Letters to the Editor May 12

YMCA fund drive didn’t stall, it hasn’t even begun yet

I’m a strong believer in presenting facts correctly, It’s important for the interested citizenry to know the following: The YMCA has not had problems raising funds for a new facility. A capital fund drive hasn’t been started as it would be inappropriate to seek funds when neither a location nor plans for a building have been determined.

Unfortunately, statements made repeatedly lead folks to believe that the Y has been unsuccessful in reaching their goal of $8 million — this is false. The lack of success isn’t in fund raising; it’s in trying to find a suitable location. Several generous donors have stepped up prior to a capital campaign and nearly $4 million has been contributed. A capital campaign will begin when a site and plans have been chosen.

The second troubling statement appeared in a May 1 Gazette article: Metroplex Chairman Ray Gillen stated that Metroplex doesn’t give money to not-for-profits. There is obvious evidence to counter that statement. One needs only to look at Proctors and be grateful that Metroplex played such an important role in supporting that rehab effort.

Metroplex is funded by sales tax revenue generated by Schenectady County residents and those folks who shop here.

The decision as to the location of a new Schenectady Y will be made by a group of extremely caring people who will have the best interests of the institution and its prospective members in mind. It must be located where it will best serve the people, not where it will serve the interest of a select few who will reap a profit. The YMCA steering committee is anxious to hear opinions from those who have an interest in locating and using the new facility.

I love Schenectady and I love the Y. The people of Schenectady deserve a new Y, and together we will build one.

Michael H. Devlin

Schenectady

The writer serves on the Capital District YMCA board and is also a member of the steering committee planning the new facility.

New Customs’ policy good for U.S. manufacturers

In the current economic downturn, a situation has arisen in the Customs and Border Protection Agency’s [CBP] purview that affects the United States as a whole, yet has received very little media attention.

In January, the CBP filed within the federal register a proposed change in customs valuation, changing “first sale” valuation of imports to “last sale” valuation. “First sale” valuation produces customs revenue based on the price paid to the “first” foreign manufacturer; “last sale” valuation produces customs revenue based upon the actual full price paid by the U.S. importer.

In contrast, many countries have “last sale” valuation, which the World Customs Organizations [WCO] has called for, and many countries that U.S. exporters ship into have “last sale” valuations.

The United States is losing customs revenue, as well as putting domestic manufacturers at further disadvantage by ignoring the actual purchase price paid by importers on foreign goods. If they knew of it, many U.S. domestic manufacturers and members of the public might comment positively on the CBP proposal, but most people are unaware of it.

The CBP has received a preponderance of negative comments from importers, importers’ lobbyists/lawyers and members of Congress, claiming with “last sale” valuation, prices to consumers would go up. However, price increases aren’t a foregone conclusion of “last sale.” For example, importers might instead choose to decrease their profit margins; customs is only one factor in prices charged to consumers, and other outcomes are possible.

The change to “last sale” is important to U.S. domestic manufacturers, their employees, their communities and the United States as a whole. On April 29 the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on trade oversight, with the customers valuation issue on its agenda.

U.S. domestic manufacturers and citizens may want to contact the CBP, members of Congress and media to support the CBP’s proposal.

Nancy Gold

Schenectady

The writer is president of Tough Traveler Ltd.

Saratoga Springs must reject Geyser Road plan

We have submitted a petition with 1,140 signatures opposing the development of Beaver Pond Subdivision (90-plus homes on Geyser Road) to the Saratoga Springs Planning Board and the city council.

The residents of this city are fed up with overdevelopment, and we believe it’s important to preserve our green space. If this project is approved, the impact will be detrimental and irreversible. The impact will be to wildlife, wetlands, isolated wetlands, traffic, water supply, watershed, noise and property taxes.

Homeowners in this community are already experiencing the effect of such flooding as a result of being built in wetland areas. It would be irresponsible and foolish to repeat this kind of mistake.

Joanne Fluri

Saratoga Springs

May 12, 2008
7:06 a.m.

[ Suggest removal ]

bostonredsoxfan ( no real name given ) says...

Didn't MVP also receive Metroplex funds for their parking garage? Since they're not-for-profit how exactly does Ray Gillen make the statement that Metroplex doesn't give funds to non-profits? The writer of the original article should have questioned that.