Share this article

print logo

Everybody's Column

>Proposal is wrong way to protect open space

This Election Day, voters in Aurora should oppose Proposal No. 2, also known as the "open space bond." While many of us in Aurora support the need to preserve and protect the character of our community, purchasing privately owned land easements with taxpayer money is neither the right plan nor necessary to achieve this objective.

If approved, Proposal No. 2 allows the town to issue a $2.5 million, 20-year bond that will increase taxes for every Aurora property owner and will cost taxpayers more than $3.5 million in principal, interest and lost tax revenues. The bond would in fact almost double the town's total existing debt service.

The proposal would also hurt taxpayers by limiting public access to the private land easements that are purchased with their money since the easements would remain in private ownership. As a result, Aurora taxpayers will need to look at their taxpayer-funded conservation easements from the road or through a fence.

Open space protection is an idea whose time has come, but it should not and does not have to come at the unnecessary expense of Aurora's current and future taxpayers, especially during these uncertain financial times.

Jerry Thompson II
East Aurora


>Barr would be better than McCain, Obama

Once again our two major political parties have given us the proverbial "lesser of two evils" choice for president: a Democrat who would spend us further into the poorhouse, and a Republican inclined to military adventurism as his default position. Polls have shown that there is a significant portion of Americans who would prefer a president who is both fiscally responsible and willing to resist the temptation of an interventionist foreign policy. This is almost a dictionary definition of a libertarian.

Bob Barr, a four-term congressman from Georgia, is the Libertarian Party nominee for president and the only remaining contender who would lead an administration based on the principles of the Constitution. If you liked Ron Paul, you're going to love Barr. More information on the only real candidate for change can be found at

John Swanson
East Amherst


>Political campaigns last much too long

The finish line is close and it will be great when the political marathon is over. For example, the presidential campaign will have lasted some 22 months and cost millions of wasted dollars.

All political campaigns should not be allowed by law to start until 90 to 120 days prior to election. Given our modern communications, politicians should be able to get their qualifications across to the world in that time frame. Of course, what would political pundits, pollsters, the media and those seeking favors do for 20-some months?

Also, what is the real value of primaries except to cull out the alleged less popular candidate by state? It would be beneficial to our country if anyone who wanted to be president was allowed to campaign for 90 to 120 days only, and all were put on the ballot.

The good ole days will return soon, when we have only drug companies, auto dealers, injury attorneys, mattress salesmen, etc. hawking their wares on TV. In the meantime, I hope your "mute" button hasn't worn out.

Kevin McDonnell
West Seneca


>Elections Board trying to deter future votes

Elections Commissioner Ralph Mohr stated that the recent court action lifting the stay on the vote to downsize the West Seneca Town Board could lead to longer voting-lines countywide on Tuesday.

His reason is that the Elections Board has to immediately set aside 50 of the county's 1,000 voting booths to handle the West Seneca referendum. He said that under state election law, all voting machines used in the election have to be impounded for up to 30 days until the county votes are certified.

Mohr's response typifies the partisan bureaucrats' response to actions by the public that could impose on their political fiefdoms. This response is regardless of party affiliation. Mohr and his cohorts work for the citizenry but in reality work against the best interest of the citizenry.

He and the West Seneca Town Board know that the referendum could coincide with the vote on Tuesday. However, it is in their best interest to punish all county voters to deter future votes of this kind. With these types of politicos and bureaucrats, it is no wonder that a minority of the eligible voters actual vote.

William Alan Christen II


>Let's work to keep guns out of criminals' hands

Regarding a recent letter, handgun bans are not handgun elimination. Handgun elimination is not going to happen. The American people don't have the will to support it. Besides, what the cliche says is true: "When handguns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Americans are best served by efforts to prevent handguns from getting into the hands of criminals. Such was the thinking during the Clinton administration, when recovered crime guns were traced and the flow of crime guns was analyzed to guide the efforts of law enforcement.

Back-door efforts during the succeeding administration to hobble the collection, analysis and distribution of that data were, unfortunately, successful. Instead of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives being instrumental in coordinating crime gun trace analysis on behalf of law enforcement agencies, the ATF became a barrier to it. Not nearly all that could be done to make us safe, within the scope of our existing hand gun possession and registration laws, is indeed being done.

Lorenzo Gasbarrini


>America needs the profit motive

The term "profit motive" is given a bum rap when politicians and the media limit its application to the profits obtained by Wall Street banks and Big Oil. For any organization the "profit motive" is certainly better than the "loss motive." A profit results in a cash surplus, and a cash surplus signals that a business, civic organization or household is living within its means.

Unfortunately, the "loss motive" has been standard practice for state and federal government politicians who fail to produce balanced budgets because this would require them to make the tough choices associated with spending cuts. Even worse, federal government politicians have forced the "loss motive" on America by allowing record trade deficits so that America can continue to be dependent on cheap imported oil.

The "loss motive" is also applicable to voters who fail to recognize the need for our nation and our governments to live within their means.

Michael F. Patterson
Clarence Center

There are no comments - be the first to comment