Ads exaggerate the power of candidates
To the Editor:
As we approach Election Day, I encourage voters to ignore the nonstop political ads for Mondaire Jones and Mike Lawler and instead think about which party you prefer to have a majority in the House of Representatives. Jones cannot defund the police or give prisoners the right to vote. Lawler cannot ban abortion in New York. Neither can do anything in Congress except as a member of the party holding a majority of seats in the House.
If you plan to vote for Kamala Harris and want her to be able to pass laws to implement her agenda, then vote for the Democrat, Jones. If you prefer Donald Trump over Harris but are nervous about giving him too much power, then vote for Jones in the hope that the Democrats will win the House and be able to place some constraints on Trump. (Keep in mind that the Republicans are likely to have a majority in the Senate.) If you fully support Trump without any reservations, then vote for the Republican, Lawler.
Political ads seek to localize and personalize races, but they exaggerate the power that individual candidates have. Voting for the member of the party which you prefer to win a majority makes much more sense.
Roger Berlind Lewisboro
Open discussion about water district needed
To the Editor:
Pound Ridge residents and Scotts Corners property owners deserve a full and open discussion of the science, engineering, finances, pros, cons and implications of the proposed “water district” construction project. In October 2023, the town’s long-working Water/Wastewater Task Force published a six-month timeline that included multiple public meetings and public release of project plans for a potential wastewater project. Instead, last spring, the town board rushed through resolutions to create and apply for public grants for an $11 million public fresh water (not wastewater) system.
Unfortunately, the formal comment periods at town board meetings did not facilitate the open discussion and full vetting of the project. Now, property owners in the proposed water district are being asked, on Oct. 24, to vote the district up or down. This vote is occurring only because in-district owners petitioned for a referendum (with four times the required number of co-signers). To date, significant substantive questions have been asked but not answered — questions of fact, goals and risks. Questions include, although are not limited to, whether elevated PFAS levels at two properties when a greater number of properties show no such contamination justifies the project; why effective and less costly technology would not be better; the construction, on-going and connection costs; the costs imposed on in-district owners even if they don’t connect their properties; and the town’s financial risk from the project.
Today, these important questions remain unanswered and it is too late to hold these critical discussions before the referendum. I urge all property owners within the proposed water district to vote “No” on Oct. 24. And I implore Pound Ridge leaders to postpone all work pending fuller discussion. Then, residents and leaders can more accurately assess whether this project is appropriate for our community.
Michele Braun Pound Ridge
Jones is not perfect, but a clear choice
To the Editor:
I’ve been a progressive Democrat my whole adult life and despite vehemently disagreeing with Mondaire Jones’ support for Israel’s war on Gaza, every Democrat needs to vote for him.
The choice is to vote for someone who has a blindspot on this very important issue or to not vote and help reelect someone who has blindspots on every important issue.
I understand that voting for Mondaire may feel like a compromise of your values, but having a congressperson who compromises all of your values is much worse.
Like Mondaire, you value women’s rights and reproductive freedom; you believe that no one is illegal and immigrants deserve respect, not racial slurs; that we aggressively address climate change and the existential risks it poses to life on the planet and transition away from fossil fuels and the mindset of “drill baby drill”; that we promote democracy and encourage greater participation in the electoral process, not making voting more restrictive; that we work for a more equal society and not a trickle-down society; and most important, we believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, sexual identity or whom they choose to love.
Joseph Simonetti Pound Ridge
More political yard signs disappearing
To the Editor:
The Harris/Walz and Mondaire Jones yard signs are flying off their perches along local roadways, presumably because people can’t wait for the campaigns to send them their own yard signs directly. Ideally, people would leave the signs along the roads in place so everyone can benefit. The Trump and Lawler signs are still standing. Apparently, no one wants them.
Ellen Ivens Pound Ridge
Writer questions if Arena is ‘pro-choice’
To the Editor:
As noted in The Recorder’s Oct. 4 article, “Elections: There’s More on the Ballot,” Republican challenger Gina Arena is again running against incumbent Democratic Sen. Pete Harckham in New York State Senate District 40. Ms. Arena claims on her website that she is “pro-choice.” However, the Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion (WCLA) PAC “Choice Matters” has again rated Ms. Arena as “Anti-Choice.”
In contrast, during his years in office, Sen. Harckham has been a champion for women’s rights. In 2019, he codified Roe v. Wade into New York State Health law, preventing extremists from infringing on the private lives of women across New York. He also passed the Comprehensive Contraceptive Care Act (CCCA) that requires insurance companies to cover contraceptive medicines without a co-pay. Sen. Harckham has been rated as “Pro-Choice” and endorsed by Choice Matters. Don’t be fooled by Ms. Arena’s recent claim that she is pro-choice. There is only one pro-choice candidate in this race, and it is Sen. Pete Harckham.
Lou Sorell Katonah
Vote ‘yes’ on NY State Proposition 1
To the Editor:
A recent discussion about the N.Y. Equal Rights Amendment (Proposition 1 on the November ballot) got me thinking about Title IX of the federal civil rights law. Gina Arena and Mike Lawler, who both oppose Prop. 1, are too young to remember life before Title IX. I’m not.
Title IX became law under Richard Nixon (a Republican) in 1972. It prohibits discrimination based on gender. Title IX is enforced by the U.S. Department of Education. It applies to schools and other institutions that receive federal funding. New York has similar statutory protections that prohibit discrimination based on gender and gender identity.
Before Title IX, opportunities for women and girls in sports and academics were scarce. It has taken decades, but Title IX has undeniably been transformative for women and girls.
According to Project 2025, conservatives seek to “roll back” large portions of Title IX. This is why we need to enshrine protections against gender discrimination in the state Constitution to make it harder for conservative majorities to take these rights away.
It breaks my heart to see signs saying that electing conservatives like Arena will “save girls sports” — presumably from the very small minority of already vulnerable individuals who do not conform to gender norms.
It is shameful to villainize transgender individuals — not to save girls sports — but rather for the stated purpose of rolling back the progress that has been made in protecting all people, including women and girls, against discrimination.
We must not allow our civil rights to be “rolled back” for the sake of some imagined past that was only “great” for some men and boys. Instead, let’s look forward to a future free of discrimination.
Remember to flip your ballot over. Vote “Yes” for Prop. 1.
Katherine Daniels North Salem
Passing of water district proposal will result in cost surprises for all
To the Editor:
Property owners in the business district are eligible to vote next Thursday, Oct. 24, in a special election on whether to approve the town board’s $11 million proposal to pipe water from Stamford into Scotts Corners. The vote is a result of a petition signed by more than four times the number of those property owners required to mandate it.
Multiple property owners have expressed serious concerns over the cost, necessity, and efficiency of the project as proposed. My analysis shows that the total annual operating and debt service costs borne by individual property owners will be more than double the town’s representation. Further, even residents outside the district will pay a cost … at minimum the Fire District’s 3 percent to 7 percent share, which is passed on via its property tax surcharge.
Separately and critically, the town’s grant application to the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation contains significant misrepresentations and inaccuracies. In it, the town states categorically that it has filed its required annual financial reporting with the state comptroller for each of the past three years. But in fact, the town has not filed those legally required reports for either 2022 or 2023. The town also states that the project has significant community support and that is simply untrue.
There are geometrically less expensive methods of addressing the issue, which the town has dismissed summarily, despite the fact that a number of property owners have already installed those systems at their expense and they are functioning perfectly. And the town is under no state mandate to address the issue which was clear from the NYS DEC officials who spoke at last night’s town board meeting. There is no justification for its “shoot, ready, aim” approach and moving ahead will result in cost surprises for all. The current proposal makes little sense and should be resoundingly voted down.
Jock McCown Pound Ridge