Dense or sense?

To the editor:

No one should be against sensible, thoughtful development, but last December the Town of Bethel approved across-the-board one-acre zoning, contrary to the recommendations of the comprehensive plan for the town’s growth, which advised a mix of one-, two- and five-acre lots within the various zoned areas. This action has effectively opened the door to high-density developments that can potentially destroy the charming rural character of the town.

Since Bethel, from its past as a landmark in American cultural history, to its new and exciting incarnation as home to the Bethel Woods Performing Arts Center, is Sullivan County’s most important tourist destination, perhaps the powers-that-be should better understand the value of preserving its widely documented and recognizable pastoral setting.

On June 12, the town planning board may well approve a 44-home subdivision on Burr Road and Route 17B, potentially setting the precedent for many further such projects to irreversibly change its scenic landscape and encourage suburban sprawl. With over 50,000 acres of land, Bethel could legitimately become a town of 30,000 homes and 50,000 people.

Does this make sense? Keep Bethel Rural, a group of concerned Bethel residents who have come together to monitor the increase in prospecting for major subdivisions and cluster housing developments in the town, does not believe so. Dan Ionescu, an architect and planner who has had a home on Burr Road for over 12 years, said, “As an architect, I have been on both sides of the fence when it comes to development and I understand a developer’s perspective and risk in acquiring a piece of land to develop it. But, in this case, and not necessarily because it is on our road, I see that a development of this size and density would harm the rural character of the area and ultimately impact negatively the quality of life for both year-round residents and second-homers like myself.”

Keep Bethel Rural encourages Bethel’s residents, neighbors and visitors alike to support its Dense or Sense campaign and express their opinion about the issues at the June 12 public hearing.

For more information please visit www.keepbethelrural.org or contact keepbeth@keepbethelrural.org.

Enough with the snuff films

To the editor:

Before owner-publisher Laurie Stuart left on her spiritual sabbatical, I missed no opportunity, when submitting a letter or responding to solicitations for suggestions on improving the newspaper, to propose: “Find yourself an adult film critic.” While I admire The River Reporter (TRR) for publishing film reviews, I find the musings of Ian Pugh adolescent and often disturbingly off base.

Explaining his passion for gore, Mr. Pugh happily admits, in his recent TRR review of the deliberately trashy double bill “Grindhouse:” “Lord knows I loves me some zombies in my low-budget actioners (I grew up on ‘Dawn of the Dead,’ after all),” which I take as a confession of the arrested development that seems to afflict all avid devotees of current cinema’s spate of slasher trash. They’re as symptomatic of the pathology of current society as the ghastly massacre at Virginia Tech.

Quentin Tarantino is a sadistic thug who misuses his modicum of filmmaking skills to indulge a puerile lust for cruel violence. His major talent is seemingly to legitimize the sicker impulses of his fellow adolescents by assuring them that their titillation at the sight of simulated decapitations and gross acts of random cruelty are somehow a sign of their devotion to film. Critics who embrace his violent works, including Ian Pugh, are enablers. So, alas, are the publications, including TRR, who give such self-justifying writers public voice.

In a May 2 op-ed piece in The New York Times, popular screenwriter Mike White disputes the idea that the current wallowing in mindless cinematic violence has no effect, pointing out the intense influence films have on the audience, influencing their dress, speech and behavior. White poses the searing question, “Can we really in good conscience conclude that the violence saturating our popular culture has no impact? The calamity at Virginia Tech is unfortunately not as unique an event as we’d like to think.”

I urge TRR to reconsider Pugh and his deplorable enthusiasms. You produce a remarkable weekly paper and I thank heaven for it each Thursday. But then one turns a page and is confronted by Ian Pugh blandly peddling pornography, it brings down the tone of your whole enterprise.

Alfred Lees

Another line of approach to NYRI

To the editor:

Everyone is very concerned about the real possibility of unwanted and unneeded power lines being erected from Canada to New York City. Those opposing the power lines face well financed and strong, politically connected opponents.

While sitting on the Pennsylvania side of the bridge near Damascus, relaxing and reading the paper, seeing the ducks flying by in the air, the canoeists paddling down the river and families fishing, it occurred to me that it would be like a disaster out of science fiction to upset the balance between people and Mother Nature by permitting grotesque structures to be placed along this corridor of natural beauty.

But I had a thought about a possible avenue for fighting the power line while doing research for the Wayne County Arts Alliance project titled “Living Treasures,” that documents the artists living among us.

It made me think of the National Historic Preservation Trust Historic Trust, and what they have preserved. Research will show you that they have adopted certain land areas, such as Lancaster County, as targets for protection. Perhaps each individual landowner along the proposed route of the power line should consider whether they could work with the trust, as well as townships, counties and states. This might enable them to get protections for the land in question that would have to be separately addressed by the power company, creating legal problems that could be prohibitively expensive.

This power line company is not concerned with preserving the artistry of what a greater power has created, but it needs to be concerned with economic costs, as that is what they need to explain to their investors and stockholders.

I am not involved in any legal work on this matter and just wanted to share this thought with those who will be adversely affected, as they need to re-visit this approach.

Tolerance yes—approval no

To the editor:

The New York State Assembly may soon be considering bill A8590, an act to amend the domestic relations law in relation to the ability to marry. The ability to marry is a rather asinine designation—the “right to marry one of the same sex” is really what we are talking about. Perhaps it would be to our benefit if the government gave us the ability to do what is right in our own eyes. We live in a country where we have freedom of choice and I respect that, but choices have consequences. If someone wants to live with someone that is their business, but do not expect everyone to agree or to pay for their choices. The bill will have budget consequences: “The bill will require additional state expenditures for spousal benefits for those partners of state employees who are not eligible for such benefits under current law.” (Quote from bill A8590)

If the people who represent us care what the people think, this issue should be brought to a vote by the people and not railroaded into law by the governor. If the government approves something, that does not make it right. What if there is a higher power or the Bible is true? Love, yes, tolerance, yes, approval, no.

How long should those of us who believe in a higher power continue to sit back while our tax money is used to pass laws contrary to our beliefs? Perhaps it’s time to withhold our taxes to the extent that they are used to violate our conscience. We must make a choice between obeying God and man. Nothing is politically right that is morally wrong. Bill A8590may be read in its entirely at assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A8590.