Small Town East Hampton April 25, 2015 To the Editor: Fifty years ago I worked in the Times Tower in Manhattan, the iconic building in Times Square where news flashes circled in lights and the ball was dropped every New Year’s Eve. The building, as I remember, had its own narrow staircase to the subway, and I, suffering an occasional gout attack, hobbled up the stairs with a cane, often hearing grunts of complaints behind me. I remember (how could I forget?) one man pushing past me, saying, “You crippled bastard, why don’t you die.” Fifty years later, I still use a cane (bad knees). Here in East Hampton, I have had strangers stop to ask me if they can help as I stand huffing and puffing trying to catch my breath on Main Street; I have had people rush past to hold doors open for me, and I have had a lovely lady, whom I had never seen before (or since), spontaneously take my arm and guide me over an icy patch in front of the post office. Ah, living in a small town. It has its rewards. JOSEPH D. POLICANO A Sensory Treat Amagansett April 25, 2015 To the Editor: What a sensory treat! I’m talking about Russell Drumm’s column “The Scent of the Sea” in last week’s Star. His story about his “brumous” walk, complete with low-tide seal encounter, made my Sunday morning. Thank you. And I hope he does indeed write a mystery. Put me down for a copy, even if it doesn’t have a “scent strip.” ALICE HENRY WHITMORE Unexpected Troubles East Hampton April 27, 2015 Dear David, Prior to Christmas 2014 I was for a long time fit as a fiddle, as happy as a clam at high tide, as I had no known medical problems despite my heart history. Right after Christmas my whole world caved in with no answers as to what was wrong. I could hardly stand or walk, and barely write. On Sunday after Christmas my bride kept insisting I get to the emergency room at Southampton. I very foolishly held off, because I was due for a heart checkup on Jan. 5. On Jan. 5 the nurses at Southampton cardiology took one look and notified the emergency room at Southampton Hospital that I was on my way. Nobody had any answers as to why my blood cell counts were about flat-lined. Later that day and into the night I was given two pints of blood, which helped out a lot. (The process takes about seven hours.) I was put in isolation because I had no white blood cells and not much of the other good stuff either. On Jan. 6 Dr. Zuhoski did a bone marrow biopsy and discovered I have a very rare disease called M.D.S., myelodysplastic syndrome. This critter causes my blood cells to become misshapen so they don’t work. It really wrecks my white blood cells to almost .2 to .3 count. Despite three two-week sessions of Dacogen treatments, the other cell counts vary now, but stay in the range to keep me from having more blood transfusions. I have had great problems with these transfusions twice. One gave me blurry vision, so it was canceled. The other gave me a heart attack, and I had to be sent to Stony Brook at 3 a.m. To date I have had 14 pints of blood and 8 units of platelets. The reason I am writing this letter is that I never expected to be dependent on the blood bank at Southampton Hospital to keep me going. I tried twice to give blood and was rejected, so I never went again, and now here I am cleaning out the Southampton blood bank. Because of my unexpected troubles, as the primary source of this disease is from pesticide poisoning, I now realize how important these blood drives are to many people. I never ever thought I would need so many transfusions just to keep me going. I had another bone marrow biopsy yesterday and hopefully the doctors will have a solution to my troubles. Cheers, STUART B. VORPAHL Shrimp: Is There Hope? Montauk April 24, 2015 Dear Editor: I have noticed a number of food columns in our local papers lately that feature recipes for shrimp. Today, I am referring to one in The Star that accompanied an article debunking food myths. I think eating shrimp should be debunked, no? A great deal of the shrimp Americans eat is farmed on the coasts of Asia and elsewhere in countries that have few if any restrictions on their production. Since the shrimp (and other farmed fish) are raised in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, they are routinely fed antibiotics. Don’t even ask what the rest of their feed is. The waste products from these fish factories are dumped into coastal waters, streams, and elsewhere, resulting in environmental degradation on a large scale and the presence of antibiotics in just about everything. Wild-caught shrimp are mostly caught by using drag nets, which results in anywhere from 4 to 100 pounds of by-catch for every pound of shrimp. (The phrase “by-catch” has the same euphemistic purpose as “collateral damage,” so beloved by the military.) The dragging also disrupts the bottoms of the bays and impacts other natural systems. Is there hope? Well, not at the moment for eating shrimp. And if we do not stop polluting our bays and shorelines, our local shellfish, clams and oysters and scallops will be off the table. Why are we so tolerant of failing and inadequate septic systems? And destructive landscaping practices? American-farmed fish such as tilapia and brook trout are given the benefit of the doubt by Seafood Watch. And we can eat locally caught fish that has not been taken on a longline, another vicious practice about which some more at another time. So, eat your broccoli, dear (organically grown, of course). You say it’s spinach, and you say the hell with it? Wise up. Cheers, JANET Van SICKLE Chapel of St. Thomas East Hampton April 27, 2015 Dear David, On behalf of the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, I would like to address the issue of St. Thomas Chapel in Amagansett with your readership. There are three points of clarification I would like to make to them. First, the Hispanic ministry at St. Thomas is indeed good news, as the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island seeks to address a stated need by members of the community. This ministry is not a ministry of St. Luke’s, the only Episcopal parish in the whole of East Hampton Township, but of the Diocese of Long Island. The bishop of Long Island, the Rt. Rev. Lawrence C. Provenzano, is addressing a stated goal of the 2007 executive committee in a letter to his predecessor, the late Rt. Rev. Orris G. Walker Jr. That goal states that “we need to grow the number of regular attendees,” “there is a growing population of Latinos in our area that are not participating at St. Thomas,” and “we would like to welcome them into our community.” This need was also stated by the clergy of 10 Episcopal parishes that comprise the North and South Forks of the diocese in a meeting with the bishop about two years ago. So the bishop has discerned that we are to move forward with this important ministry in the only building the diocese owns outright — the Chapel of St. Thomas in Amagansett. We are encouraged with the response of many in the local community. Second: Most people know me as the rector-pastor of St. Luke’s in East Hampton Village, but I also have the responsibility of being the vicar of St. Thomas. This designation of “vicar” goes back to the very dedication of the chapel in 1913, when, immediately following the dedication, the jurisdiction of the chapel was turned over to the rector of St. Luke’s in East Hampton Village. So, as the bishop’s clergy representative, I would like to make it clear to all that this is a ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island and not of St. Luke’s Parish. We wholeheartedly support this new mission outreach and are helping with office space and meeting space until the chapel is able to be used year round. We look forward to the arrival of the Hispanic missioner, when the bishop issues a call to that individual, so that this exciting ministry can begin. Finally, I would like to thank the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee for inviting a member of the bishop’s staff to its meeting to present what the diocese is doing, to answer questions, listen to concerns, and move forward. As the vicar for the bishop at St. Thomas, I fulfilled that service. The committee and I entered into frank and honest discussions about concerns and found it a wonderful conversation to move forward in our ministry for a full-time congregation to develop at St. Thomas. I have conveyed their concerns about traffic and parking and safety to the bishop and he will certainly take that into consideration as the plan develops on the diocesan level. I look forward to further conversation as the need arises. Respectfully, DENIS C. BRUNELLE Forty-Nine Apartments East Hampton April 22, 2015 Dear David, Spring brings the reality of the chores necessary to get order after a compelling winter. One chore, washing the windows, is a rote chore, providing time for thoughts to move through while performing the physical act of cleaning. Random thoughts traveled through my head, and there it was again, the proposal to build an absolute minimum of 49 apartments on town land zoned for five-acre minimum lot size in Wainscott. The proponents of this apartment complex are good individuals who have stated that the absolute minimum number of apartments is 49 in order to get federal funding and make it too big to fail. That’s a lot of apartments and would be the largest apartment complex in the town, and I take them at their word that they cannot do less than an absolute minimum of 49 apartments. Wainscott is the gateway to the Town of East Hampton. Some years back we got a traffic light on the highway. The unintended consequence of that is, the trades and fast foreign cars zoom along the back roads to take away the tranquillity and bucolic sense of the hamlet. Recently we got the first big-box store, which is rather ugly and looms over the highway. The architect stated his pride in the building yet that does not make it less ugly or ominous. Most recently the town board voted to end the acceptance of federal funds for the airport in order to resume local control. In that instance, federal funds require “bigger is better” and removed the local equation and proportion from the intensity of use of the airport. Recently the Planning Department, which appears to favor the absolute minimum of 49 apartments, did a study of the population of Wainscott. Omitted from that study was a discussion of the 9 or 10 mini-houses purchased by the Village of Sag Harbor in the Wainscott School District to provide affordable housing for their working families. A nifty outsourcing at best by the village, and a question for the Wainscott School at worst. Back to the study, the department stated that there are 286 year-round homes in the Wainscott School District. If there are 9 in the Sag Harbor project and the absolute minimum of 49, you have a 20-percent increase in the year-round housing in one sure moment. That’s not proportion. That’s federal funding. That’s too big to fail. In 2007, the Wainscott one-room schoolhouse held eight kids and sent four graduates to John Marshall. Eight years later the population in the schoolhouse has tripled, as many working-class families have moved to the district especially for the school. Make no mistake, our school and our post office are the two rallying points for the community of Wainscott, and any effort to turn that school upside down shall be met with a jaundiced eye. The school is a focal point for all the residents of Wainscott. Ironically, at the time when the town board has withdrawn from the federal funding of the airport, they are looking at an absolute minimum of 49 apartments in order to get federal funding. While this will make it too big to fail, the real question remains its size, structure, and proportion to the hamlet of Wainscott. At another time I’ll discuss the proposed downzoning from five acres at the headwaters of the polluted, dog-killing Georgica Pond. Suffice it to say that my family has decided to oppose the project that is too big to fail, the federal funding and no local component. Like the airport federal funding, this has no appropriate relation nor proportion to Wainscott. It’s about the feds, not about Wainscott, the community, the school, or its residents. No, no thank you, absolutely not. Regards, WILLIAM J. FLEMING Tower Casts a Shadow Springs April 27, 2015 Dear David: I write on behalf of a group of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Springs Fire Department. While we are very appreciative of the department and its members, and recognize that its members are deeply committed to our community, we are extremely troubled by an action the Springs Fire District recently took, namely, the installation of an enormous metal cellphone tower on the grounds of the firehouse, which is in the middle of a very densely inhabited neighborhood, and casts a long shadow over the protected Springs Historic District and the farmland that remains from the Bonackers who first settled in Springs 300 years ago. This behemoth of a tower can also be seen throughout the reaches of Accabonac Harbor, which was officially recognized as a scenic area of statewide significance. In June 2006 the fire district initially proposed the installation of a cellphone tower on the department’s grounds. The stated purpose of the tower at the time was to be a “revenue producer” for the fire district and to enhance the capability of cellular carriers providing service to the area. Commendably, at that time the fire district undertook appreciable efforts to notify the community and to invite its feedback on the proposed cell tower. By the end of the ensuing dialogue between the community and the district, it was quite clear that the proposal would not go forward, and in fact we understand that the district’s commissioners voted unanimously not to proceed with the tower — a decision that the community applauded and that many in the immediate vicinity of the Fire Department property reasonably relied upon. Given that, we were very distressed to see a cellphone tower pop up virtually overnight, some nine years later. It is, to say the least, surprising that the Springs Fire District does not appear to have undertaken the same efforts to notify the community or solicit its input as it did when it voted in October 2006 not to go forward. For example, we are not aware of any notice or hearing or statement of the current necessity and benefits of installing the tower. Aside from potential health risks, the tower now casts a shadow over one of the most pristine and authentically rural areas of the East End, where descendants of the first settlers to the region still live and farm, and where there is an intricate web of protected wetlands, views over original farmland, Nature Conservancy preserves, and town-protected trails. The tower looms over this landscape and is visible from at least as far away as Louse Point, clear across Accabonac Harbor. In addition to the blight it casts upon the sea and landscapes, it raises profound safety issues: the risk that this monumental tower could fall, during a hurricane or some other severe event, on the many homes in its fall zone on the densely populated Fort Pond Boulevard or the adjacent homes on Talmage Farm Lane. While we appreciate the fact that the district, being a municipal agency, is exempt from most zoning laws, we think it incumbent upon the district to invite the input of the community it is sworn to protect — as it did in 2006. Particularly given the fact that, were it not exempt, the fire district’s tower appears to run afoul of a number of the zoning provisions that all other citizens must abide by, we also think it incumbent upon the district to explain to the community why it moved ahead without providing meaningful, if any, notice or an opportunity to be heard, especially in light of its full awareness of the community’s strenuous opposition to the tower in 2006. The district commissioners should also explain what they believe to be the justification and the necessity that led them to act as they have. We are mindful of the tremendous service that the district and the department provide to our community day in and day out, and we hope that in that same spirit they will join us in a candid and transparent dialogue about this cellphone tower and all the profoundly serious issues it raises. Very truly yours, DAVID N. KELLEY Serious Trash Issue East Hampton April 27, 2015 Dear David, It’s getting close to that time of year and everything is exactly the same as it was last year in regard to the overwhelming trash problem in our town. After a year of trying to make the town board understand, they balked at my solution. Almost as if they prefer the garbage. In fact, when I first brought up the idea of Dumpsters Larry Cantwell told me he didn’t like the idea because “they’re ugly.” It was at that moment that I knew he was blind to the reality and the severity of the trash problem. To him, it was an issue of vanity rather than necessity. The site of a manageable Dumpster, with the option of being hidden by a fence, seems to be less appealing than a pile of raw, disgusting trash surrounding a full or unused trash can with remnants exposed to both elements and animals, spreading across the sands of our beautiful beaches, into the parking areas, down the streets, and into yards, trees, and fields. Look, folks, I don’t need to squeak this wheel any longer. It’s just about ready to fall off, and we can all just watch it together. Just don’t forget, I offered the solution. It amazes me when I see plastic tangled in the trees in full view along our highway and it’s left there. Almost like it’s a natural and acceptable thing to see. I think by now everyone knows plastic just doesn’t go away, so why is this acceptable? I think it has to do with the fact that we’re so surrounded by trash that subconsciously we don’t see it, or the sources that create it. It’s as natural in our everyday landscape as grass and flowers. Let me tell you what’s going on with this so-called Carry In-Carry Out pilot program. Just another way to divert your attention from my actual solution by announcing their complete waste of time. Let me start by saying I did and still do support the plan 100 percent — the problem is, it isn’t a plan. If anything, it’s barely half a plan, and half a plan in the fight against litter and trash is equivalent to no plan. In fact, the “plan” will not educate the people littering, nor will it reduce the litter. Fact is, it will increase the litter at whatever poor sap of a beach gets the burden. Bravo to the Friends of Indian Wells for not being in favor. What sense did it make to do this on a residents-only beach? Are you telling the residents that they are the ones who need the most baby-sitting in this issue, or just that they get the honor and respect of being your guinea pigs? Why not put it at Napeague Beach, which is close to Ms. Klopman’s house? This way she can monitor the results firsthand. Enough with the pilot testing programs! Clean up the trash! Let the Police Department worry about the people breaking the law, and let the town worry about cleaning up the trash that’s all over the place already. This is the trash that sends a message to our visitors and guests saying that we allow our roadsides and beaches and parks to be polluted with litter, so feel free to follow our example. That’s where you make a difference, that’s how you educate. Why does the town board still ignore the very simplistic reality of this issue? Is the neglect motivated by money? What is more important to the community, the tourism, and priority than eradicating our severe litter issue? Here is another great example of how out of touch our town council is about the serious trash issue. Another council member recommends they move the pilot program to a beach like — get ready for this — Ditch Plain. I almost fell on the floor. What a perfect example of how out of touch one person could be. Ditch Plain couldn’t have been a worse example. Take away the trash cans from the only section of beach that is heavily used by, again, mostly the local population of year-round surfers and SUP (stand-up paddleboarders), who clean the beach almost every day because it is a natural tidal cove where a variety of debris washes ashore with each change of the tide. An absolute perfect place to punish our town, beaches, and environment on the highest level. Like the good folks at Ditch Plain don’t have enough to worry about. DELL CULLUM Higher Rents Montauk April 16, 2015 Dear David: This past year Montauk has lost two outstanding local restaurants, Manucci’s and O’Murphy’s. Both were lost because their rents were greatly increased. Landlords feel that with the increased summer population they can now charge higher rents. This increased summer population is generally here illegally. They rent homes whose owners care little for the future of Montauk or our town codes. Our code enforcement officers work hard. It’s up to the town and the residents of Montauk to help them work as efficiently as possible. The town should place frequent notices in all the local papers and magazines. The notice should explain what constitutes a violation, also when and how to notify code enforcement that a possible housing violation exists. DAN BRIGANTI C. of O. for New Motel Montauk April 26, 2015 Dear David, I am a residential neighbor of the long-abandoned, yet now resurrected, motel on Ditch Plain Road in Montauk. Up until now, I have foolishly relied on the town to enforce its code, which stipulates that a nonconforming use cannot be re-established if it has been abandoned for a period of three years. I expected our town officials to protect the community and environment by ensuring that the stated laws and regulations were followed. This former motel, in a residentially zoned neighborhood, has not operated as a motel since at least 2005, well in excess of the three-year threshold that should cause it to lose its nonconforming status. East Hampton Town’s own records support these facts. The new owner, Sean MacPherson, is a sophisticated and savvy business owner who knows the local laws, hires well-informed counsel, and has access to significant resources. He is blatantly pulling the wool over the eyes of the community in order to profit at the community’s expense. What is baffling and enraging to me, and should be for all concerned citizens, is that the town issued a certificate of occupancy after the presentation of factual evidence without ever compelling Mr. MacPherson to substantiate continued occupancy. In fact, the town never responded to the community’s many pleadings throughout this process. By aligning with the business owner, the town must be hoping the citizens won’t have the wherewithal to defend themselves and has chosen to reduce its potential liability at the community’s expense. Personally, I am pro-business, and I have no problem with a responsible business owner providing a good or service in this community, as long as it is within legal limits. To understand what is at stake here, one only has to drive a half-mile down the road to Mr. MacPherson’s other establishment, the Crow’s Nest, which is also located in a residentially zoned community and has compromised the surrounding environment since it opened. The significant work that Mr. MacPherson did in order to increase commercial use of the property did not include increased provisions for parking. Instead, the Crow’s Nest creates dangerous parking on public roads (reaching all the way in to the Ditch Plain neighborhood), noise disturbances, crowds crossing Montauk Highway at night, and litter in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Considering this track record Mr. MacPherson has of getting his way in this town, the issuance of the C. of O. for the new Ditch Plain Road motel should not come as such a shock. However, the town’s negligence in this particular matter has broader ramifications, and it opens up the door for others to follow his lead. When does it stop? If the town uses different sets of rules depending on the applicant, and isn’t willing to stand up for the tax-paying residents and enforce the law, then it is incumbent on the community to band together and make our voices heard. BRIAN MARKOWSKI Bewitched, Bothered Montauk April 25, 2015 To the Editor: Bewitched by the candidates who were voted in to the current town board administration in the last election. They promised to conduct town business by holding paramount the interests of all citizens over the interests of those who would bend and break regulations for their own selfish interests. Yet a certificate of occupancy was granted to the owners of an eight-unit motel in a residential zone in the community of Ditch Plain last week. Although normally this establishment would be considered a pre-existing, nonconforming use, it lost that status when it was abandoned for several years, which caused it to revert to the mandated residential-only use of the Ditch Plain community. Bewitched, then betrayed. Bothered that the quality of life of the Ditch Plain community was disregarded because the town’s building inspector mistakenly gave approval for a renovation permit to the new owners of the motel. The town board knew it was a mistake. They were beseeched informally and shown why it was a mistake. They were formally presented with attorney research paid for privately by the property’s neighbors proving that the code specifically prohibited the granting of a certificate of occupancy, given the incontestable evidence. Yet they refused to stand up for the good of the community and uphold the rule of law. Instead, they succumbed to the cronyism that we all thought was swept away in the last election. Bothered and exasperated. Bewildered how this could happen in the face of incontrovertible proof, both in the town files and via seven sworn affidavits from neighbors attesting to the fact that the motel was in an abandoned state for an extended period of time. This proof was presented multiple times to the town without a response. Why? My guess is that the calculation was made that those protesting the granting of a C. of O. would not invest the money to litigate the issue. The owner of the property, on the other hand, would most assuredly litigate, because he was given approval initially by the building inspector to start the renovations, albeit mistakenly so. Therefore, a facile decision was made. No matter that it was legally and ethically wrong and injurious to a large group of constituents. It caused the least trouble and aggravation to them personally. Bewildered and repulsed. Moral of the story: The more things change, the more they remain the same. LOUIS CORTESE Room for My Truck Montauk April 27, 2015 Dear Editor, This letter is in response to the article “Town to Choose Vendors,” which was published on April 23. My name is Shawn Christman and I’m the owner of the Sea Bean Natural Foods Company in Montauk. We are a mobile catering food truck and full-service retail foods company that specializes in seasonal, local, and organic foods of the Hamptons and surrounding areas. Starting a food truck is one of the only ways a local chef like myself can successfully start a business in this town as the overhead for a restaurant is just beyond the reach of most of us. This is our first year of business with the food truck and we have been actively seeking public approval and support in the form of an informational video and Kickstarter campaign, which is available on our website, theseabean.com. For more information about what we do, please see the video. In the past 14 days we have raised almost $7,500 from the public in response to the video, and we’re hoping to double that amount in the next 12 days to help fund our new project. As some of you already know, the bids for a mobile concession at a road-end beach were rejected this year and sent out for rebid. We at the Sea Bean Natural Foods Company feel that the town code doesn’t address the needs of the community, and have asked the town to consider changing the code. Here’s why. First, the town beaches are completely overcrowded and there are no places to park anywhere in the summer. With a simple and minor change to the code, we could save at least one spot at every beach with a concessionaire (in most cases two). The way the town code was written, it said that no vehicle, food trailer, or combination thereof could be in excess of 22 feet. This allows for a trailer of up to 22 feet and a tow vehicle to park at the beach, effectively taking up two spots. My truck is only 2.75 feet bigger than the allotted amount, but I only take up one space. Secondly, there is no distinction in awards for different classifications of food vendors as there is with the Suffolk County Board of Health Services and its assessment of mobile vendors. For example, I am considered a “mobile fast food restaurant” because of the equipment that I use and the food that I serve, where Mister Softee (the highest bidder in round one at Indian Wells) serves only soft-serve ice cream. Another example is a “kiosk” that reheats already prepared food or sells prepackaged goods like ice cream and hot dogs. The town code and purchasing department does not take into consideration what you serve, only who will pay the most to do business. In order to make the bids more balanced, we’re asking the town to consider designating spots for different board of health classifications. This way you don’t end up with two Mister Softees in the same location — not to mention you should be a registered voter in the Town of East Hampton to qualify for a town-owned spot! The third reason we asked the board to consider approving our bid is that our size poses no safety risk and that the services that we plan to provide and the benefits to the community far outweigh any perceived negative impact regarding the size of my truck. Montauk Fire Department First Assistant Chief Franzone had this to say about it in a letter to the board: “To whom it may concern, I was approached by Mr. Shawn Christman to look at a peddler’s location at Ditch Plain Beach in Montauk. After review of the site as long as access is in compliance with N.Y.S. D.O.T. recommendations for both urban and rural road width of nine to twelve feet and no overhead obstruction is present, Montauk Fire Department will have no complaint or objection to Mr. Christman’s request for placement of his vehicle at that location.” (The letter goes on to talk about the pre-existing bicycle rack and its need to be moved.) I want to thank Supervisor Larry Cantwell and Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc for their support in this matter and for taking the time to meet with me. They both agree that there is room for my truck at a town-owned beach and Mr. Cantwell promised me on Monday that he would send someone out to measure the lots and see which were most favorable. If a public hearing was held, this minor technicality could be changed before the July 4 weekend. We are not asking for an unreasonable change — only that the town update the code for the first time in 20 years. We at the Sea Bean demand better products and we look forward to serving you those products very soon! Thanks for reading and lets keep it local! SHAWN CHRISTMAN | Slush Fund East Hampton April 27, 2015 Dear Mr. Rattray, Well, well, well, there they go again. Not even a year and a half into the Cantwell administration and subpoenas are flying from the Suffolk County district attorney. Bill Wilkinson got awards and over $500,000 for taxpayers from New York State for his stewardship of East Hampton, and Larry Cantwell gets subpoenas. Like a recurring bad dream, East Hampton taxpayers are once again embarrassed by a Democrat-controlled government, as law enforcement authorities swoop in, demanding documents pertaining to the purchase of a parcel of land in Amagansett once known as the Principi property. A staggering $1 billion of taxpayer money has been deposited into the community preservation fund. When politicians have unfettered access to such large sums of taxpayer dollars, mischief is sure to happen. Just ask the officials in the last Democratic administration. In addition, there has always been a danger of politicians using the C.P.F. as their own political piggy bank, rewarding friends and cronies and punishing enemies. One need only review a list of properties purchased during Cantwell’s short tenure at Town Hall to see the names of some of the most politically connected families of both political parties who have received substantial sums of taxpayer money for their property. The time has come to take the community preservation fund out of the hands of politicians. Some just cannot be trusted. An independent nonpartisan community preservation fund board should be established. This board would be made up of members from the five East End towns, and it would manage the fund and decide on all purchases while following very strict and clearly written guidelines. Board members would undergo serious background checks and vetting, perhaps by the district attorney’s office, in order to ensure that members have no conflicts of interest. Members would operate under a very strict and public code of ethics. If such a board cannot be established on the county level, then, given East Hampton’s bad behavior, a commensurate independent board must be established here. In addition, the C.P.F. needs to be re-evaluated. Relentless taxes and inflation are hammering Long Island families. Their major assets are their homes. For that reason, properties selling for less than $1 million should be exempt from the 2-percent transfer tax. For properties in excess of $1 million, a sliding scale should be applied and capped. It is unfortunate that the C.P.F. law was extended to 2030 without an objective and comprehensive review of how it is operating and affecting taxpayers. Long Island will probably run out of open space to purchase before the law sunsets in 2030. It is being reported that the C.P.F. may collect an additional billion dollars by that date. With increasing property prices on Long Island, that billion-dollar projection is likely very low. The original legislation should have contained a mandated review of the law every five years to ensure the law was effective and not being abused. The legislation should be amended now to include this provision. At present, politicians and their cronies are looking to squander C.P.F. tax dollars on pet projects that were never anticipated by the legislation. Some of the ideas being floated are projects for water quality, affordable housing, acquiring coastal hotels, and many more. These projects may be valuable to the community but they must be discussed, debated, and funded through appropriate budgetary methods. They should not be funded using bait-and-switch budget gimmicks that politicians are so fond of using. The C.P.F. started out as a noble endeavor. But, it has become a victim of success and is now a monumental slush fund. The worst part? It creates a contagious rash affecting politicians and special-interest groups, called itchy, sticky fingers. CAROLE CAMPOLO The writer is a member of the East Hampton Town Republican Committee. Ed. The Principi Property Amagansett April 26, 2015 Dear Editor, Your article “C.P.F. Farm Buy Subject of District Attorney Subpoena” was probably written close to The Star’s deadline last week, and your reporter probably did not have much time to get more information for the article. True, I did go to the Thursday, April 16, town board meeting to suggest that the community needs a senior citizens center, because the one now used is in really bad shape, and Sylvia Overby and Larry Cantwell have both acknowledged to me that we need one. We need to build a senior citizens center, and that is why I proposed using the building at the 555 former Principi property. A community center for the whole of East Hampton Town would be great also. That building is approximately 8,000 square feet, I am told. I have never believed that the Principi property could ever have been used for retail business, as it was purchased for $10 million with the community preservation fund, which does not allow retail business, and I do not know if your reporter knows that. If that were true, I am sure there would have been many more R.F.P.s submitted in July 2014 for the use of the building and the property. One proposal, which offers to give $6,000 for the use of the property and building, is an insult to the taxpayers of East Hampton Town. I was also told by an official that there would have to be a public referendum to change the law. Actually, possibly using C.P.F. property for retail started with the Wilkinson team, because the same group who started a farmers market at Nick and Toni’s wanted to move to the historic Lester farm museum across the street from the I.G.A. in East Hampton. It was not allowed because of the purchase with C.P.F. It was also proposed, at the same time by the same group, that they eliminate the Planning Board from the farm structures to be built and turn it over to the architectural review board. I believe, David, you wrote an editorial against the proposal. I also recently heard a comment that “there is so much money in the community preservation fund” that “it has to be spent on something.” Perhaps the Star reporter should attend a meeting of the new agricultural advisory committee. Sincerely yours, ELAINE JONES A Town Manager East Hampton April 27, 2015 Dear Editor, In the first month of the first year of Larry Cantwell’s term as supervisor, a small but significant little mistake came to light in the tax receiver’s office. The previous month, when the Republican town board was still in office, no one seemed to have noticed that the computer had failed to print out all the property tax bills that the town depends upon for revenue. Not even the numerous checks piling up in the corner, undeposited, drew anyone’s attention to the department’s problems. This minor disaster cost the town a few hundred thousand dollars to fix. It only came to light when taxpayers complained about not getting their tax bills! This one incident is all the argument you need for why East Hampton needs a town manager. Two newspapers and the two patronage queens from the Board of Elections who run the Republican Party all seem to think that a town manager is just another layer of government. Not true if done right. A professional town manager is someone with a master’s degree in public administration from a university with a reputation in this field. Looking at Syracuse University’s program, one of the best in the country, you will see that a town manager is expected to do three things well. First, manage the town’s finances and budgeting. A town manager eliminates the need for a budget officer. Second, set professional goals and standards of performance for departments and hold department heads accountable for achieving those standards and goals. A town manager eliminates having town board members involved in department operations. That means eliminating the position of budget officer and returning town board members to their part-time policy-making legislative roles and cutting their salaries back to what they were before Jay boosted them into taking on executive responsibilities over departments where they lack any professional expertise. In dollar terms, that amounts to saving hundreds of thousands of dollars. Third, a town manager today is expected to know how to apply information technology to operations in order to save a town money. Here I would fault the Democrats for hiring more people to solve every problem rather than using technology to increase the productivity of our existing work force. You can think about that when you stand in line to write your check for your dump sticker. There is no reward in life for being dumb and proud of it. East Hampton went bankrupt once by sticking its head in the sand. Some of you may remember Rwanda, the country in which the Hutus massacred the Tutsis (while the Clinton administration looked the other way). By the end of this year every form, fee, and permit at the local government level will be done electronically in the entire country of Rwanda. No more lines and rubber-stampers. That is how far Rwanda has advanced in 20 years. And East Hampton? PAUL FIONDELLA A Seat at the Table Amagansett April 24, 2015 Dear David, I do hope that you and many intrigued others will join the conversation at the New Leaders of East Hampton kickoff, Monday, May 4, 6 to 8 p.m. at D’Canela, 195 Main Street, Amagansett. The New Leaders are committed to certain principals: All discourse should be catered, and political equality. The New Leaders of East Hampton will address at their monthly gatherings the issues of our community — housing, wages, immigration, local candidates, environmental concerns, tax equity, schools, and more. Expect to find an open seat at the table and a warm welcome! All good things, DIANA WALKER Airport Sustainability East Hampton April 22, 2015 Dear David, There is a great deal of misinformation being circulated about the financial sustainability of East Hampton Airport. Many of those who would be harmed by the three new noise-abatement laws just passed by the town board have declared that the airport cannot possibly survive the resulting revenue loss without F.A.A. or local taxpayer funds. This is patently untrue. However, there is a legitimate basis for confusion, since no public document has demonstrated the airport’s ability to fund an adequate capital program and sufficient reserves for litigation expenses after giving effect to the revenue losses expected as a result of the three new noise-abatement laws. In addition, the budget and finance subcommittee has been unable to reach a majority opinion on the financial impact of the four proposed noise restrictions or the three just enacted. Finally, the current administration has not yet committed to a long-term capital plan. In reality, with an initial 25-percent increase in landing fees and modest increases thereafter, together with revenues from paid parking and leasing at at least half of the 15 currently vacant airport properties, the airport could over the next four years fund at least $7 million of debt for capital improvements and $3 million of litigation expenses and have sufficient cash flow to fund additional capital improvements and repairs after 2018. How do I know this? I built the financial model that has been the basis of the subcommittee’s reports on debt capacity, using financial modeling techniques developed over more than 20 years as an investment banker and corporate financial adviser. The resulting airport financial model has been validated using the last five years of actual financial results, and reviewed by the town’s division of finance. It accurately predicted year-end 2014 fund balances of $1.8 million. The model has been progressively refined over the last 15 months and now incorporates the revenue impact of the three laws just passed by the town board. So it is untrue that the noise-abatement rules just enacted will cause the financial demise of the airport, unless future administrations revert to a policy of neglect that prevailed for so many years prior to 2014. There is no assurance, however, that the laws just passed will remain as is in future years. In fact, they should be re-evaluated next fall and periodically thereafter, both for financial sustainability and noise-abatement effectiveness. Sincerely, PETER WADSWORTH Which Is It? East Hampton April 22, 2015 Dear Editor, Month after month, over and over again, over the past six years, the voices of right-wing Republicans and Republican leaders who want to be president, along with their media supporters like Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and Newsmax, have filled our ears with repetitive put-downs of Barack Obama. He is not a strong leader, they say out of one side of their mouths. He is not up to the task of dealing with Putin or Iran or China. He has led the U.S. to a position of disrespect around the world. Obama does not stand up for American prestige and power. Obama then takes unilateral steps on immigration, pushes an agreement with Iran, opens Cuba. So then, out of the other side of their mouths, these Obama-haters scream who does he think he is? He’s acting like a dictator. He can’t go around laws passed by Congress! So which is it, you guys? What is he, a weak dictator or a strong weak man? Putin, the tiger killer (animal first tranquilized), is a decision-maker, says Giuliani. Obama wears “mom jeans,” these birds of prey cry out in prepared statements. Putin is strong, Obama weak. Yeah, well, in Russia the ruble has collapsed, food shortages abound, unemployment rages, stupidity is rampant in the Kremlin, and the “strong leader” is being laughed at. Afraid of Russia? Give me a break! Russia spends 6 percent of its G.D.P. for its military, and the U.S. spends 30 percent of its G.D.P., which is 10 times larger than Russia’s. We should worry about Putin or any other country in the world? Don’t make me laugh! The “weak” Obama sends the nuclear aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt into the seas around Yemen, to block and maybe board Iranian freighters carrying weapons to the war there, and he does this while negotiating with Iran over its seeking nuclear bombs. What a weak guy! Surveys in every corner of the world show the immense respect for the president everywhere for his non-bullying, non-blustering policies. We have the greatest, strongest economy in the world. The strongest military and the most thoughtful leader at the helm. Lindsey Graham should spend more time influencing the local police in South Carolina and leave world politics to the president. RICHARD P. HIGER
Published 4 years ago
Last updated 4 years ago
Letters to the Editor: 04.30.15
April 30, 2015