The views expressed here are not necessarily those of The Millerton News and the News does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals and organizations for the general support of our activities, but our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support.
Accepting financial support does not mean we endorse donors or their products, services or opinions.
Letters to the editor deadline is 10 a.m. Monday for that week’s publication. No more than 500 words. Send to editor@millertonnews.com. Please include a phone number for confirmation.
Questioning ‘Community and Kindness’ sign
Readers, I have seen a number of controversies over the years regarding signs in both the village and the town. These were brought to mind after seeing the monstrosity on display on Route 22 behind the Dutchess Auto building promoting Community and Kindness. I am at a loss to understand how this has been allowed. After reviewing Village Code section 170.41 it would seem that the sign regulations are aimed at advertising signs and not this, however 170.41 lists the intent of the regulation is “to improve the communities visual appearance; to promote an attractive business environment; to maintain the rural nature of the community.” One person recently described it as looking like a graffitied wall in the South Bronx. Other descriptions have included words such as hideous. I am sure that some people may be enjoying the content of the sign, however everyone I have spoken to believes it looks awful and should be removed. According to The Millerton News, Townscape plans on working with NECC to “fill the village with signs.” I hope what is to come is not so gaudy and repulsive looking.
Dave Sheehan
Millerton
Minimum wage impact
I found it interesting that the local business owners interviewed for the story about Connecticut’s new minimum wage lamented that with the small increase in hourly wages some of their staff would lose their state benefits (health insurance, food and energy assistance, affordable housing). What no one pointed out was that the previous minimum wage ($15.69 per hour) was not a “living wage” because those who earned it could not support themselves. (That may not have changed even with the increased minimum wage.) What struck me was that Americans in business expect the American taxpayer to supplement the wages they pay their employees and to subsidize their labor costs.
Laurie Nussdorfer
Amenia Union
