April 1, 2013

Letters to the Editor: April 1, 2013


---- — Donation appreciated

TO THE EDITOR: The Ellenburg Lady Cats Traveling Basketball Team, coached by Kelley Gilmore and Dennis LaBarge, received a generous donation of $500 from the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association union at Clinton Correctional Facility.

The money was used to help with tournament expenses and to purchase new uniforms for the team.

Thank you, NYSCOPBA.




Merger criticized

TO THE EDITOR: Our Franklin County legislators need to put a stop to the Alice Hyde/Franklin County Nursing Home merger before it is too late.

The significant higher taxes due to the $10 million the county is required to give Alice Hyde, the jobs that will be lost and especially the number of beds that are going to be lost in Franklin County are reasons more than sufficient to stop the merger from going ahead.

In light of our County Nursing Home operating at a loss in the past, our legislators were right to look for possible solutions. However, our Nursing Home has not operated at a loss for the last two years, and they need no longer exists.

Franklin County Nursing Home was built to assure Franklin County residents a bed in the county when they needed one. With the merger, there will be more than one-third (20) fewer skilled-care nursing-home beds.

Alice Hyde, which operates as a business, will accept much higher paying private payees first. With many fewer beds, unless you are one of the lucky people that can afford to pay nearly $100,000 a year for a bed, you will be forced to go out of county.

Whether we merge should be based on what is best for the future of Franklin County residents and taxpayers, not what’s best for Alice Hyde’s future.

The financial cost to taxpayers and the devastation to us and our families are far too great a price to allow the merger to go ahead. Call you legislators and tell them you do not want the merger to go through.

Tell them you want Alice Hyde Nursing Home and the Franklin County Nursing Home to remain as they are.




Credit Union

TO THE EDITOR: Some 50 years ago, John Roach felt Peru Central School employees were in need of a financial institution that provided economical services.

After lots of hard work, Peru Central School Federal Credit Union received its approval of organization certificate from the National Credit Union Administration to operate beginning March 28, 1963.

Soon after, AuSable Valley Central School and Clinton Community College joined as the three major employer groups of our Credit Union.

We have been growing ever since. 

As we celebrate 50 years of service, we would like to like to say thank you to the many individuals who have served the Credit Union as Board of Directors, Supervisory Committee members and Credit Committee members. Their commitment and leadership are instrumental to the success of our Credit Union, and, for that, we are all grateful. You deserve a big round of applause for giving your time and sharing your expertise.

We also say thank you to every one of our members for using your credit union for your financial needs. We value each and every one of you. While a lot has changed over the years, our philosophy hasn’t. We are “People Helping People” and will continue this tradition in the many years to come.

To my staff — Jamiee, Dianne, Abbey and Morgan — I am grateful for each and every one of you. Thank you for all you do.


Peru Central School Federal Credit Union


Control distinctions

TO THE EDITOR: I attended the March 18 Essex County Board of Supervisors Meeting at which the Board voted in favor of repeal of the SAFE Act.

There are provisions of the SAFE Act that are ill conceived and unclear, but there are also provisions that are reasonable.

The Board’s resolution in favor of repeal rather than amendment of the SAFE ACT, its invocation of the Second Amendment in support of repeal and the board’s failure to offer suggested changes perpetrate the unfounded notion that all gun-control laws are a violation of the Second Amendment.

This is a point I tried to make, unsuccessfully, at the meeting: The U.S. Supreme Court’s gun-control decisions of 2008 and 2010 made it clear that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion upholding an individual right to bear arms was limited to the facts of the case: the use of a handgun for self protection in the home.

Lower court decisions since the Supreme Court’s decision have upheld many different gun-control laws.

I am a strong supporter of hunting as a sport and as a way of controlling species overpopulation.

The county’s repeal resolution draws no distinction between the legitimate interest of hunters and those who hold the radical view, as a number of the audience members asserted, that the Second Amendment bars any restriction on the ownership and use of firearms, including bans on weapons that are not made for hunting but are made for killing humans rapidly and in large numbers.