Mothballing Light?

To the Editor:

In the difficult Village budget discussion one item being considered is an appropriation of $171,765 for maintaining the St. Paul's main building for the next year. This includes $109K for oil, $16K for electricity, $7K for water, and $13K for gas to start the boiler burner.

In discussion at the last Trustees meeting it was suggested that another poll be conducted to determine whether the majority of residents want the building preserved or demolished. An easier way to determine the wishes of residents (as I have suggested before) would be to establish an account that would accept donations to provide the maintenance. In the December '08 POA poll 1857 persons voted for mothballing. If each of these persons donated $92.50, the cost could be met without further burden to the remaining taxpayers. Such a commitment would surely impress me.

Considering the other items being deferred, it is fiscally irresponsible to allocate $171K to heat a vacant building while waiting for a white knight to appear, more unlikely than ever in the current economic climate. If the building deteriorates faster without heat, so be it - the facade will remain for quite a while, testimony to rejection of a $50M offer. In the unlikely event that beleaguered residents approve a bond referendum to demolish the building, the Trustees will still not pursue it and be the ones on record as causing its demise. So why not just continue to let it exist with (as some have called it) "mothballing light" - but at the expense only of those willing to pay for it.

Bill Bellmer

Need Lower Taxes

To the Editor:

We are in a vicious cycle where fewer jobs and more government debt are driving lower asset prices (houses, stocks, etc) and higher taxes (federal, state, and local). If Garden City does not lower its local taxes, they will continue to rise dramatically as a percentage of our declining home prices. Why would anyone want to buy such an asset? Our town grew up mostly during the post depression expansion, and it easy to think certain town expenses are critical. This is why such economic busts happen once ever 75 years or so, and insures why the current one will get worse. I appeal to our town board to make the hard decisions to get our taxes lower. I appeal to our residents to email MayorPBee@gardencityny.net if they feel the same way.

Ron Tadross

No Ulterior Motive

To the Editor:

Contrary to Mr. Urban's "Con Job" letter, the Garden City School District and the Teacher's Association have been inviting Senior Citizens to Masquers performances and other school events free of charge for many years. There is no ulterior motive to the invitations-just an opportunity to enjoy an afternoon or evening of watching talented students perform for a group who may not be familiar with what's happening in the schools.

Kay Thompson

IB Cheerleading Session

To The Editor:

I recently attended the International Baccalaureate (IB) Parent Focus Group. As the district researched this program for two years, I expected a presentation that would give Garden City parents a broad understanding of the IB program. Instead, I was treated to a cheerleading session, where only positive aspects of the program were presented. When I asked for a balanced view, I was told that "this was not the purpose of the meeting" and that it would be inappropriate to discuss the cons of IB as it was not yet presented to the School Board.

I was dumbstruck. After two years of research and spending, the central administration has not yet presented a balanced picture to the school board. The School Board will vote on implementing IB in April or May of this year. I question the ability of any Board to adequately weigh the pros and cons of IB, in such a short time frame, and in the midst of finalizing a school budget.

Central Administration needs to explain the delay of presenting the drawbacks of any program, until the eve of the School Board vote. Central Administration must also explain why only positive aspects were highlighted during the "parent focus groups". Was it Central Administration's goal to illicit a parent discussion on only the merits of the program? Perhaps, Central Administration does not understand that highlighting only the positive amounts to the dissemination of propaganda, not information.

After two years of research, questions and concerns of IB remain unaddressed by Central Administration. At the Parent Focus Group, our Central Administrators dutifully recorded all questions but were either unwilling or unable to answer even one question. Cost was the first query posed. I found it incredible that Central Administration, in light of our budgetary constraints, had the temerity to withhold publicizing the entire cost. They then glibly announced that "all educational programs are expensive". Residents are still in the dark as to not only the entire cost of the IB Program but to a number of other vital aspects: 1.) Colleges only recognize Higher Level courses or full Diploma Program and not Certificate Program and Standard Level courses; 2.) that a maximum of 20 to 30 students will participate in the IB Diploma Program 3.) curriculum biases in light of the self-proclaimed socialist views of IB officials; 4.) loss of local control of curriculum; 5.) nature of appeals process governed by the courts in Switzerland; 6.) crowding out of other programs (specifically AP) due to space, budget and enrollment.

Central Administrative assured parents that our "successful" AP program would not be dismantled as it has in other school districts of our size. Central Administration could not or would not inform us of how both programs would be implemented. Central Administration touted IB as a means of improving writing and academic capabilities of all students. No independent educational study was referenced to support such a claim. Two parents questioned whether IB was the only program to enhance students writing. Again, no response was forthcoming. The questions at the Focus Group were the same questions posed two months ago at the PTA Townhall Meeting. These same concerns have been expressed by parents in school districts throughout the country.

I hope that this biased IB presentation was an aberration and not an indication of how Central Administration introduces school initiatives. I urge the School Board not to consider implementing the IB program until Central Administration puts forth an unbiased presentation so that an informed debate and parent discussions may take place.

Julie Soussis

Learn From Our Mistakes

To The Editor:

I enjoyed Mr. Ruggiero's response to Mr. Heaney's letter from February 27th. Mr. Ruggiero put forth legitimate points, namely that the United States was headed in the wrong direction under President Bush's leadership, long before Barack Obama took over the Presidency. Unfortunately, Mr. Ruggiero misses the larger problem by embroiling himself in a partisan debate: blaming Republicans, and looking to the Democrats for the answer, when a change in philosophy is the real answer.

Mr. Ruggiero correctly blames the Bush administration for a host of problems that many Republicans have been trying to pin on the Obama administration. Of course the problems that our nation is experiencing began long before Barack Obama was sworn in as President. He inherited a badly mismanaged war in Iraq, and an economy on the precipice of full-fledged depression. Mr. Ruggiero, however, fails to mention that President Bush did many of the things that Republicans are now criticizing the Obama administration for doing. For example, last October, urged by President Bush, Congress voted to hand out $700 billion to failing banks under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Barack Obama applauded the Act's passage while on the campaign trail. This means that if we give Mr. Obama a chance, as Mr. Ruggiero appeals to us to do, and the so-called stimulus bill succeeds, then we must also credit Mr. Bush for starting America on the right path. Conversely, if our nation's finances continue to spiral downward, then both men deserve a share of the blame.

Where Mr. Ruggiero falls into the trap of partisanship is his belief that a Democratic president and Democratic Congress will be able to solve these issues with more spending when our last President was by no means fiscally conservative. Since President Bush began this unprecedented spending spree, the only difference between a few months ago and today is the name of the President spending our tax dollars in bulk; Congress has remained solidly Democratic. If as Mr. Ruggiero states, he is opposed to the numerous bailouts, why would he think that Obama's plan would prove any more successful than Bush's? President Bush's failed bailout was one of the justifications that President Obama used to call for the second bailout passed in February. This seems like a terrible error in logic. If the first bailout did not work, why would a second or a third?

Mr. Ruggiero also fairly criticizes the government's abysmal response to the Hurricane Katrina's disaster. If one evaluates the issue from Mr. Ruggiero's point of view, then President Bush deserves the scolding he has faced from his critics. The federal government acted slowly and failed to adequately respond to the situation throughout the entire crisis. Later in his letter, Mr. Ruggiero criticizes the governors of some states for rejecting federal monies appropriated to their states by the most recent "stimulus bill." On the surface, Mr. Ruggiero is right. Why should governors, like Bobby Jindal (Congressional representative during the Katrina disaster) of Louisiana who experienced the horrors of Katrina first-hand, reject federal aid? Seemingly their positions are born out of stubbornness and recalcitrance. This could not be farther from the truth. By taking the money from the federal government, these poor states would allow a greater degree of federal intervention and interfere in their political and economic workings, which would happen since the federal aid directed to these states would, of course, come with stipulations giving the federal government more control of how the states spend their money. Why would a governor who experienced the ineptitude of the federal government in a time of extreme trouble want to put his statue further at the government's mercy? How could his conscience justify it?

Although Mr. Ruggiero makes some valid points about President Bush's flawed stint in the executive Office, I find his statement that he "has no problem with the richest Americans paying more of their fair share" in poor taste. This implies that our most productive and industrious citizens (there are always exceptions) were not paying their fair share before President Obama's tax increases, and will still be short-changing America even with their new tax load. Personally, I do not see anything fair about rewarding fiscal irresponsibility with tax bailouts, especially when we reward those who have squandered their money by penalizing the people whose hard work has kept our nation solvent.

It is time we looked past party affiliation and evaluated the philosophical and historical soundness of our President's policies.

Stephen Childs

Agrees With Heaney

To The Editor:

For many years I've enjoyed the perceptive and incisive letters written by Edward Heaney and published in the Garden City News.

Thus it was a shock to read a rambling note from a brain-washed democrat, attacking Mr. Heaney.

There was no sense in the letter. In fact it was comical in its cliche-ridden prose. The writer merely repeated the standard democrat "talking points."

The writer stated that we must give Obama a chance - a chance for what?

We know that Obama is a radical leftist. He will appoint radical leftist judges. Obama stated that his idea of a good judge is Justice Ginsberg - ugh.

Since Obama has been in office, we've seen how he rambles and staggers with no real plan.

His appointments are incredibly bad. "Give him a chance."

Obama wants no drilling. He proposes the "Fairness Doctrine," which is nothing but censorship. He is for "affirmative action" and "reparations."

Our financial structure is being obliterated by this unqualified man.

He is a stooge for "labor."

He advances his plan for universal abortion: no restrictions, no parental notification. All medical personal will be forced to wallow in the degradation of infant butchery.

"Give him a chance."

Please keep writing, Mr. Heaney.

My friends and I appreciate you. God bless you.

Angelo DiPippo

You Made My Day

To The Editor:

A personal note of thanks to Robbie, of the GC Sanitation Department. I unknowingly dropped my IPod on the street as I rushed to the train last week. When I arrived home, I found a note and my IPod inside the mail slot. The note was from Robbie, saying he found this IPod in the street and assumed it was mine. I very much appreciate your honesty and the return of the IPod. Thanks!!!

Jim Carney