At the public meeting with the Planning Board when we could comment, I remember one young woman who declared that people who belonged to PDDG and who had signs in their front yards were elitist. Now the term appears again to characterize someone who values peace and quiet for a chosen lifestyle in a small-town environment in which he/she had invested.

Sharyn is anything but elitist. She built most of her home on Lima Road with her own hands. She does her own bushhogging. She hauls her own horses behind her truck. She is not a wealthy individual just an avid horsewoman and lover of the countryside in which she has invested all of her savings.

As a member of Rotary, she contributes in solid ways to the community. She follows local politics and events as an involved citizen.

You, too are involved and that is for the good. What is not going to gain ground for for one point of view over another is for one neighbor to label another unknown to them with a derogatory word.

I, too, am a member of PDDG. I too belong to Rotary because of what the organization does for the community. I am also a graduate of SUNY. I retired here from Rochester to lead the small-town life where I could walk to the Village.

I don’t want to live in a museum; I just want to live removed from the hustle and bustle of the larger urban centers in an area of special beauty, history and character. I can’t see where this is elitist. It is embracing a lifestyle and that lifestyle is not the sole property of what you call elitist people. I had to come out of retirement to continue to afford to live here and am willing to make the sacrifices to do so.

Not all members of PDDG are descended from well-known families of historical import or are university Professors. Further, they are not against progress. What they seek is planned progress.

I can only speak for myself but the problem is not with you or I or Sharyn. The problem is with a society that allowed mass transit (the old railroad to Rochester) to be removed from the area that would have provided cheap transportation for us to the retail centers north of us. We are victims of a federal government that did not bypass special interest groups and demand fuel efficient vehicles and support for research into alternative fuels that did not threaten the food supply.

We all could use convenience and gas saving alternatives. We can work together to make the Lowe’s issue work for all of us but to do that, we should lay aside our anger and personal attacks and contribute to the solution. A viable solution is always best achieved if there is thoughtful, respectful and constructive input from everyone.

I understand your position and your point of view. Yours may be the winning viewpoint but that will not make me respect you less. I ask you one question: How should I view you and your point of view? What name should I assign to you for having your views? I would rather call you my neighbor, regeist, with whom I respectfully disagree. Peace

Then we talk about how the economy is bad, so there might not be enough business for Lowe’s and how horrible to have an empty “big box” oh the blight!

Wait, if Lowe’s won’t do well enough to stay open, then how will it increase traffic problems? This sounds like the old Yogi Berra joke — that the place is so crowded, nobody goes there anymore.

Why don’t the people opposed come out and say it. They want Geneseo to be locked in time, they want Geneseo 1958. They want those of us counting pennies to have to drive all over town with gas at $4 a gallon to shop. They want us to go to Rochester, or be at the mercy of local merchants.

It’s 2008. Sorry you might have to move to maintain your peaceful sanctuary and horsey lifestyle. Those of us in the trenches during this economic downturn are more concerned with family and the price of a gallon of milk than we are with someone’s view off their back deck. I found your post narrow minded and elitist.