Letters to the editor can be submitted by sending an email to tuletters@timesunion.com or completing this form. See our guidelines on letters.

Albany -- rich in history, politics and potential -- has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to short-term rentals. We've got a golden ticket sitting in front of us, and instead of cashing in, we're busy tying ourselves in bureaucratic knots. Short-term rentals aren't a problem; they're an economic powerhouse, a cultural bridge, and exactly what this city needs to stop feeling like a layover and start acting like a destination.
Short-term rentals keep money in Albany, plain and simple. Homeowners get to offset oppressive property costs, and instead of profits disappearing into corporate hotel chains, they get funneled into local businesses -- restaurants, coffee shops, boutiques. Short-term rental guests don't hunker down in a lobby; they explore, they spend, they make Albany feel alive.
Hotels? Sure, they have their place, but they're not for everyone. Cooks need kitchens, business travelers want a real work setup, and adventurers crave experiences. Short-term rentals offer something unique -- whether it's a cozy brownstone in Center Square or a cozy room near the Madison Theatre. Meanwhile, other cities are laughing all the way to the bank because they figured this out ages ago. Time for Albany to get with the program.
Overregulation is killing opportunity. Instead of making it scary for residents to operate short-term rentals, the city should focus on policies that work -- local host requirements, fair taxation and noise controls that target real issues, not responsible hosts. We don't need a crackdown; we need a strategy.
Short-term rentals aren't the enemy; they're the spark this city needs. If we want to stop being a bureaucratic mess and start thriving, we need to embrace them. Let's stop fighting what works and start using short-term rentals to build a better, bolder and brighter Albany.

Published March 24, 2025

A woman phoned the Albany League of Women Voters asking why the Department of Motor Vehicles needed to know her political party choice. I explained that when citizens file a change of address or license renewal, DMV provides an opportunity to register. DMV, like the League, doesn't care which political party you choose; it just wants to help you vote or change your registration.
The League supports voter registration through DMV. But this method of registering and others, like the League's traditional voter registration drives, may be history if the SAVE Act is enacted.
What is the so-called SAVE (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility) Act? Sponsors claim it is to prevent noncitizens from voting. That is already illegal. Instead, the SAVE Act would make it difficult to impossible for millions of citizens to register or change their address or political party on their voter registration. Per the Brennan Center, more than 9% of voting-age citizens, 21.3 million people, don't have documentation required by the act: a passport, birth certificate or naturalization papers. Voters of color, voters who change their names (like married women) and younger voters would be most affected.
The SAVE Act doesn't protect democracy from attack. It is an attempt to disenfranchise voters and discourage voter participation. The League is nonpartisan and passionate about our democracy. Contact your representatives in Congress and ask them to oppose the SAVE Act.

The writer is the President of the League of Women Voters of Albany County.

Published March 24, 2025

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are on time and those who aren't. Following this, there are another two kinds of people: those who have strong opinions about on-time arrival, and those who do not.
Perhaps too simple, but let's consider what on-time arrival would look like. Let's say the agreed-upon meetup time is five. This would make our arrival, and a digital readout of 5:00 on a clock, simultaneous events. We can agree that this is an unwarranted degree of precision.
But since we don't expect an arrival precisely at five, what exactly did we mean by the agreed-upon time? And why are some people "on time" while others are habitually late?
An analysis: When the "on time" person says, "I'll meet you at five," they are dealing with the period of time that begins before five and ends with five. They actually mean, "I'll meet you no later than five." That's why they're not late.
When the habitually late person says, "I'll meet you at five," they are dealing with the period of time that begins at five and goes later. They actually mean, "I'll meet you no earlier than five." Getting there before five makes them early, something they never agreed to.
If differing windows are used, a mutual agreement on the arrival time is absent. No wonder.

Published March 24, 2025

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Gov. Kathy Hochul has nominated Amanda Lefton to be the new commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation. In the governor’s press release, Lefton is quoted as saying, “I am committed to bringing meaningful results to the health and safety of communities all across the state...."

I hope she will bring fresh eyes to issues plaguing environmental justice communities. As one of the leaders of the Rensselaer Environmental Coalition, I am particularly concerned about recent developments regarding the decision to approve a three-year permit for the Dunn construction and demolition debris landfill next to the 1,000-plus student public school in Rensselaer.

We recently provided research and news clips to DEC concerning the discovery that the burning of gases at landfills releases PFAS chemicals into the air that are much stronger than what is shown in the leachate (liquid accumulation) tests at the landfill. This applies to all landfills that burn gases.

Let’s hope that the new commissioner does not allow “paralysis by analysis” as the agency tries to determine next steps for all landfills. There appears to be a clear and present danger to the vulnerable children at the school. Action rather than months or years of rules and regulation development is needed here.

Published March 24, 2025

If you were dying with intractable pain that couldn’t be relieved by standard treatment, would you want your doctor to be able to honor your request for medication you could take for a peaceful death after confirming, with witnesses, that you were mentally competent and acting totally voluntarily?

More than 70 percent of New Yorkers say yes as do dozens of organizations, including the Medical Society of the State of New York, the New York State Nurses Association, the New York State Bar Association, and the New York State Council of Churches.

Doctors can offer this compassionate care, called “medical aid in dying,” in Vermont, New Jersey, D.C. and eight other states. However, despite widespread public support for this option, New York law makes it a crime for doctors to help their terminally ill patients in this way.

New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act (A136/S138) would enable New York’s doctors to honor their patients’ end-of-life choices. Until the Legislature and governor pass the act, countless New Yorkers will be forced to suffer needlessly against their wishes in their final days. Dying patients and their loved ones don’t have years to wait for change. We need to contact our lawmakers and Gov. Kathy Hochul to urge them to pass the Medical Aid in Dying Act in 2025.

Published March 24, 2025

The 21 attorneys general challenging New York state’s Climate Change Superfund Act claim they are defending the Constitution while, in truth, they are defending the enormously wealthy companies that refine and process fossil fuels ("21 states sue to block N.Y. Superfund Act," Feb. 21).

Though the AGs warn that “New York radicals” and their “left wing policies” are targeting these companies “for destruction," it is fossil fuels that are doing the destruction. These companies are making tremendous profits as they saturate the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and methane emissions that cause havoc with the climate.

The plaintiffs say that the “culprit” in the climate crisis is the consumer. This charge ignores the vast sums that these companies have spent marketing their product and lobbying........

© Times Union