Garbage Cans East Hampton June 21, 2015 Dear Mr. Rattray, Every year two professors from the University of Florida do an evaluation of beaches in America. They visit coastal places in New York, New Jersey, the Carolinas, California, and Hawaii, to mention a few. The purpose of these visits is to designate and rank beaches in America based on an extensive list of criteria they have established. Examples of their criteria are: texture of the sand, water quality, and high on the list is cleanliness. They then publish the list of beaches that they consider to be the top 10 in America. Main Beach in East Hampton Village has always been in their top 10 list. In 2013, Main Beach was designated the best beach in America. Dell Cullum is proposing that the Main Beach trash cans be removed. I respect Mr. Cullum’s right to express his opinion. However, I would like to know his logic for this proposal. In my opinion, this removal would create a problem where currently no problem exists. How familiar is Mr. Cullum with the operation of this village beach, and what is his reasoning? I am a daily visitor to the East Hampton Village Main Beach. I arrive around 8:30 a.m. and stay there for most of the day. I feel somewhat qualified after my decades of being a patron to give my opinion on this proposal. Early every morning a truck drives on the beach removing the bags of trash from each receptacle and places new bags inside. Trash receptacles at the head of Main Beach on Ocean Avenue are also emptied, with new bags inserted. In addition, trash is collected all day long by the beach attendants to ensure the cleanliness of the beach and pavilion. I have personally been to many East Coast beaches, including other ones in New York, New Jersey, the Carolinas, and Florida. Many of them have all sorts of problems that do not exist at Main Beach. Some of these are littering, loud music, drinking, fights, and rowdiness. Picture the scenario where luncheon trash, newspapers, empty suntan lotions, kids’ toys, etc., have all been left by beachgoers. The accumulation would happen quickly, and with a strong wind become out of control. The tables and chairs at the pavilion would no longer be inviting as they are now, through the efforts of the beach attendants and maintained garbage cans. These kids quickly remove foodstuffs left by the patrons, wipe the tables, and reset the chairs. They do a terrific job. Why do people come to East Hampton Village? The main attraction is Main Beach. They read about it in newspapers, magazines, and on the Internet. I have met people from France, Italy, England, Germany, Switzerland, and other locales at Main Beach. Many are repeat visitors. The East Hampton Village Main Beach is one of the major driving forces to the growth of the economy in East Hampton. There are many regulars I see each summer who I am confident would agree with my viewpoint. The garbage cans at the beach are not just an amenity, but a necessity to the continued cleanliness and draw of Main Beach. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! JOE MARGOLIS Ownership of the Beach East Hampton June 22, 2015 Dear David: I read your recent article with interest. I would like to expand on a few topics raised by your article. While it is true that the threat to public ownership and access to the town’s beaches is real and continues in these lawsuits and other places, I would like to emphasize to your readers that everything that has happened in the Seaview and White Sands lawsuits up to this point has been “pre-trial” and that this latest ruling brings us back to where the lawsuits started. As your article points out, the trial has not yet begun. The Seaview and White Sands lawsuits make many claims in an effort to privatize the beach. The latest ruling basically states that all of the claims made in the initial lawsuit will be argued at the trial. The court had previously ruled that, based on the material submitted, there was not enough evidence to support all of the plaintiffs’ claims, and that only some of the claims made in the lawsuit would be argued at trial. The plaintiffs then had an opportunity to reargue this decision and submitted more evidence to the court to support their original filing. After hearing the plaintiffs’ reargument, the court decided that there was enough evidence to have all the original claims argued at trial. The reason the recent decision seems to read in favor of the plaintiffs is that it is a reversal of a prior decision made by the court, and the judge needed to state the reasons why he overturned the prior ruling. No decision has been made as to the outcome of the trial. The plaintiffs in the case say that they do not care about ownership of the beach, but as they have argued and reargued in the lawsuit, they are clearly claiming ownership of the beach. Citizens for Access Rights strongly encourages anyone and everyone who is interested in the case to visit our website (citizensforaccessrights.com) and read the case and pretrial rulings for themselves. We have tried to post as much information as we can relative to this case and other topics related to beach access and ownership to our website for people to view. I would also like to take this opportunity to share some information about the group Citizens for Access Rights. While it is true that our group has its genesis in the Seaview and White Sands lawsuit, CfAR is dedicated to protecting safe and responsible access for all user groups, and public ownership of East Hampton’s beaches and shoreline. CfAR is not just about beach driving, and not just about the beach in the Napeague area, but since your article focuses on beach driving, CfAR would like to point out that beach driving has been a traditional form of access and a way for the public to enjoy the town’s beaches and shorelines for generations. We respect people’s right to not like or agree with this form of access and use, but we ask that you respect our right to continue this traditional use as long as it is done in a safe and environmentally respectful manner. Much like the way many people do not like houses in the dunes and feel that the houses and sanitary systems are a far greater threat to the dunes and the environment than beach driving will ever be, but live with the fact that the houses are there. CfAR would like to point out that there are numerous places in the town to go to the beach where beach driving is not allowed, and one would not have to see or be around vehicles on the beach. We respectfully request, rather than trying to take away an activity that people have been enjoying for generations, that people who dislike trucks on the beach use those areas instead. CfAR also opposes the “No Parking” signs along the eastern side of Dolphin Drive in Amagansett. Our group believes that there is room in the 66-foot-wide road right-of-way to allow for minimal parking. The town has purchased a nature preserve to the east of Dolphin Drive, and a pedestrian access to the beach over the dune at the south end of Dolphin Drive currently exists for public use. By prohibiting parking in the area, the town board will in essence limit access to all except those who live in the area, creating a private nature preserve and beach. This is the same tactic being used in the Seaview and White Sands lawsuits. Eliminate the access and create a de facto private beach. CfAR appreciates and shares the residents’ concerns about the environment but believes as before, that the homes and sanitary systems in the dunes are of far more concern to the environment than parking in the road right-of-way will ever be. CfAR believes that a balance between protecting the environment and allowing public access to the town resources can be achieved. We urge anyone opposed to the limiting or removal of beach access or the privatization of the town’s beaches and shorelines to show up at Town Hall next Thursday, July 2, when the town board will vote to prohibit parking on Dolphin Drive, and express your concerns. Citizens for Access Rights is a non-political, not-for-profit organization with the stated purpose of protecting public access to town beaches by raising awareness, disseminating information, and acting as a liaison for the public to the East Hampton Town Board and the East Hampton Town Trustees. CfAR has donated over $10,000 to the East Hampton Town Trustees for their fight against the Seaview and White Sands lawsuits, and to maintain public access and ownership to East Hampton’s beaches and shorelines. Whether it is the town board meeting on July 2, at which the board will be voting to prohibit parking along the eastern side of the 66-foot right-of-way of Dolphin Drive; the installation of fencing on, and the claim of beach ownership by, the Zweig property owners that restricts or limits access to Georgica Beach in the village. The installation of hard structures along East Hampton’s shorelines that will eventually lead to the loss of beach, or any number of permits, applications, lawsuits, or issues that may affect the public’s ability to access the beach and shoreline, CfAR has tried to stay on top of these issues and educate the people as to the possible effect on the public’s ability to safely and responsibly access and use the beaches and shorelines of East Hampton. CfAR is an environmentally conscious group that believes a balance can be achieved in protecting the environment and providing access to the public. As evidenced by the recent developments in the Seaview and White Sands lawsuits, along with Dolphin Drive and the many other situations along our shores, the public’s ability to access and use the beaches and shorelines of East Hampton is constantly being challenged. The board of CfAR encourages all of its members and supporters to stay informed regarding beach access and ownership issues and to support the elected officials and candidates who support public access to and ownership of the beaches and shorelines, not only by their words but also by their actions. It may not be the beach that you frequent or the use that you enjoy at the moment, but it may well be in the future. TIM TAYLOR President, CfAR On Dolphin Drive Springs June 20, 2015 To the Editor: As a member of the East Hampton Town Nature Preserve Committee, I take strong exception to the outright lies about the committee being put forth by Jonathan Wallace. Mr. Wallace is a lawyer for a group of wealthy property owners whose houses lie directly west of the South Flora Nature Preserve. This 37-acre piece of oceanfront (1,700 feet on the ocean) was purchased in 2001 with public funds for use specifically as a “public beach.” The committee, in formulating the management plan for the preserve, unanimously recommended 500 feet of parallel parking along the east side of Dolphin Drive to provide public access to the beach and the preserve. There is no other practical access that does not involve crossing over the dunes. Contrary to Mr. Wallace’s claims, not one foot of the recommended parking will intrude anywhere on the South Flora Preserve. And, there’s room for a buffer between the edge of the parking and the preserve. Mr. Wallace’s claim that this limited amount of parking would make Dolphin Drive “look like Cyril’s” is typical of the overwrought rhetoric he has employed. Before the management plan was even heard at a public hearing, Supervisor Cantwell banned parking on Dolphin Drive. In effect, he has created a private preserve (at public expense) for the neighboring homeowners. Supervisor Cantwell repeatedly claims to support public access to public spaces. Why not here? Next Thursday, July 2, the town board will hold a hearing on the South Flora Management Plan. Anyone interested in seeing that the public has access to publicly purchased beachfront should try to attend this hearing. I urge Mr. Wallace to stop misrepresenting the committee’s proposal, and I urge Supervisor Cantwell to lift the parking ban and adopt the nature preserve committee’s proposal. Sincerely, REG CORNELIA Awards Night Dinner East Hampton June 19, 2015 Dear David, Our family would like to thank The East Hampton Star and you for the wonderful awards night dinner at East Hampton Point last night, celebrating the award winners’ accomplishments. It was wonderful to meet all the students from the different schools who were selected for this award, and we enjoyed getting to know each student through their various activities and interests. We appreciate the hard work that it takes to organize this event and appreciate the fact that The East Hampton Star is so very supportive of the community’s students. We thoroughly enjoyed the good conversation and atmosphere of awards night. Kind regards, DAWN, KEVIN, and MARISSA BROPHY Community Effort East Hampton June 16, 2015 Dear David, On behalf of the board of directors, I am writing to express heartfelt thanks to all who attended the Spring Into Summer benefit for the Eleanor Whitmore Early Childhood Center this past Saturday. We are especially grateful to Judy and Norbert Weissberg for opening their beautiful home to our family of supporters. It was a joyful community effort to support the children who attend our program for early childhood education. These children are our future, and our community’s great treasures. Warm regards, MAUREEN WIKANE Director Like No Other Wainscott June 20, 2015 Dear Editor: Re: my profile in the June 18 issue, I failed to mention to the amazing Mark Segal that my East Hampton raison-d’etre is the great Jess Frost, who curated my show at Glenn Horowitz and can edit artwork like no other. Thank you, LUCY WINTON Should Be Asked East Hampton June 16, 2015 Dear David, East Hampton Village’s Doe #57 was sterilized by ovariectomy some time during the first half of this past January. There was a study done in 1982, at the Cusino Wildlife Research Station in Michigan, that concluded the ovaries of white-tailed deer are necessary through 156 days, of a 200-day gestation, for successful completion of pregnancy. The study also showed that the deer aborted after ovariectomy as early as four days, and no longer than three weeks, as all deer were X-rayed at that time. So, at the end of this past May, approximately four months after ovariectomy, there is no way that Doe #57 was found in the process of a live birth. At that time, after carrying dead fetuses for four months, how could she be anything but critically ill, and unable to successfully abort? Of course, there is mortality in nature, and in capture-and-release programs. However I feel, as a veterinarian, that questions should be asked — why was Doe #57 still carrying dead fetuses at four months, why didn’t she abort as quickly as the does in the Michigan study, and is it possible that Doe #1 and Doe #61 suffered a similar fate? Perhaps we will learn more about Doe #61, as her body was sent for necropsy at the D.E.C. In any scientific study, and I believe the deer-sterilization program in East Hampton is permitted by the D.E.C. as scientific research, all data collected is important and should not be dismissed. Since the deer are not captive, citizens within our community are finding the end results (data) of this sterilization study. Does #1, #57, and #61 were found in very poor states of health. If a woman has the misfortune of her unborn fetus dying, the D&C procedure ensures the timely removal of the fetus from the womb, so the woman does not become critically ill herself. I absolutely feel that wildlife biologists, animal scientists, and veterinarians would be very interested and concerned that some does, and at least one with certainty (#57), may be continuing to carry their dead fetuses far too long, not aborting, and become critically ill and suffering. It is paramount that evidence and data from all sources be considered, so the sterilization study can be properly assessed as to whether or not the results are humane. After all, I believe this study was originally pursued as a humane alternative to deer population control. Professionally yours, THERESA DiSUNNO Deer Sterilization East Hampton June 16, 2015 Dear David, I have learned there have been a number of deer that have died painfully due to the complications of the sterilization that took place earlier. I was originally in favor of the sterilization, but would prefer to be informed. If reports have been made, I want to see them in print. Sincerely, PENNY PINSLEY Could Be Unrelated Cutchogue June 16, 2015 Dear Editor: A recent, emotional letter in your newspaper written by Dell Cullum attempts to link the unfortunate deaths of an East Hampton doe and two unborn fawns to a sterilization procedure performed on the mother five months previously. At best, the asserted connection is highly speculative. As a Cornell-trained reproductive physiologist and retired professor of obstetrics and gynecology, I have spent much of my scientific career lecturing and doing research on pregnancy, placentation, prenatal development, and reproductive failure in a variety of mammals (including a number of wild species). I do not find it in the least bit unusual that one or even a modest number of the sterilized does in the East Hampton Village program might subsequently exhibit reproductive complications. These could be completely unrelated to the performed surgical procedures. It is known that approximately 15 percent of suburban deer die each year of causes other than hunting, and presumably all of these deaths are not by pleasant means. Finally, it should be noted that the East Hampton experiment is being directed by Dr. Anthony DeNicola, who is highly experienced in conducting safe deer-sterilization programs. I have frequently observed reproductive complications or failures in animals that were never subjected to any sort of human manipulation. It is also widely recognized that fetal and maternal losses occur all too frequently in our own species, even when access is available to the best obstetrical care. No well-studied mammalian species has been found to come close to achieving 100 percent success in efforts to reproduce. It is inconceivable that a lay person like Mr. Cullum, who apparently lacks any advanced scientific or medical training, could be aware of all the factors that might have been responsible for the death of this doe and her fawns. Even advice from a trained veterinarian is unlikely to have been completely helpful, because some of the possible causes are still under active research consideration. Our excessive East End deer population is directly responsible for an intolerable level of dangerous tick-borne diseases in humans, severe environmental degradation (with an attendant loss of biodiversity), serious economic losses to our agricultural sector, and a high frequency of deer-vehicular collisions. The search for humane, workable, and affordable solutions to these problems is not advanced by those with primarily an emotional agenda, and/or who choose to ignore the existing scientific literature and regulatory restrictions on dealing with the deer. JOHN J. RASWEILER IV The Deer Population Montauk June 17, 2015 To the Editor: The Town of East Hampton’s deer management plan claims that our town’s deer population has “exploded” in recent years. Many local officials and residents share this view. But survey findings do not support it. Here is a brief summary of the survey research. In 2006, our group commissioned the first scientific survey of the Town of East Hampton’s deer population. Using a ground-based method known as distance-sampling, the wildlife biologist Frank Verret estimated 51 deer per square mile in the entire town. Mr. Verret estimated a similar density within the Village of East Hampton. In 2013, the town board financed a townwide aerial count that reported far fewer deer. Many people questioned the accuracy of the aerial count. In January 2015, the White Buffalo firm, at the start of its sterilization program, carried out distance-sampling in the village. The firm estimated 48 deer per square mile — a figure that is quite similar to the results of the 2006 survey. Information on our community’s deer population is incomplete. We still need a current survey for the entire town. But the findings so far do not support the view that our deer population is exploding. Indeed, it may be quite stable. The densities found in the 2006 and 2015 surveys are somewhat higher than most deer-management authorities would like to see. But the figures are not extraordinarily high. In the Northeast, most communities that have initiated deer-reduction procedures have faced much higher densities. For example, when North Haven began formulating deer-reduction plans in the 1990s, it had about 170 deer per square mile. Wildlife managers also consider the possibility that an overabundance of deer can ravage woodland vegetation. The extent to which this is happening in East Hampton is a subject of debate. Tom Rawinski, formerly associated with the U.S. Forest Service, says our deer are causing serious vegetation loss. But at a June 18 forum, the esteemed naturalist Larry Penny presented evidence that our woodland vegetation is generally flourishing. Local officials have felt strong pressure to act quickly to reduce our deer population. In part, this pressure has been fueled by the belief in an exploding deer population. Another factor has been the prevalence of Lyme disease. The ticks that carry the disease often feed on deer. However, deer reduction is unlikely to alleviate the disease, because the ticks can also feed on other animals. Far more promising is the 4-Poster method, which directly eliminates the ticks. Nevertheless, worried local officials have initiated several deer-reduction policies: weekend hunting, expanded bow-hunting, and sterilization. Our officials should withdraw these initiatives and study the situation more patiently and carefully. They should become more research-oriented. After all, their precipitous actions are killing or imposing risky surgery on sentient beings. Deer have rich emotional lives and want to live as much as we do. I believe that if our community put its mind to it, it could find ways to peacefully coexist with the beautiful deer in our midst. BILL CRAIN Seek Expert Advice East Hampton June 22, 2015 Dear David: Last week I attended an interesting and informative panel discussion regarding the deer problem on the East End. It seems that everyone agrees that the increase in the deer population needs to be addressed, but there is considerable disagreement about the best way to manage this problem. There are those who advocate culling the herd by extending the hunting season or even using sharpshooters, while others lean toward some type of contraception. The current sterilization program adopted by the Village of East Hampton is extremely expensive, inhumane, and has proven to be unsuccessful in places where it’s been tried. Compounding the problem is the fact that deer are an important stage in the life cycle of ticks, which are the source of serious diseases such as Lyme disease, babesiosis, and Rocky Mountain spotted fever. The panel discussed several approaches that are being used in other communities that seemed sensible and could potentially provide successful management of both the deer and tick problems. For example, the Shelter Island 4-Poster project is a program where food is put out as bait and the deer are forced to rub against rollers containing pesticide to get to the food. The program has reportedly reduced the number of ticks by 90 percent in the three years that it has been in existence. Recent developments in contraception (that do not include surgical sterilization) could go a long way toward reducing the herd. Several vaccines are now available that are administered by darting the animals, and preliminary results are very encouraging. Given the seriousness of this issue and the potential for humane solutions, I encourage our town board to seek expert advice, make informed decisions, and take appropriate action, sooner rather than later. SUE AVEDON Nightlife in Montauk East Hampton June 22, 2015 Dear David, Your June 18 editorial regarding reining in the nightlife at Montauk motels highlights how our town board, led by Supervisor Cantwell and controlled by a Democratic Party majority, has been responsive to the needs of residents throughout our community, in this instance in Montauk, whose right to live in peace and quiet is trampled upon by business interests who only have their own profit in mind. You rightly point out that Margaret Turner, who is running on the Republican ticket for town board member and is the president of the East Hampton Business Alliance, has expressed her opposition to the town board’s proposed law, and that she is concerned with what she claims will be a hindrance to the motel operators and will reduce their profits if they seek to sell their businesses. Ms. Turner ignores the impact on the lives of residents of Montauk, as well as on the diminishing value of their homes by reason of the onslaught of out-of-control nightlife in Montauk, which would be expanded if motel operators are not restricted in opening restaurants and bars in their facilities. Citizens of Montauk appreciate the positive impact of the town board’s proposed new law and in addition urged the board to expand the proposal by requiring the updating of septic systems so as to protect the groundwater. The level of population increase in Montauk is such that ultimately an overall wastewater management plan will need to be adopted, but in the meantime stemming the flow of wastewater into the aquifer through requiring motels to upgrade their systems will be an important first step. The citizens’ groups have also asked the board to include in the new law a restriction that would limit restaurant and bar use at motels to the transient residents at the motels and not the general public. Not having such a restriction would amplify the already overloaded population of summertime partygoers, whose noise and cars will further inundate an already overburdened Montauk residential community. DAVID J. WEINSTEIN Where Is the Vision? Springs June 20, 2015 Dear Editor: The character and quality of life on the East End is being challenged. Leadership by this town board must be provided to do what is right and good for the town. I voted for this board based on their platform, but now that they are in office they only respond to the loudest voices or to the number of people who turn out for a meeting. What happened to leadership? Where is the vision they can share and motivate us to join in? The Town of East Hampton is composed of many distinct groups of people with their own agendas. A consensus is nearly impossible to obtain among them. This situation requires leadership from the town board rather than doing what is politically expedient, but they seek to follow rather than lead, and the result is that little meaningful legislation has been or will be accomplished. In the words of the politician Margaret Chase Smith, “The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.” FRANK RIINA Life in East Hampton East Hampton June 22, 2015 Dear David, The natural beauty of our area and the community character, created by the mariners and farmers who call it home, continue to make it a popular destination for folks from out of town. Visitors have always been drawn to East Hampton’s quiet, bucolic, rural community with beautiful beaches, farm fields, woodlands, and wildlife. Creation of the second-home market soon eclipsed the local economy of farming and fishing, making real estate a very valuable economic driver. In response to that fiscal pressure, the Town of East Hampton preserved 40 percent of the town’s land mass, correctly identifying the role that long stretches of undeveloped land and open vistas contributed to our community identity and sense of place. Managing our communal assets and infrastructure in service of year-round residents, seasonal visitors, second-home owners, and the businesses that serve them is a challenge our local elected officials face daily. New disturbances to the local equanimity arise from time to time, which require attention from government for mitigation or relief. The recent Uber controversy is yet another unanticipated challenge to life in East Hampton. Local transportation options can be expensive and may require patience, particularly travel to and from Montauk. And, once again the Town of East Hampton responded to exploitative practices from out-of-town cab companies by requiring local registration and housing of these businesses. There are several reasons why the town’s approach makes sense, not least of which is accountability to service users. However, the new model of crowd sourcing via electronic media has brought marketplace challenges to existing service providers to which they may need to respond. Claims that local taxis are too slow or expensive to offer useful transport to inebriated drivers may indicate a need for change in their business model. How hard can it be to summon a cab via electronic media? If Uber can do it, why can’t local cab companies? The town’s ban on unregistered businesses operating within our borders is appropriate. Uber can play by the rules or not play at all. Uber’s boycott of East Hampton creates an opportunity for legally operating businesses to showcase their responsiveness to consumer needs by making an effort to be more competitive in this new market. Perhaps it’s time for them to step up their game. Enforcing the laws that protect our community from manipulative business practices in transportation options — helicopter and other noisy aircraft traffic to and from our airport also comes to mind — are challenges that grow and mutate with every summer season as profiteers seek to exploit the popularity of our small communities for economic gain. Supervisor Larry Cantwell is simply enforcing the law and should be applauded for doing so. If Uber wants to operate a business in East Hampton, it will need to comply with our rules and regulations. That is not asking too much. Our town has no obligation to ensure the fiscal survival of outside business interests who would profit guilt-free at the expense of East End residents’ health, welfare, quality of life, and sense of place. East End municipalities tax themselves to fund purchase of open space, important scenic vistas, and farmland to preserve our unique community identity and sense of place. Our quiet agrarian and maritime character, built from independent, resilient endeavor, is a heritage we cherish, pay dearly to preserve, and have a right to control. Sincerely, KATHLEEN CUNNINGHAM Springs: Could It Be? Springs June 17, 2015 Dear David, What’s happening to Springs? Not too much, unfortunately. As a resident of 15 years, I have witnessed steady decline. Why? Why should this be happening to my hamlet? Could it be that the population has soared to the degree that our school is bursting at the seams? Could it be that our taxes are higher than the rest of East Hampton’s? Could it be that our real estate value, which is our most important asset, is going down? Could it be that agents are reluctant to show clients here because of the problems in Springs? Could it be that greedy landlords put their tenants in harm’s way, for the mighty buck? Could it be living in a residential zoning area with big trucks parked in half-acre parcels, making some areas look like industrial zones? Could it be that our drinking water might get affected by the surplus of people in the near future? What will happen if we run out of water? Please, please, town board, clean up our beautiful hamlet. I thank you for your efforts so far, but we need much more enforcement. Think Springs! Cordially, RITA WASSERMAN Dormitory-Style Houses East Hampton June 21, 2015 To the Editor: Where do I go for my special privileges from East Hampton Town — like code exemptions? Oh, right, all I have to do is follow the Ross School to find the place. A look at the latest school brouhaha will explain my comment. Adding to the 20-plus other homes that the school uses for “boarding” students are two identical dormitory-style houses currently under construction in Springs. Ross School spokespeople carefully parse their sentences when declaring it is not involved in building houses for dormitories. No, that is left up to a consortium of non-East Hampton doctors through an L.L.C., looking for investment. The design, which includes eight bedrooms on three levels, appears custom-built for Ross School’s needs. It is estimated that each house can accommodate up to 20 people! The school website states that boarding students pay a yearly tuition of $57,900, while non-boarders pay only $38,600. The school attributes the $19,300 difference to boarding costs. School policy appears to be to let the surrounding community bear the brunt of the wastewater, ecological, and other problems created from dorm housing, while the school pockets the money! Plain and simple, this is a commercial venture plunked down in the middle of residential neighborhoods. The doctors make money by renting dormitory-style houses and Ross School makes money by charging parents for “boarding” their children “at the school” (in the words of the school’s website). This arrangement violates our code. However, under convoluted reasoning in a unilateral determination made by a former Building Department inspector, in 2009 (around the time the school added boarding), there is no violation! After six years and maybe 20 or more dorm houses spread throughout the town (the school will not reveal how many), isn’t it time Town Hall takes a new look at this egregious situation, and after a public hearing, decide whether the decision should be allowed to stand? There is no question that the code would not allow more than four unrelated adults to rent a house you or I own because they do not constitute a “family.” However, through twisted reasoning understood only by the inspector, it was decided that 18 unrelated students living with “house parents” is okay. Have we lost our senses? My guess is that at the time of the ruling, dorm-style houses accommodating as many as 20 people each were not at issue. The ruling clearly provided the means by which the school boarding program flourished and grew. Where does it end? The website boasts of boarders living at the school. Is that true? Are there any dorms actually on school grounds, or are there only “dorm-houses” scattered throughout the town filled with more than 250 boarding students? Who knows? When asked how many dorm homes exist, the school hides behind a fatuous claim of security. Without actual figures, it is hard to know if the school simply has made a financial decision to rent outside housing rather than build dormitories on its own land. The website says that the boarding program continues to expand. Where and when will the Ross School expansion into Springs and other areas of East Hampton Town stop? Why can’t the Ross School do what its website states and have students board at the school? Why must the East Hampton community turn somersaults with its code to provide a special dispensation to the Ross School for boarders from whom the school receives almost $20,000 per student while the community is left to deal with overcrowding and all the other negatives that accompany the school boarding policy? Build it on your own property, Ross School. Leave Springs alone! Enough is enough! BEVERLY BOND Action Is What Matters Springs June 22, 2015 To the Editor: Thank you for your recent editorial concerning two for-profit houses being built for use as dormitory rentals for as many as 25 private Ross school students each, in quiet, single-family residential zones. These houses clearly violate the definition of “family” defined in our single-family residential zoning code. The current town board has not kept its campaign promises to the Springs community. With only a few months left in Mr. Cantwell’s current administration, we still have no definition of a “light truck,” so that our zoning restriction against larger commercial trucks in residential zones can be enforced. We have no new legislation to deal with overcrowded owner-occupied houses or illegal rentals. Additionally, the town continues to ignore our East Hampton Zoning Code Law 255-11-67 A4, which expressly prohibits bedrooms in cellars, also known as basements. The identical dormitory houses being built on half-acre lots have eight bedrooms on three levels. Two of the bedrooms are in the basement, a use prohibited by our zoning code. The square footage of these bedrooms will allow up to 27 people to reside in these “single-family houses.” People have been misled to believe that if a basement meets New York State building codes for habitation, then the bedrooms must be allowed. If that were the case, then every pool house and accessory structure that meets the state code for habitation would also require the town to allow these to be used as bedrooms, which we know to be false. New York State building codes also allow three-story houses, but the East Hampton zoning code does not. Obviously there is a difference between building codes and zoning codes. The lack of enforcement on the basement and bedroom prohibitions began during the Wilkinson-Quigley administration, and the Cantwell administration has continued to follow its lead. Ignoring the zoning law banning basement bedrooms is a de facto way to increase density in our town, especially in Springs, in contradiction to our comprehensive plan. Our current town board members expressed in a public meeting that they are “concerned” and will “look into it.” That is just not good enough. Will this latest assault on our single-family residential zoning be met with the same inaction as the truck law, rental registry, or other legislation to deal with overcrowded houses? Talk is cheap. Action is what matters. Sadly, what I have observed from attending town meetings is that those who have political clout or have deep pockets to hire attorneys are more likely to have the laws that favor their own financial interests enforced, to the detriment of the rest of us. Will the neighbors of these unacceptable houses be forced to hire attorneys because the town board will not enforce its own laws? Poor decisions made in the past do not require that the practices continue. If these eight-bedroom houses, designed for dormitory use, with bedrooms on every level and two laundry rooms, are not used for the Ross School, then what will become of their use? What kind of “family” of 27 people will occupy these buildings? These abuses are unacceptable to the community. No one is currently representing the interests of the residents. There is an election coming soon. Voters need to hold their elected representatives accountable. CAROL BUDA A Rental Registry Springs June 16, 2015 Dear Editor, Clearly, people should be allowed to rent their homes. No one wants to stop that. However, let us ensure the safety of the tenants and neighbors, and let us understand occupancy laws must be enforced, and adhered to as well. Thereby we can maintain a better quality of life in our neighborhoods and protect the sensitive water tables on which our homes rest. Having personally spoken to every township in Suffolk County (except Shelter Island) regarding safety, occupancy, and water quality issues in single-family residential homes, it’s unequivocal that a rental registry or permit protocol would be an extremely effective and valuable tool crucial to restoring single-family residential status to several areas in East Hampton. The rental registry consideration was dismissed prematurely by the East Hampton Town Board after only two morning workshops. This did not give adequate time for those who desire a rental registry to express themselves. Who showed up on these two mornings? Overwhelmingly, landlords and real estate agents who thought they had something to lose and considered only their self-interest. Interview results of code enforcement personnel in Babylon, Riverhead, Southampton, Greenport, Huntington, Southold, Islip, Brookhaven, and Smithtown were presented to our town board in writing. All of these towns are strongly supportive of their programs to maintain safety and occupancy laws, preserve their water, and avoid overburdening their taxpayers with responsibilities that landlords and tenants should bear. Not one of these towns would ever consider rescinding their rental procedures, and they all recognize the value of steadfastly continuing to focus their efforts on important quality-of-life issues. The members of the East Hampton Town Board cannot dismiss this, and they can no longer ignore it. Had we a rental registry there is no way, no way, the Ross School dormitory fiasco in Springs would have occurred. No way! Think Springs! FRED WEINBERG Wastewater Management Newton, Mass. June 22, 2015 Dear Editor: The June 11 editorial “Questions on Proposal for Sewage Treatment‚” and June 18 letter from Mr. Kevin McAllister, make a number of erroneous negative statements and incorrect conjectures regarding the Montauk wastewater issues and details of the East Hampton Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, which is available at the town’s website, ehamptonny.gov/ and EHWaterRestore.com, and the comprehensive wastewater planning process, which is explained in detail in the management plan documents as well as in the Environmental Protection Agency-sponsored Lombardo Associates Cluster Wastewater Systems Planning Handbook (available for download from LombardoAssociates.com), and in particular the stage and context of wastewater planning in East Hampton on the multitude of complex issues. No one has disagreed that there are wastewater problems in downtown Montauk that need to be addressed. The management plan documents the range of options, from a local solution to a regional solution (please see section 4, page 48, of the Lot by Lot Analysis Report) for all of the four concentrated areas of problems in Montauk — downtown Montauk, Ditch Plains, docks, and Camp Hero. Downtown Montauk was recommended by the plan as a focus area due to the concentrated problems and public health issues. An assessment of community interest for a solution was authorized by the town board. The latest letter to downtown Montauk property owners provides refined information and project context, as it has become lear that there is an incorrect understanding of the downtown Montauk project context and the severity of wastewater issues. Whether a local or Montauk regional solution is pursued is a local decision. No specific solution is being proposed for downtown Montauk — editorial and letter conjectures are way too premature. “Book-end” options have been identified and potential costs provided in great detail. The wastewater management plan has identified the wastewater needs on a lot-by-lot basis, along with the minimal approach and maximum communitywide approach. The data indicates that approximately 90 percent of the properties need improvements and the explicit basis. There is no growth driver. Statements theorizing otherwise are speculative, negative thinking that causes distracting negative drama. Phosphorus is the constituent of concern in Fort Pond, and the plan report presents great detail of water quality analysis on this issue. However, the first questions that need to be addressed to answer the Fort Pond water impact question are 1. what amount of downtown Montauk wastewater enters Fort Pond, and 2. to what extent do soils remove phosphorus before the wastewater enters the pond. There is no data to answer those questions, which is why we recommended the watershed studies, which are under way at Georgica Pond and already partially completed for Hook Pond. Consequently one can only state at this time that there will be improvements to Fort Pond with any downtown Montauk wastewater system improvements. Disappointing that The Star and Mr. McAllister are not focusing on the need for a downtown Montauk wastewater management solution and understanding the associated details, especially the need for action to obtain limited newly available grants to make projects affordable, the many good baby and giant steps that have already been implemented — Scavenger Waste Facility has been closed and will result in a $600,000 annual savings to the town, Camp Hero wastewater improvements have been under way for a year, Hook Pond Watershed Master Plan has recently been completed by East Hampton Village with specific water quality restoration projects scheduled for implementation, and the Georgica Pond watershed study is under way. Disappointing that The Star did not congratulate the town board for creating the Wastewater Project Citizens Advisory Committee, which in our experience is a most effective method for community engagement and helping to prioritize actions to achieve water quality objectives. The wastewater management plan is sensitive and committed to enhancing sustainable community character and water quality restoration through wise wastewater management that has community support. Sincerely, PIO LOMBARDO Double Standard Montauk June 21, 2015 To the Editor: The flying of the Confederate flag by the folks who elect to, speaks volumes. As the flying of the swastika would, it represents much more than a historical icon of one’s culture and history. For Jews and others, the swastika represents many things, including genocide, torture, hate, wanton inhumanity, and terror beyond description. For African-Americans, nothing less is true of the Confederate flag. This double standard must end. Speak up, this is not politics, it is but the start of human decency and democracy. Both flags speak to the worst that is within us all. Why perpetuate what they stand for? Speak to that which is best within us, to those symbols of equality, brotherhood, and compassion that point the way to our becoming the kind of human beings that we can also be. “Never again” begins with “Never” and speaks to all holocausts, including that of slavery. LAWRENCE S. SMITH Taught Not to Hate East Hampton June 20. 2015 Dear David, It was very good to see special honors awarded to 14 children at last Thursday’s town board meeting from the Montauk and Springs Schools for original films they produced in response to a project of the East Hampton Anti-Bias Task Force. And this week was a particularly good time to recognize their achievements, while the country was reeling under the news of yet another hate crime, the massacre at the church in Charleston. Here in our small town, we should be proud of our small committee — the Anti-Bias Task Force — which had been dormant for so long, and of our Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, who has awakened and revitalized it as part of her ongoing concern for social and educational issues. In their films about tolerance and bullying these children are being carefully taught not to hate, and in their young years are being well-prepared as good citizens by their schools and government. ELLEN PETERSEN A Pile of Green Stuff Springs June 22, 2015 Dear David, There exists in this town a very bitter and deep conflict between those who call themselves the business group and those who identify themselves as the residents. The conflict is a foolish one. All must be on the same side, the side of East Hampton. Business people need to use the gray matter they were born with to realize that their livelihood is based upon the attractiveness and health of our water and beaches. That is the reality! If our area continues to degrade, speeding its transformation from a quiet beach resort to a honky-tonk playland, we are all slitting our own throats. We will no longer have the mystique and the quasi-rural charm that we are blessed with now. Who will want to come here when we become the Jersey Shore? And once more it must be noted that water is the bottom line. The algae blooms, the die-off of fish and turtles that we have witnessed in the past month will only get more and more frequent. At one of the last heavy rains in the last few weeks, 67 beaches were closed in Suffolk County west of here. So far. So who will want to come here when beaches are too risky to our health to enjoy? Mostly this has to do with out-of-date cesspools and septic systems that do not mitigate nitrogenous waste. Catering to those who use and abuse our area will speed the process. More bars and restaurants established close to the water, more development of houses, overcrowding of houses in densely populated areas, the hateful violation exhibited by those who will establish dormitories in single-family residential neighborhoods, are all symptomatic of a galloping disease attacking our communities for the sake of the green stuff — the “gotta get it and who cares about anything but sitting on a pile of green stuff” disease — money, money, money — which is not making our world go round, but is instead sinking it and East Hampton with it. “Reckless pursuit of profits and political shortsightedness,” the man said. Sincerely, PHYLLIS ITALIANO They Wait Two Months East Hampton June 16, 2015 Dear Editor, One of the things that has always puzzled me is the letters I receive from some bona fide charities telling me how children are starving, men and women are dying, the times are desperate, and help is needed immediately. And then they wait two months before cashing my check. JOSEPH D. POLICANO Nine More Innocents East Hampton June 18, 2015 Dear Editor: If you live on the East or West Coast chances are the attitudes and opinions prevalent on major issues in the rest of the country are much different from yours. On the East or West Coast there is easily majority support for eliminating or limiting gun ownership, or at least making the obtaining of one more difficult. Around the rest of the country, the N.R.A. has managed to gain enough political support to prevent changes in the widespread approval of gun ownership, and has even been responsible for widening their open use. So the horrendous massacres of innocents through the use of these handguns continues. It seems that gun use in multiple murders in schools, shopping malls, and crowded areas has not been enough to change the minds of those who could do something to stop it. Of course these mentally crippled, power-hungry legislators have not had their relatives slaughtered, just as our elected officials espouse war so long as they or their kids don’t have to fight it. Now again, today, nine more innocents are dead. Murdered in cold blood at a black church prayer function in Charleston, by a 21-year-old with a questionable history, a twisted, deadly mind-set, a racist motive, and a .45-caliber pistol given to him by his father as a birthday present. A birthday present! So now, will those advocating the unlimited and widespread use of handguns rethink their support? Don’t count on it. After all, the N.R.A. has convinced these people that there are those who wish them harm, and that they can protect themselves by carrying a gun everywhere, including to church, and that the government wants to disarm and then imprison them (believe it or not)! So the beat will go on. Nothing will change, and another horror killing will again occur, and America will remain the only major country in the world that doesn’t try to prevent the massacre of its own citizens and will continue to use drones and bombs to kill the citizens of other countries. RICHARD P. HIGER Waiting for the Pentagon Springs June 22, 2015 Dear Editor, The president has openly admitted he does not have a complete strategy to defeat ISIS. This is quite obvious, but his explanation is troubling. He defends himself by saying, “When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people.” He then continues that it requires commitment, etc. The idea that we need all plans to have a strategy is all wrong. We succeeded at winning the war in 1945. I said “all plans” — we don’t need every detail of an operational plan worked out to have a strategy. The president has failed to offer a vision and to drive his subordinates to work out details. He has sided inconsistently with Iran in Syria and Iraq, and with the Saudis against Iranian-supported rebels in Yemen. He can’t make up his mind. He has flip-flopped on Egypt and drawn and ignored red lines, and constantly lambasted Israel while siding with Iran. Obama’s emphasis on the Pentagon is equally wrong. It’s not all military, so it’s not the Pentagon’s job to plan the strategy, it’s the government’s job. It includes the State Department, the Treasury, the intelligence agencies, all working through the National Security Council in the White House. Obama’s implication that his role is waiting for the Pentagon is a joke. He’s blaming the American military for failing to do a job that actually belongs to him. It’s over a year since ISIS took over Fallujah, yet Obama still has no plan, still lacks a strategy. This man is so dishonest. It looks like Hillary Clinton will follow suit if she is elected. She believes she is entitled to the presidency, it is owed her. By what means, Hillary, do we owe you anything? Our troops need armor, ammunition, and a healthy pay raise. The Democrats are holding up a bill that would add these needs to our soldiers, in order to get more money for the I.R.S. and the E.P.A. Imagine — the E.P.A. and the I.R.S., two departments that are strangling us. We all have the right to freedom. In God and country, BEA DERRICO Cabana With Stripes Southold June 20, 2015 Dear Editor David Rattray, One actor I thought was a decent family man was Richard Widmark. When I was just a kid I was in a movie called “Kiss of Death.” I was one of the daughters of Vic Mature, who also was a fine, wonderful man. They managed to remain friends to the family after. I tried to stay close without effort to a studio, Patty Duke would go. It was a family-friend direction. I’d go down to Astoria on Saturday afternoon and meet friends. There was a group of guys I later called the “Richard Geres,” I was sort of theirs. I would see Chris Walden, who had a beautiful smile. I would see enough, I felt we were cousins. I would see him down a German club. He danced like a wild man — that, I loved to watch. I saw him in front of his big home in the area. I had a cousin who looked like me, who had an office in the Pentagon. Richard Widmark brought us to his place. That surprised us, we were young, but he had about five kids our age. He put us in a big bed, and we would laugh in hysteria. We picked up a large mirror, and it was just twin hysterias. We were so the same, it was just twin heaven. Sundays I would go to church in Forest Hills, on Queens Boulevard. I used to go by the window and sit by the open one where I could hear the bluebirds of paradise, and other birds, which was real nice to listen and pray along. Later I would be driven to Astoria. I would search for the striped cabanas, upon heavy posts to stay up. There were a lot of cheery yards, but I found the beach room with curtains. I would see Allan Garfield and Chris Walden again there. You had to climb up many steps. We would enjoy jelly doughnuts and coffee. Renee Taylor was Allan Garfield’s friend. The tiny cabana that made you feel you were by the ocean was fun, that Allan bought, but it was no worry from a guy from Scarsdale! I learned an impression from him I still have, after all these long, long years. They would have exciting, daredevil stunt guys, cherry convertibles, hoods up, shoot out. Crashes on Astoria Boulevard. My mother was a beautiful lady who would tell me how Allan Garfield was my second cousin. Maybe third, but a cousin. Now I had entrance to the cabana with stripes! More reminiscing later if you like sometime. Garfield was wild in lots of his films. Yours, ANITA FAGAN
Published 4 years ago
Last updated 4 years ago
Letters to the Editor: 06.25.15
June 25, 2015