Thompson "ban" unconstitutional
Your front-page story on March 21 entitled "Town eyes adult business" missed some important points. As noted, it now seems uncontested -- even in Thompson -- that a "ban" on adult establishments would be overbroad and not permitted under the Constitution. Yet, that is precisely the effect of Local Law No. 9 of 1996, passed three months ago. That law bans a particular class of new businesses from opening here, based solely on speech content (i.e., clothing worn, performance style, etc.), for an extended period while officials scrutinize the issue. "Adult establishments" are so vaguely defined in the recently passed ordinance that legal advice received is that the phrase would even include the opening in Monticello of new establishments like like Boob Tube or Action Video. (Of course, the law might be selectively enforced, thus bringing up a 14th Amendment issue of equal protection.) , Callicoon, NY, 03-22-1997
While noting that the volunteer chairperson of the Adult Establishment Committee is a lawyer, your reporter failed to quote attorney Carl Silverstein of Monticello, who spoke twice at the meeting, in defense of the Constitution. Mr. Silverstein's statement to the committee supported fair and appropriate zoning, as did mine. This was not reflected in your account. I even provided the committee (and your reporter) with the text of a zoning ordinance from the Town of Rye, Westchester County -- which fairly regulates adult establishments -- without banning them, as Thompson has done.
Every two years now, this tired old issue gets drug up by Town of Thompson politicians who are again seeking re-election. Some seem now willing to disregard the protections afforded Americans in order to win a few votes. Later, their law will be overturned or expire. Public officials who are willing to pass poorly conceived bans on expression, like Local Law No. 9 of 1996 of the Town of Thompson, merely to curry votes, may not warrant another term.
There are too many other important problems for town government to address. This one should have been resolved long ago.
TOM RUE
Monticello
The Sullivan County Democrat
Related editorial from The River Reporter, 04-03-1997, here.
Related public comment here.
Wal-Mart is welcome but . . .
The Pennsylvania resident who berated Sullivan's beautiful communities (opinion column by Loran Shlevin, May 8) comes across as smug, sad and part of the problem. She doesn't live here (which wasn't noted in her column) and admits that she shops elsewhere. So why the gratuitous attack on our county? , Callicoon, NY, 05-15-1997
Wal-Mart is certainly as welcome to make Monticello its home as any person or business. Economic growth is desperately needed here. But local lawmakers mustn't eagerly sell the taxpayers down the river to make themselves look good in an election year. They ought to refrain from interferng with the work of planning board officials (as has already occurred), whose job it is to ensure environmental integrity of construction.
If Wal-Mart wants in, as they reportedly do, government's job is to assure that the project is environmentally sound. A "sea of asphalt" parking lot, for example, is neither ecologically desirable nor necessary.
Wal-Mart asks for Village of Monticello water and police protection. Responsible servants of the public should invite construction of the new superstore within Monticello's boundaries -- or suggest that Wal-Mart annex into the village -- not fight tooth and nail to keep the business out of the village, and still demand that Wal-Mart receive municipal services without paying village taxes.
No wonder Thompson supervisor Tony Cellini, and some other local pols, were awarded Wal-Mart "Employee of the Month" mugs on their recent trip to Cobleskill.
Exactly whose interests are they representing?
TOM and CARMEN RUE
Monticello
The Sullivan County Democrat
"Underclass facilities" minister to the needy
In his January 21 commentary on the content of a local news outlet, Steven Kurlander’s attack on a private human service agency like the TOMS soup kitchen reflects an Archie Bunker mentality which should exist only in fiction -- not in a member of an august and honorable body like the Sullivan County Legislature. At once a politician, officer of the court, and editor, Mr. Kurlander first makes news, then uses a free shopper which he bought to report his slant on it. , Monticello, NY, 01-31-1997
It seems he would prefer that the soup kitchen clients whom he derides for allegedly committing crimes be fed their meals at county expense, under lock and key, without so much as the benefit of trial. Could Mr. Kurlander be posturing to run for District Attorney? (If so, one certainly hopes more reasoned alternatives will present themselves in both major parties.)
It’s not the “underclass facilities” (Mr. Kurlander’s words) which exist to minister to needy citizens that make Sullivan County society what it is. Nor do “underclass” lawyers who represent low-income clients cause crime. As an elected official, Mr. Kurlander’s foremost duty is to serve his constituents, not to meanly place blame on the mentally ill, chemically dependent, and indigent for the failures and bad decisions of public policy-makers like himself.
TOM RUE
Monticello
Independent Weekly Review
Related editorial from The River Reporter, 01-30-1997, here.
03-24-1998
