Last week's letter from Mr. Lottes regarding the proposed firehouse misses the point, especially when he claims that the volunteers have been insulted. No letter has attacked the fire department volunteers. To the contrary, their efforts have been lauded. The sole focus of criticism has been directed towards the excesses of the proposed firehouse.

It appears that Mr. Lottes has intentionally misdirected the criticism because he recognizes that our community as a whole does not support the excesses of the proposed firehouse. Mr. Lottes refused to say anything about the need for yet another firehouse bar. Mr. Lottes refused to say anything about the need for the saunas that are part of the proposed firehouse plans. Mr. Lottes refused to say anything about the need for private rooms for high school volunteers and for fund raising. Mr. Lottes failed to explain why volunteers cannot study at home or at the public library. Mr. Lottes refused to say anything about the need for a large TV room in the proposed firehouse, and one can only imagine the size of the TV slated for that room given the penchant for excess. In short, Mr. Lottes has failed to justify why the proposed firehouse should have the various "perks" as he calls them, when the firehouses of other communities do not.

I doubt that residents would take issue with having their taxes and donations used for the reconstruction, alteration or repair of buildings for the storage of fire equipment and vehicles. Commissioner Milner has discussed how the existing firehouse can be altered for that purpose, for much less than the cost of the proposed firehouse. However, the commissioners have preferred to proceed with their proposed firehouse plans under the radar because they realize that the residents at large are unaware of the issues. Point in fact, just a tiny fraction of eligible voters - only 298 people - voted at last year's election for fire commissioner.

If the commissioners truly believed that the residents supported the proposed firehouse, then in accordance with Town Law Section 179, they could have asked the residents to vote upon it. After all, a referendum makes sense since the residents are the ones whose taxes and donations will be spent for the proposed firehouse. The commissioner's refusal to allow the residents to decide at an election if the proposed firehouse should be built shows that the commissioners know the residents would not support the excesses of the proposed firehouse. If the commissioners were not afraid of how the residents would vote, then instead of their rhetoric, the commissioners would have the matter voted on at a special or annual fire district election. I call upon them to do so.

Jeff Delott