.."a run-of-the-mill party on a run-of-the-mill night.”
Maybe that perception is the problem SUNY is trying to fix. I'm betting there's more than a handful of families in those neighborhoods who've been there a lot longer then the college kids, and will be there long after they're gone. I don't think you'd get many of them to accept late-night drinking parties with loud music is ever run-of-the-mill.

So, well done SUNY for drawing the line and siding with the community. Keep it coming.

Phils2008, it appears you didn't get the help for your ADHD that the public system should have provided. Otherwise you might have made it through Mr. Buyck's letter and seen he's not a teacher but a student. Or, a "dope", as you put it.

Mr. Buyck, thanks very much for your well-thought out and constructed argument. Sometimes you need not go much further than here in the comments section to find the muttering masses that otherwise aimlessly wander downtown Schenectady or Albany.

So it's legal for a uniformed law enforcement officer to publicly scoff the laws he's sworn to uphold? It's ok for them to pick and choose the laws they feel like enforcing? How comforting. How about when they feel they don't want to protect a particular class of people because maybe they have different political or social sentiments than them. I guess they can do that too?

How about some local newsfolk dig into this some more and see if what he did was not in violation of his oath.

Good or bad, the SAFE act is law (and constitutional, as eloquently stated by one Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia). That means law enforcement personnel are required to enforce it.

Ice cream trucks? Seriously?
There needs to be some investigative journalism exercised on this business. It seems any place I've lived there have been stories of bad actors working as ice cream truck drivers. Is there any oversight? Aside from the ice cream being typically garbage, I don't let my kids near these people.

Sorry robertodt, I just don't feel like I'm being "punished" for helping keep drunk drivers off that road. That smacks of beligerence.

And if you're against further regulation of guns, having to register and insure your car must give you absolute fits. And DWI checkpoints must be like a totalitarian state for you.

If you're consistent in your thinking anyway...

Too bad you don't have any interest in addressing and working with the majority of the country's concerns (forget the politicians). We could use gun owners' constructive input.

Uhm, it's "Kottke" please.

If there's one thing I admire about gun nutz it's their complete lack of self awareness. These are otherwise grown adults who seem to have no sense of social concern, no awareness of the simplicity of their arguments and who shrilly rant and broadcast their fears and night terrors with total abandon. That kind of blind ambition deserves some respect.

Sadly they don't realize what industry tools they are (second amendment rights, what a crock) and that this being a Democracy (look up how that works please, you're losing) they will end up in far worse straits with their hobby than if they'd acted more grown up and worked with the rest of us in the American community. If it were my hobby I'd consider another approach than insults and delusional ranting before you get your trigger fingers slammed in the door. There is another way to deal with this.

What if anyone who wanted to could buy a car and drive it around. And then these clueless drivers started causing a all kinds of accidents killing and maiming innocent people. Would we take those cars away so no one could drive?

No, we'd regulate their use, and we'd keep records of drivers' incidents and require people to carry insurance to cover the damage they might cause, in spite of the training (albeit spare) they received.

That's what we did and we've likely got safer roads for it, and the same should go for guns.
It's that simple and it is constitutional.

Drive around the Mariaville area and you'll find places you can barely carry on a conversation!