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

HANOVER: Village lax on town codes

March 1, 2013

It may be time to revoke a special-use permit for a highly maligned facility....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-01-13 9:07 AM

SC is in dire financial trouble, and how does the town respond? By implying that if SC doesn't make the agreed upon changes ASAP, the town will be forced to revoke the special use permit? If that happens, then SC CAN'T work on the bldg. So what will the revocation accomplish?

Town officials should be blasted for being completely inconsiderate of the village's financial problems AND for its unwillingness to work with its "neighbor." But instead of being criticized, this newspaper publicly supports the town's indifference?

Don't you just love the non-existent cooperation between "neighbors", not to mention a local newspaper that just loves to "stir the pot" rather than trying to help resolve issues by suggesting reasonable compromises.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 10:15 AM

I completely agree with you Captain. We - the people, our governments and our media must continually seek ways to work together! Lets not create more obstacles but instead create ways to cooperate for the good of the people.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 11:24 AM

So Hanover is supposed to ignore it's rules, but only where SC is concerned?

Why should Hanover be forced to bend over backways because those running SC have no idea what they are doing?

SC made agreements, the problem is that SC isn't following through on them, not that Hanover wants them to live up to their agreements.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 12:11 PM

Capt -- your comment is why I call the OBSERVER board a CLUELESS gaggle of Church Ladies: nosy, gossiping and passing judgment without a scintilla of regard for facts...just a bunch of small town busy-body nobodies...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 12:50 PM

Dcronlg..what the observer reported is a FACT. It is a FACT that SC is in non-compliance. Whether and how hard the Town should push, those are different subjects. But the report is a FACT. So, if you don't care for the facts as printed than that makes the Observer a gaggle of church ladies? Not knowing any conversations between the village and town, I can't say who's to blame for the current situation. But clearly the village hasn't lived up to their end and mostly from what I can see it's their own fault. SC, in my opinion, is close to a bankruptcy situation, and of their own doing. But, if anyone is disregarding the facts here, it's you.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 1:36 PM

Chris-tuu-fuu -- wow, did I nick a nerve or what?

I didn't say a S-I-N-G-L-E thing about the SC-Hanover article; Captain's comment had 3 paragraphs -- pray divine to me, to which one was I addressing -- all, one or none, eh?

All I shared was my reasons to calling the OBSERVER board a clueless gaggle of church lady geese -- which IMO, they are. their egregiousness has no equal -- after all, they are the same bunch which supported Joe Paterno a while back...

Where, how or why you connected these dots to the SC-Hanover deal is beyond me...all I know is that you got your own panties in a bunch, all by your lonesome self.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 2:04 PM

I agree, Christopher, SC is in non-compliance. I just don't see how the revocation will help matters. If SC can't comply due to having no money, how would you suggest resolving this problem?

Please keep in mind, all details regarding the sale of the Bentges bldg was kept strictly private and withheld from residents until after it was completed. Lindstrom and his allies really skrewed the people on this one. I can't believe there aren't any municipal laws preventing shady deals like this, especially when it involves spending public $$$ to purchase private property at a grossly inflated price.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 2:19 PM

Yes Capatin, I Agree, this is something that should be resolved between the town and village attorney's with the code enforcement officer. It doesnt suprise me the Town Board makes comments like that, they NEVER worked with the Village on any common goal. Look back 20 years ago with the water project, the town screwed the village over the project costing the village millions and a 30 year debt. The town will and has always refused to work with the village. Well at least John D had something to print this week. Must be he didnt see any Villenova highway trucks parked in Fredonia this week

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 2:57 PM


0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 4:08 PM

"...Where, how or why you connected these dots to the SC-Hanover deal is beyond me..."

Could it have something to do with the fact that this comment section is in an article, and Captain was commenting about, the issues betweeen SC and Hanover.

Just a wild guess.

What I find funny is just a couple days ago you bash the Observer because they supporting areas working together, and now you bash them because they are saying basically that Hanover shouldn't work with SC on this issue.

The only thing you seem to be consistant on if your hate for the Observer no matter what stand they take.

Did your delivery boy run over your dog or something?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 4:15 PM

Apparently, Dcronlg, you not only are stuck on your metaphors but you can't read either. Captain's entire statement was a response to the SC/Hanover article in which the Observer said that SC was in NON-COMPLIANCE! Your reply would infer that the Observer was wrong, and they weren't wrong. What to do about the situation, that's a different story. But the Observer has every right to call out SC on the total lack of professionalism on the part of their elected representatives. News, fact based NEWS, is not, in my opinion, gossip or nosy or passing judgment without facts. OOPS!! Mustn't leave out the big words..that's a "scintilla of facts"! I don't agree with a lot of what the Observer says in its editorials, but in this case, they're right as rain.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 5:16 PM

Maybe Petri's will let the village move all its DPW equipment into this soon-to-be-empty bldg.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-02-13 2:26 PM

Silver Creek put them selves in this mess i say the citizens should band together and have all parties involved charged with fraud, racketeering, misinterpretation of public funds, and theft by deception. Them disolve the village since no one there seems to have an honest, selfless, or intelligent bone in there bodies and for that matter take forestville with it.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 13 of 13 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