Time To Take Action

To the Editor:

On Monday, April 3 there will be a public hearing at Village Hall at 8 p.m. regarding certain properties within our village. Without going into a long explanation, it appears that the trustees' intend to divert Sunrise Assisted Living from the Cathedral House property. They are hoping to rezone 550 Stewart Avenue and all other multi-dwelling residences in town for assisted living use. There are some major drawbacks to this plan, the first being that none of these properties are for sale. Secondly, even if 550 Stewart Avenue were rezoned, it is not an appropriate spot for assisted living. It lacks many of the important characteristics for a successful assisted living property. Primarily, the board's plan seems to be following that of the St. Paul's property and that is to throw even more ideas into the mix to prolong the need to make a decision.

If your parents required assisted living, would you want them landlocked on a busy street that would be dangerous for them to cross? Sunrise is not a nursing home, but an assisted living facility and the residents still want to lead an active life. First, I would ask you to look deep into your heart and think about what is morally right. Every religion and every culture holds their elders in high esteem. Those of us who follow the Ten Commandments know that "honor thy father and thy mother" really applies to honoring all our elders. Put yourself in the shoes of a senior citizen who needs assistance to continue to accomplish his or her daily activities. Would you want to be valued enough by your community to be allowed to be an integral part of its life or would you want to be stuck in the outskirts of town next to a utility plant? Do you want to promote the Garden City stereotype and exclude those less able from our town because it doesn't fit into some "master plan", or are you going to support what you know is the right thing to do?

Next, let's think about the village's financial aspect of Sunrise leasing the property from the Cathedral. As was stated at a village board meeting, it would take a private developer putting up five 10,000 square foot homes on the Cathedral House property in order to generate the tax revenue for the village that assisted living will generate. Now, can you imagine five McMansions that large on that property? And, who would be motivated to buy a home that abuts the railroad tracks for the kind of money it would cost? Right now there is no tax revenue on this property. The Cathedral is making limited use of the building and it is seeking to find a tenant for it. Under the current zoning laws, another house of worship would be a justified use. This use would cause much more traffic, bring no tax revenue and probably not have a lot of members who reside in the village.

So, I implore you to attend the hearing at Village Hall and let your voice be heard. Even if you disagree with my philosophy and point of view, we must urge our trustees to make a decision so we do not have another Wyndham or St. Paul's situation on our hands. It's time for the residents to be heard. Three years have passed since the application for assisted living on the Cathedral House site was first submitted. Sunrise has given the village all the information they requested and changed the size and location on the property of the proposed building at the request of the trustees. It's time for the Village Board to take action and not be afraid to stand up for their beliefs. Isn't that why we put them in office?

Dianne Moody

A Slippery Slope

To the Editor:

It was March 13, 1964. I can remember hearing the story on our family's kitchen radio as if it were yesterday. A 28-year old New York woman was dead. She had been savagely attacked - repeatedly stabbed - while more than three dozen local apartment dwellers did nothing to go to her aid.

''Oh, my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!'', she cried out during the 3 AM assault. Residents in the adjacent 10-story Kew Gardens apartment building, hearing the screams, turned on their lights. One resident yelled through his window for the assailant to leave her alone.

Hearing this, the attacker left, but only briefly. When the residents turned out their lights to resume their interrupted night's sleep, he returned to stab her again. Her renewed cries for help caused the lights to go back on, and once more the attacker fled. Still no one went to the woman's aid or even called the police. Instead, her neighbors closed their shades and pretended nothing happened. A Queens bus even passed the scene. No one wanted to get involved.

Despite her many stab wounds the woman tried to crawl to the safety of one of the apartment buildings' doorways, only to be tracked down by the assailant who brazenly attacked her for the third time, completing his 35-minute brutal murder.

When interviewed later by the police, one of the 38 residents who witnessed the attack said the reason she did not get involved was because she thought it was a dispute between a husband and his wife. It was a private matter, not a public matter.

Kitty Genovese, 28, died an unspeakable death, and no one came to her aid. She was the innocent victim of both a savage attacker and a paralyzed, or worse, apathetic citizenry. Her death would come to symbolize the self-absorption or perhaps, cowardice of a generation of Americans.

Fast forward to March 2005, and our citizenry was once again faced with an unthinkable assault on a woman; Terri Schiavo was being starved to death, and her pleas for mercy, like those of Kitty Genovese, were ignored. Despite her family's cries for help, an innocent woman died an unspeakable death by starvation and dehydration.

Today, one year later, March 31, 2006 will mark the first memorial anniversary of the death of Terri Schiavo, the 41-year old brain-injured Florida woman who expired 10 days after a court ruled that her feeding tube be removed. I repeat feeding tube removed. Not a respirator or ventilator. No, just a small tube that provided Terri with the same daily sustenance that you and I need to survive.

The American legal system had gaveled a death sentence for Terri while the American public stood by. In the evenings, many of us gathered at our television sets, spell-bound by the latest episode of our real-life "Truman Show." We gawked at Terri Schiavo as if she were a car wreck on the road of life - slowing down for a time to observe the scene, then speeding off to resume our busy routines. After all, it was a private matter, not a public matter.

In Terri's final hours, Terri's estranged husband's attorney, George Felos, told the public, that he had "never seen such a look of beauty and peace upon her." But Terri Schiavo's father, Robert Schindler, likened her complexion to that of a concentration camp victim, saying, "she is fighting like hell to stay alive."

Mr. Felos is either a blind man, or a sinister ghoul. If I had been denied food and water for 10 days, I am sure there would be no "beauty or peace" on my face. Ask anyone who has had to fast before a medical procedure what it is like to go a day with just liquids and no solid food. Prolonged hunger is an unthinkable torture, but Felos and his right-to-die ilk spoke jabberwocky to the American public.

Respected columnist, Thomas Sowell wrote on March 25, 2005, "The nature of death by starvation and dehydration is also being depicted as 'gentle' in the words of the New York Times -- the same New York Times which in 2002 reported starving people in India dying 'clutching pained stomachs.' This 'gentle' death is the story line in the liberal media, but a priest who has actually seen Terri Schiavo tells a wholly different story of her visibly deteriorating condition. If this is such an easy death, why not videotape it and show those of us who are less enlightened how mistaken we are? Instead, there is a ban on anyone's photographing Terri as she dies."

He continued, "Despite the oft-repeated claim that Terri Schiavo is being 'allowed' to die, supposedly in accordance with her own wishes, the only person who says that these were her wishes is the one person who wants her dead and who personally stands to benefit from her death -- her husband, Michael Schiavo."

And that brings up the issue of motive. Who would benefit from Terri's death?

Remember that Michael Schiavo - on behalf of Terri - won a medical malpractice suit against Terri's doctors. He successfully convinced the jury that Terri's life was indeed worthy of the $1.6 million dollar award. He stated in the trial that he would never leave Terri, and that the money would be used for her continued rehabilitation. Medical records show that shortly after the money was awarded, all rehabilitation of Terri was stopped - as per Michael Schaivo's orders.

Recognize that during the malpractice case, Michael Schiavo did not tell the court that Terri had said she never wanted to be on a feeding tube. For if he had done so, the jury surely would not have awarded the money. Strangely, it was not until 1998 - nearly 7 years later - that he had an amazing recollection that Terri told him that she never wanted to be kept on a feeding tube.

Remember that the cornerstone of the judge's decision to remove the feeding tube was based solely on the husband's statement that Terri Schiavo did not want to be fed through a feeding tube.

Further realize that within a year and a half of Terri's collapse, it became known that Michael Schiavo had developed an intimate relationship with another woman. While he battled in court to have Terri's feeding tube removed, he lived with the woman and fathered two children with her.

And recall that upon her death, Terri's estranged husband arranged to have her cremated and buried in a Pennsylvania graveyard, never telling her family the location.

Last March, WorldNetDaily.com writer, Sarah Forster, provided some insight on Michael Schaivo's actions.

"When a jury awarded Terri Schiavo more than $1 million ($1.6 million) in a medical malpractice suit against her two physicians in 1992, it did so believing the money would be used to pay for the brain-injured woman's long-term care and rehabilitation. But instead of the therapy he promised he'd provide for Terri, her estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, 41, who is also her legal guardian, used most of the money to pay attorneys to arrange his wife's death; and he did this with full court approval. The money awarded Terri was placed in a trust fund, and a judge approved all expenditures from pedicures to attorney bills. The latter has skyrocketed over the years, as Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, battled their son-in-law in the Florida courts over their daughter's right to live."

Ms. Foster adds, "By June 2001, the trust fund money had dwindled to $350,000. Today (March 26, 2005), just $40,000 to $50,000 remains. Deborah Bushnell, who has represented Michael Schiavo since 1993 in a series of legal skirmishes with the Schindlers (Terri's parents), this month told the Associated Press she has been paid $80,309 since becoming involved in the case. "Right to die" advocate and attorney George Felos, who was hired surreptitiously by Schiavo in 1997 to win court approval for Terri's death by removing her feeding tube, has been paid $348,434, according to Bushnell. Informed sources say an additional $50,000 should be added to that figure. Four years ago, the St. Petersburg Times reported records showed Felos was paid more than $200,000 between 1997 and June 2001, while Bushnell garnered $27,000 between 1993 and June 2001 - which means she has been paid more than $50,000 in just four years. Schiavo, too, was reimbursed $6,000 for legal costs. Felos (also) admitted to the St. Petersburg Times that the American Civil Liberties Union is helping underwrite Schiavo's litigation."

We live in a country that is schizophrenic. We have endangered species laws that protect snail darters and a Hollywood fraternity that beats its chest with disclaimers at the conclusion of each big screen production -"no animals were killed or hurt" during filming.

Locally, this week here on Long Island, a 27-year old Northport man was sentenced to a year in the Suffolk County Jail because he left his dog alone at home for a week while he went on vacation. The dog died without food and water. Suffolk County Judge Barbara Kahn addressed the convicted man, saying, "What motivated you to commit this vicious crime remains a mystery to me."

Terri Schiavo, an innocent woman who needed a feeding tube in order to live, was sentenced to death. Bobby Schindler, Terri's brother, like Judge Kahn, also wondered in disbelief. "I don't get it," he said. "An awful lot of people want my sister dead, and they've spent a lot of money killing her. What I can't figure out is why."

We can not figure why either, Bobby, but the answer may lie in the often used expression, The Slippery Slope. Forty-two years ago, a small group of Americans witnessed the killing of an innocent woman, and were too afraid to do anything about it. Last year, the entire country witnessed the killing of an innocent woman, and when some people tried to come to her aid, the American legal system placed its seal of approval on her sentence and by fiat ordered her death. What had been the weakness of a small group of people forty-two years ago has today become the sin of an entire nation.

If there can be any consolation to the Schiavo family, it is that on this March 31st anniversary many Americans who value the sanctity of each human life send their deepest condolences and offer their prayers for the repose of the soul of Terri, who received her heavenly Father's embrace on March 31, 2005.

God bless Terri. God help us all.

Art and Ann O'Brien

Disservice To The Reader

To the Editor:

The fact that your newspaper publishes articles such as "Menschdom" in the Discovery section of the March 10, issue does not serve you or the community well. In the past, the G. C. News published tasteful articles of general interest which were written by various people. However, to publish the ravings and prejudices of Marjorie Wolfe is a disservice to the reader of your paper.

If Wolfe wants to rant that Mel Gibson is not a 'mensch' because he had the audacity to make the movie "Passion of the Christ," we should not be subjected to it and pay for the privilege of reading her ridiculous musings. Additionally, to have M. Wolfe paid a fee to reprint slander against our elected officials by noted wacko leftist Paul Krugman of the New York Times is certainly an indication of your newspapers falling standards of good taste.

I wonder if you will publish a 'hit piece' on Hillary Clinton and some other extreme leftists? If so, let me know as I will be glad to oblige by writing such an article. And I will not accept a fee. It is time for you to clean up your act.

John Friedel