The Letter
IP: 146.235.130.8
Posted on 6/4/2004 at 02:30:44 AM by C.J.Parsons

I would like to thank everyone for the many emails, and calls I received concerning my letter. Even the suggestion that Spafford Republicans resemble the KKK is unacceptable and outraged me as it did you. I could not sit idly by and not respond. The Republican Party is my party, my team, and as a committee member I must defend it. Joyce Barnett has responded in kind but she dodges the issues and avoids challenging my assertions. We can only assume, guilty as charged. Instead she dredges up old election rhetoric. I shall also respond to that. But don't let my words influence you, pay attention to the facts and you be the Judge.
1. The Comprehensive Plan. Joyce has been in office 6 months and has yet to offer any suggestions, ideas, put forth any proposals or make any recommendations for the implementation of such.
2. Zoning. Joyce turned down Supervisor Irelands offer to serve as Code Enforcement Officer, a mostly clerical position (Doug Staley does the inspections) and an ideal way to learn about Spafford Zoning Laws.
3. Community Forums. At the last meeting 6 people attended.
4. C.J. Parsons ran unopposed in elections for 8 years. In my first election in 1995 I was opposed at the Caucus AND in the General election by Janet Haines. In 1999 I was opposed at the Caucus (and nearly defeated) by Cherry Randall.
5. She considers her election astonishing. In 1995 "Mickey Mouse" almost won an office as a write-in.
6. Support for the SAHS. At the May Town Board Meeting Joyce voted against the purchase of the property adjacent to the Grange. Property that could be used for parking so slow old timers like me and little people would not end up as road kill on treacherous route 41.
7. Grange Funds. Joyce continues to stall on a letter of agreement with the town for the $89000 grant.
Have a nice week everyone. I am off to California.

Re(1): The Letter
IP: 66.218.7.66
Posted on 6/25/2004 at 04:36:10 PM by Jeff Spain

Joyce is right to shoot down buying land for parking! As if it's this major attraction or something? What's wrong with parking for a few cars curbside on the same side as the SAHS?

Re(2): The Letter
IP: 64.12.116.15
Posted on 7/3/2004 at 10:44:53 PM by Kate

I will agree with you on that. I think it is a disgrace on this town to put in another parking lot. As a resident of the home that they are trying to distroy I must say that I will do my best to see it is not accomplished. Instead of taking away the homes that have been here longer than anyone here the town should encourage the fixing and restoring of these old properties. I, for one, would rather see restored older homes then parking lots and asphault. Give it up already! If it is attention you people seek then you need a life!

Miss Information
IP: 64.179.7.126
Posted on 7/4/2004 at 10:30:05 AM by Joyce Green

I was at the board meetings, am at most of them. I have the "official board minutes" from the Town Clerk, and I write the "bullett minutes" because the "official" minutes are available some 30 days later, and people want to know what's going on and can't always attend due to work, home, school--LIFE.

I've had conversations with board members when I've had to clarify a point. We now video tape and record board meetings to keep an accurate and unbiased record of He-says-She-says.

I'm not always right. But I'm not always wrong either.

There is a perception being marketed that the Republicans have a conspiracy against the Spafford Party. I wish the Republicans were organized enough to conspire. Fact is that's where the Spafford Party excels-- marketing false information and provoking an atmosphere of hostility and contradiction.

What Mr. Ireland actually stated was that the property would be used for additional parking and to install leach lines for the grange building, and for a picnic pavillion. I think the opinion was that the house would take too much money to restore and bring up to code.

You remember codes? The things the Spafford Party doesn't think the town has enough of or know how to enforce.

There was discussion about parking being needed because of summer programs for children, and a host of many other SAHS activities held in this building. Parking for example, across from the church, while may be ample, still means you have to hightail it across the street risking life and limb on the exhaust fumes of a tractor trailer.

So there was perceived to be a need for parking.

I recall the topic of the safe crossing of Rt.41 en route to the grange building being brought up at more than a few past town board meetings by some of the same people that oppose it now. Why oppose it now?
Politics, baby.

Keep in mind to apply for a grant, you have to have some purpose for the grant.
There may be some flexibility-- you may be able to change it after receiving the grant.

The topic was first raised at the February public hearing. There was a lot of discussion about possibilities, options, and what people wanted and didn't want to see done with the property next to the grange at 1865 E. Lake Rd. I also don't think Mr. Ireland thought this idea would be met with such controversy. He was trying to do something to help the historical society. Whatever his motives, I am not interested in debating what you think he really meant or didn't mean.
Get your facts straight. Consider your sources. Don't be an alarmist.
No one is trying to pave the town.

I'm glad you have an opinion, and are moved to post. That's what its here for. The Bullett is here for you. Hope you continue to do so.

Hope you don't mind when I disagree. At least I can back up what I say.

Misinfo or fair debate?
IP: 12.75.110.128
Posted on 7/5/2004 at 05:04:06 PM by Sad Saga in Spafford

Joyce, What are you saying? That people are misinformed because they don't agree with you that our historic buildings should be torn down?

Joe's model on a board in the Town Hall displaying how Gordon Ireland wants to handle the property next to the Grange shows a historic home and carriage house demolished and a parking lot in its place. Apparently you and Joe support Ireland in this. But why not review those buildings and make a determination of whether they can be saved? A little historic business district in Borodino is far more desireable than a parking lot and the concept should not be dismissed without a review.

I saw a town board member make a motion to have the two buildings next to the Grange (house and carriage house) looked at by a preservation architect or a structural engineer to determine its condition. Supervisor Ireland, his son and his buddies on the board all voted that down and as usual they were rude, nasty and intimating to anyone from the public that spoke out. Their message: They make the decisions in this town not the people. Sorry, but I was there and that is the message I got, very loud and very clear. I went in there with an open mind and couldn't believe the performance I witnessed. My wife was so upset she won't go to Town Board meetings. (Exactly what Ireland wants, do doubt.) You bet I have a problem with a Town Supervisor who tells people to shut up, sit down, you stupid clowns when they respectfully make point he doesn't like! And I will say so. Certainly you don't think that makes me "an immoral person, misinformed, causing problems, who should get out of town."

That attitude is the problem in Spafford. Not the people who stand up to that type of abuse of the public.

This is how Supervisor Ireland proposes to spend our taxpaper's money and change downtown Borodino (according to his written proposal):

Buy a house for more than market value, without consulting the people of Spafford or the Town Board on any of the details until after the purchase offer is finalized: $65,000

I believe the sale is already a done deal. The Town owns the property so it is now off the tax roles like several other lots at the corners. This is not necessarily bad, if the lots are being used for the benefit of the people of Spafford, but...

Ireland will tear down two historic properties without allowing a professional determination of whether they may be saved. Once an old building is taken down, it is lost forever. So is a piece of the history and tradition of our Town. Why not let an engineer or architect look over the buildings? Because Ireland and company already made that decision and that should be good enough for the other 1600 people in Spafford? And because Ireland said he didn’t want to spend a few hundred dollars. (Although, I bet the historical people would have their preservation architect in there at no cost to the town!)

Cost to the taxpayers of tearing down the 2 properties next to the Grange? $40,000 - $70,000 at least. More if there is asbestos or petroleum contamination as Ireland found when he tore down the IGA.

Put in parking lot and landscape: I believe Ireland wrote in $12,000 -15,000

Now instead of just worrying about pedestrians being hit by speeding traffic, we can have a FIFTH major traffic pull-out in that intersection and greatly increase the chance of accidents for everyone who drives through that intersection.

Put up picnic pavilion where the carriage house was (why do people want to picnic next to a parking lot on a state highway in the exhaust of tractor trailers?) We wouldn’t want to look into a picnic pavilion on the lake or somewhere pleasant instead? Cost according to Ireland's own proposal? $60,000 (didn't include lighting or electricity)

So for a grand total of $210,000 of taxpayer money we can demolish some of our history, have another parking lot in downtown Borodino and we can all enjoy picnics between a parking lot and truck traffic on the State highway.

Is your purpose on the Bullett to present both sides of an issue? Or is it just to defend your friends and your own ideas? Certainly you understand that because someone doesn't have your same perspective doesn't make them misinformed. By the way, I believe you neglected to include most of the facts given here in your version of the "minutes."

Re(1): Misinfo or fair debate?
IP: 64.179.7.157
Posted on 7/6/2004 at 02:28:06 PM by RANDY V


The historic district was Mr Vecchio's Idea months ago. The white house is not as important as the corner properties. You should be putting your energy there as Mr Vecchio is. Free your hateful mind and look at the model again. His Idea of a historical district is more realistic than yours. Asbestos and contaminated water would have to be cleaned up with or without the parking lot. Right? Or would you leave it there if you saved the unnecessary house. Where is the historical's architect in regards to the grange? He and others had five months to make their own model. Why did you people not do it if there is so many of you?? You mean you don't know if he (your architect ) would do it for free? I thought you where good friends with him and the historical society. You associate Mr Vecchio and Ireland. His model and clear proposal speaks for itself. He did it on his own. Make you own model and place it next to his. Where is yours anyways? Mr Vecchio did not need Supervisor Ireland, he did not need an architect or a committee to do it. Once again you are asleep at the wheel. If you had a better idea you should have come up with it months ago like Mr Vecchio did. Why did you wait till now? You make a lot of money so why did you not purchase the so called "historical house and carriage yourself???? Joe says his architect doesn't agree with "your" architect as to what is historical. I hope Richard doesn't tear down his "historical house and carriage" next to Mr Vecchio's home in the future because he would be destroying my history. Stop the exaggerations. I disagree with you. The bullett prints data from pete and other spafford members. You could have wrote in anytime. you could have presented ideas months ago. you know where Mr Vecchio lives. bring him your $ and ideas. Yes, the majority want it down. If growth is at our doorsteps and if the Grange is to become more active the the years to come, then a safe driveway sounds fair. The corner piece of property has no safe parking and never will. For a historical district to exist it must be active or do you want the taxpayers to pay for inactive buildings? Lets go out and do a poll. Why can't the historical society accept the fact that not all historical members agree with them. Mr Vecchio supports the saving of the two corner properties. Where are you on this??? Are you going to memtion this in your next blog?

Misinformation? A fifth pull out? Get factual. There's already is a big driveway there now. The grange's and the house next door. So nothing will really change will it? If the town is growing then I rather have a nice parking area to assist and reduce the possibility of an accident as cars speed around the corner. Why can't you appreciate a more viable solution? Why are you so against change and new perspectives? Where's the tolerance? The compromise?
Stop blaming the government and start doing for yourself. Certainly you understand that because someone doesn't have your same intellectual perspective doesn't make them a destroyer of history. Does it? But it's not really the perspective is it? It's that one perspective has to give way to another in a DEMOCRACY. The majority voted for change. Better luck next time.

PS: lets see if your $210.000 is accurate. And belive me, none of YOUR history is being destroyed by demolishing that white house. Where's your sense of honesty? I have friends so I will enjoy a picnic.

Re(2): Misinfo or fair debate?
IP: 12.75.112.197
Posted on 7/6/2004 at 07:44:22 PM by Carl Jung, III

Wow!

Do you really hate your neigbors as much as your words indicate? Do you think you would ever hurt any of them?

Re(3): Misinfo or fair debate?
IP: 64.179.14.124
Posted on 7/7/2004 at 11:13:54 AM by Caul Jung's abused son.

Wow! Wow! Wow! You're the "exbert". Not to mention the teacher, are you not?
Stop in and see me. Joe Vecchio 1850 East Lake Rd.

Re(2): Misinfo or fair debate?
IP: 216.238.59.220
Posted on 7/6/2004 at 04:49:18 PM by Patricia von Mechow

DITTO
Joyce, no matter what anyone else says, you're doing what others are not capable of. I want to thank you for supplying this town with the opportunity to learn and become educated about what is going on locally.
Thank you! Keep on sharing.

Re(1): Misinfo or fair debate?
IP: 64.179.7.98
Posted on 7/6/2004 at 06:34:55 AM by Joyce G

I don't think any historic buildings should be torn down. Once again, your facts are not straight.

Re(2): Misinfo or fair debate?
IP: 172.200.84.21
Posted on 7/8/2004 at 11:43:12 PM by Niles Watcher

This sounds serious if only I knew what any of you are talking about.I understand the part about asbestos; you have to remove it whether or not you tear down those buildings. Our old buildings have corn cobs for insulation.
I agree that who ever is running this site is doing a service; makes things interesting if not always factual in some of comments.
Still think you folks have lot of free "wind" without your "wind farm"