ERIE.GOV | Your information resource from the government of Erie County, New York


County Executive Elected Officials County Departments Living In Erie County Visiting Erie County Growing your business in Erie County State and regional municipalities

Statement from Legislator Lorigo regarding vote to oppose Conditional Release program


OFFICE HIGHLIGHTS

Last week, Erie County Legislator Joe Lorigo visited Eden Heights of West Seneca Assisted Living and Memory Care to hand out flowers ahead of Mother’s Day
Often times, the leadership of the new majority, moves items to placate political interests, not necessarily those of taxpayers.
Recognizes the severity of Lyme disease and aims to raise awareness of its symptoms as well as preventative measures individuals can take to protect themselves
Legislator Lorigo held three sessions to teach students about various topics, including: how people spend money, taxes and communication
As Minority Leader, Lorigo has the opportunity to make one appointment to the board. The selected applicant would serve as a non-voting member

Erie County Legislature Majority Leader Joseph Lorigo has released the following statement with regard to his vote against a local law to reinstate the county’s conditional release program.

 

“After discussing conditional release at length and hearing from members of the community on both sides of the issue, I could not support the local law. This program is an inefficient use of taxpayer money, costing more to operate than will potentially be saved. Conditional release is also unnecessary. Many inmates are already released early from their prison terms, whether through parole or for good behavior. The overwhelming majority of inmates are released after serving only two-thirds of their sentence.  This program straps taxpayers with a perpetual expense that benefits a minuscule percentage of those who are eligible,” said Majority Leader Lorigo. “This program lacks long-term strategic outlook and planning. The private funding source for this is only guaranteed for one year, and as proposed, the cost to taxpayers does not make sense for how the limited number of people it will serve. A standard re-entry program can serve three-to-four times the amount of eligible inmates at the same cost. If our goal is truly to achieve reduced recidivism and help inmates become productive citizens, then this particular program falls far too short.”