Comments by jerryrock
Posted on January 7 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Over half a million dollars and none if it is going to be used to actually demolish blighted property. Instead it will be used to fund the bureaucrats responsible for letting conditions deteriorate in the first place.
Posted on January 4 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Several new businesses trying to open in Amsterdam applied for NYS Regional Economic Development Grants. These businesses would have created new jobs to help Amsterdam's economy. None of the local businesses that applied received any money. Why, because Amsterdam's self-serving Mayor Ann Thane left them off of her priority list that was submitted to the state. Instead she promoted her pet project, artwork for the not yet built pedestrian bridge and a facelift for city hall. Her pet projects received over half a million dollars in taxpayer funded state grants while local businesses suffer. The whole Regional Economic Development Grant process is a political farce, a front to fund political pork.
Posted on October 24 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Charter proposal strips the Common Council of power and gives the Mayor even more power. It gives the Mayor total control of 4.5% of the city's $28 million dollar operating budget without any input from the Common Council. It gives the Mayor power to transfer money between funds without approval from the Common Council and to contract, create new positions all without Council approval. It removes checks and balances in place, making Amsterdam even more of a dictatorial type of government than it is now. Our fund balance is already at at all time low and our credit rating has dropped because of the spending of our current Mayor. She will soon bankrupt our city. VOTE NO TO THE CHARTER CHANGES
Posted on August 7 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The guy who just happened to have a "sludge hammer" in his hand presents more of a danger to people than the dogs in question.
Posted on August 5 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Get your facts straight, it is an ordinance modifying the Streets and Sidewalks code. It is not targeting any social or ethnic class. It was passed by a super-majority of the Common Council who directly represent the citizens of Amsterdam. We should NOT be encouraging or endorsing our children to play in the streets. There are enough recreational facilities for the kids to play in. Wake up and realize the real issues in Amsterdam are being ignored.Our finances are in shambles, two factories just announced they will be closing putting hundreds out of work and people want to whine about an ordinance designed to keep our streets safe for everyone, not just children. "Legislative intent: Playing basketball on or near city streets present a traffic hazard and the City desires to prohibit the use,construction, maintenance of basketball equipment whether movable or immovable on city streets and sidewalks and to prohibit the positioning of basketball equipment in such a way that play will occur on city streets or sidewalks."
Posted on August 5 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
According to the CDC "In 2010, nearly one in every five children between the ages of 5 and 9 who were killed in traffic crashes was a pedestrian." This is about traffic safety. NYS passed a law stating all children under the age of 14 must wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Has it changed anything? Do you still see kids riding bicycles without helmets? This modification of an existing ordinance has been blown way out of proportion by local media. If you do your research you will find similar ordinances enacted all over our country. It is a protective measure, not punitive. There are plenty of parks and school yards off the streets where kids can safely play basketball. The group Wishful Thinking was founded in Amsterdam at the former Bacon School to give the kids a place to play basketball and keep them off the streets. the modified ordinance did have a positive effect. It had the city administration and recreation department scrambling to repair/replace existing basketball facilities in our parks! My advice to the scofflaws mentioned in the article, get some exercise and walk to one of our many parks and recreation facilities!
Posted on July 17 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Discriminatory and sexist.
Posted on February 19 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I had the experience of working in Sing Sing, Green Haven, Hudson, Attica, Shawangunk, Wallkill, Summit Shock and Coxsackie Correctional Facilities as a Correction Officer, Sergeant and Lieutenant. I have very strong opinions about funding college for incarcerated felons with taxpayer money. This is not about the fairness of the criminal justice system. It is about the intent and purpose of the system and it has never been rehabilitation. That happens after prison.
Prison is PUNISHMENT! It was set up that way to discourage people from breaking the law, and it was each and every individuals choice to break that law! For the majority of inmates, by the time someone is actually sentenced to a prison term, they have already had several run ins with the law and had chance after chance at staying out of prison. Now Cuomo wants to reward convicted felons with college educations! What kind of message is this sending to the public? Go to prison, get free meals, housing, medical care, cable TV, and a college degree! This is NOT the way to reduce the prison population. Paying $5,000/year per inmate for a college education is asking too much of New York State's cash strapped law abiding citizens. New York State residents pay the highest property tax in the nation as well as the highest energy costs. If Cuomo wants to reduce prison populations, then intervene before incarceration. Put the money to use in areas of at risk kids and fund their education. I joined the Army for the GI Bill college benefits and worked my way through college. In 1978, during my first year at Marist College, after serving three years of active duty in the US Army, I met inmates just paroled from Green Haven Correctional Facility who moved in the dormitory next to me. They were both part of a prison college program who were now finishing their degrees compliments of NYS. I just couldn't understand it then and I don't today.
Gerald J Skrocki
Posted on February 9 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Daniel T. Weaver does not live in the City of Amsterdam, he lives in the Town of Florida, New York.
Posted on February 2 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"the police were forced to exercise their threat." What does that even mean? That statement has no relation to NYS Penal Law. The minor child was small in stature and not a physical threat to the TWO 200+lb police officers. He was refusing to leave the bus. There was no imminent threat.
§ 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.
1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or
attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to
prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he or she reasonably
believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and
to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or in
self-defense or to defend a third person from what he or she reasonably
believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force; except that
deadly physical force may be used for such purposes only when he or she
reasonably believes that:
(a) The offense committed by such person was:
(i) a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or
attempted use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a
(ii) kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the
first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
(b) The offense committed or attempted by such person was a felony and
that, in the course of resisting arrest therefor or attempting to escape
from custody, such person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon; or
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is
necessary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another
person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of deadly physical force.