Thanks for the basketball!

To the editor:

We would like to thank Mr. Ellison and Mrs. Grishaber for organizing the Saturday Morning Youth Basketball League in Jeffersonville this year. We had a great time! We appreciate all of the time they spent and hope they have the program again next year.

Sullivan West space not feasible for BOCES

To the editor:

Sullivan County BOCES has proposed a building project for the Rubin Pollack Education Center in Liberty. As the District Superintendent I have traveled throughout the county explaining the need for this project. I have been asked by a number of people why the BOCES is proposing additional space when the Sullivan West Central School District has a great deal of excess space at the Delaware Valley and Narrowsburg Schools. I would like to explain why our rental of space at those facilities is not possible for the needs that we now face.

The proposed addition to our school in Liberty would be for the use of the high-need special education students sent to us by the eight school districts in the county. Unlike the special education students of low or moderate need who are educated in their home schools, these are children who require extensive services and specialized programs.

The problem with housing these programs at either Narrowsburg or Delaware Valley is transportation and time. Almost all of our special education students start their day by taking a school bus from their home to their respective school district facility. From there they are bused to our Liberty campus on Ferndale-Loomis Road. This is a necessary step, as the students must be grouped by program and age. If we were to have our programs in Narrowsburg or Delaware Valley, they would have to then be bused to those facilities. The total bus time would far exceed two hours in each direction. We are required to have at least five hours of instruction for each elementary age student exclusive of lunch. Under the situation that I have described, that would not be possible.

I appreciate the difficult situation in which the Sullivan West District finds itself. If there were a BOCES program that we could house in any of the excess facilities, we would certainly offer to do so. Unfortunately, that situation does not presently exist, but we will continue to investigate future possibilities.

BOCES building is an unnecessary investment

To the editor:

Sullivan county voters are about to be bamboozled. On March 17, in a countywide referendum, area residents are being asked to rubber stamp an economically irresponsible $17,200,000 expansion of the Rubin Pollack Education Center in Liberty.

Because no local school board had the interest or intestinal fortitude to exercise its veto power and stop this project in its tracks, the final decision has been left up to the voters. Apparently, key BOCES administrators and some school board members feel that an uninformed electorate can easily be manipulated into approving this frivolous proposal.

What BOCES Superintendent Martin Handler has neglected to tell county residents is that there are reasonable and inexpensive alternatives to his request for 18 additional classrooms.

BOCES can rent classroom space in the White Sulphur Springs school building for a fraction of the cost of this project.

Additionally, virtually every building in the overbuilt and half-empty Sullivan West Central School District is available for rent either in whole or in part by BOCES at much cheaper rate than this proposal.

At a time when the Sullivan West Central School District is planning on shifting the middle school from Jeffersonville to the Lake Huntington high school, BOCES Superintendent Martin Handler’s $17,2000,000 building proposal comes across as extravagant, wasteful and unnecessary. It is a classic example of bad government and poor planning.

This is one of the few times when you can actually stop serious financial insanity and profligate government waste by going to the polls. If the voters reject this proposal, it could force BOCES to actually consider renting from Sullivan West. An informed vote in the March 17 BOCES referendum is a no vote.

March 17 votes denies snowbirds their rights

To the editor:

The thought of spending $17.2 million dollars on a new BOCES building after Marty Handler manipulated Sullivan West voters to push for a merger that has proven nothing but a nightmare makes my stomach turn. The fact that our snowbirds can’t even vote seems unconstitutional. At least give everyone the right to tell you where to go and how to get there! Rent space from Sullivan West School District!

This is reality not TV

To the editor:

This is not a game show! Our representatives are playing with our lives. They still push the fantasy that it will be like the ‘40s, ‘50s and 60s with the old hotels. The developers love the fact that New York City is nearby. There will be no winners among us, only losers. So, why are the people here letting them get away with it? And, why are our representatives doing it to us?

One reason given is the need for jobs—thousands? There is a small-unemployed workforce here. Who are these thousands? The other is that there are bound to be escapees from the “Indian” casinos who will spend some small change at local stores and give the economy a big lift?

Think how exciting it will be to watch massive traffic jams of anxious gamblers pouring on the “reservations;” schools full of new students, many probably not speaking English; thousands of low-skilled workers looking for cheap housing; the land cleared for those apartments; and property taxes going through the roof.

The state will not pick up the bill. And, still, the people sit watching it as if it is a television show. Why aren’t there massive protests? Why aren’t we allowed to vote on this life-altering proposal of Governor Pataki’s? Can we have a voice about our future?

Land deals opens can of worms

To the editor:

Here’s a trick question. “How will casino gaming in Sullivan County affect our county and the region?” Answer. “It’s the wrong question.” The reason it’s the wrong question is that it implicitly assumes Sullivan will have casino gaming and surrounding counties (save possibly Ulster) will not. “So what’s the problem,” you ask? To better understand this, one needs to take a careful look at each of the five tribal land claim settlement agreements that Governor Pataki has already signed onto and is looking to make our reality. These agreements contain something that no one is talking about, and my guess is that very few people are even aware of it. It’s not featured in the governor’s land claim settlement legislation, nor is it mentioned in the environmental reviews associated with the tribal casinos inherent to that that legislation. It’s a provisional clause that states: “the Tribe and certain other compact authorized Indian nation shall have exclusivity with respect to the installation and operation of … slot machines or any other class II or class III game, including but not limited to black jack, craps, and roulette…”

Here’s the kicker. It’s not limited to Sullivan and Ulster counties but applies to “a geographic area defined by Bronx, Delaware, Greene, Kings, New York, Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Sullivan, Ulster and Westchester counties…”

I wonder if state senator and assembly representatives for these counties are even aware of this. I’m fairly certain that the people who they serve are not. And there’s another little surprise. The 12 counties involved in this arrangement only include five of the seven considered to comprise the Mid-Hudson Valley. I’ve been trying to understand why both Dutchess and Putnam were not included. Perhaps the town of Garrison, near the Dutchess-Putnam border, provides a clue, since that’s where the governor calls home.

It’s true that the governor’s legislation in 2001 authorized three casinos in Sullivan and Ulster counties. And it’s true that the governor’s legislation of 2004 is looking to legalize five casinos there. But what the governor’s land claim settlement agreements portend, is the expansion of class II and class III casino games well beyond the foothills of the Catskill Mountains.

So the correct question to ask is “Can Sullivan County reap the economic benefits touted by Pataki’s five casino plan, when similar gaming is taking place outside that county, within those population centers that proponents of his plan are betting on drawing from?” I normally don’t answer a question with a question, but “have you ever seen a trout fisherman trade in his waders for a seat at the black jack table, or a bird watcher trade binoculars for a roulette wheel?”

Are the jobs worth the costs?

To the editor:

As those who represent us, you have a responsibility to consider the welfare of all the people. How many destroyed and ruined lives are you willing to allow? If your decisions only destroy one person is that allowed or must fifty or a hundred be destroyed? How much is a single life worth? If it was your son or daughter, or mother or father, what would it be worth? Is money more important than people’s lives? There is an abundance of data documenting and substantiating the harmful effects of gambling on individuals, families and communities. I ask you how much is the life of an individual worth? Is legalized casino gambling justified for the sake of jobs and money when the lives of thousands of individuals could be destroyed? What if the Bible is true?

It’s all rather shocking

To the editor:

Remember when Claude Raines, in the role of police chief in the movie, “Casablanca,” expressed surprise that gambling was going on at Rick’s Place? “I’m shocked! Shocked!” he said. He had the grace, however, to express his shock ironically. He expected no one to believe him.

Arrogantly high-handed State Senator John Bonacic, on the other hand, reportedly expressed shock when, recently, he was forced to listen to a lot of dismayingly tardy, but objective facts concerning gambling’s dark downside. The difference is that Bonacic’s claim wasn’t ironic; he expected everyone to believe him.

If we were to believe that he was indeed shocked, we would have to see him as embarrassingly credulous and/or unforgivably irresponsible. If we don’t believe him, we raise very serious doubts about his honesty as well as about whom he sees himself responsible to.

If casino gambling ever arrives, Bonacic’s political career would go on forever. Gambling interests would appreciate and support him. If, as is more likely, casinos don’t arrive, we should get rid of him, along with, Aileen, “I think the plan needs a little tweaking,” (Tweaking?) Gunther, Cunningham, Gaebel, Hiatt and the rest of the casino flunkeys want to turn our area into the gridlocked, crime, suicide, pollution, drug addiction, money laundering and bankruptcy capitol of the surrounding 100 miles. (Not to mention school financing and housing issues.)

I have come, by the way, to believe (for reasons that provoke sympathy) that legislators Binder and Goldstein actually sincerely believe the nonsense that casino interests offer as facts and promises, and they too must go.

Peace in the world—now

To the editor:

The war in Iraq continues and the media and Administration would like to keep the news from there very lowkey so we put it way in the back of our minds where it won’t bother us. Remember the song of 1970 that goes “War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!”

This war is breaking hearts all over America and Iraq. What is it good for? Wasting precious lives. Breaking hearts. Wasting precious resources.

What can you and I do to make the pain go away? “Rise up against a sea of trouble and thus end them.” Pray, speak out in every way you can and join us on Saturday, March 19 at 1:00 p.m. in New Paltz. People from the Catskills and the mid-Hudson Valley who want peace and oppose the war are gathering at Hasbrouck Park for a rally and a march. These protests are happening all over the United States and the world on that day.

Peace is the way. Let there be peace. Please join with us.

Tim Shera

Looking for the semblance of truth

To the editor:

With so many competing claims involved in the Social Security brouhaha, it’s difficult to tell which information is reliable, much less decide what to think. But I’ve been able to come to some conclusions.

People can be excused for being skeptical about the motives of the players involved. The Republicans have received huge campaign support from the brokerage industry and other financial professionals, who stand to make a substantial amount of money from Bush’s proposed changes. I’m not aware of a similar high-stakes constituency on the Democratic side, aside from retirees themselves; but of course the Democrats themselves have a great interest in seeing the present system maintained, particularly if they are seen as being its protectors.

Speaking of financial professionals, people can also be excused for being skeptical about them as well. The recent scandals at Merrill Lynch and other firms are still fresh in memory for many, and the industry has not done enough to establish a semblance of trust since then.

I actually favor more widely spread stock ownership, particularly among the working class. (How curious that we’re moving closer to the old Marxist ideal of “worker ownership of the means of production” through such capitalist means!) Hopefully, increased ownership would also bring increased awareness of corporate activities, increased control of corporate excesses and increased social responsibility on the part of corporations.

But what I don’t want to see is increased pressure to dismantle necessary business regulations in the name of increasing retirement returns. I can hear the pitches now: “You’ll have more money to retire on if you don’t make us install these pollution controls—or maintain worker safety—or pay our foreign workers decent wages” rather than things like “We’ll assure larger returns for retirees and other stockholders by keeping reasonable caps on CEO compensation.”

I’m surprised that the discussion focuses so much on tools—Social Security, private retirement accounts—rather than the desired outcomes. What do we want to accomplish? Do we want to assure a decent standard of living for all our seniors, or simply make it possible for some to have wonderful retirements while others will barely get by? Do we want to encourage families to take care of their own seniors where possible? Do we want to actually lower the retirement age, or keep raising it until it is meaningless and force people to be economically productive until they drop? A debate about the ends should precede the debate about the means.

Finally, let me suggest a simple methodology for designing a retirement program: use that old standby, the Golden Rule. Ask yourself “What is the basic minimum that I would want for myself when I retire?” Then ask, “What am I willing to do—what kind of sacrifice am I willing to make—to ensure that everyone could get at least what I want for myself?” This might point the way better than all the online calculators, fuzzy sound bites and barnstorming administration officials.

Is a constitutional amendment needed

To the editor:

The 2004 Presidential election brought forth a cry for a constitutional amendment. This amendment would again introduce segregation back into this nation. Unity is what we need, not more division as called for by some segregationists. But wait! What if an amendment of such ideology were endorsed and passed? What and who will be next on the agenda to ban, to label, to outlaw, to enslave, to jail? Ponderous? Yes United States, you can awake and find it is you!

An amendment is needed that demands and embraces honest government and enforces harsh punishment for abuse of that office’s trust. This amendment should call for triple the punishments of that normally levied upon the heads of citizens that commit the same type of crime instead of the usual wrist slap. We have forgotten our government is supposed to be “of the people,” “by the people,” “for the people.” Instead it has become a government of “your pocket is my pocket and be quiet about it!”

This amendment should cover misuse of public monies, land, contracts, etc, if not debated in the halls of congress. It should cover bribes, gifts, such as vacations, home improvements and sex partners from lobbyists. It should call for forfeiture of all benefits that would be derived of a clean transparent public service record. An amendment of this nature would filter out the greedy-seedy politicians from the well wishers. An amendment such as this could cut government spending by establishing competitive bidding instead of sweetheart deals as is done now.

But who will champion such a bill calling for an amendment that would cut off “pork barrel” trough? Since all politicians are honest, upright, straightforward and, above all, moral in character, this should be a slam-dunk bill. Is it un-American to speak of politicians in a way that may put some as unsavory? Why not! After all, they themselves prove their value, their character, almost daily or weekly costing taxpayers millions of dollars in court and lawyer costs annually. The truth of the matter is that some of today’s politicians are the worst examples of morality. The “Patriot Act” was passed unanimously by Congress without it ever being read and 11 top New Jersey politicians recently indicted are examples of their integrity. Politicians live off of you through your taxes. We expect that as long as he or she is trying to do the best for our people and country. If an amendment is needed, let it be one that strengthens and unites us not one that calls for division, segregation or separation in form and God Bless Our United States of America!

Hello from Harris

To the editor:

Having written a weekly column for over 40 years, it has not been my way to write about myself. However, this is a column about Annie Proyect, who is a permanent resident in the SNU department at the Catskill Regional Medical Center, located in Harris, NY.

I note that I used the word “column.” This is a statement about my appreciation having found myself at the age of 84 in such a safe and maturing environment.

I would like the community at large to know how fortunate we are to have this nursing unit that includes a staff that cares so much. There is just plain, dedicated, consistent hard work on the part of each nurse, each aide.

Consideration is given to food desires. We know that the management and clerical staff are available for any questions or need.

There is a sincere caring about each person’s ailment and care sought to cure. There is no bigotry—absolutely none, regardless of the color, religion or condition of each resident. I truly appreciate that.

I just want the community to know that I am here and am so grateful.