at stake. If you think CVS was hot, then wake up and check out what is about to get dumped in your back yard! Please contact your congressman, town board, newspaper, DEC, CHA and so on, and say something! Don't let Mother Nature get raped right in your back yard and stand there and watch. Let's start to be true Americans as we were intended to be. Protect our Mother, Re-Spect our environment and beware, as God exists in every Thing! My Love to all. Manywinds Mt. Tremper, NY Dear Editor, Last week Chris Olney, one of the staff directors of the Catskill Center in Arkville, wrote to complain about the fact that 150+ labor type folks showed up at the last Belleayre Resort hearing to state their case for the construction and resort jobs this project would bring to the area. According to Mr. Olney, these labor proponents were "rowdy." I don't know what planet he was on that night but the only rowdiness came from his own supporters (Catskill Center Members?) trying to drown out people speaking in favor of the project. Mr. Olney goes on to accuse labor proponents of presenting their case as "jobs vs. the environmentalists"; that "they were simply motivated by money and showed up to say what they were told to say." I guess Mr. Olney wasn't listening when one of the labor leaders stated most clearly that, if the project could not be built in accordance with environmental rules and regulations, then it shouldn't be built...period. I guess Mr. Olney didn't notice that his pal, Eric Goldstein, an attorney for the NYC-based NRDC, the group that refused to support or endorse the 1997 Memorandum of Agreement because the proposed regulations restricting life in the watershed weren't draconian enough, was leading and orchestrating a pack of outsiders to speak against the project. Maybe Mr. Olney should look to pin the charge of creating "divisiveness" on his comrades from NYC and not a group of hard working laborers from Delaware, Ulster Greene and Sullivan counties seeking decent paying jobs. Mr. Olney laments the fact that on his modest salary he can't afford to buy "a couple hundred of acres of land to hunt on...and keep a few cows on." Maybe he should ask the Catskill Center for a raise (a big raise!) or maybe like the labor folks, he should concern himself with the fact that it's the lack of decent paying jobs in our area that forces so may young people to flee in droves; it's the reason that so many parents here worry how they'll pay for their kids education; it's the reason that so many families here depend on the income from two or more jobs to make ends meet. Finally, Mr. Olney opines that "low-paying jobs at the resort will not keep people here when land values and property taxes spurred by the resort escalate." According to information released by the resort developers in 2002, the resort will generate 542 full-time jobs paying an average wage of about $30,000. Of those 542 jobs, 111 would pay an average of $48,500. On top of this, resort workers would receive a number of fringe benefits (health insurance, retirement plans, paid vacations, etc.) as well as tip and/or bonus income. This doesn't sound like "low-paying jobs" to me, but maybe Mr. Olney knows of better job opportunities in the area. As for his assertion that the resort will spur an increase in land values and taxes, Mr. Olney has at least got it half right. In all probability, the resort will likely cause some increase in land values. So, for those local people who one day might want to sell their home or business, chances are they'll get more for their property if the resort gets built. As for property taxes, the resort should in fact lead to lower taxes for all, so long as municipal and school officials do not spend all of the windfall in new tax revenues the resort is expected to generate. In conclusion, Mr. Olney would cynically dismiss the plea by a group of local labor leaders as nothing more than "noise," "a superficial...show of support," "a commodity bought by the developer." And what was their plea? It was to ask for a fair, balanced and objective review of the project by organizations such as the Catskill Center. From the tone and content of Mr. Onley's letter, it's clear that he and presumably his employer - the Catskill Center - have a different agenda. Al Higley Mt. Tremper, NY Dear Editor, The appearance, and quick disappearance, of scores of building trades union members at the February 19 hearing on the Belleayre mega-resort offered impressive evidence of union solidarity and served as a perfect object-lesson in who will really profit if this resort is built. Their leaders having signed a preliminary agreement with Gitter's Crossroads Ventures, the rank- and-file duly turned out, applauded "their" speakers, talked through opponents' speeches, and rose to their feet when instructed to do so by an arm-waving union rep down front. I talked with a number of the brotherhood outside the auditorium, and not one of them had any notion about the issues involved. A few were honest enough to express surprise that their "opponents" were not millionaire NIMBY-ites but schoolchildren, small business owners, homemakers, and a school superintendent worried about traffic. The union members began leaving after their leaders had spoken:, and all were gone by the dinner break ˜ no doubt, as one speaker said, because they had so far to go to get home. That is why their appearance is such an apt metaphor. If the mega-resort is built, these construction workers will show up in the morning and depart by sunset, taking their paychecks with them. Their economic contribution, if any, will be the price of lunch. They will not be here at night, they will not be here on week-ends, and when the thing is built, they'll move on to the next job. They will have gotten theirs, which is all they were clamoring for that Thursday night, and those of us who live here and/or cherish the public land here will be left with the consequences ˆ our long-tern economic engine, the wild Catskill forest preserve, ruined for the short-term benefit of a few Susan Margolis Fleischmanns, NY Dear Editor, While reading the Phoenicia Times, I came across a letter written by a Stuart Root. This letter had so much to say about Mr. Root's financial concerns of the Crossroads project, that I decided to see just what expertise he had. It seems that Mr. Root has a very rounded background in financial matters. In f act he is named as one of the conspirators that cost the taxpayers of this country many billions, yes billions of dollars through his remedies to the savings and loan collapse. This information is covered in the book titled, " ŒThe Greatest Ever Bank Robbery" by the distinguished business journalist Martin Mayer. Mr. Root was a participant in the most embarrassing financial calamity of this nation to date. Another interesting piece of reading is titled "Project Hammer Reloaded" by noted crime reporter David Guyatt. This outlines Mr. Root's involvement with the international plundering of Nazi loot and Japan's WW2 stolen gold hordes. One can only wonder why good old Mr. Root would come out in the light of day after such a distinguished financial career just to comment on the Crossroads project's financial health , when it appears his own financial advice does not have such a good track record. Mr. Root said that this project will never get funded. If that is the case then it will never get built! Sp just what is his problem, he could have saved himself a long drive. I wonder which one of his cronies is paying him for his involvement? Maybe, if I spend a little more time on the Internet I will find just who his benefactor is. Robert Kalb Big Indian, NY Dear Editor, Rumor has it that there is someone around that does not believe that Bush stole the 2000 election. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Bush beat Gore by 537 votes. In the months prior to the November 2000 election, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris ordered election supervisors to purge 57,000 voters from registries on the grounds that they were felons not entitled to vote in Florida. It turns out these voters were not felons, at most,a handful. The voters on this "scrub list" were, notably African American (about 54 percent), and most of the others wrongly eliminated were white and Hispanic Democrats. Florida signed a $4 million dollar contract with DBT Online since merged into Choicepoint of Atlanta. Florida is the only state that pays a private company to provide a list for "cleansing" voter rolls. Early in 2000 Choicepoint gave Florida officials a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to scrub from their list of voters. It turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies, only misdemeanors such as drunk driving, (like their Governor's brother, George W. Bush). The company acknowledged the error and blamed it on the original source of the list - the state of Texas. Choicepoint spokesman Martin Fagan concedes his company's error. ("I guess that's a little embarrassing in light of the election.") He defends the company's overall performance, dismissing the errors in 8,000 names as a "minor glitch", less than one-tenth of one percent of the electorate, (though the total is 15 times Bush's lead over Gore). Mr. Fagan, added Choicepoint is responsible only for turning over its raw list, which is then up to Florida officials to test and correct. This is, of course, only part of what went "wrong" in the 2000 presidential election in Florida and led to the selection of George W. Bush. Robert Jacobson Mount Tremper, NY Dear Editor, It has been widely reported that Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams has charged New Paltz Village Mayor Jason West with 19 counts criminal counts of performing illegal marriages for same-sex couples. New York State law codifies solemnizing marriages of couples that have no licenses as a misdemeanor offense. Mr. Williams was quoted saying: "State law says a public official can't preside over a marriage unless a marriage license is presented to him. It is not for this prosecutor and certainly not for a part-time mayor to take it on their own initiative to ignore that law." (New York Daily News) and "I cannot ignore charges that an elected official may have broken the law." (New York Times) Donald Williams has proven himself to be a hypocrite. Four years ago, when I was serving as a Town Councilman, I joined a group of concerned citizens in petitioning Mr. Williams' office to prosecute documented cases of voter fraud involving elected officials in the Town of Denning. We submitted clear and compelling evidence of criminal activity including fraudulent absentee ballots, a signed affidavit of confession, and an order from the New York State Supreme Court permanently enjoining the opening of a fraudulent ballot. But all was to no avail as District Attorney Williams failed to prosecute the case. New York State Election Law section 17-132 codifies voter fraud as a felony. Why would our public prosecutor selectively enforce a misdemeanor and not a felony? How is the integrity of public office best protected in our county if our district attorney arbitrarily applies his prosecutorial discretion? The debate over same-sex marriage will surely continue to be hotly contested, but what does that have to do the fair application of justice in preserving the integrity of our elected officials? It is most unfortunate that our County District Attorney, on whom we depend to safeguard us from the proliferation of criminal activity, has decided to abuse his position of authority in such a capricious manner. I am both saddened and disgusted that my county tax dollars are being frittered away on the prosecution of a negligible offense that will undoubtedly end up as nothing more than a political grandstand. I am also angered that serious abuses of public office continue to remain uninvestigated and unaddressed. Clifford Faintych Denning, NY Dear Editor, Ulster County DA Donald Williams might encourage ongoing stability in our communities by allowing New Paltz Mayor Jason West to continue performing marriages under his jurisdiction rather than charging Mayor West with a nuance of State Law in order to appease an element who would deny a minority population the legal protections the vast majority of us now enjoy. This is position is clearly discriminatory and divides our communities rather than strengthens them. The battle for equal protection under the law is forever ongoing and if Mayor West believes that under the NY State Constitution people should not be discriminated against, and until State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer makes his recommendation about that law and higher courts have ruled, DA Williams should drop the charges against the Mayor and stand down. In fact, I would suggest that the DA not only drop the charges against Mayor West but stand up for the people of Ulster County and the Hudson Valley by supporting the Mayor's efforts at creating stronger communities and neighborhoods. Mayor West should be congratulated and has my full support. Jeff Green Kent Cliffs, NY Dear Editor, In regard to "Ginger Schnapp"'s recently published letter: Your letter was a verbal attack on the Ladner's and others that share their views for utilizing a newspaper for what it is; a public forum and source of information. If you are offended by their stance on issues such as the Crossroads Ventures Resort and wish not to partake in their opinion, that is very much you're choice. However, for you to personally attack in the manner you did because of their beliefs is just uncalled for and contradictory. Furthermore your heavy-handed statements about what must and must not be true were biased and hypocritical. Where the majority of the town's opinion lies is not at all the point (nor was it made to be in Ms. Ladner's letter since it was closed ŒThat's just my opinion'). In fact you fail to make any concrete argument throughout your letter, but instead waste printing space and ink assaulting people who are obviously on the opposite side of an issue than you. When you were through you hadn't even the guts to sign your real name. You were critical of Ms. Ladner because according to you she thought to have the whole town on her side, but repeatedly you spoke to a public which you assumed felt the same you did, using "we" several times throughout. Your generalizations were insignificant and disproportionate. Next your suggestion that the Ladners be investigated is comical. Investigated for what? Why? Because they don't share your opinion? Investigate them if you deem it necessary. They have nothing to hide and are not ashamed of their point of view. And they do not feel the need to validate their position by writing nasty letters under an juvenile alias. Just because you don't share an opinion doesn't mean you have to attack it. Quinn Ferris Phoenicia, NY Dear Editor, This is for Ginger Schnapp: Your proclamation that those who oppose you are ignorant is itself born from ignorance. People in this community are refusing to back down against Crossroads and are enforcing the democratic process because they want all the information. They aren't subdued by the questionable promise of jobs. They attend the hearings to get more information and in their spare time weed through the DEIS to try to understand what is going to take place. Speaking of which did you actually attend the hearings? I only ask due to a statement made in which you questioned the students protesting and generalized about people from "far away" being involved. Firstly, on what bases did you conclude that the students were "coerced"? As one of them, I can tell you that they attended because they cared to be there as the future of this community. And were we supposed to look jazzed at the prospect of our mountain being leveled? Forgive us for not posing for the camera. Secondly, who came from far away? These fantastical fabrications that supposedly were rallied didn't help much since they didn't exist. WHO are you talking about? Everyone who attended seemed to already have concluded which side they belonged to and why, or went for the purpose on gathering more info, as was the intent of the hearing. Before you start making general statements you should get the facts straight. Sam Branman Olive Bridge, NY Dear Editor, Crimes of the Bush administration are mounting. Here are a few quotes from the British paper The Guardian, in an article by George Monbiot, that tell the truth about Bush's scandalous misuse of science in an attempt to lie to the American people. "Last year, the White House tried to force the Environmental Protection Agency to alter its findings on climate change. It ordered the agency to dump its temperature records and replace them with a discredited study partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute. It told the EPA to delete the finding that "climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment". It went on to suppress the agency's findings on mercury pollution from power stations, and to block the publication of a study showing that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are leaking from pig farms. When the US Centers for Disease Control revealed that Bush's "abstinence-only" sex-education program appears to have caused an increase in teenage pregnancies, the CDC was told to stop gathering data. The National Cancer Institute was instructed to claim, quite wrongly, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. Independent scientists have been purged from the government's expert panels and replaced with corporate stooges and religious nutters. One learned professor hoping for a seat was asked how he had voted in the presidential election. He gave the wrong answer, and wasn't appointed." More reasons why Denocrats, independents and Republicans are working together to vote Bush out in November. Tobe Carey, Glenford, NY Dear Editor, The job-versus-environment thing is a sticky wicket as they say in jolly old England. I feel pretty clear about it, however. Sustainability should be the guide. Renewable natural resource-based industries (logging, fishing, etc.) should only be as large (number of jobs, etc.) as the resource can bear without decreasing in either quantity or quality. If that puts people out of work, so be it. Conservation of non-renewable resources instead of the present mad dash to use them up will also put people out of work. We have to pay the piper some way or other for our runaway population growth and our taste for excess consumption. Better like this than leaving for future generations a planet that cannot sustain life. It's simple economics. We're living off our capital as far as the environment is concerned. We all understand that in regards to an account earning interest in a bank. Once the capital is used up there is no more interest. In the case of the environment it means there is no more life. Our major industry is tourism and it is renewable. Up to a point. If we keep our mountains lovely and our water and air clean, the tourists and the outdoor enthusiasts will come. We can choose to conserve our environmental capital. Or we can toss away a big chunk of it by caving in to the pushers of massive development who cry "jobs" at the first sign of resistance. The irony of it is all they offer to local people are predominately temporary or minimum wage jobs. We will have more jobs in the long run by keeping our region a true haven for those seeking relief from the surrounding megalopolis. Peter Koch Woodstock, NY Dear Editor, Letter to the new crew at Rhinebeck Aerodrome: How does an old established organization incur the wrath and enmity for what has for many years been a smooth running, community centered and widely celebrated extravaganza? Answer; It shouldn't; but you all have succeeded in destroying something like no other in the world. The antics, artistry and aerobatics that so many of us have seen [more than once] in the skies over Rhinebeck is about to come to an end. We who have supported the efforts of the Palens and their crew(s) are disgusted with the new board, new CEO, new director(s) and the fact that there's nobody new of any talent or value. I concur with the letter that my brother, Lowell Anderson sent you and I should like you to know that following the demise of the Rhinebeck Aerodrome we would both demand that the [many] items of the "Gustave Anderson Collection" [known as the "Lindburg Era] donated to the Aerodrome Museum be returned to us so that we might place them in another Aero-museum, either public or private. I suspect that you new cowboys who have "rustled" the Aerodrome feel that it's all yours. Wrong !! How retarded could you be in "canning" Ken Cassens, a man of impeccable credentials, doing yoeman work in building a replica of "The Spirit of St. Louis"? He also repaired or directed repairs on other antique "flying machines". He acquired old authentic meters and guages, crafted wings, stringers and struts and was an inspiration to the volunteers that you ignominiously dismissed. This man was a drawing card as well as the craft that flew or was exhibited. Having a conversation with Ken was like talking to an aviation pioneer. Well, good luck folks at Rhinebeck Aerodrome. We'll see you at the auction in five years [or sooner]. Don't sell the donated items. They are not yours. I understand that the CEO is a Mr. Kick ? Pardon my grin but I see synonimity somewhere here. Glenn T. Anderson Olivebridge, NY Dear Editor, The amendment would affect me personally as I am a pistol permit holder. The people in my position and I will have to tighten our belts; that will affect local merchants. If the amendment does get enacted into law, then it is only a question of time before the anti-gun lobby and the Democrats extend it to ALL firearms owners. To avoid financial hardship many will have to dispose of their firearms. Hunting will take a nose-dive. Firearms dealerships, the upstate art of gunsmithy, the venison processing industry, taxidermy, etc... would become extinct. The project that feeds deer meat to NYS's poor will have to be cancelled. Deer population will multiply and ravage farmers' crops. Wild fowl population will explode and their droppings would affect the quality of NYC water supply. Therefore, I respectfully URGE the Chambers of Commerce from upstate, Delaware County Watershed Committee, NYCDEC, NYSDEP to pool their resources together and hire a high-power, high-profile professional lobbyist, who has 'unrestricted' access to the executive chamber; perhaps an influential former Republican Assemblyman/Senator turned lobbyist. The lobbyist will have to be able to quantify upstate disgruntlement into numbers of votes the governor may lose in re-election. Those die-hard downstate Democrats are NOT going to vote for a Republican candidate, even if he takes anti-gun stand to woo them. A disgruntled third party candidate may run on a pro-gun stand with the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. The governor should look in the history books for the lessons taught by the likes of Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. Shyamal K. Sen Gupta Bovina Center, NY Dear Editor, The beauty of the United States Constitution is the freedoms that it gives us. For example, if you don't want a same-sex marriage, you don't have to have one. Furthermore, you're free to belong to a religion that doesn't sanction them. Because of these Constitutional freedoms, it's hard to understand the virulent opposition to same-sex marriage. The 9th Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The founders added this amendment to guarantee that those fundamental rights not listed in the Constitution must be respected by the national government. Certainly, legal marriage and the 1,049 privileges of legal marriage (catalogued by the government) from health insurance to hospital visitation to social security benefits to inheritance rights are fundamental rights. The 14th Amendment states: "...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities [rights] of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because same sex couples have broken no laws by their choice in relationships, they are clearly entitled by this amendment to the same privileges accorded to heterosexuals, i.e. marriage rights. The 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." In other words, church and state are separate entities. Much confusion about same-sex marriage stems from a misunderstanding of this basic American principle. In fact, two components to what we think of as 'marriage' exist: the religious component and the legal component. Although religious 'marriage' may discriminate, legal 'marriage' is prohibited from doing so. People associate marriage with sacredreligious law, yet separate and aside from religious law, marriage is a legal contract governed by state law. People opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds need to recognize the difference. Article 4, Sections 1 and 2 state: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. . . . The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities [rights] of citizens in the several states." For example, to drive across the country, one doesn't need 50 different driver's licenses. Or, in the case of marriage, if one is married in Massachusetts, the other 49 states must honor the marriage. Although, President Bush calls for a Constitutional Amendment to discriminate against 10 percent of Americans, and Congress, as well as numerous states, has passed "The Defense of Marriage Act," a simple reading of the U.S. Constitution will tell you that all of these anti-same-sex marriage laws are unconstitutional. But, despite the unconstitutional contortions that politicians and the states may do, ultimately, same-sex marriage will be decided by the Supreme Court who has a clear obligation to rule according to the Constitution. And even if, when same-sex marriage finally wends its way to the hallowed halls, partisan justices prevent the clear intent of the Constitution from prevailing, another more democratic court in the future will approve marriage rights for all citizens. We will probably live to see it. So why are Americans wasting the time, the legal costs, the cultural aggravation? The fact is when same- sex couples are afforded equal rights, nothing much will change for the larger culture. No one will make your religion perform same-sex marriages. No one will take your heterosexual lifestyle away. Nothing will change except the U.S. will become a more democratic nation. Sharon Stonekey Woodstock, NY Dear Editor, As usual, President Bush has it wrong again; marriage isn't the foundation of society, but "thou shalt not kill" is. Killing is the end of society, the end of civilization, and there are many ways of killing; racism, sexism, arrogance, intolerance, lies and superiority are all examples. In our country, we've done it all, to Native Americans, blacks, women, all new immigrant groups and gays, lesbians and transsexuals. All are victims of the ways of killing. "Marriage is a pact between a man and a woman," sayeth George and others, but homophobia is the motivating force that drives this belief, the fear of that which is within. The ultimate hypocrisy is offered up as "we believe those folks can cure themselves of their affliction if they would only work at it, but there's nothing wrong with us." Rather than cop to their own fear, which would be a giant step toward normalcy, they hide behind God or other "truths." They want to control minds and behavior and call the result the foundation of civilization, the bedrock of society. Marriage should be a socially recognized contract between people, whoever they may be, and for those who have a problem with that, let them look at the faces full of joy and love of the couples getting married, as a recent editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out. Let them look at those happy faces and try to empathize with the humanity there. Jay Wenk Woodstock, NY |