Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

Committee votes to change local law

February 22, 2013

MAYVILLE — Some legislators are preparing to change the rules in order to sell the Chautauqua County Home....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-27-13 2:22 PM

The Chautauqua County Legislature is voting tonight on the Repeal the NY SAFE ACT.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-23-13 1:48 PM

judeye; I agree w/you when you say this newspaper would've had an easier time uncovering the truth about the gas well, but really, when has this newspaper ever done investigative work? I (and others) appreciate your efforts, even if it's all for naught.

There are many people (more than 25%) against selling the CCH to Avi Rothner, but since Johnny D supports it, regardless of Avi's and his father's reputation within the industry, JD is clearly not interested in reporting the truth.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-23-13 12:05 PM

There is a local(Dunkirk/Fredonia area)bus leaving for the protest in Albany against the NY SAFE ACT on 2/28/13 at a cost of $55 a seat.Call 672-6210 for details.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-23-13 8:06 AM

Ron and Karen's false propoganda.

I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT NOTHING in any of their films is false or propaganda. They are just strong advocates, something many of us applaud.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-23-13 8:04 AM you know of any school district that could survive without state and federal aid? What about the sheriff's department? Roads? Diaster relief? Gosh I could go on...we all depend on aid from the state and feds for many services. To me that is a good thing. At least we are seeing some return on our money.

Sometimes our taxes go to things that we the people really benefit from. The County HOME is a prime example.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-23-13 8:01 AM

Noapathy...might be because that is a MADE UP number.

Have you read the report? It clearly states that we the public have been MISLEAD about the figures. With the IGT funds the HOME actually operates at a SURPLUS of about $100,000 a year.

Now my question..if we have to put in $500,000 to get back a million and a half...why not use the money that the gas well could generate..along with this surplus..and then what would be the true cost to us the taxpayer..

oh that is right....NOTHING..or at least very little.

hmm...wonder if Alec is involved in this?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-23-13 7:54 AM

MachineHead..might not agree with all of your comments...but as I cited examples this administration if FAR FROM TRANSPARENT. Which makes me wonder just what are they hiding?

As for Snowshoe films..they are excellent. Most of the film is from actual testimony during legislative sessions or interviews with real people. I applaud their commitment and I know them personally as trustworthy, highly respected, journalists.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-23-13 7:46 AM

Ok...and maybe you can give me advise Dkexpat...

I filed a FOIA asking the simple much did the well cost? who authorized it? Who did the drilling? and why is it not connected?

They finally got back to me...They have a "huge" file that I can come down to Mayville to go through to find the answers to my questions.

Now I have not had the extra hours to drive to Mayville and spend hours going through this file yet. I hope to be able to do this maybe next week and hoping to get a few people to come with me to help.

Now I ask all of you..why as taxpayers...have they made it so difficult to get the answers to these questions..after all they used OUR money to fund it.

Just like I had to use FOIA just to get the numbers of people on cash assistance in our County.

FAR FROM TRANSPARENT in our County that is for sure

I bet this paper would have an easier time getting the answers hint hint

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 10:03 PM

Snotziman....Im waiting for your call....Or would you prefer we meet somewhere?....I know who the fck you are....

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 9:42 PM

Captain....This County administration is making a mockery of Democracy....This biased Newspaper is nothing but a tool for these 2 faced Legislators and Edwards....Im ashamed to be a resident of this County!....

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 6:44 PM

The crux of the issue is; if there were 17 Legs in favor of selling the CCH, there'd be no reason to rescind the law that requires a super majority to sell off public assets. Remember, this law was passed for a specific reason.

Those in favor of selling the home, however, now want to rescind this law, NOT b/c it's a bad or pointless law, but b/c there's just 1 too many reps who is preventing the sale from happening.

Any CCLeg member who supports this proposal to circumvent a law that was passed to protect the public from unethical pols (like the current bunch) is a disgrace and should be removed from office immediately!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 6:04 PM

captain, your comment is the heart of the issue for me. if you can change a law anytime you want to get the out come you want where does it end, and why haven't we gotten rid of welfare or county workers and their****unions

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 2:32 PM

The Observer articles which always generate the most posts (and the most heated posts) deal either with either the Chautauqua County Home or the Second Amendment.

Maybe we semi-auto owners should collectively buy the CHH and all move there?


4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 1:47 PM

fredoniafred you certainly don't have a survey of all chautauqua county residents that shows 75% of the population wants the home sold so your numbers are not valid in any way shape or form. Once each and every resident in chautauqua county is polled then perhaps you can start throwing those numbers around. until then your numbers really don't mean anything

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 12:56 PM

HandyAndy..Already done Andy,Im going to be rich!!..Got all the evidence I need,just waiting to hear from the lawyer..People are going to be very surprised who Snotziman....

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 12:55 PM

It's easy to see what percentage of county legislators want to sell (to whomever) because the votes are public and can be counted.

But where do statements like "75% want to sell" or "least 3/4 of the people of Chautauqua County want the home sold the CCH" come from?

Did I miss that poll?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 12:53 PM

Snotziman....My numbers in da book..Give me a call or set up a place to meet....LoL...You piece of dog

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 12:50 PM

Snotziman - How can you be so sure that the Harvey's, Roy and Karen (not Ron and Karen, information is false? What do you have in the way of evidence to back up what you claim to be false propaganda? Secondly, isn't this forum supposed to be anonymous unless the writer agrees to come forward and say who they are? If I were this person that you claim is writing these posts I would protest/report this violation of anonomynity to the Observer.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 12:40 PM

My question is what company in their right mind would accept fiscal responsiblity for $9,000/day losses? I would have to question anyone's intent with that kind of loss.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 12:40 PM

This is not a case of a simple majority wanting something. 16 of 25 legislators and at least 3/4 of the people of Chautauqua county want the home sold. There are also democrats and republicans on the side of selling.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 12:07 PM

This issue reminds me of when the Supreme Court (under W) "ammended" the eminent domain law. Laws are enacted to protect the public, thus prohibits opponents of such law from legally achieving their goal. We should not lose sight of this fact for political or personal reasons.

It just seems too easy to rescind a law that was originally passed for a specific reason. Does it make sense that the same laws can be rescinded, and then enacted again, repeatedly, whenever the simple majority changes?

If the CCLeg truly feels this law is outdated, then use the same super majority number it takes to sell the CCH to repeal it. At least this way, it'll be viewed as less partisan.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 11:58 AM

Absolut did not offer to buy the home, but lease it. They could back out of the deal after one year and then we would really be in trouble. Cornell and Whitney think less of Mr Sherman (Absolut) than they do of Mr. Rothner.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 11:32 AM


0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 11:31 AM

And the reason we can't sell the Home to Absolute ????????? Once the County gets their hands on 16 m. all at once, it will be gone all at once... If they were to sell to Absolute, they would have the income over a number of years. Same selling price but it would last longer.. Seems like a better solution to me. If you change the rules echo time you don't get your own way, what is the need of people running the County. All we need is a real RULER, like Hitler !!!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-22-13 10:49 AM

It is not only the slave or serf who is ameliorated in becoming free... the master himself did not gain less in every point of view,... for absolute power corrupts the best natures.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 62 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web