Author: Douglas Kennedy

Newburgh, New York once one of the prettiest river towns on the Hudson, is now home to the highest violent crime rate in New York state. Earlier this month the town was the scene of one of the largest gang bust on the east coast. “We have brought federal narcotics charges against 78 members and associates of 2 notorious national gangs,”  told U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

In the 1950’s Newburgh was a gateway town with its own commuter ferry that ushered upstate New Yorkers across the river and down to New York City, 60 miles away.

There is a lot of history here in Newburgh. It is home to the nation’s first official historical site: the house from which George Washington negotiated the British surrender and helped set up the country’s first government.

Nick Valentine is Newburgh’s current Mayor and he says problems here started with the construction of the Newburgh Beacon Bridge in 1963. The bridge construction meant the loss of commuters.

“Everything, everybody that would come downtown to the waterfront to take the ferry over to beacon went away,” explained Valentine.

Valentine also blames the federal government’s urban renewal project in the 1970’s which demolished homes and then failed to rebuild in the area. He credits the government for at least getting involved with law enforcement. He says the May gang bust was the first step in getting his city back on track.

“We need greater law enforcement, personnel, and we need jobs and accessibility to jobs for the people who live here,” says Valentine.

If the government is able to provide the monetary funds to support Newburgh then it seems there is hope in bringing this beautiful river town back to life.

To Massachusetts resident Carla Howell, the only good government is small government.

“[Big government] always makes the economy worse,” she said.

And so, every time she goes shopping she feels she’s only contributing to the big government problem.

“Every time I buy something, I am putting money into the hands of politicians and taking it away from working families,” Howell said on Tuesday right after buying a bouquet of tulips from Heather’s Flower Boutique in Wayland, Mass.

Massachusetts currently has a sales tax of 6.25 percent. Carla, who is a registered libertarian, is now supporting a ballot initiative that would cut it to 3 percent. She says the only way to cut big government spending is to cut big government funding.

“[Cutting the sales tax] will be wonderful for the people of Massachusetts. More people will be back at work. More savings. More people able to take care of their families.”

But not everyone is as excited as Carla about a reduced sales tax.

“If this passes it will be a complete disaster for Massachusetts,” said Donna Kelly-Williams. “Once again we will be passing a burden onto our kids.”

Kelly-Williams is a nurse in Cambridge and a member of the Massachusetts Coalition for our communities, the main group opposing Howell’s initiative. She points out that the cut would leave a $2.5 billion hole in the state budget.

“And we already have a shortfall of $2.5 billion. Where is this money going to come from?”

Kelly-Williams says she already knows the answer.

“I fear devastating cuts to educational services, as well as fire and police safety for our communities.”

In any case it will certainly mandate some tough decisions from Bay state lawmakers who only have about $28 billion to work with each year.

And Massachusetts isn’t the only state to face potential tax restrictions from voters. Twelve other states including Maine, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, and California all have various petitions circulating that may cut property, corporate and fuel taxes.

And with a bad economic climate, voters are certain to pass many.

“This will mandate cuts that will be devastating,” said Kelly-Williams.

Howell isn’t buying it. “This is the sky is falling defense.”

“These guys,” she said, referring to Massachusetts elected officials, “are addicted to spending. While the economy has been shrinking, these guys have been spending more money.”

She says the only way to stop them, is through a voter mandate.

“This is it,” she said. “They won’t stop on their own.”

“Don’t drink the water,” that’s what Oliver Outerbridge is telling his neighbors.

It’s ironic because Outerbridge is a restaurant owner in Portland, Maine-a state which has some of the best tasting drinking water in the country.

“We are literally consuming a toxic substance,” Outbridge said, “we are medicating everyone.”

His issue is obviously not the taste, but what Portland adds to its municipal water – fluoride.

“[Fluoride] causes multiple diseases,” he said. “It’s been shown study after study to cause cancer as well as many other debilitating diseases.”

Outerbridge’s claims are echoed by anti-fluoride activists across the country, but are vehemently denied by most dentists and government scientists.

“There is absolutely no science to this,” said Edmond Hewlett, a spokesperson for the American Dental Association. “There is a preponderance of evidence on this,” Hewlett added. “Not only is [fluoride] safe, but it’s extremely effective in preventing tooth decay.”

What Hewlett can’t explain is why the anti-fluoride movement has recently gained such traction. In the last two years, dozens of communities in 10 states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas, Vermont, Washington, Maine, New York, Massachusetts, and California,) have rejected water-fluoridation.

Outerbridge points to the warning on the back of any fluoridated tooth-paste. “It says right there if you swallow more than a pee-size, contact poison control. This stuff is poison.”

Hewlett, on the other hand, compares fluoride to other substances like Vitamin A and Vitamin D. “All of these things in high concentration can be toxic, “ he said. “But when they are controlled and monitored, not only are they not toxic, but they are safe, and can actually make us healthier.”

Fluoride has been added to drinking water (about one-part per-million) for over 65 years. Currently 70 percent of Americans drink fluoridated-water.

Hewlett points out the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently honored fluoridated-water as one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century.

Outerbridge remains unimpressed, calling fluoride “mass-medication.” “Fundamentally,” he said. “I have a problem adding any form of medication to a water supply. I feel medical decisions should remain between individuals and their doctors. What’s good for one person is not good for another.”

But apparently not all of Outerbridge’s neighbors agree. Last year he tried and failed to get a similar initiative on Maine’s state ballot. He also failed in a bid for a seat on Portland’s Water District Board on the issue of halting water-fluoridation.

However, Outerbridge believes the tide is turning in his favor, pointing to a spate of national stories on the anti-fluoride movement, “The more public press we get on this issue, the more likely it’s to become an issue for the average person.”

Turkey season opened in South Carolina this week, and like years past James Earl Kennamer, bagged a bird the first day. “Hunting is part of my life,” he said, as he waited for a flock early Monday in Estill. “It’s my touch to nature.” But these days when Kennamer straps on his cammo pants and loads his double-barreled Zoli 12 gauge, he can’t help but think of all of hunting’s regulations and limits, and he fears for the future.

“I’m worried about having legislation passed by different entities that want to stop hunting,” Kennamer said as he walked through the swampy woods of the 950 acre Woodstock Plantation, about 40 miles north of Savannah Georgia. “I’m worried they will one day get rid of hunting altogether.”

The lifelong hunter now supports a ballot initiative in South Carolina to change the state constitution and give hunters a permanent “right to hunt.” Kennamer says “It will keep local entities from passing legislation that would stop us from having a place to go hunt.”

That’s exactly what animal rights groups say is the problem with the initiative. “We think there are so many better ways to enjoy nature than killing a piece of it, “ said Ryan Huling a spokesperson for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the main opposition to the initiative in South Carolina. “PETA as an organization exists to remind people that there’s really no difference in abusing cats and dogs to abusing deer and fish. These animals all feel pain in exactly the same way.”

It’s that kind of sentiment from PETA and other similar groups that have recently sent hunters to collect signatures all across the country.

In the last 15 years, “right to hunt” measures have passed in 9 states including Alabama, Minnesota, North Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Montana, Georgia, and Oklahoma (Vermont declared hunting a right in 1777).

PETA has opposed every single one. “If we’re going to have the right to hunt and fish,” said Huling. “why not have the right to shop and golf? We’re talking about making things that are legal, extra legal for no apparent reason.”

Huling predicts these initiatives will only lead to frivolous lawsuits in the future. “If hunters are going to open the flood gates like this, you’re going to see them demanding longer hunting seasons, larger bag counts, lower age limits. There’s really no end to this.”

Kennamer calls that “ridiculous,” stating hunters have a vested in interest in small bag counts and age limits. “We want hunting to be around forever, that’s all.”

For years Arizona has been known as the “sunset state,” but lately some residents simply call it the “surveillance state.”

“They track us everywhere we go,” says Phoenix resident Shawn Dow. “It’s unbelievable. I can’t go anywhere and not have a camera tracking me.”

Dow is now trying to change all that with a ballot initiative this November that would ban all ticket cameras in Arizona.

“I’m tired of being constantly watched,” he said. We’re all being tracked like cattle.”

In 2007, Arizona became the first state in the country to install ticket cameras state-wide, meaning there are cameras on most state highways; there are cameras at many intersections; and there are camera-vans videotaping on side streets.

The owner of any car caught going over the speed limit or running a red light receives a ticket by mail.

“This is all about safety,” says Jay Heiler, an executive at RedFlex, the company that manufacturers most of the state’s ticket cameras. “If you enforce traffic laws you are going to get more compliance with them, and when you get more compliance with traffic laws you get more safety.”

Heiler points out that 240 communities in 21 states now use ticket cameras to “modify driver behavior.”

“That’s not to say from time to time there isn’t a level of government somewhere that also deploys the technology having analyzed its revenue generating capacity.”

According to Dow, that’s exactly the problem, he says the cameras are less about making the roads safe than they are about taxing Arizona drivers.

“Study after study shows that these cameras increase rear end collisions,” he says. They do not improve safety. That is a big scam. All they want to do is take your money.”

Dow points out that RedFlex, which pockets half the fine of every ticket, is based in Australia. He says much of the revenue stream generated from the tickets isn’t even staying in Arizona. “It’s an outrage,” he says.

And Dow is getting support from some surprising circles.

Powerful Sheriffs Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County and Paul Babeau, of Pinal County have both signed the initiative, which is set to appear on the state ballot on November 2nd .

Babeau even attended a recent rally against RedFlex in front of the company’s Phoenix office last month claiming the cameras perform work that should be done by human beings.

“A camera cannot stop a drunk driver,” he says. “A camera cannot stop an aggressive driver.”

Babeau also has a problem with Red Flex making money off of writing tickets while playing a role in prosecuting them, a motivation he says blurs a line that a police officer and sheriff would not cross:

“It’s an unholy alliance and I believe it’s a corrupting influence for law enforcement.”

Heiler calls the Sheriff’s concerns nonsense.

“We are no more blurring that line than anybody else who lends any other service to law enforcement,” he says.

Making the cameras even more unpopular is the fact that only Arizona residents receive tickets. Drivers from other states and other countries like Canada and Mexico do not get fined.

Camera bans have now appeared on ballots in 9 communities across the country. Dow likes to point out ticket cameras have never survived a vote of the people.

“Come November,” he says. “The cameras are coming down.”