LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Taught in School

Amagansett
April 11, 2005

Dear Editor,

Hello, my name is Ashleigh Bennett; I am a student at the East Hampton Middle School. In Mrs. Reale's health class at our school we have been preparing a program called Kick Butts Day, which, if you were wondering, is an anti-smoking campaign.

We planned to hold the school assembly promoting Kick Butts Day on April 8 during ninth period. We were also planning to put up crosses outside and borrow some plants to make the outside of the school look like a graveyard for passers-by with a sign saying Kick Butts Day.

We were all so excited, we were going to borrow crosses from the East End Veterans and I and a few of my classmates spent a fun-filled three periods of hammers, splinters, broken nails, jabbed fingers, and popping blisters. Then the trouble started.

During our lunch period Jenna Rocker, Ryan Goldberg, and I were continuing to put up the 236 crosses when the school started getting strange phone calls. Some people who were driving by thanked us for showing our respect to the pope. "The pope?" Jenna and I said in unison. These people assumed because the pope had just died and we were putting up crosses that we were making a memorial for the pope.

We then brought out a sign saying "Kick Butts Day." Now on the point of assuming: We had always been taught in school not to assume. We had always been taught to, if we didn't understand something, ask questions so that we would get the facts straight and not offend anyone. So we continued on our knee-breaking work as we got more calls from passers-by.

People were saying that schoolchildren should not be making a memorial for the pope because we were part of a public school. Also people said that we as kids should not be protesting the war. The war!? We were on an antismoking campaign, we were not on an antiwar campaign. (Even though the idea did tempt me.)

So now I was pretty mad. All our backbreaking work for nothing: People thought we were war protesters and pope worshipers, not antismokers as the sign said. By now Mrs. Parker, the principal, was worried. She said for us to stop what we were doing so that she could clear all this up. Jenna, Ryan, and I ignored the warning and continued. Then I went in to get more crosses and Mrs. Parker was there. She told us to hurry up and put up all of the crosses and get the huge sign up that some people were working on inside. So we went faster than ever - we had three more rows to do and then we were done.

I went inside for another box of crosses and there was Mrs. Parker, looking down asking where Mrs. Reale was. We found Mrs. Reale and Mrs. Parker said that Mr. Gualtieri, the superintendent, had said that we had to take the crosses down because people were complaining. I went inside and ate as much as I could in three minutes and watched about five kids take down all the crosses. They did it in about five minutes flat. I watched them and looked at my thumb, which was all blistery, wondering whether I should sue. (Just kidding.)

I looked back on this when I got home and wondered if Mr. Gualtieri even knew what we where protesting. I asked my dad about it and he said that many people in the world are people who speak their minds in the world. But unfortunately there are more people who are afraid to speak their minds because they are afraid of what people will think of their ideas.

So Mrs. Reale said that we would not give up. We were going to send our message not matter what. So the next day we went outside and nailed gravestones to the ground with a huge sign outside saying "4.8 million people die from tobacco-related diseases: That's one death every 6.6 seconds all day, every day." Unfortunately the wind broke the sign and during lunch the kids kicked down all of the gravestones.

We weren't going to be stopped by people who were assuming, we were stopped by kids who vandalized our hopes and dreams for a drug-free America. These kids, who are the next generation. Oh well. I keep asking myself, should I give up? Is this it? Is there no hope for a drug-free America? But no, I'm going to keep trying.

Sincerely,
ASHLEIGH BENNETT

Playing Field

East Hampton
April 11, 2005

Dear Editor,

In response to Ms. Rattray's editorial last week, I must clarify my position as well as examine hers.

My position is that all landscapers and contractors doing work in our town should be licensed by the Town of East Hampton, period. To break that down further, anyone working for another, for compensation, in the contracting or landscaping industry should be licensed.

Obviously, as Councilman Hammerle stated, the home gardener shouldn't have to be licensed. I don't believe Mr. Hammerle was talking about "designing a law that could affect him," just common sense. Ms. Rattray should leave politics out of this and really address the reason licensing makes sense. Also, the day I, or any other resident of East Hampton, can't get "the boss's ear," as Ms. Rattray describes Supervisor McGintee, is the day our little town's government has grown too large.

When I described "illegal workers," only those with bias think of immigrants. I referred to illegal workers as those not paying taxes (federal, state, sales, unemployment), not carrying proper insurance (liability, workman's compensation, disability, auto, health), and being able to undercut the prices of those of us who do pay these costs, as well as many other costs involved with being in a legal business.

I am in favor of anyone going into business for themselves, as I did 36 years ago. I ask only that we all play by the same rules, laws, and financial requirements, giving the homeowners a more legitimate way to select their contractor or landscaper.

Why does licensing make sense? Do homeowners know that a worker hurt on their property can sue them personally? Wouldn't homeowners want that contractor or landscaper to be covered by their own insurance? Is a million-dollar policy in this day and age too much? Can anyone argue that licensing can only protect the homeowner from shoddy workmanship? Wouldn't a system to report incompetent contractors and landscapers so others don't fall prey to them be a good thing?

Shouldn't everyone pay his or her fair share of taxes? Shouldn't homeowners know that those applying pesticides and fertilizers are licensed by the state to do so and are applying them correctly? Shouldn't everyone applying those chemicals be required to report them to the Department of Environmental Conservation? (Environmentalists should be advocates of licensing for this reason alone.)

Wouldn't continuing education, eight or 10 hours to qualify for a license, help ensure that contractors and landscapers remain updated on the changes to laws, methodologies, and requirements in their fields? Wouldn't fines levied against those breaking the law or doing substandard work be good and protect homeowners?

Shouldn't workers coming from other locales and using our resources be required to pay their fair share by getting licensed, rather than only receiving? I guess I could go on! Doesn't it just make sense to license all contractors and landscapers? Don't you think that a person unable to meet licensing criteria shouldn't be in business in the first place?

Like Ms. Rattray, I, too, believe we can count on our "decision-makers" to make a fair assessment of the licensing issue. That's all I ask: A fair playing field for everyone!

Sincerely,
RICHARD SPERBER
Certified Landscape Technician
New York State Certified
Pesticide Applicator

Our Beloved Harbor

East Hampton
April 10, 2005

Dear Editor,

The tree-and-vegetation-clearing disaster that is currently taking place around the corner from my home on waterfront property bordering the west side of Three Mile Harbor is a gross travesty of our building restrictions. It's impossible to fathom the rationale used by the zoning board to grant this particular variance.

I do not fault the owners, because this is clearly a zoning board debacle. Variances should not be granted to owners who do not or cannot demonstrate a practical reason or indeed a hardship for seeking the variance, do not live in, or have short tenure in the structure they're seeking the variance for, or request a variance for what must be characterized as "gross relief" (or total disregard) for the area's building codes.

Typical case in point is what is currently happening on this shoreline property. The new owners have never lived in the house they purchased. They were granted a variance to tear down the existing house and detached garage and construct a 4,400-square-foot house, plus a pool and a deck, on a piece of property approximately 100 feet wide - which in itself seems excessive. The previous house and garage covered a substantial footprint that could have easily accommodated a luxurious house, even by today's standards.

You do not have to be an expert to observe from the excavation that the structure will be seriously encroaching on the existing sidelines and the street setback restrictions for the area. But the real tragedy is that the board has permitted the clearing of huge oak trees, which has essentially denuded this beautiful shoreline property of all vegetation.

At the variance hearing it was clear that the zoning board either did not understand or did not care that replacing 100-year-old oak trees with a few plantings was a bit of a joke. In fact, the variance hearing, details, and process was in itself troubling.

The excavation for this structure has required the removal of hundreds of yards of dirt. It clearly is the largest dig (for the property size) that I have seen bordering the harbor in the 28 years I've lived here and cruised on the harbor. This variance travesty should be reviewed by The Star, the zoning board, or anyone else interested in preserving some of the vegetation on our beloved harbor's shores.

It's important to investigate what's going on here, because according to The Star's deed listings, the two lots adjacent to this property, which also have large oaks and significant vegetation bordering the harbor shoreline, have recently been sold - to a real estate development company, no less.

Sincerely,
RONALD MARASCO

Looking Out

East Hampton
April 11, 2005

Dear David,

East Hampton is known for looking out for our own. In a world that seems to be changing too fast, it is good to know our community still has a sense of connectedness. Just reflect on articles from last week's East Hampton Star.

A local Springs man has donated his services to repair the Methodist Church steeple so the bell can ring again. Why? Because he went to Sunday school there.

Over 10 residents of Wainscott have pulled together (both old-timers and newcomers) to raise $2 million to partner with the town to buy 20 acres of active farmland so the Babinski family can continue generations of their traditional farming.

Everyone knows our community could use more health services. Instead of waiting for government assistance, dynamic and committed individuals dedicated themselves to raising $6 million and creating health care for thousands of our residents at the Healthcare Foundation. No one is turned away.

A group of Montauk residents has donated money for boats to a remote fishing village wiped out by the tsunami. Montauk, a tight fishing community located at the very tip of North America, reaches out halfway around the world to help a sister village.

A local woman is honored by her church for delivering flowers to ill parishioners for 25 years. An anonymous donor gave East Hampton Middle School a refrigerator so that students' wishes for fresh produce could be provided.

You can't legislate caring. You don't command compassion. A community either has heart or it doesn't. Yes, we are changing, but it's good to know East Hampton's heart is still alive and well.

Sincerely yours,
DEBRA B. FOSTER
Councilwoman
Town of East Hampton