Dear Editor,
            The Ulster County Townsman (3/18/04) distorted the facts in both the article about the Ethics Committee's determination regarding Jane Todd's land purchase and the editorial which grossly misrepresents Friends of Catskill Park's deeds and intentions. It would take 10 pages to address all the distortions so I will do the best I can in limited space to set the record straight.
            We have brought a very serious situation to the attention of the Shandaken Town Board. The issue involves a potential conflict of interest between Jane Todd's purchase of land adjacent to the resort site and her position as a Town Board member which enables her to vote on issues relating to the resort. We have asked her to recuse herself from Crossroads related votes. As citizens of the Town of Shandaken, we should all have confidence that the decisions of our elected officials are based on the merits. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest or the potential for personal gain as the result of an official vote is enough to undermine the integrity of our government decision-making and must be avoided.
            The situation with the Todds' land fits the definition of conflict of interest as it reads in Shandaken Town Law. In response to this issue, the attorney for the Town of Shandaken stated that "There should be full disclosure of the facts... In the event that a conflict does exist and recusal does not occur, a determination of a governing board could result in a successful challenge and reversal of the determination that was reached." He also said that the Shandaken Board of Ethics can render an 'advisory' opinion and "these advisory opinions are not binding on third parties."
            The Town attorney stated that the town needs to take this issue seriously and the Ethics Committee determination alone will not be enough to put it to rest. Shandaken officials need to be listening to the advice of their own lawyer rather than focusing on us and ignoring both their lawyer and their laws. The information that Friends of Catskill Park presented to the Town, (including deeds and dates) is all fact and is a matter of public record. A thorough rather than cursory look needs to be taken at this information.
            There is a reason conflict of interest laws were created which is to protect the public interest from the potential misuse of one's official position for personal gain. When there is a conflict of interest, the potential for one, or the appearance of one, especially when there is a 300 million dollar development on the table, it is a very serious matter.
            The process of investigating the conflict of interest issue should be open and done with integrity and by the book. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening in Shandaken. The public has been completely shut out. First, the Ethics Committee was hand-picked by our Town Board majority (which includes Jane Todd) and the inexperienced, 3-member committee was given no substantial training before being asked to make a determination. Second, the Ethics Committee is required to have rules of procedure, which they apparently do not have, and meetings are required to be public with the provision that they can enter executive sessions for certain discussions. The Shandaken Ethics Committee meeting(s) did not meet this criteria; they were unannounced and held without public knowledge or presence. Third, the written determination by the Ethics Committee (if there is a written determination) stating their reasons for clearing Jane Todd of conflict of interest should be public information, but Supervisor Bob Cross claims it will not be made public because it is a 'personnel' matter, not a legal matter That is a 'closed loop' if I ever saw one.
            Any responsible newspaper would print ALL sides of this issue in a fair and unbiased manner because it is important and the public has a right to know Instead, the Townsman, our 'official' Town newspaper, ignores or defends the inappropriate handling of this matter on the part of the Town Board and appears to be the 'official' spokesman for the 'closed loop'. The Townsman has obfuscated and misrepresented the situation and has blamed the messenger, in this case Friends of Catskill Park, for bringing to light a serious legal issue that needs to be addressed. The result, the 'official' town newspaper (as well as the Ethics committee and the Town board) has left the public out of the 'closed loop' and has subverted, rather than encouraged meaningful public dialogue and process.
            I would like to mention a couple of points made by the Townsman that indicate how they are distorting the facts. (I do believe that the editor has access to just as many facts as we do so ignorance is no excuse.) The newspaper understates that the Todd's property is on the 'same mountain' as the resort, when in fact the Todd's property is surrounded on 3 sides by resort land and is central to the main gateway to the development. The Townsman says that although the Todd's land was acquired just 19 days before a major parcel of resort property, that particular piece of resort property was bought by Worldbridge Associates of Baltimore, Maryland, implying that there was no correlation. In reality, Worldbridge Associates is/was one of developer Dean Gitter's affiliated corporations, along with Ridge Sportsman's, another company that spent the following few months purchasing parcels which ultimately became part of the resort site. Both companies purchased several pieces of property which were later merged to make up the eastern footprint of the proposed Belleayre Resort. The parcels were transferred to Crossroads Ventures in December of 1999. Clearly there was long range planning involved in acquiring the 1960 acres of land for the resort site and certain individuals knew about this plan long before the public had any idea there was a plan.
            The last paragraph of the Townsman editorial says that "too much time has been wasted on the subject" (meaning Todd's alleged conflict of interest) and it ends with a not-too-veiled attempt to intimidate Friends of Catskill Park and others into backing off. The uproar the editor seems to want to see die down has been created by himself and those he is trying to protect, not by us. We are only the messengers. The obvious question: if there is nothing to hide, why the closed-door process, misrepresentation of facts, and attempts to intimidate people onto silence?
I am quite sure that those of us following this issue will be happy to 'back off' when the Town Board does it's job, follows town laws, takes this issue seriously, and gets to the bottom of it rather than trying to sweep it under the rug. Until then, this cat is out of the bag and it is not likely to go back in any time soon.
            Very sincerely,
Judith Wyman
Chair, Friends of Catskill Park

Dear Editor,
            I quote this entry in the "Weird But True" section of The New York Post (March 29, 2004) in its entirety: "Educators apparently had no foresight when they opened a $5 million driving range on the campus of L.A. City College.  Errant golf balls have become the plague of the campus, with students ducking for their lives and using their books as shields."
            Clearly golf can be a dangerous proposition.
Sparrow,
Phoenicia, NY

Dear Editor,
            Throughout the United States, 17.2% of all children lived in poverty in 2002. This amounts to 12.2 million youngsters and would include many millions more were Washington to employ a realistic standard for measuring poverty.  Likewise, hunger is increasing for children and adults. Between 1999-2002 an additional 1.5 million households joined those officially termed "food insecure," bringing the total to 12 million households, many with several child members.
            Every day, over 2,000 children are born poor in the U.S. — and it's usually a life sentence, despite the lingering belief that upward mobility remains possible for millions of poor and lower working class children. Under present conditions, there is no way for more than a tiny fraction of these young people to break free from the economic barriers and limited horizons into which they were born. Their most predictable future consists of a lifetime of low-wage, insecure jobs with limited benefits, joining the Armed Forces, or landing in jail.
            This situation is in stunning contradiction to the equality of rights, opportunity and treatment that is supposed to be a foundation of American democracy. What equal opportunities does our society provide a child of poverty compared to a child of means? Children are "born equal," but as soon as they take their first breath, "some are more equal than others." How is it possible to construct a genuine democracy that does not contain an important element of economic democracy as well?
            U.S. citizens fought for and now enjoy broad civil liberties and a Bill of Rights (although both are under fierce attack by such measures as the USA Patriot Act), and for many of us in the world's wealthiest country, the living is good, at least until the next economic downturn. But for many
millions the living is wretched because American democracy does not include rights to a job, a livable minimum wage, affordable childcare, decent housing, universal healthcare, well-funded schools for poor and working class kids, affirmative action for the most oppressed, and sufficient leisure to unwind and enjoy life.
            How could America possibly afford this?  Actually, the money already exists to inject a large enough dose of economic democracy into our society to end poverty in the next 10 to 20 years. What's required are major reductions in Washington's grotesquely bloated military budget and a restoration of higher tax rates that used to be paid by the big corporations, Wall St. and that richest 10% of the U.S. population that possesses the royal share of our society's great wealth and assets.
            This is an election year, and the matter of extricating millions of America's children out of poverty isn't even on the agenda of either the Republican or Democratic Party.
Jack A. Smith
New Paltz, NY

Dear editor,
            The author of the March 11 column of Natural Wonders includes an  insect photo which he/she says "appears to be a bee assassin, which  preys on honeybees". The Audubon Field Guide to Insects and Spiders is cited as the source of information.
            Alas, the hind-leg tarsus of the photographed insect is flared. The  tarsus of the bee assassin is thin.
            Further, the back of the photographed insect is evenly colored. The  posterior abdomen of the assassin bug is darker than the anterior.
            The author is correct in identifying the insect as a bug (Hemiptera).  But it is a species of leaf-footed bug, not an assassin bug. Instead of feeding on honeybees, it feeds on plant juices. In the fall, these insects frequently seek shelter in country houses. Their bold behavior and slow movements make them convenient subjects for photographers with closeup lenses.
            Sincerely,
Uldis Roze
Douglaston, NY

Dear Editor,
            If the only folks who will vote for Bush are the ones who are better off now than they were four years ago (by any way you wish to measure) then Boy George and his chums will be out in a landslide. After all, how many large corporation CEO's are there?
William Moorman
Glenford, NY

Dear Editor,
            Changes are taking place at the Saugerties Transfer Station.  The towns of Woodstock and Shandaken also use the Saugerties Transfer Station.  Saugerties is instituting an increase in per bag charges and converting to a bag purchase system.   There will also be no cash transactions at the transfer station. We feel that the "checks only" or Telecheck system is a positive move rather than dealing with cash at the transfer station.  However, other methods of payment should be formulated for those users that do not have checking accounts.
            According to a recent handout from the Transfer Station and Saugerties Town Board, these changes are necessary due to increasing costs of operating the transfer station. We understand that costs are increasing.  However we feel that a full public accounting and disclosure must come from the town board regarding the costs and revenue before increasing fees which is basically a tax on users of the transfer station. The transfer station was established to be self-sustaining and a service to residents. The fact that the town was required to pay over $93,000 in fines because of labor and safety violations at the transfer station should not be part of the fee increases.The public should not be forced to pay for the lack of governmental oversight at the transfer station.
            At the present time, the board has only talked about fee increases for people who dispose using bags or cans. There has been no announcement about fees for trucks, white goods, tires etc. If fee increases are indeed required, there should be a comprehensive plan raising fees across the board, not impacting just one type of user. 
            Looking closer at the plan, and the relative cost of various users of the system. Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency charges Saugerties $70 per ton for all waste leaving our transfer station.  If we assume that a 33-gallon bag of garbage weighs on average 20 lbs, at $2 per bag users are now paying $200 per ton, and the proposed increase will bring it to $300 per ton. 
            Let's contrast this with what a user with a truck would pay.  The present rate for trucks is $25 per cubic yard.  According to solid waste industry figures a cubic yard of trash weighs 286 lbs, and a cubic yard of compacted trash weigh 500 lbs.  Doing some simple calculations it turns out that users who dump uncompacted trash are paying $175 per ton and users who dump compacted trash in a truck pay $100 per ton.  There are errors that creep into these rates.  First, it is difficult to estimate the number of cubic yards in a truck, all trucks are not filled the same, and the density of the material is different.  Construction and demolition debris (C&D) weighs considerably more than household trash.  It's easy to see that a truck with C&D coming into the Saugerties Transfer Station could be paying considerably less than $100 a ton, and in fact some are not covering the town's cost of disposal.  It certainly looks like the Town Board is trying to balance the books at the transfer station on the backs of the small user.
            The only fair solution is to purchase scales and charge by weight. Other towns have scales at their transfer stations.  Plattekill has a scale, and they charge users 6 cents a lb, which comes to $120 per ton.  This ensures that the Town of Plattekill gets enough revenue from each truck to cover their disposal costs with the RRA. The town board voted for a $475 thousand dollar bond for the Saugerties Police, Highway and Parks, Recreation and Building Departments that was not covered in the 2004 budget.  We urge the town board to reconsider their priorities and use some of the $475 thousand to purchase weight scales for the transfer station. 
            In addition to the cost issue, many people have pointed out that mandating the use of plastic bags is a step backwards environmentally. Many users don't use plastic bags, and others use plastic bags multiple times. We also recommend that the Town Board rethink requiring people to buy plastic for a one-time use.  The proposed solution is anti-environmental.  At the very least, bags that are made from recycled plastic or biodegradable bags must be used.                One of the reasons stated for the change to special plastic bags is to stop people from dumping more bags or cans than they pay for.  Human nature being what it is, if people are inclined to steal services, then they will find a way using the new special plastic bags unless transfer station employees watch everyone dumping and alter or mark each town bag so that it cannot be re-used. This is very labor intensive and inefficient.  Without this oversight, transfer station revenues will rapidly diminish.
            We urge residents to contact town board members about these issues before the board votes on the fee increases and policy changes.
Mike Harkavy
Gary Bischoff 
Saugerties, NY

Dear Editor,
            Please join us on Sunday, April 25, in Washington D.C., and be part of a huge turnout to support "Choice." Let's let the politicians know where we stand.
            Please call Planned Parenthood to reserve a seat on a bus leaving from Kingston. Be a part of the 10-bus caravan from the Hudson Valley! Call the PP office at 471-1530 ext.114, for reservations or more information.
            Roz Balkin
Woodstock Planned Parenthood
Benefit Committee

Dear Editor,
            The other night I was listening to the news when the reporter said we may be seeing $3-a-gallon gasoline this summer. One of the reasons listed was that OPEC was limiting supplies in order to boost the price. When is this country going to get smart and reduce our dependence on Middle East oil?
            I am sure that conservation measures and alternative energy sources could help the situation in the long term and our country is pursuing these options. But in the mean time we should be developing the resources we have here.
            A case in point is the vast oil reserves in Alaska. This oil could go a long way toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, some environmental groups, with the help of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, have stymied efforts to tap this supply of oil. The reason given is that development would affect 2,000 acres of federal land and possibly have an adverse impact on the wildlife there. This sounds serious until you realize that this land is part of a 20-million-acre piece of federal land. That means only 1 percent of the area will be affected.
            I'm not saying that we should just turn over all government land to the oil industry. But there must be a middle ground where we can obtain the oil we need while protecting the environment. The alternative is high energy prices which will cause a rise in inflation and resultant increase in interest rates. This will inevitably lead to a slowdown in the economy and higher unemployment.
            President Bush supports efforts to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and keep our economy growing, while still providing for the protection of our environment. I wish the same could be said for Senators Clinton and Schumer.
Paul J. Wenner
Stamford, NY

Dear Editor,
            Currently in our nation there is increased media attention to and public discussion of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. One matter concerns altering the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Another proposed amendment, which has received less media attention, but has a great importance to me, concerns the prerequisites to run for president.
            Over two centuries ago the United States Constitution was born. While it succeeded in creating "a more perfect union," some provisions, such as Article II Section I, now seem unjust and outdated. This section, in part, states that, "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President..." I feel that this provision unjustly prohibits millions of American citizens from leading our nation. According to the last U.S. census there are 12.5 million foreign-born, naturalized citizens; approximately four percent of the population.
            I am just one person out of the millions that make up this statistic, who does not meet the Constitutional requirements to become President. Like many other American citizens, I was born in a foreign nation and adopted by a natural-born, American citizen. I arrived on American soil when I was only four months old and have called America my home for sixteen years. Yet I am still not seen as equal under the Constitution.
            The United States is known as the "melting pot" and has also been called the "land of opportunity." Each American citizen has ancestry that predates the birth of the United States, and has heritage from foreign soil, except Native Americans. Isn't it ironic that European explorers thought that they had set foot on my homeland, India, when they had actually arrived in America? Since all of us have foreign origins, why should I not have the same opportunities just because I arrived later? Now that we are living in a post 9/11 world, some people argue that there are sound reasons for restricting immigrants from serving as president, but I disagree. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that, "all men are created equal." I find it contradictory that I am said to be equal under our Declaration of Independence, but that our Constitution denies me an opportunity that over ninety percent of the population has.
            In the past, the Constitution has been amended to provide equality to groups that were criminals in trials, to provide suffrage for African Americans and women, and to lower the voting age. I believe that it is now time for an amendment to be enacted to provide equal opportunity to those of us who are foreign-born, naturalized citizens. To be candid, I am not planning to run for president in the future. However, one out of the 12.5 million citizens who suffer this restriction, or an infant who is traveling from a foreign country to be adopted by American parents, will one day have the dream and the ability to lead our nation. How ill that child's parents tell their son or daughter that this dream is impossible?
Avanti Peters
Woodstock, NY

Dear Editor,
            Children are our future and our treasure just as senior citizens are our history and our wealth. Every child needs an adult's interest, attention, love and guidance. They need to live free of violence, fear and shame. As individuals and as a society we must ensure children's wellbeing. In order to do this, we must support parents and those in parenting roles. There are many agencies in our community that dedicate their services to helping these families and children, but they can't do it alone. All need help, whether in the form of volunteers, financial contributions or other services. Please consider assisting one of these agencies in whatever way you can. Each of us can also help by being aware of familial stress around us. Help out with a family member, a neighbor, or a co-worker. Offer a little bit of respite or a sympathetic ear. Just being there to listen can be a tremendous help to someone.
            If you suspect that a child you know is being abused or neglected, call the Child Abuse Hotline at 1-800-342-3720. Be aware!
Nan P. Hermus
YWCA of Ulster County
Kingston, NY