News that police in Brewster arrested a man for allegedly drunk driving and being in the country illegally has revived the contentious debates over immigration and drinking and driving.
Police arrested the man, who they say was driving a vehicle belonging to a construction company in Danbury, CT, after a woman reported the vehicle swerving all over Route 6.
Many are congratulating and thanking the motorist who called in the initial report, such as this reader.

Thumbs up to the woman who called this in. Just getting a drunk off the road is a good thing.

The allegations of drunk driving have people talking about what they see as ineffective enforcement of lax laws. Here’s what one reader had to say:

The main issue, and by far the worst one, is drunken driving. How many times do you read about the police stopping person after person, mothers driving with kids while drunk, etc. It is about lax laws and very liberal ideas on drunken driving. Where or how a person is in this country is secondary to the fact that there is a huge problem with drunk driving. Until the laws really have real punch to them, it will continue to be no matter who is drunk. Make drunk driving a real crime.

Mostly, though, readers are talking about fighting illegal immigration by cracking down on businesses and employers who don’t properly check their employees’ work status. One reader wrote:

We have to start heavily fining the companies that hire people who have illegal status. If this construction company was fined $1M, do you think they would take the risk and hire an illegal again? … It’s not fair to the foreigners who go through the entire process of becoming a legal employee.

Another added:

In addition to fining companies that hire illegals, how about we stop patronizing them?

Finally, one person summed up the situation this way:

The problem of illegal aliens crowding our cities and villages is so complex and so unpopular an issue that I believe nothing can or will be done. It is already too late. … It’s true they bring with them deep social issues that we are incapable of dealing with. That being said, Americans have practiced irresponsible drinking and drug taking for years, making the roads a tragic hazard for us all.

Anything that could help slash property taxes for Lower Hudson Valley residents is going to get a lot of attention. So a recent report by Pace University that said taxpayers could potentially save $47 million by consolidating fire services in several lower Westchester County towns got readers talking.
This is what one reader had to say about the potential success of consolidation:

REALITY: Even if they did save $47 million, our leaders are so shabby that they will initially spend $100 million figuring out how to do it and then another additional and perpetual $75 million a year on appointed cronies and hangers-on to implement it.

Here’s another perspective:

Does anyone think that (the fire chiefs) would be willing to give up their posts so that we can have one big department? All fire departments have different methods on how to fight a fire. It would take years to agree on which method would be best. Change is slow when it comes to fire departments. Civil service mentality!

Some were defending the smaller fire districts:

$47 million a year hardly seems worth it when you spread that out over all the towns that covers. Consider this, your house is on fire, do you want someone coming from 4 minutes away or 10 minutes away?  … Fire tax gets spread over homeowners at a rate of x per thousand of assessed value and is usually included with the county and town tax. … No one will even notice it on their tax bill.

Here’s another person’s cynical take on the situation:

Now you are going to hear from the individual departments about how much more it’s really going to cost, and how services will de diminished, yada, yada, yada. It’s about the few people in the department who enjoy their position of power and esteem and don’t wan’t to give it up. I’m sure fire departments can be consolidated but if you really want to save money start pressing the schools districts. They are responsible for 60 percent of your property tax bill.

State Sen. Thomas Morahan, R-New City, has been one of the senators who has been “undecided” on the pending gay marriage legislation in Albany.

Not anymore. “I’m going to vote against, it,” he said today as we discussed the Senate standoff and other Albany issues. He figured that the governor was going to continue to push the Senate to vote on a gay marriage bill, so he would go on the record.

“I understand both sides,” he said. “I prefer civil union, as opposed to traditional marriage.”

He said he’s been listening to his constituents (all of Rockland, parts of Orange County) who he believes are split on the issue. He also says he doesn’t know if there are enough votes in the Senate to pass a gay marriage bill.

“Maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he said. “I know my community is divided. If you can accommodate both sides, why not do that?”

He explained that he understands and empathizes with the arguments about “inheritance rights, spousal rights,” and believes that civil unions will accomplish those goals of equal rights for same-sex partners.

I asked him, is that why he got married, for spousal rights?

“I fell in love,” was Morahan’s response.

And isn’t that also why people in same-sex relationships want to be married? He acknowledged that that was any couple’s goal in getting married “because we love somebody. But there are practical things.” He wants to ensure a same-sex partner gets health insurance, can visit his or her partner in the hospital. Those are the practical aspects of marriage “that come after you fall in love” but are very important, and achieved through a civil union, he said.

“We can accommodate … but at the same time, I don’t want to fracture the other side … Is it splitting the baby in half? Maybe.”

A zoning change request that was needed to establish a yeshiva on the former Burgess Meredith estate and was rejected by the Ramapo Zoning Board has readers talking about overdevelopment and land-use.
Here’s one reader’s thoughts on the fight against the project:

We Rocklanders are not easily fooled and will not be bullied into feeling guilty. These issues have a great economic impact and we are rightly concerned. Our suburban way of life is being threatened with a constant march toward overcrowding.

Another said:

Congratulations to the community surrounding the property! You worked so hard and it paid off! … Why tear up that beautiful piece of property—let it be! Maybe the town can buy some open space that means something to someone.

A few readers were cautioning residents not to rest on their laurels since there are other development plans proposed that could have a big impact on the community.
One reader wrote:

May have won the battle but the war is far from over. Do not let up, hold your elected officials accountable for their actions/votes. Ramapo cannot withstand years of continued neglect at the hands of a few in power. The time for change must come now before it’s too late. If WE the people speak up, maybe someone will listen.

Another added:

Patrick Farm is the big one, folks. The history of the site is worth checking out. If downzoned as the developer is pushing for, it will change the look and feel of Ramapo forever.