Posted by: RDS | March 30, 2008

OP Citizens Shown Ultimate Disrespect at Wal-Mart “Scoping Session”

Citizens of the Town and Village of Orchard Park were shown the ultimate in disrespect this past Wednesday evening by the Town’s elected and appointed Town officials.

Purposeful, arrogant disrespect.

Well over 100 interested and concerned Town and Village citizens experienced this first-hand as they packed the public Scoping Session for the Wal-Mart DEIS Draft Scope held on Wednesday, March 26th in the basement meeting room of OP Town Hall.

Instead of a professional public meeting, citizens were all given a real “Remy job.”

Despite prior direct inquiries to our Planning Coordinator, Mr. Remy Orffeo, questioning the adequacy of the venue arrangements chosen for this public meeting, it’s quite obvious that everything was purposely planned to make it as uncomfortable as possible for the public to participate in this Scoping Session, much less provide effective public comment.

Our Planning Coordinator (and his supporting cast of political spinmeisters on the Town Board) knew full well that there would be substantial public turn-out at this meeting, but did nothing about it. Any suggestion to the contrary is as unconscionable and insulting as it gets.

It was, and will always remain, an outrage. An outrage citizens will never forget.

The basement meeting room, with only one means of egress (a flight of stairs, no less), is rated for a maximum of 99 persons, and was grossly inadequate for the number of citizens, project sponsor representatives, and Town elected and appointed officials in attendance - in clear and deliberate violation the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.

The sole exit was blocked with chairs and people, and no announcement was made as to protocol for evacuation in the event of an emergency.

There were not enough chairs set up, nor enough chairs period. Many people were forced to stand the entire 3-plus hours, some out in the hallway. The room was hot and poorly ventilated, and despite the number of people crammed into this room, no one bothered to consider turning down the heat.

There were no microphones available for the speakers. People standing in the back of the room or forced to stand in the hallway could not hear what was being said.

Numerous calls from citizens in attendance to move the meeting upstairs to the public court room/board meeting room were totally ignored.

Unfortunately for all of us, I don’t believe this public meeting debacle was simply a function of poor planning, or poor coordination, or the obvious unprofessional ineptness of a single appointed part-time Town official.

It’s bigger than that. The inadequate arrangements made for this meeting were calculated, deliberate, and purposeful, and the decisions made by our Planning Coordinator were fully sanctioned, if not directed by, the powerful proponents of the proposed Wal-Mart project on our Town Board.

You’ll never get them to admit this, of course. Fully expect to hear that they too were in hot, sweaty, and cramped attendance. Fully expect to hear the spin from them and their local media mouthpiece that “it wasn’t that bad”.

I urge citizens of OP to take a moment and send a strong message to your Town Board - to tell them we not only deserve a formal public apology for this intentionally orchestrated citizen disrespect, but that this time, someone - perhaps a certain Planning Coordinator - must be held accountable for this inexcusable outrage - with his job.

We understand the circumstances surrounding the abrupt dismissal of a former Planning Coordinator one January morning in 2006 pales by comparison.

The Town Board best understand once again that the citizens of Orchard Park are worth much more, and deserve no less.

Posted in Development, Planning Board, Quaker Crossing, Town Board, Town Politics

« What’s With The “Northern Gateway Moratorium” Committee? More Of The Same?
Proposed Walgreens Big-Box Back on Town Agendas »

Responses

Does Orffeo have a planning (or related) degree?

By: Chris Willett on March 30, 2008
at 11:11 pm

No, he’s a business teacher at ECC.

By: Anonymous on April 1, 2008
at 11:46 am

Remy is probably a nice guy - but all he really is is another one of Nan’s footmen.

The reason you would remove a Sara Dejardins from office and replace her with a Remy is because Nan truly realized that Sara would cause her trouble and Remy would listen like a good boy.
It’s the oldest trick in the book for control.

Welcom to the Monarchy

By: jane Shumaker on April 1, 2008
at 5:29 pm

This entire posting should be sent to the press.

By: sue cushman on April 4, 2008
at 8:14 am

for some reason the press seems to put vanilla frosting on anything to do with Nan

By: jane Shumaker on April 4, 2008
at 9:52 am

Sara Dejardins was a very well liked person and for good reason. She was very bright and personable. She new a great deal about the planning process and how it apply to our town. It was very difficult for many of us see her go.

On the other hand it was a necessary change and did much to increase the efficiency of the planning office. Please remember the planning coordinator works for the planning board not the other way around as some of you think. He or she has no voting power. He or she cannot make a planning decision or sign a planning document or hold a public meeting unless directed by a majority of the PLANNING BOARD.

Sara often left in the middle or did not attend planning board work sessions. She even, at times, left early at planning board business meetings. Sara held a helter skelter work schedule. One would never know when to contact the planning office because she was not always available. As stated previously, the position is partime and Sara would accumulate most of her allotted hours in the spring and summer months but be missing in action towards the fall and year ends months. This became very frustrating and complaints poured in from developers as well as the general public. This was no way to run a planning office.

Mr. Orffeo has made some mistakes, and I agree that the recent Walmart scoping session was one of them, but by and large Mr. Orffeo has made a huge improvement on the everyday operations of the planning department. The planning coordinator’s position still remains part time but Mr. Orffeo has instilled a posted work schedule that is consistent and can be depended upon so both developers and the general public can have there concerns addressed properly and in a timely manner. He is also very prepared at all meetings and acts only at the direction of the entire planning board.

By: HPB on April 6, 2008
at 1:54 pm

Thank you for your detail - not ever stated by anyone.

Assuming what you state about Remy is correct, can you tell me why he does not lead us in a better direction when it comes to continuously waiving our parking ordinances? The cumulative impact of doing that whether your are Sara, Remy, or the novice me are very obvious errors to planning especially at Quaker Crossing where the impact of Wal-Mart will cumulatively impact the entire area.

Why does this planning board constantly seem to say “the lots aren’t full”. Doesn’t anyone focus on growth?

Please let me know and thank you for your information on the efficiencey of the new Planning Director.

p.s. ( While Remy made a mistake he had opportunity to correct it right then and there and did not- sad for all those older folks)

By: Jane Shumaker on April 7, 2008
at 4:25 pm

I want to know if anyone on the planning board has any background in planning whatsoever.

Judging by the Wendy’s/Tim Horton’s drive through, the layout of Quaker Crossing West, and the Wal-Mart debacle, I would guess no.

By: Chris Willett on April 7, 2008
at 10:09 pm

I am new to this website. Very informative……and depressing. I am appalled at the secretive and controlling manner that our busness is conducted. OP is the new Amherst!

By: Maryann Grenda on April 8, 2008
at 11:05 pm

My goodness Jane , is all the sarcasm on this Blog necessary? Lets debate on the merits please.

Again, Mr. Orffeo does not lead you or me or The Planning Board. He is only it’s coordinator. That means he compiles information, coordinates the review process for various projects, handles the everyday offices duties, etc. He speaks for The Planning Board at their direction but he does not have a vote on any project before the board. At the work sessions, which are open to the public by the way, he presents the board with the up coming projects and the board decides what is put on the agenda for the following week. Therfore, if you have a beef about waiving our parking ordinances please take it up with The Planning Board not Mr. Orffeo.

As far as parking ordinances go, I believe we are black topping way to much good green earth. Yea, I know we have parking lot requirements based on a whole criteria of things depending what its use is going to be but I believe that a way should be found that would require these developers to bank green space for future use and only provide enough parking that consistently gets used, contrary to what you are led to believe one does not see completely full parking lots in our town.

Oh, I know that you all just don’t want future development and you base one of your arguments on the possible shortage of parking spaces for the Walmart project but, remember what your elected and appointed boards are charged with, New York State Law requires that Town Boards and Planning Boards give equal rights to all. That includes developers.

As far as the comment regarding whether any planning board member has a background in planning, I would just say that the longer that one is exposed to the process the more background he or she accumulates. As far as formal training goes, many attend state sponsored seminars, most at their own expense I might add, also implimented just last year, all members are required to be certified by NYS through a rigorous written testing process.

Finally, the comment about conducting town business in a secret and controlled manner is pure ignorant very insulting hogwash. I would remind you that all planning and town board business and work session meetings are open to the public.

By: HPB on April 10, 2008
at 8:44 pm

Elected and Appointed Boards are also charged with upholding the law. The Equal Rights argument doesn’t hold water here when one considers that the parcel was rezoned specifically for the developer in question. It is not as if the Town Board enacted a spot zoning to keep Wal-Mart out - for that would be both illegal and unethical.

The major problem is not Wal-Mart; it’s that extensive big-box retail development and eventual build-out are not objectives pursuant to Orchard Park’s Comprehensive Plan - a land use planning requirement also mandated by New York State statute.

I questioned the background of the board members because many new development projects in OP are consistent with 1970s-style sprawl. Traditional (and by implication, neotraditional) planning principles do not condone auto-dominated strip malls (such as Quaker Crossing) and hierarchical subdivision street plans.

By: Chris Willett on April 13, 2008
at 9:29 pm

As HPB previously commented in this blog people have the “perfect right to express yourself in the blog”. HPB then responds that my thought is ignorant and is insulted by the opinion expressed. Hogwash. How disingenuous and unkind.The more I learn how quietly the Wal Mart plan came to fruition,the more convinced the lack of citizen input was intentional .I am intitled to that opinion without being called ignorant.

By: Maryann Grenda on April 16, 2008
at 9:54 pm

HPB,
Yes, sarcasm is necessary when too many people are acting like the rest of us are basically “fools” that have no insight. Debate is a good thing so excuse my sarcasm - I also like to kid around if you ever want to do that - I’m just not as wowed by what I see in or OP governement as you are. I respect that you have that loyalty to our town - it is a great place and we will both agree on that point. It’s where it’s going that bothers me.

Yes - I know Remy is a coordinator -and Yes I think it is ridiculous that we hire people who will grow into the job. I don’t know what you do for a living but in my business a “coordinator” coordinates therefore he/she communicates more than paper trails or “functionality” he/she communicates information and speaks to the next level on behalf of the position he serves. -which in this case is town “planning” -

If that’s not the case in OP then shame on us because out here in the public sector “value added” is how you keep your job - and all too often in goverment it takes 3 people to do the job of one person. Sarcasm? you betcha!
Don’t think many people would disagree with me on the fact that we are tired of too much government for too little value. A coordinator absolutely can do more than create paper trails. Remy can coordinate data and recommend - he told me he can. I have seen numerous documents in which he does. ( he recently recommended that the Town hire an outside source to evaluate Wal-mart’s impact, unfortunately David Kaczor told me months ago they were going to do that so I tend to see puppet in too many things) Does he ever recommend that we all too often modify parking based on a developer’s justification? What is the point of having these ordinances? If none of this is happening then and Administrative Assistant should fill the position. I think he is a part of the recommendation process, and I think he is supposed to serve the citizens concerns first and foremost. Every public employee must do that.

You bring up a great point - debate on the merit.

Here is merit- how can this town continually base it’s modification of parking ordinances on “the lot is not full” - ” there is spillover space”, ” you can only be in one store at a time” while they conintually GROW the town in residency? Where is the logic of planning if things are based on the way they are now and no considerations to the overall growth pattern of the town are being given the proper consideration? Sorry justification of parking issues based on current use is short sighted planning.

Want a good example on merit - Weiss Road proposed apartments - 140 ( less than 3 miles from Quaker Crossing) minimum 140 more residents ( without spouses and family members) added to the usage of the lot upon completion. Now I will let you follow the rest of the town residential projects to see why we are challenging the town’s poor practice on parking.

You are totally wrong about me not wanting future development. What I want is “smart development” Let’s jump on the Medical Corridor growth. Let’s get some real jobs here for our residents and children. Let’s build places cars will go during the day and leave by rush hour like service organiations. Let’s raise the bar in Orchard Park and not “dumb down” to easy big box retail development. You want stores - create the retail that we visit in other cities where there are dinning experiences, green space, beautiful village like retail systems. Surely you have seen them outside Cleveland, Detroit, Naples Florida, Chicago, Akron, Columbus, Pittsburgh. We are perfect for that, and we have the “market” to support it with Canada and it’s healthy new dollar.

I know you don’t like my sarcasm, but I firmly believe that Orchard Park could be a “destination” not just another “non place” and I apologize but sometimes to upgrade we need some upgraded creative leaders in planning and in on our Town Board. What we are doing - Anytown, No Where USA Zip Code 00000 can and has done.

I want a better future for Orchard Park.

One last comment - again on merit - yes I understand that people want to shop where prices can be lower ( sometimes-because Wal-Mart makes most of it’s money on impluse shopping) however, once again our planning is not focused on our Demographics. We have one of the highest home value per resident averages in the County - a little discount retail is enough - a focus on it is a joke in a town like ours.

By: Jane Shumaker on April 17, 2008
at 1:23 pm

HPB
Forgot one of your points and that is on secret meetings

Are you certain that ALL the meetings that take place in this town in which decidions are made that dramatically impact the citizens are public ones?

I have seen a few at local establishments that challenge that - and I believe many other towns are also getting pushback on that sort of behavior.

By: Jane Shumaker on April 17, 2008
at 1:43 pm

On Remy as a “recommendation person”:

I double checked the Wal-Mart Draft Final Scope that Remy just submitted to the Town Board and it clearly states:

“Based on the information submitted to the Planning Department I believe the Town Board would be well served by utuilizing an outside consultant to review the project sponsor’s traffice impact study, parking study and concerns regarding public transit and pedestrian access”

The operative word in this MEMO from Remy to the Town Board is: “I”, therefore proving that he does in fact make recommendations, and of course he recently recommended that a resolution be passed publicly to embarass our Town Supervisor since obviously he has rapidly grown into the job and is now expert? He treats Mary if she is just a lowly unregistered “blank”. I witnessed it and heard it with my own ears in the Work Session.

If I did that to one of my team members for this firm, the firm would in turn quickly decide that I had no value added in resolving matters with my team - labeling me an ineffective leader.

There is absolutely no excuse for Remy’s behavior in the matter involving Mary - you don’t go to the Board and basically tell them to call her on the carpet publicly without even informing her it was going to happen (hmm…. secret meeting?) for “document alteration” that was a misunderstanding because the changes she made she sent right back to him allowing for whatever resolution needed to be done. Mark Dietrick questioned her publicly like a criminal - it was appalling - I was embarassed that I am a Republican.

This Town Board abuses it’s power as a majority, Remy is just another puppet in that process, and the citizens are pretty tired of the Board not getting it……. the majority that elected them also elected Mary - Where is the respect? And why would we give them any respect when they absolutely do not give her any?

I would love feedback on why “control” seems to be the focus on this Board, why Nan Ackerman made it clear after the election that if Mary didn’t learn from the Yeomans loss that they would take care of her too. (sound like “I’ll get you and your little dog too”?)

What’s going on here? Is this our Town or Nan’s? What is at the bottom of this party-driven power trip these people are on? Don’t they get it - the citizens really don’t care much about party at the Town level - this is not Pennslyvannia Avenue!

Help me understand this absurd behavior.

By: Jane Shumaker on April 18, 2008
at 1:29 pm

I would like to speak to the openness of the ‘majority’.

Can we all remember the meeting when Walmart came in in full regalia, charts, diagrams, at the ready? I had just returned from the Association of Towns meeting in New York, was told by a resident that Walmart was coming to OP, went to the working session and was told that the Walmart presentation was being put on the agenda “just a brief, informal thing. In shock I asked what it was about and was told that Nan had been working with ‘Gerry’ for months, picking out decor, and listened to her go on about the colors she had chosen for the brick in the parking lot.

Transparent, open government?????? Gerry and Nan are not our government.

Certainly the meetings are open to the public, but it is more than clear that the conversations have all taken place long before the public meetings.

This presentation was planned in secrecy for the purpose of giving the impression that Walmart was a done deal - before any of us even knew about it. It’s an old tactic.

So, I walked into the board room with no information, the Walmart representative kept referring to certain pages in our document until I finally said - “I have no document”. He then looked at Nan and said “Oh, I apologize. I thought you were all given this.”

Transparent, open government??????

When I went to Remy for my copy he told me I had to wait until he had organized all the copies, and I would have to sign my copy out and return it to him. So, this ‘competent’ coordinator only managed to get copies of a document necessary for a Town Board meeting to some of the board members.

You can keep calling a skunk a flower all you want, but the stink is still there. Show me evidence of openness and competence.

By: Deborah Yeomans on April 23, 2008
at 10:43 am

Thank you Deb - It is about time people in this town realize that this town board has been Nan’s personal power trip.

These private meetings should be fully recorded with notes because the real fate of OP is in the private meetings - the public ones are just motions they go through. I have seen enough proof of that to make me ill.

Is that even legal?

By: Jane Shumaker on April 25, 2008
at 10:43 am

Jane while you historically have raised interesting points on this blog, it is becoming rather obvious that you just plain “HATE” Nan Ackerman and Mark Dietrick. Perhaps a bit of anger or hate management is in order. I am not trying to be funny… go back and retrospectively evaluate some of your posts - they are not pretty.

Not trying to defend anyone but what did Nan ever do to cause you so much hate? I challenge you to put your words and hate into constructive action for the good of our town. Nan has been working on behalf of Orchard Park and its residents for a long time and her good definitely surpasses any negatives you may think she has.

I would like to see you do better!

By: PCINOP on April 27, 2008
at 12:05 pm

PCINOP, whoever you are:

Jane, who has spoken at numerous Town Board meetings and has attended various work sessions, has been working tirelessly to ensure that Orchard Park’s character is protected. Ms. Ackerman’s obsession with pursuing this Wal-Mart proposal, regardless of its substantial negative environmental consequences, has frustrated many citizens who care about the future of this community. It is ironic that the Town spent nearly a half-million dollars fighting to keep billboards out but will welcome, with open arms, a giant retailer that represents the epitome of exurban sprawl and corporate irresponsibility.

“I would like to see you do better” is an inadequate excuse for poor planning and a dismissive attitude concerning public participation in the planning process.

By: Chris Willett on April 27, 2008
at 1:44 pm

Chris, you said it best! Almost perfect!

The Town Board has proven by its action against Lamar that it is not afraid to take on large organizations to do what is right in the interest of the Town and its residents. It can only do so when the legal environment enables it do so.

Walmart, which is not a favorite organization of mine, has every legal right to construct a store in the location they are considering. It is zoned appropriately and to challenge its construction legally would be a nightmare - in the end the Town would lose.

Again, by its very stance with Lamar this Town Board has proven in ACTION that it will stand up and support what is right for the community and its residents. It will stand by the community when it has the legal circumstances to do so!

The Front Door should be very pleased as most billboard companies typically erect their signs in commercial areas - can you imagine what the Front Door might have looked like with billboards!

A little thanks is in order at the very least…Let’s be fair!

By: PCINOP on April 28, 2008
at 10:43 am

Hello, PCINOP -

Thanks for your visits to this Blog and for your comments. Please visit and comment often.

For the record, I just wanted to let you know that there was (and is) tremendous support and appreciation here in the Front Door neighborhoods for the efforts of the Town in its fight against Lamar.

As you point out, the Front Door of our Town would have probably been the home of the first billboard had we not prevailed.

Here is an article written on this Blog back on October 6, 2007.

http://opfrontdoor.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/billboards-in-op-over-our-dead-body-lamar/

You’ll not only find just a “little thanks” and support for our Town’s efforts, but a lot of thanks.

With regard to opposition to Wal-Mart, your point is well taken, and one that folks are very much aware.

However, I wouldn’t count all of your chickens yet.

Nor would I suggest “throwing in the towel” is the logical choice simply because of the threat of a future legal challange.

We, as a Town and Village, certainly had more courage than that with Lamar.

Best Regards.

By: RDS on April 28, 2008
at 12:00 pm

PCINOP

Believe whatever you like - I have never hated anyone nor do I ever intend to. I generally focus my hate on things like bunions and beets.

One thing I realize is that people like you would rather categorize this rather than look deeper. Hate, and Nan, and Mark is not what’s going on here - sorry to disappoint you.

Like it or not I tell it like it is, and Nan’s history with the town does not give her the right to sell us down the river to “dumb planning” - and WAL-Mart is “dumb planning”,……………….. and a Comprehensive Plan that is still not implemented is more of the same.

Lot’s of people feel the same - I just happen to be one who isn’t opposed to stating it.

We need change in OP - and as I told Nan a long time ago - “careful with this Wal-mart thing it can become your legacy” - and it has.

She has looked me straight in the eye and fabricated and twisted more about this WAl-Mart than you know. I am not one to hold back when someone is trying to sell me a bill of goods - like she didn’t know the developer was selling the property to Wal-Mart - who believes that? - She is the liaison to Quaker Crossing - she is so “connected” in this town - sorry not buying it.
I told her and I will say it again - I can’t keep track of what side of her mouth she is talking out of.

My doing better is totally irrelevant - OP doing better is the only relevant issue
how dumb are we????? 7000 cars a day, low paying jobs, environmental impacts, and most importantly WAY TOO MUCH DEPENDENCE ON RETAIL in a town that could have done so much more….. for net $45,000 before police and safety???

Anyone could have done better.
************************************************************************
For you and anyone else here are some of the reasons Nan gets the criticism she gets.

Here is from Last Weeks Work Session that 8 of us attended:

Nan stated to Wal-Mart’s attorney (who was as obviously strained to be polite as we were in hearing it) that if Wal-Mart stopped calling the project a SUPERCENTER people would not be as upset! - are you kidding me - does she think citizens are that dumb?

A discussion by board members on the impact of pedestrians who will cross from one retail establishment to another would be in danger - to which Nan said “cross milestrip on foot ?- no one will do that” again - who’s nuts here? Tell me teenagers going to the movies at Quaker Crossing will not try to cross to go to Wal-Mart or vice versa, or that students from the two education centers - BRyant Stratton, and ECC will not go to Borders and hike it across to Wal-mart and vice versa?

The safety issue at Quaker Crossing was discussed in detail with our Town Engineer - finally the town is openly admitting it is a complete safety disaster - Nan’s attitude was that it could easily be fixed - it was flippant - because she knows she was so much a part of the poor planning there, and my question is “What the heck is taking so long if it is so easy to fix?” Hey I almost got hit there again this weekend.

The issue of Wal-Mart’s impact on Police and services in town because of crime was discussed.
Nan made a proposal to insist that Wal-mart have it’s own security people. For heavens sake - most huge retail has it’s own security - what does that solve when Wal-Mart is noted for calling in local police to every petty issue they have - the only difference is their security people make the call!

The most profound thing that Nan stated in this work session brings up the illustrious “covert” rezoning that no one close to Nan including you wants to admit was as shady as it gets. She said tht the rezoning was studied and that it was found to have NO impact.

OH MY GOD FOLKS - WHO IS SHE KIDDING??
How does she think all this started?

By: Jane Shumaker on April 28, 2008
at 12:14 pm

PCINOP,

I agree - no one wishes to see large billboards in Orchard Park, so we can thank the Town for that!

Concerning Wal-Mart, though, it is the rezoning that I found to be disturbing . . . the Town Board essentially “gave” Wal-Mart the right to develop by changing the land use designation of the parcel in question.

By: Chris Willett on April 28, 2008
at 12:44 pm

Absolutely Chris!

And that is after the State cautioned Orchard Park that it’s ratio to that type of property zoning would hampr their ability to attract any industry.

Check the files in the town hall - the letter is there

But can anyone think of a good reason why Nan pushed so hard for that rezoning - so hard that she never even told anyone til the day that it was on the agenda?

Good for the town? or Good for the developer?
You decide

By: Jane Shumaker on April 28, 2008
at 2:12 pm

Jane, again you seem to be focused on Nan Ackerman.

You focus on the bad she has done with the Walmart project. Would you and your colleagues on this blog had any different stance if it were any other commercial venture? I think not. All commercial development is a “No No” and that seems to be the honest truth based on the commentary here.

When you distill the majority of the content on this blog down to one phrase it is unequivocably “anti-development.”

Look at the proposed projects as proof:

ABC Rental …… NO!
VOLLEYBALL/REC. CTR…. NO!
WALGREENS….NO!
FAMILY VIDEO…..NO!
PEOPLE INC…….NO!
SENIOR RESIDENCES….NO!

You say that you are for smart development. However, by your actions and comments here you project, very loudly I might add, that you are really against all development. This is particularly true of anything proposed for the “Front Door.”

I know you are better informed than I so would you please operationalize what “smart growth” really is and where in Orchard Park you would espouse that it occur?

By: PCINOP on April 28, 2008
at 4:39 pm

Obviously you have a very biased personal relationship with Nan and that is absolutely fine - whereas I am judging her actions from the re-zoning forward because - that is my focus - Development In OP - Smart Development. Wal-Mart is dumbing down to not so smart development.

Sorry nothing personally against her - just the results of this horrible decision.

Once again you are totally wrong - you obviously did not read my article in the Buffalo News or heard my statement on TV in which I made it clear that I was most upset that Orchard Park was slated to be a NON-PLACE - ANYWHERE, USA - and that I believed that we were a town that had so much more - a cut above the rest and it was a really sad day to see such poor development choices. It was the reason I brought black carnations to the scoping session - sadness for our town.

I am ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF DEVELOPMENT IN OP - without it you are status quo - so take note:

We could have been a part of the medical corridor growth - ask Nan how several otherspushed to get this in front of the board and their efforts were met with arrogance abd ridicule despite the group telling key individuals that whatever town jumps on this is going to be loving their future (so now that there is no room they are talking about it, and still getting no real effort from Nan) Ah development? You bet! Smart people like us should have had those kinds of jobs here.

We could have been “destination” retail such as Cleveland, Akron, Columbus, Detroit and numerous others built that were not only places to shop but they were places for families with green space and multiple choices for entertainment - places you visit when you travel to other cities…..upscale? You bet! - because OP is - or let’s say could be.

Service businesses where jobs come in and cars go away at night when the residents need their quality of life - Specialty medical and business services - stronger tax revenue base without giving it away in abatements ….development? You bet!

Now take a look at the list you posted :

ABC Rental …… NO! (Wrong - That wasn’t a development plan);
VOLLEYBALL/REC. CTR…. NO! (Right - Absolutely NO - did you read the thing? Did you realize what others did when they saw that it wasn’t going to be just a Volleyball center - or did you “assume” because that’s what political connection does to people? The developer had intentions you did not look close enough at);
WALGREENS….NO! (Wrong - not aganst it if it done right BUT is it really SMART to have 3 pharmacy/drug/retail stores on the same football size piece of land all within a parking lot of each other? - who are they targeting to leave us another empty building very soon - Rite Aid or CVS?)
FAMILY VIDEO…..NO! (Absolutely Wrong! - much better than another supersized CVS drug store which was original proposal);
PEOPLE INC…….NO! (Wrong - not if it was going to be done right);
SENIOR RESIDENCES….NO! (Absolutely Right - and Absolutely NO! - totally oversized complex for the space).

Here’s my list
Medical Corridor - YES
Destination Retail - YES
Service Businesses YES
Town Houses on the right land - YES
Medical buildings/Doctors/Specialists/ Brain/Spine Centers - YES

Another key point you overlook is that last fall Nan proposed a moratorium on building on North Buffalo so that they could study the situation and bring all things in line with the Comprehensive Plan - Our area wasn’t included - The Comprehensive Plan is still not implemented - The moratorium was nothing more than winter - The committee that she clearly stated would include citizens never happened.

Very sorry, but you have totally missed what’s going on here. I could truly understand if you thought that we are just anti-Wal-Mart and anti-growth - but you are simply mistaken. We are not, and this is a well informed organized group, who wants smart development. Bring it on!!

People must stop looking through political connections and look at the real issues.

By: Jane Shumaker on April 28, 2008
at 6:26 pm

Hi PCINOP,

Good challenge!

In my view, “smart development” is design that adheres to traditional/neotraditional planning principles. Here are a few examples:

- Places that are accessible to modes of transportation in addition to the automobile (walking, biking, busing, etc.)

- Places that are interconnected and pedestrian-friendly (people don’t have to walk across huge blacktop lots to get from one destination to another). Examples of this are shops that come up to the sidewalk, with parking on the side or at the rear of the parcel.

- Places that are sensitive to environmental impacts (building up to save virgin land - both buildings and parking), using porous blacktop, roof gardens, solar panels, natural lighting, native landscaping, pavement reductions, etc.

- Places that mitigate traffic concerns by mixing uses and siting destinations in close proximity (apartments on top of shops, stores in a plaza all located within walking distance of one another, etc.)

- Places that are visually appealing and that inspire community interaction. (There are places to sit and eat lunch, pocket parks, non-sterile architecture, etc.)

The OP Village is a good example of “smart development,” as is (to an extent) that new plaza with Panera Bread on North Buffalo Street. I’m sure that “big-box” development can be done intelligently, though I have yet to find an example in my travels where it has been done particularly well (except, perhaps, in urban areas, where the retailers creatively fit the store into multiple stories).

I have no problems with the Senior Housing projects, so long as they are designed appropriately (not like a maze, visually appealing, promoting community, connected to existing neighborhoods), located in mixed-use areas so that the residents can walk to shops, etc., and not built on environmentally sensitive sites (such as floodplains, wetlands, riparian habitats, etc.).

To me, the Walgreen’s project is acceptable (legally, aesthetically, and with regard to land use), though I must say that several aspects of it make me cringe:
- That it will be next to a CVS and a Rite-Aid.
- That it will surely be designed with the store not adjacent to the sidewalk.
- That it will not make use of existing structures on the site.
- That it even requires as large a parcel as is requested.

I find the Wal-Mart project to be unwise on many levels (I will publish a lengthy essay on this soon). It blatantly contradicts many goals and objectives listed in OP’s Comprehensive Plan, it will worsen the traffic nightmare already present on Milestrip Road, it adds to the perception that the northwest part of town is a “dumping ground,” it’s irresponsible from an environmental perspective (green space loss, refusal to use an existing abandoned building, automobile dependent, etc.), and it is Wal-Mart - a company that has a long history of abusing workers both here in America and overseas.

If Wal-Mart agreed to inhabit the location where Latina’s used to be, it would be grudgingly acceptable (good in that it reduces vacancy, requires little new construction and infrastructure, fits into the existing urban context, etc.). Of course there would still be negatives (traffic concerns on North Buffalo, Wal-Mart’s corporate character, the higher level of crime found at Wal-Mart compared to other, similar retailers, etc.)

To me, and I think to many who post on this blog, this issue is greater than Wal-Mart. What’s to say that the Town Board will stop at Wal-Mart? I don’t think anyone wants to see Milestrip Road become another Transit or Niagara Falls Boulevard. Yet, when I look at the schematics provided by Wal-Mart, I see the beginnings of such a transformation . . .

By: Chris Willett on April 28, 2008
at 8:35 pm

Jane, can I suggest that you and your colleagues approach the Town Board about establishing an ad hoc committee to assist them in bringing about what you term “smart growth.” Perhaps if strong willed residents like yourself had a conduit by which make favorable impact on the aforementioned projects we would not be embroiled in a debate such as this.

By: PCINOP on April 28, 2008
at 8:49 pm

In the interest of accuracy, the Panera Bread, Jos. Banks, Talbots, etc plaza is located in the Town of Orchard Park and is not a “Village” project.

By: OPNY on April 29, 2008
at 8:14 am

PCINOP:
I put my name on the list for consideration for the committee, as did Jane. No one has been called, or interviewed, nor have the committee appointments been made. All other committee appointments were made at first board meeting of the year. Here we are, at the end of April, and, in spite of letters from me regarding these appointments, still no committe has been formed. Clearly the comprehensive plan that took 5 years to update - with absolutely NO substantive updates - was just an election tactic. Election over - no plan implementation. Perhaps in the summer of 2009, before the next Town Board election, the infamous Plan will be ressurected.
Please know that we are all very dedicated, involved, willing residents. We have offered input, help, time, committment to the board numerous times. We attend board meetings to communicate with the board. My last letters to the board have remained unanswered for well over a month (except by Supervisor Murphy). The responses these ‘public servants’ are getting are the result of their actions. When people are repeatedly ignored, they speak louder. I believe that’s what you’re hearing - not hate, just tremendous frustration and feelings of being disregarded. I’m so glad that - we all - have this forum to communicate with and educate each other.
I do wonder, however, why some people seem afraid to identify themselves here. My concern continues to be that the tenor of the current regime in Orchard Park is such that people are afraid to identify themselves with the excercising of their right to freedom of speech.

By: Deborah Yeomans on April 29, 2008
at 10:06 am

Your suggestion is absolutely positive and exactly what we thought would be the professional solution to the future of Orchard Park. You are very correct in stating that such an action would have allowed many to make a favorable impact, and come together as a really smart town with a really smart plan, working across the entire scope of politics and government for the good of the town.

Unfortunately, we did that and unfortunately even after it was agreed that we would be invited to the Comprehensive plan implementation committees (which was going to include the North Buffalo Road Moratorium) it never happened, even after some of us including myself submitted resumes.
It was entirely ignored by Nan and she is well aware that she did that, as are others on the Town Board.
When Nan was “called” on it (the “Moratorium” committee) in a town board meeting she did a mexican hat dance spun around and implied that the “committee was difficult to organize” Dietrick did the mexican jumping bean gig and said “oh but remember Nan, wasn’t the committee already in place 2 years ago and that’s why no one was called to join it?” All bull and all very transparent. These are the issues that have angered citizens. I will say it again, people hate being treated like they are stupid. If only they would have said - you know what you are right we haven’t done that and we need to - then actually follow thru - the change might be the most positive thing this town has ever seen. That never happens, because Nan won’t give up any control, or open up to the ideas of anyone she CAN’T control.

I hope you will open your eyes to what we have been going through.

Here is another incredible example. There was a SAG - Supervisor’s Advisory Group, an ad hoc citizens committee established review the Comprehensive Plan and make suggestions for the plan. These citizens are informed, and had numerous ideas drawn from a multitude of professional experience. Did Nan give them the time of day? Did she even consider their effort or open her mind to what was being advised? Did she act like a leader interested in the future of her town and realize that no one person has all the best information and the greatest leaders draw from many for information?

answer: NO

WHY?: Because as I have said before my impresison has become that this is Nan’s Town - and unfortunately we have allowed this to happen as voters.

People see that what has happened is that all her positive work in Orchard Park is being marginalized by her ego which is now out of control. She is not open to the ciitzens who have tried everything to get her attention. She continues to assume she and her “footmen” can and will continue to be the smartest people in OP.

Sorry - but if you were where I was a year ago walking into the Town Hall hoping to be recognized as a citizen and see how your town is run, watching, listening and coming to realize that it is not about that - it is about too much power in the hands of one person for too long - you might also be vocal and calling for change.

Nan needs to start listening and stop assuming she has all the information and is the most copable person in OP. The parties need to go have a picnic or something - party control in towns is a joke - it is so irrelevant to us - the only people who pay attention to it are the party leaders- who truly need to get over it. This is not Pennsylvannia Avenue.

Thank you for your inspiring debate, I think this is one of the most positive things we can do as citizens - stay involved, and from debate there can be understanding that was not there before.

By: Jane Shumaker on April 29, 2008
at 10:26 am

I have also submitted an application to be on the committee. Like the others, I’ve heard nothing so far . . .

By: Chris Willett on April 29, 2008
at 1:31 pm

PCINOP, whatever that means:

As one who knows Jane Shumaker and occasionally disagrees with her, she definitely does not have an anger management issue. I always look forward to our next discussion of macro-economic issues that are always conducted in a respectful manner regardless of our differing opinions. Jane has been tireless in advocating the best interests of the residents of Orchard Park. Thank you Jane.

A respectful discussion between people involves speaking your position and more importantly, listening, considering the other person’s point of view. This respectful discussion never involves personal attacks.

To diagnose an anger management problem in New York requires a Graduate degree and a license to practice in New York State.

Reverting to personal attacks during a debate is a sure sign that one is losing the debate. My response to anyone hiding behind anonymity to launch personal attacks on another’s emotional state is to ask, is that all you’ve got? Have you run out of counterpoints to the factual arguments that have been made?

Anyone questioning why there are a growing number of people in this community opposed to Nan Ackerman’s agenda can find the myriad number of reasons by simply exploring this website.

By: Ed F. on April 29, 2008
at 2:10 pm

Ed F my background as a trained psychologist albeit not licensed affords me the ability to make the comments noted so put that one in your pipe and smoke it!

It is a commom theme here that one individual appears to be constantly nailed to the cross and that person is Nan Ackerman. I am not defending anyone but come on already, Nan Ackerman is not the only person making the decisions that affect this Town and its residents.

Government is not about a single individual controlling the agenda - our very form of government affords checks and balances otherwise we have an autocracy. Last time I checked that situation has not existed in modern times since the 1700’s.

Perhaps you need a history lesson or maybe just need to revisit American history. Until that time realize that one person does not make a town!!!!

By: PCINOP on April 29, 2008
at 9:19 pm

Please describe the system of checks and balances in the Orchard Park town government.

I’ll spare you all the long diatribe on the methods by which the current federal administration has worked to override the checks of Congressional oversight and Judicial review. The system of “checks and balances” implemented by the framers only works as intended when government leaders respect the letter and spirit of the national Constitution. As we have all learned so well over the past several years, that does not always occur.

By: Chris Willett on April 29, 2008
at 9:59 pm

Chris, you sound like an authority… what is your employment?

Why not take the expertise of this group and put it work. Seems that alot of time is spent discussing and writing (Whoever RDS is seems to be quite prolific I might add) why not get involved and be part of a solution instead of being a group of bitter individuals. The time exhausted producing and maintaing this blog must be exhaustive? Perhaps spending the time in deeds vs. words would be a more constructive way of spending time?

By: PCINOP on April 30, 2008
at 6:51 am

By the way, would someone please operationlize what “smart growth” actually is and where it should take place within Orchard Park.

Specifications for this type of growth would be a good way for visitors to this blog to understand in an objective fashion what you are espousing.

Thank you!

By: PCINOP on April 30, 2008
at 6:55 am

PCINOP,

I’m actually in the market at the moment - my background is city and regional planning and environmental studies.

I think that many of us would like to be part of the solution, which is why we applied to be on the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee and frequently speak up at Town Board meetings.

An article on “smart growth” is a good idea - this way it could be understood as more than just a buzzword . . .

By: Chris Willett on April 30, 2008
at 2:30 pm

PCINOP
I am fully respect your profession, but unfortunately I don’t think that means you listen or read as well as you may think.

I listed a number of “smart development” projects we could consider.

As for where, the issue is that the sites due to previous erroneous re-zoning has narrowed the choices. The perfect place was the Wal-mart site for several.

Now we need the town to realize the South end of town must get developed - some re-zoning will be needed - but heck why not? - it was done in the North End!
Please go back and read the list.

As for targeting Nan as one person and not the entire town board:

Ask any developer in the OP area and they will tell you that it is Nan they have to smooze. Have you talked to any? I have. Attend the meetings and you will see the control described on this blog. Talk to some of the other “key” individuals closely associated with this town government - I have.

We should be a part of the solution:
You have had at least 3 responses proving that we have attempted numerous ways to do that, and have been ignored. I will also ask you to go back into this blog to see the Scoping Document this group prepared for the Town to HELP them have a complete and correct Impact evaluation on Wal-Mart so that whatever could be mitigated is done and done right.

You have come up with two excuses for why all this is happening.

1. people (namely me hate Nan) WRONG - as I told you it’s not even on my radar

2. we are a bitter group and need to be focusing our energy into deeds WRONG- I think some Nan supporters are worried and throwing out accusations.

Here’s my challenge to you as another OP citizen.

Since people are always more comfortable with the “easy” answer the one that seems to fit - (”they hate, they’re just bitter” “they just talk and don’t act”) challenge yourself with this question:

What if what we are saying is true?

You should ponder that long and hard - and you should open your eyes beyond your “pre-conceived” conclusions, something you have been professionaly trained to do.

You should also be a part of the solution and do some of your own research.

All of the facts are there - most in town minutes, many in actual town government experience from others, and in the heart and soul of everyone who takes the time to be a part of this blog.

Stop and do some research. I think you will be surprised.

We research the facts and know that there is still tremendous power in the hands of voters. We are simply taking the spin out of the information.

Please come and join us at one of our meetings, I think you will realize so much more than you have from your “assumptions”

You will need to identify yourself and we will invite you to be a part of the solutions with us. I would love to meet you and talk with you about “smart development” for Orchard Park.

Thank you.

By: Jane Shumaker on April 30, 2008
at 3:18 pm

Jane, I suggest that you have a meeting with the Town Board in a private setting and discuss ways to work together to achieve the objectives you have outlined here with your peers.

Perhaps if you start a constructive dialogue that is mutually respectful and without personal affronts, you will achieve a reasonable solution.

If you have ever been involved in any communication training, then you know that you attack the issue and not the person. When you attack the person it causes a barrier to be created that negates the communication process/dialogue you are seeking to achieve.
The adversarial feelings created prevent progress in achieving a positive negotiated outcome.

“Getting to Yes” by Fisher/Ury would be a good read for you and your peers.

By: PCINOP on May 1, 2008
at 7:10 am

Ed, by the way PCINOP means “Psychological Consultant in Orchard Park” - your very tone and method of questioning this acronym produced a negatively toned response from me…is that the objective here? To intimidate and insult visitors?

By: PCINOP on May 1, 2008
at 7:14 am

Dear PCINOP

First I must say that you began your visit here in negativity - and continue to make that accusation about our group.

You obviously have some great ideas on how to communicate. I am assuming that you have concluded that we have no skills in getting to “yes” with this town board.

Someone equally trained in your field served on this town board. Will you justify their failure to get any cooperation from Nan and her group as that person’s failure or will you use some of your trained skill to look passed your bias?

Your field most definitely has communication training, and in my management position for a major global corporation you know I have training as well. ( at least enough for a non-union company to have kept me for 28years)

The difference between being an expert on the field of “communication” and “communicating” to achieve goals is that one is theory and the other is reality.

While I am not interested in playing dueling careers with you, I can clearly state that I have more than enough personal proof that I am not a novice to goal achieving communication.

You are doing that assuming thing again when you imply that I should try this or that. Basically I don’t think anyone needs your advice on how we should act to get a “desired” result simply because you continue to assume that what is wrong here is us.

I love challenges -so with your training, I think that you should attend our meetings, and gather some knowledge on the issues. Once you have that, you can advise us on how to overcome the strong personal agenda of a leader who has abused power.

You will recognize this human character statement from your training.
“There is a reason and a real reason people do what they do”

In our challenge with Nan and her influence in this town, we have found a disparity between the “reason” and the “real reason”.

It has always appeared to be a sense of superiority to others, or a need to control. It has resulted in the feeling that the town is a monarchy.

Can you shed some light on that without bias? .

By: Jane Shumaker on May 1, 2008
at 11:07 am

Jane, you seem to derive great ego satisfaction in throwing around your company, your position, its responsibilities, and your years of service. This obviously your primary source of confidence or power as you seem to wield it as though it were a machete.

What I am seeing is a person who has a personal sense of power obsessed with the fact that someone somehow has control or more power. Your only way to assert yourself and your ego strength is to use this and other conduits of communication as an irritant to that individual perceived to be in “power.” In essence, this helps you feel as if you have more power.

Humility is a beautiful thing. Practice what you preach.

By: PCINOP on May 1, 2008
at 3:27 pm

HPB
The “job performance” reasons for Sarah’s non reappointment weren’t proferred until after the public outcry began.
In February 2006 I spoke at the Town Board meeting. I wanted to register my complaint with the Board over the way the matter was handled. What could have been done in a classy, professional manner was instead handled in a public and humiliating manner. Why was it handled this way? Three reasons.
A. For Nan’s amusement. Nan does not like to have intelligent, competent females around her in positions of authority. She prepares footmen.
B. As a warning shot across Mary’s bow. Mary had just defeated the Republican standard bearer and the Republican majority had to let her (Mary) know that they would be in charge and that she would be marginalized.
C. As a warning to any other town employee or appointee that might be considering getting uppity and dare to challenge the Republican majority.
Sarah was not reappointed because she would not be part of the Ackerman-Bucheit Fast Track Express. Nan wanted no one to stand between her developer and his dreams. And look at the results; rancor, protests, hard feelings and bad press. Sarah was let go 5 days after Bucheit made a $5,000.00 donation to the Republican party and again no minutes of the meeting or of the vote to not reappoint. Gee, another secret meeting, what a surprise.
After I spoke at the February 2006 meeting Mark Dietrick took me aside in the lobby and told me that “Sarah had to be let go because she didn’t know who her bosses were, she thought her boss was the supervisor but it was really the Republican Town Board majority”. No mention of job performance. It is also interesting to note that Remy received an assistant to help him with phone calls etc.
Subsequently I was visited by an FBI agent who wanted to know what I knew about the incident. Evidently the stench traveled as far as their offices wherever they are.
The current mess in Orchard Park can be laid directly at Nan’s feet.

By: David Schuster on May 1, 2008
at 3:53 pm

I think Ed questioned the acronym because it is useful to know with whom one is communicating.

By: Chris Willett on May 1, 2008
at 3:59 pm

PCINOP:

Sorry for the late response, I don’t visit this site on a daily basis. Thank you for clarifying what “PCINOP” stands for. I don’t think it is unreasonable to question the meaning of anonymous initials used by someone engaging in personal “remarks” about others who have had the courage to identify themselves. I don’t hold it against anyone who doesn’t chose to personally identify themselves in a public forum such as this. But using anonymity to personally insult others in a public forum is cowardly among other things.

You can claim to have whatever credentials or training you want. But your words on this website belie your qualification to diagnose anger management issues. “….put that one in your pipe and smoke it”, are not the words of a professional.
One cannot legally refer to themselves as a psychologist in New York unless they are licensed to practice in New York.

I personally welcome all visitors and have recommended this site to many. In my previous post I don’t believe I insulted anyone. What part of it did you find insulting?

By: Ed F. on May 1, 2008
at 4:47 pm

PCNIOP
Are you kidding me?

You tell Chris what you do and tell him to “stick that in his pipe” - I mention that I work, and my longevity speaks for my ability to manage, and you come at me with “EGO” ?

you state:
“What I am seeing is a person who has a personal sense of power obsessed with the fact that someone somehow has control or more power.”

First of all you aren’t “seeing” you are reading, and secondly you do not read very well.

First it was my hate - now it is my power driven ego? Oh my you need some help.

Power is too much work - personally I have enough work, and if I had a ego driven thirst for power I would use it to make my cat come when I call her - not some bizzaro misguided intention to discredit a public official.

You simply cannot deal with the overwhelming change in Orchard Park, people are asking, watching and listening, and Nan is not coming out of that looking like what she preaches.

You can’t accept any challenge to this issue in any other way than to marginalize both the situation and the individual.

I think you need some assistance, but based on your bias, your insults, and your total lack of consideration to the issues at hand, I suspect it will take someone much more patient than me.

You came on the blog to find out what we are upset about - you found out - if you don’t agree - ok - but stop grabbing excuses. Nan has created many issues that are upsetting many people -

p.s. glad I never chose you as a professional to seek physcological advice from - you are quite razored and edgy

By: Jane Shumaker on May 1, 2008
at 4:58 pm

Dave Schuster

That is exactly what we have all been told from one end of town to the other - you are right Dave
Nan has what she has at her feet by her own hand.

Of course they ridded themselves of Sara because Sara worked for us not the party. Nan could not control her.

Thanks for your post - and for your candid account of what really goes on in this pretty little town with a dirty little club.

By: Jane Shumaker on May 1, 2008
at 5:02 pm

PCNIOP

As a licensed psychotherapist, having held my license in good standing for 23 years now, I need to express my concern that you are publicly diagnosing someone who you have never met, and who has not asked or authorized you to ‘diagnose’ them. I have dealt for many years in my practice with the fallout from irresponsible practitioners who discredit this profession.

I look forward to lively discussion of the issues of Orchard Park on this blog. I have found little value in personal attacks. I have read many responses to the issues you have raised, but have seen defensiveness in your replies. As a psychologist, I’m sure you’re well aware of the ‘Communication 101’ techniques of “I” statements, and not personalizing. Those would be helpful to apply here. I love to engage in substantive exchanges on the issues. With regard to Ms. Ackerman, her behavior is one of the issues. What we have a right to expect of our public servants is a valid issue, not a personal one. Her responsibility and her job are to represent her constituents. If they do not feel respected or represented, that is not a personal issue. That is a substantial problem in representation. That is a breach of her duties as a public servant.

You have suggested that we work with the Town Board. We explained the steps we have taken to do that. You ignored the explanations and responded with criticism, and a rather insultingly patronizing description of how we might behave better. We are the ones who take our concerns, not personal attacks to our public servants. Please give us credit for that. I personally got involved in local government to make a difference, and was shut out, disregarded, and stonewalled at every turn. I continue to try to find a path to open, cooperative effort. I just want the obstacles removed. I understand that change is frightening, but it is the Town Board’s job not ours to work toward inclusion. We are listening, we are reaching out, we are considering and are just asking for consideration and respect in return. We are not stupid, we are not uninformed, we are not apathetic. This should be seen as an asset, not a threat.

By: Deborah Yeomans on May 2, 2008
at 11:18 am

Thank you Deborah for both your comments and for all that you did trying to make a difference in town government.

It is citizens like you that we can look up to and respect because they have a true interest in the people and politics is not the priority.

Thank you again for so expertly explaining to PCINOP, whoever that is, that we can agree to disagree but it is very unprofessional for someone to assume they know what the other person is all about.

I think some people are very upset that Nan is often criticized on this blog, but Nan has put herself in that place - no one dragged her there.

By: Jane Shumaker on May 5, 2008
at 11:07 pm

Mr. Shuster, first I would like to apologize for not responding to your blog sooner I have been out of town quite a bit lately.

I guess my first question to you would be why would one profer one’s job performance discrepencies to the general public BEFORE dismissal? Wouldn’t that be trial by media? Could you imagine the mukraking and innuendos flying back and forth? There is enough of that now. Is any dismissal classy? I don’t think so!

You obviously hate the present administration so no matter what argument is presented none will withstand your onslaught so I have a few things to straighten out with you.

A. First, what the hell is a “footman”. If you are refering to people that run around kissing Ms. Ackerman’s toes I haven’t seen that yet. Ms. Ackerman can be a bit pushy and she can certainly intimidate some people but to say that she does it for amusement is just ridiculous. Any man or women isn’t worth there salt if they allow another to run rough shod over them. Look, lets just say there are strong personalities on both sides of the isle here so keep the debate focused on the merits and not sprinkle in so many innuendos.

B. “Mary” has a tough job. She was elected by the majority and I personally respect her for that. I don’t think she knew what she was getting into at first but she is doing what she has to to get her message across. The problem for her is that, after some tenure, the M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y of the voting public doesn’t happen to agree with her administrative principles. Plane and simple, that is why Ms. Yoemans lost. Furthermore, I think the more “Mary” rids herself of that Channel 7 trouble shooter philosophy and gets more into the political process the better supervisor she will be.

C. God you’re all over the map on this one. I really don’t know what to say to so many vindictive statements. My only comment would be that the town board has a Republican majority because the voting public of our town want’s it that way. Unfortunately the democratic process puts you in the minority and, at this point, that’s just to bad.

Finally, I think this blog can be and in some cases is, a healthy form of debate. If we can just stick to the merits much more would be accomplished. It might not seem so at times but believe me when I say that YOU ARE ALL BEING LISTENED TO.

Thank You, HPB

By: HPB on May 17, 2008
at 12:04 pm

“Furthermore, I think the more “Mary” rids herself of that Channel 7 trouble shooter philosophy and gets more into the political process the better supervisor she will be.”

Why? Is questioning the effectiveness and legality of processes and policies an undesirable trait in a public employee? Ms. Travers-Murphy, by rejecting sycophantism, fulfills a valuable public service.

Hopefully you understand that the responsibility of public servants is to represent and serve the interests of all constituents, not just those who ensured their (re)election. While the official may certainly follow the policy goals desired by the majority, it is arrogant to adopt an attitude that the minority is irrelevant and that hence for it, in your words, “that’s just to (sic) bad.”

By: Chris Willett on May 18, 2008
at 11:21 am

HPB
A footman is a servant of sort - in this analogy one who might kiss “party or power” toes a bit too often ……. which is what you want Mary to do - ……..get out of the investigative and get into the political process? - frankly most of us are happy she does not!

The last thing we need in Orchard Park is another politician.

You say you haven’t seen this behavior in Nan - are you saying that we are all blind?

By: Jane Shumaker on May 19, 2008
at 3:43 pm

HPB - Oh by the way I’m Republican and so are many others who have shared these same feelings- unfortunately I think that you confuse the majority of the town with the “majority” on the board - and that’s where Nan makes sure everyone knows who runs the town and who are the footmen.

By: Jane Shumaker on May 19, 2008
at 3:56 pm

Dear Jane, the “majority” on the board doesn’t get to be a majority unless the majority of the town says so for Pete’s sake.

No I don’t think your all blind but I think you are all sore and miserable because you don’t happen to be in the “majority”. So the only recourse you have is to whine on this blog.

By: HPB on June 14, 2008
at 9:04 pm

HPB,

When was the last time the “majority” of the town voted in an election?

By: Chris Willett on June 15, 2008
at 7:53 pm

HPB - in theory what you say is true…. majority is the result of voting, however, you have left off the power of the almighty dollar and surely we know in town who has more of that than anyone - assuming you saw Nan’s husband’s pay at $4.2 million (oh and by the way that didn’t include all his other fringes such as stock options etc etc.)

Money like that buys alot of power.

What is totally disrespectful of you (and you claim to be above that) is that “our only recourse is to whine on this blog”

First - you are on the blog reading and chirping back - I assume you enjoy your freedom of speech as much as the rest of us do.

Second, I think if you look through the organization of the OP Front Door you will see that there is a bit more than whining going on.

Do you think Calamar backed off it’s 140 units because all we do is whine?
Do you think our Walmart scoping document which was far better than Remy could have possibly constructed was whining?

Sorry - but what’s really going on here is that many many people including you in Orchard Park are hoping to diminish the power of this blog - but you can’t.

It is the ultimate freedom of a different kind of power - it can and has made a difference.

By: Jane Shumaker on June 16, 2008
at 10:07 am

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories