People and Police Bridgehampton August 6, 2015 To the Editor: For the dog days: People who pass on the right-hand side of white lines (illegal) and police who don’t bother to stop them. Worst location: at W.C. Esp in Bridgehampton. ANA DANIEL Eating Holly’s Pies Montauk August 8, 2015 To the Editor: I’ve gained five pounds this summer eating Holly Gosman’s homemade chocolate chip cookies, brownies, and fruit pies. They’re the best. JOHN WINSTON Ethical Issues East Hampton August 10, 2015 To the Editor, Am I the only member of the community to be deeply troubled by the financial support by the Gagosian Gallery of two shows at our community-based and endowed Guild Hall and Parrish Art Museum? The ethical issues are most unsettling. ELEANOR NEWIRTH A Cry in the Woods East Hampton August 10, 2015 To the Editor: For the past three summers I have spent time in East Hampton, where my daughter has rented a house. On my initial visit, I happened to follow a path into the woods. What an unbelievable and amazing discovery I experienced on that day — Sasson Soffer’s beautiful creations arising out of the forest, in the middle of nowhere! I have shared this experience with photo and word to anyone who would listen. And each year since, I have been determined to try to generate a concerned interest in preserving and sharing this treasure from such a gifted artist. In my daily visits, the only life that shares my enjoyment are the deer that bound off into the woods at my presence. From my research, it was stated that the “town’s only responsibility is to maintain the property and any trails.” I see very little evidence of this. In fact, I am concerned about ticks and cannot approach some of the sculptures. This is described as a sculpture park “to exhibit monumental sculptures.” Why is it so inaccessible and obscure? It was stated that a boulder and a plaque would be placed in the park. I only found a “Town Lane Park” sign (with a circle of small stones covered with vegetation). Sasson Soffer’s artistic endeavors remain nameless! I realize that I am but a cry in the woods of East Hampton, and only a visitor, but I feel strongly that this treasure that lies hidden should be shared with others who live and travel to this area. The Hamptons have long been a mecca for artists and those who appreciate. What needs to be done? Thank you for your time, MERRILEE DOYLE For more about the park, see easthamptonstar.com/Archive/2/See-Sculpture-Garden-Town-Lane. Ed. Dedicated C.P.F. Springs August 9, 2015 To the Editor, Your editorial against pending legislation to divert a portion of the community preservation fund from open space purchases and protection has a lot of merit. The existing dedicated fund has universal support for its intended purpose. The proposal to allow 20 percent of the C.P.F. to be used on water-related expenses, passed in the New York State Legislature and awaiting signature by the governor, is unquestionably bad and will both dilute support and divert money. The law in question would permit the replacement of general fund expenditures for such things as maintenance, consultants, and design by the C.P.F. without requiring ongoing expenses to continue. In other words, one-fifth of the C.P.F. could be a harvestable slush fund, allowing existing expenditures on water-related items to be spent elsewhere. However, while your opposition to this particular bill is justified, your concept of restricting the development of any vacant parcels in the town would destroy any prospect of attainable housing for working families. We already see that the prevalence of teardowns to maximize property values diminishes the amount of moderate-cost housing. If we enjoin the use of all property by using the big bucks generated by the C.P.F. to compete against any private use, we will exacerbate the already painful lack of dwellings. The bill also fails to increase the exemption level for the 2-percent transfer tax, currently $100,000 for unimproved property and $250,000 for improved property. In earlier letters I have stressed the need to assist those purchasing less expensive houses by lessening the tax burden on their transactions. This need is even more vital now, as housing becomes more expensive. An easily obtained $5,000 reduction in transaction cost is not to be ignored, especially since the purpose of the C.P.F. would not be harmed by providing it. While the need to preserve and improve water quality is crucial, it should not impede and entangle the purposeful protection of open space. The dedicated C.P.F. funds should remain so, and if other worthwhile environmental expenditures are to be made, they should be presented to the public on their own merits. The camouflage of omnibus spending should not be applied to the good works of the C.P.F. TOM KNOBEL The writer is the Republican Party candidate for East Hampton Town supervisor. Ed. Not Ready Springs August 10, 2015 Dear David, I want to thank you for your editorial warning about the proposed expansion of the community preservation fund for water quality uses. However, I also agree with Supervisor Larry Cantwell that “the people that live here should decide if a portion of [the fund] should be used in trying to achieve these goals.” My position is that the C.P.F. program needs a midcareer examination, a fix of a few of its existing purposes so that they function better, and an examination how the C.P.F. revenue can help the town — and harm the town — going forward either in its current or an expanded version. It is not politically realistic that sufficient money for our water quality and other infrastructure needs can be raised entirely in the town’s general fund. There is the political anchor of the 2-percent tax cap, which can only be broken occasionally if an elected official wants to remain in office. There is the sad current state of unequal property taxation, where the owners of high-value properties, on average, pay a lesser share than they should of any bonding for water quality or other projects. This situation unfairly shifts an extra burden for water quality or other bonds to all the other property owners who are not so fortunate to be under-assessed. However, these political headwinds are somewhat mitigated by the C.P.F. tax structure, where more tax is paid by purchasers of properties that cost above the median value (which could be made even more fair with a needed upward revision of the amount exempted from C.P.F. taxation). Most politically important is that the C.P.F. revenues are received without adding to the property tax levy shared among all property owners. I have been on two committees that studied the proper uses of C.P.F. revenues and have published my own study of how revenues had been misused. That makes me, like you, wary of new uses, especially if there is vagueness in the inaugurating law. But I also have learned that most problems can be eliminated if there is a good body of rules and regulations that stands next to the C.P.F law. The current proposal is a legal skeleton that is not ready for a referendum. There is vagueness about the use of C.P.F. money for work on private property, for use on bottomlands owned by the trustees, and even on how the 20 percent would be calculated. But all of that can be resolved before a referendum in 2016. My hope is that the town forms a committee that will spend from November this year through the winter working on rules and regulations that would be adopted by the town alongside any revised C.P.F. law. These rules and regulations would reflect how the new law would accomplish some of the water quality and other capital needs of East Hampton. We should certainly proceed with caution given our own history with the C.P.F., as well as the financial shenanigans that politicians have played with sewer and sanitation projects across Long Island. But there are people in this town who have the skills to remodel the C.P.F. program so that until 2050 it can be, as Supervisor Cantwell said, an “important funding opportunity . . . a valuable tool.” ZACHARY COHEN Bare Opinion Bridgehampton August 10, 2015 Dear Editor: Your editorial on the community preservation fund and state legislation to include water quality projects is bare opinion unsupported by any facts. Here are some of the facts that the editorial failed to mention. The editor fails to mention that the legislation would authorize the extension of the C.P.F. from 2030 to 2050, generating an additional $1.5 billion in new revenue. At least $1 billion of the new money would go to land preservation. The total amount of revenue generated from 2015 to 2050 would total $2.7 billion. The maximum that could be utilized for water quality would be around $500 million. Thus, the great majority of new money generated would still be used for land preservation. The editor fails to mention that major local land preservation advocates such as the Peconic Land Trust, the Group for the East End, and the Long Island Pine Barrens Society support the legislation. The editor has decided to conflate “water quality” projects with “sewer projects.” The East End is not looking to sewer its way out its water quality problems, like western Suffolk or Nassau. Knowledgeable folks know that East End municipalities are looking to reduce nitrogen with projects such as alternative and community septic systems, stormwater abatement projects, wetland restoration projects, marine pump-out stations, agricultural management plans to reduce the use of fertilizers, and the Peconic Estuary Program. To have a plan to reduce nitrogen in our water, but no funding to implement the plan, would be an empty promise to improve water quality. The editor fails to mention the fact that water quality funds could not be used for growth-inducing projects, but only for projects that result in the actual improvement of water quality and reduction of nitrogen. The editor fails to state that the new law could only be implemented after adoption of a local law by the town after public hearing and approval by the public in a mandatory referendum. The editor fails to mention that before the referendum could be held, each town would have to develop a project plan telling the public how every cent would be spent on water quality so that they would know how the money would be spent. The editor fails to offer an alternative funding source to address the hundreds of millions of dollars the East End will need to reverse the continuing degradation of surface waters and groundwater that is resulting in algal blooms, fish kills, and the closing of beaches and shellfish grounds. Residents cannot afford an increase in real property taxes. The editor also conflates the attempted illegal action of diverting C.P.F. funds to buy buildings and the general fund with the democratic process of asking the voters whether or not C.P.F. tax dollars should go to protecting community character by preserving both land and water. It is somewhat ironic that while Senator Ken LaValle and I called in the state comptroller many years ago to investigate the illegal use of the C.P.F. in East Hampton, The Star was asleep at the switch for years about the illegal diversion of C.P.F. to the general fund, getting scooped by one of the other newspapers in town. Finally, it is the county district attorney who is investigating buying buildings with C.P.F. funds, not me. Here is the bottom line: We can preserve all the land left in East Hampton, but if people can’t fish, swim, or boat on our surface waters, or drink the groundwater, we will have lost the war. East Hampton will not only lose its heritage but its future. There is nothing outrageous about Senator LaValle and my presenting an option to the voters to extend the C.P.F. for 20 years and asking the voters whether or not they want to use the C.P.F. to preserve both land and water. What would be outrageous would be to stand by and do nothing as our water resources continue to degrade. Sincerely, FRED W. THIELE JR. Assemblyman The editorial that Mr. Thiele refers did, in fact, mention the proposed 20-year extension of the community preservation fund. Water quality improvement projects, including new and upgraded sewage treatment plants, are among the options the change would permit. Contrary to Mr. Thiele’s assertion that it did not, the editorial said the proposal could be presented to voters in a ballot referendum. The editorial expressed a view that the bar on “growth-inducing projects” was inadequate and therein acknowledged that portion of the bill. According to the state comptroller’s office, its audit of East Hampton Town’s misuse of community preservation fund money was prompted by calls from citizens. At the time, multiple news reports credited Laura Molinari, the town attorney who resigned that year, with uncovering the improper diversions. During the week of March 18, 2008, both The Star and The Independent, to which Mr. Thiele apparently referred, had initial front-page coverage of the revelations. The history of misuse and corruption in the creation of sewage districts on Long Island is a red flag on which the editorial was based. Ed. Wastewater Crisis Amagansett August 7, 2015 Dear David, We have a wastewater crisis in East Hampton Town: Old septic systems, polluting runoff, and people are going to flush. We need work-force affordable housing in East Hampton Town, or no teachers, no firefighters, only old people, drooling, in the streets. You are resistant to using any portion of the community preservation fund to address local water quality, assuming greed, corruption, and the usual Albany boondoggling. I would be happy to serve as a volunteer sewer district liaison, qualified by ignorance to ask the right questions and leading to an agenda of hopefully common sense. All good things, DIANA WALKER Facing the Other Way Bridgehampton August 10, 2015 Dear Editor, On Saturday night I supported the East Hampton Library, as I have done for several years, by donating money for their Authors Night, a wonderful and worthwhile event and thereby also attending one of the many dinners East Hampton supporters offer to those who elect to donate a larger amount and honor particular authors selected for that part of the evening event. When I arrived at the home of the dinner I was slated to attend there was no car valet, and no one was outside at all in the front. I saw some cars pulled up onto the property in front and there was room for me, and so I too pulled up and parked on the grass of the owner’s property and went in. Later when going home I came out to find a ticket on my car. The car next to me did not have a ticket. I opened it up and the ticket said I was being fined $80 for parking the wrong way down a street. There were, granted, two ways to drive down this street, and the car next to me that did not have a ticket was facing [the other way], having no doubt come from the other end and simply pulled over onto the property facing the way it had been driving. I pulled into the house from the other end of the street, and therefore was parked on the grass fully, facing the other way. To leave I backed onto the street and drove back the way I came, which is to say in the direction the car with no ticket was already facing. I am quite amazed that the East Hampton police would ticket a car pulled entirely onto the private property of a home that was offering a private dinner to some 40 guests. ELLEN MYERS Edgemere Congestion Montauk August 10, 2015 To the Editor, At the Aug. 6 town meeting, the East Hampton Town Board took a major step forward in coming to grips with one of Montauk’s largest public safety issues by unanimously agreeing to end parking on key areas of Edgemere Avenue. The board deserves great credit in recognizing and responding to a problem that has existed since the Surf Lodge, a local bar located on Edgemere, first opened for business. A second, and equally dangerous, Surf Lodge problem was also discussed. As each summer evening advances, huge traffic jams occur at the club’s entrance, caused by dozens of cabs picking and dropping off customers. These jams more than frequently spread across the entire width of Edgemere, with double and sometimes triple-standing creating a huge automotive entanglement. Added to this pandemonium are Surf Lodge employees illegally directing traffic, dozens of unlawful cabbie U-turns, patrons walking to and from their cars, and the regular flow of private automobiles waiting to move through the mayhem. The time of night, the glare of lights, and the average sobriety of those involved make for an incredibly intense, almost surreal recipe for disaster. There also exists a much more serious situation that has the potential to harm anyone, anywhere in Montauk. During the public forum, the chairman of the Montauk Fire Commissioners, two Montauk fire chiefs, and a Montauk emergency medical technician rose to speak. Each individual, in his own way, eloquently spoke of the nightly Surf Lodge traffic nightmare and the inability of called-upon fire, rescue, and emergency apparatus to negotiate the above described, intense, non-responding human and automotive traffic at the club’s entrance. These men, all long-term serving volunteers, were not talking about inconvenience or irritation but the very serious danger of loss of lives and property, Montauk lives and property. Perhaps one day your life and property. The four men pleaded for immediate relief and a permanent correction to this constantly repeated danger. The E.M.T. concluded with a tale of a recent emergency call concerning a 1-year-old child, and the E.M.T.’s loss of valuable time in the inability to pass through the Surf Lodge congestion. The town board recognized and acknowledged the dangerous existence of the problem and the fact that the proposed no-parking legislation, while a major advance, did little to correct the above. The supervisor then read a recent analysis of the problem by the East Hampton Town police chief, which recognized the extent of danger and the extreme difficulty in formulating a workable, effective solution. The report next stated the problem itself could be adequately solved if the Surf Lodge would employ its own private property, an adjacent courtyard, as a pickup/drop-off center for cabs, thus moving the automotive and human mayhem from Edgemere to the private and safer realm of the business’s courtyard. The proposal represented a swift, safe, effective, and equitable solution. The chief’s report then stated, “Surf Lodge management categorically refused to entertain any and all total or partial action that would physically impose on any portion of their private property.” What we have here is a business that solely and individually created one of the most dangerous traffic situations in Montauk, a situation that has the potential to disastrously affect anyone, anywhere in Montauk, a business that has the means to quickly and effectively solve the problem but absolutely refuses to do so, a business that has immensely benefited from its physical location in Montauk but rejects any concept of cause, guilt, or responsibility of action. A business that has refused in any and every way to consider issues other than profit, thereby forcing the community to commit time, dollars, and effort in hopefully rectifying the mess that the business itself has created. A business that through its inaction and refusal of civic responsibility will continue to have Montauk suffer and be plagued by a problem that someday, no doubt, will prove disastrous. Perhaps some may think the above conclusion is unfair, or the concepts of profit and private property by far trump those of civic responsibility and public good. To those I say: Tell that story to the parents of the 1-year-old. Each of Montauk United’s 400-plus members reaches out to Surf Lodge owners and management to please reconsider your stated position, your responsibility and your obligation as a member of the Montauk community. Whatever, if any, profits forsaken will be more than multiplied by the goodwill and thanks of a grateful community. TOM BOGDAN Montauk United Destiny to Debauchery Jupiter, Fla. August 6, 2015 To the Editor: I would like to take this opportunity to express a few obvious points and a few not so obvious. I am a former resident of Hampton Bays and grew up in an upper middle-class family and neighborhood. My father, an engineer with Grumman, like many men on Long Island enjoyed recreational fishing, a hobby he passed on to me at a very young age. I caught my first striped bass and bluefish at the age of 5, and I have been “hooked” ever since. We fished from Fire Island to Montauk. After a job transfer took us to Florida, we would plan our fishing vacations to coincide with the spring and fall fish runs. Many years have been spent in the quiet peacefulness of Montauk. Since Dad’s passing, I continue to make my annual trek to Montauk for a month, renting a home, spending money on goods, restaurants, fuel (lots of it), food, permits (beach and four-wheel-drive), and the list goes on. Between the two of us, since I was so young and now I’m 59, we have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the local Montauk economy. Last year was the first year I did not come. It is a changed town, and the officials of East Hampton have allowed it to happen. Other than the countless hours spent fishing on the rocks and beaches both day and night, it is no longer a place for a peaceful vacation. Hotels, motels, restaurants, and homes have been sold for enormous sums of money, all in the name of greed. Renovations took place and the catering to the hipsters went to mach speed. It is deplorable to walk to the Montauk bakery on a Sunday morning to the smells of urine, vomit, and empty cocktail glasses. Not the same image I used to share with friends of a quiet, quaint fishing village with endless amounts of charm. Now I have to describe it as I would Duvall Street in Key West, or Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Property owners have jumped on the eastbound money train, charging ridiculous rental rates to anyone who will pay it. So the hipsters pile into rentals, sleeping anywhere for the weekend, drinking and having sex with whomever, and that could be in the quiet streets of the once quaint village. The officials of East Hampton should be publicly shamed for allowing this to happen. Instead of great planning, they let down their guard and now they are forced to take reactionary measures just to keep the streets manageable on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night. I don’t foresee the beautiful town of Montauk ever returning to the treasure of Long Island, and unfortunately it will most likely have seen the last of my vacation dollars. I will most likely head for Rhode Island or the Cape. I will always treasure the memories and the pictures of years past. Shame on all the East Hampton governing officials for allowing Montauk to go from a destiny to a debauchery. With a heavy heart for the place I love dearly, SCOTT RISPAUD Grass Can Be Reseeded Montauk August 7, 2015 To the Editor, Imagine, we were asked to sign a petition to continue to use the town square for the farmers market, art show, fairs, music festivities, etc.! As far as we knew, town squares were always used for people to enjoy. The locals and tourists shouldn’t be sent to some side street. The vendors work hard and keep the grounds neat. People smile, bring babies and pets — all appear happy, not to mention the revenue brought to Montauk from these fairs. Grass can be reseeded, if that’s the issue here. If not that, what is really going on? ROBERTA and RUDY WICKLEIN A Way to Start East Hampton August 9, 2015 To the Editor: The answer to controlling abuse of rental houses by overcrowding may begin with requiring each lessor or lessee to register the lease and occupants with Town Hall. An accompanying nominal charge of $25 would cover the process, and the parties involved would be on record that they must abide by the rules of each town governing their stay. There must be complete transparency with these transactions, and this is a way to start. JEFFREY LAUTIN A Worthwhile Tool? East Hampton August 9, 2015 To the Editor: Yet again, the cry for enactment of rental registry legislation is full-bore upon us. I am against instituting a town-wide registry for East Hampton homeowner and landlords. Late last fall when this idea was proposed, I made my view known both in numerous letters to our local newspapers and through extensive presentations to the town board at both its Montauk and East Hampton meetings. Copies of my presentations were given to each board member. I do not intend to repeat my reasons against a registry here. The board is well aware of the views against such legislation, which were expressed repeatedly at the standing-room-only sessions by an overwhelming number of members of the East Hampton community. I have three suggestions for the board’s consideration when taking their latest look at the issue. 1. Do not simply enact the prior draft legislation proposed. Review the language carefully and correct the many weaknesses, mistakes, and areas of unconstitutionality prevalent in the draft, which were pointed out by many speakers. Additionally, the legislation must be carefully reviewed to eliminate inconsistencies with our town code. One that comes to mind is the critical definition of “family.” As I recall, the legislation defines that term in a much narrower fashion than that which appears in the code, deleting extended family members, who in today’s world could easily be living in a relative’s rental property, which would therefore be exempt from the registry. 2. Rather than rushing into legislation that affects so many people where it hurts the most — in their pocketbooks — why not initially limit a rental registry to Montauk? See if its creation really does accomplish what the residents of Montauk think it will: relief from the siege by short-term renters and overcrowding that they currently face. This will give the board and the town information needed to see if a registry is actually a worthwhile tool in the war on the chaos that unfortunately has overtaken Montauk. 3. Exempt from the burden of signing up for the registry those homeowner and landlords who have executed long-term leases with their tenants. Long-term could be defined as six or nine months, or even one year. If I am weary of the back-and-forth and about-face on the unresolved issues that seem to return to live again, then I can only imagine how the board must feel. If the board decides to revisit a rental registry, I ask that they review and factor into their decision the comments from the earlier meetings and the many letters to the editors on the topic, and not just listen to the latest voices. We all need to be heard, no matter how many times an issue presents itself. BEVERLY BOND The Rental Registry Springs August 10, 2015 Dear Editor, Knee-jerk response of the uninformed regarding the proposed rental registry: “We don’t need new laws. Just enforce the laws that are on the books.” The rental registry under consideration provides significant legislation that facilitates code enforcement. It requires an affidavit with respect to a safety inspection to protect the incoming tenants and neighbors from that which could endanger them. It lists the owner’s or agent’s name to contact in the event of a serious problem or violations at the property. It contains significant indices that would precipitate a visit from code enforcement. It ensures, through inspection, a safe and effective septic system, thereby preventing risks to our drinking, bathing, and washing water. These are just a few of its advantages over what is on the books. A misinformed or an uninformed public is a danger to our welfare. We are all responsible to become well informed — before voicing an opinion! FRED J. WEINBERG The Actual Situation Amagansett July 20, 2015 To the Editor: When is a parking lot not a parking lot? According to Mr. Barocas, when it is a “limited parking area” along a portion of the road right of way. Well, duh, Ira, tell me the difference? He goes on to agree with me that “of course there’s never been a parking problem” and then his expected refutation of my claim devolves into incomprehensibility and complete irrelevance. His logic is as tortuous as his syntax. Mr. Barocas seems to be under the impression that there are hordes of anxious beachgoers anxious to brave the “Daytona Speedway‚” foaming at the mouth to utilize the 12 to 25 parking spots the plan proposes to install at the expense of the preserve area. His thinking is that the 1,000 to 2,000 feet to travel to the beach presents a huge problem for those looking to access the beach area, and the plan would somehow magically accommodate thousands‚ for easier access. (Ira, you really need to work on your analogies!) None of the other letters to The Star by supporters of this plan, except for Ira’s agreement of my assessment, disputed my claim of no problem with beach access in the development by vehicles, bikers, or those just walking. The plan calls for wiping out current vegetation, inveighing against “invasive” vegetation without bothering to mention the native species of flora that would also be uprooted. Then the 10-foot area would have to be graded and resurfaced and a fence put up behind the lot — excuse me, the “limited parking area” — along with bike racks, garbage disposal, etc. Mr. Barocas then goes on to drop the other foot of this agenda by mentioning the same could be done on Marlin Drive. There he displays true ignorance of the nature of that location. There is no vehicle access trail to the beach on Marlin Drive; the dunes there, as well as the vegetation, are much more substantial than at Dolphin Drive, and a fence would put up a barrier to the many deer and other wildlife that forage the development and scoot back to the dunes for protection. Mr. Sterlacci’s letter documents how previous preserve committees indicated the western portion of the preserve, the area the plan seeks to bulldoze, should be kept as “one large ecologically and environmental region.” What a difference a new regime makes to those past! Mr. Sterlacci also quotes from the East Hampton Town Comprehensive Plan that “road shoulders should be planted or allowed to grow in with native species, especially wildflowers.” So much for our being illegal in doing so in front of our homes, as claimed by Mr. Cornelia. The nature preserve committee would have been far better served if it had spent the time and energy to study the actual situation with beach access here. Instead it has wasted a lot of time and money, with a wasteful proposal that alludes to solve a problem that does not exist, while going against its own reason for being! ROBERT CONTI South Flora Preserve Amagansett August 9, 2015 To the Editor, Last week, the local Republican Party ran a campaign ad accusing the “Democratic Town Board” of voting to ban parking on a 37-acre town-owned property east of Amagansett. This is the South Flora Nature Preserve, which has been in the local news a good deal recently. This ad is misleading in a number ofrespects. Most significantly, the town board’s only vote so far was to replace 40-year-old “No Parking” signage on Dolphin Drive, adjoining the preserve, which was illegally removed without the board’s knowledge. The ad seems to claim that the illegality should not have been corrected. As another shot fired in a battle to pave part of the fragile, irreplaceable dune ecosystem for parking, the ad supports the suspicion of local residents that the South Flora controversy is an invented political flap, an attempt of the party out of power to gain advantage in an election year. JONATHAN WALLACE Serious Discussion Springs August 10, 2015 Dear Mr. Rattray: I’m happy that picture waving and half-truth histrionics, outright lying, and selective memory have started, glacially speaking, to give way to some serious discussion about issues of coastal erosion and public access concerning the public’s right appropriately to access its property alongside the South Flora Nature Preserve (ish). I’m looking forward to the next public hearing on Aug. 20. Jonathan Wallace has said that the Sandy flooding washed sandbags off the public access at Atlantic. No doubt waves washed up and through there, but the northern storm surge out of Napeague Harbor running south was substantial, as was its effect on Three Mile Harbor. Plastic bags placed anywhere in tidal zones will empty, then float, and prevailing wind southerlies would, in fact, push those bags north. Moreover, as I recall, it was Highway Superintendent Steve Lynch’s effort that kept the stretch from being cut off from Montauk, and it took more than a few bags. Sandbags can attenuate water incursion, but they are not a mainstay of realistic coastal planning, however engineered or extensive, piped through, bridged over, or gated. They might keep a basement drier, but if water rises above them, or there are waves pounding them, it’s just more to clean up. Issues of the local waterfront revitalization program raised by Norman Edwards are real, but seem to contradict the Shore Road access points across the dunes established by his neighbors, as do the rebuilt, renovated and expanded houses on or at the foot of the dune, etc. And, conveniently, no one seems to be addressing the septic issues of the houses in the East End Dunes Residents Association, or others, as Jay Blatt pointed out. That said, the houses are there, and maybe would have been, too, farther east, but for the South Flora Nature Preserve purchase with the community preservation funds — our money. I don’t know how many permeable and permitted parking spots should be along Dolphin Drive, separated from the preserve as recommended, but the area that the draft plan identifies is, by anyone’s inspection, occupied largely by invasive Japanese black pine. The meadow to the east would remain as pristine as ever, until nature takes its course and some change occurs, hopefully without catastrophe and over decades, if not centuries. Whining about neighbors accessing the existing paths more easily is unseemly. Public property is for the public. Sensitive areas should be protected as a legacy we leave to the future. Reading the draft management plan, that point is made strongly throughout, and cherry-picking quotes in support of privatization of a public resource is underhanded and misleading. Finally, Mike Sterlacci, stick to the vocals. Babe’s Lane was partially cleared in 2013 under its own management plan, appropriately funded by the C.P.F. maintenance funds, with publicly let contracts, Department of Environmental Conservation approval and on-site observation and inspection by the members of the Land Acquisition and Management Department, as well as the nature preserve committee, and with the assistance of Kim Shaw, our town’s director of natural resources. By the way, my neighbors and I look forward to further increasing the public’s ability to enjoy its property. How about you? IRA BAROCAS At Sammy’s Beach East Hampton August 9, 2015 Hello, Editor, I’m a local resident of East Hampton who tries my best to adhere to rules and regulations for the betterment of the people and area we live in. Last night there was a very large group of international musicians playing loud music on their turntable, drinking out of keg cups, and doing various drugs that they were not shy about declaring to anyone in earshot. I arrived at Sammy’s Beach at 6:30 to enjoy a sunset and dinner with my wife and friend. Upon arrival there was a harbor patrolman on site giving tickets to cars illegally parked at the beach. While there, I counted 60-plus people in the group before we left. There was music playing so loud that even at 100 or more yards away we couldn’t hear each other talking, and an array of alcohol and drugs. A harbor patrolman ventured onto the beach to have a discussion with the partygoers. Afterward he left, and the group started cheering because he wasn’t making them leave. At 8:15 p.m. we had enough of the chaos and left the beach. Upon leaving I spoke with the patrolman and he told us that he was instructed by his supervisor to do nothing unless someone complained. That means anyone can do whatever they want in this town as long as no one complains. So, I “complained.” I was then told that he was going to “shut it down.” After returning to the scene early this morning, I, as well as numerous other people, witnessed partygoers sleeping on the beach and in cars, toilet paper in the sand dunes, and garbage bags on the beach. I called town police not long ago and was told that I should call if I see anything else. Really? I thought I already did that. So why are my taxes paying for people to patrol our beautiful beaches if they aren’t going to follow through? I don’t want to turn into a complainer, but there is no alternative. And even complaining accomplishes nothing. No wonder Montauk is having so many issues if this is how things are being handled. The attached photo is from last night around 7, before the rest of the partygoers got there. RICHARD MOTHES JR. Chief Harbormaster Ed Michaels explained that when a Marine Patrol office checked the party on Saturday evening, it was below the 50-person threshold that would have made it an mass assemblage requiring a town permit. Had the party had a permit, the amplified music would have been illegal; under the current town code, gatherings without permits can have amplified music. Ed. Old Bonac Graveyard Patchogue August 2, 2015 Dear East Hampton Star, The steeple quiet over old Bonac graveyard. The catbird singing. FRED GASREL The Cause Is the Sun East Hampton August 9, 2015 Dear David, I read the speculative article in The Star showing the old remains of a dead cedar tree. There is evidence of erosion in the photo, but nothing that might suggest climate change as a cause. Cedars are doing just fine here on Long Island and are not dying off. Every plant I see out here is doing just fine, maple, fir, cherry, willow, native and import, is growing very well. The cause of this growth is the result of the very small increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that we have started to enjoy since the end of the little ice age, circa 1880. Of the two principle heat-retaining gases, CO2 is the little brother of the controlling gas, water vapor, that is the 95-percent heat-retaining gas, and we have no control of that in any way. CO2 is the next heat-retaining gas at 3.8+ percent. The human contribution to the total heat-retaining gas is a tiny 0.28 percent, an amount that cannot possibly cause any significant climate change. The climate changes, right now, on a regular cycle: 100,000 years cold, 18,000 to 25,000 years warm. We’re 18,000 years right now into the most recent warm period, and it is not even the warmest part. The Holocene Maximum and the medieval warm period were warmer, with lower levels of CO2. This would not have been possible if CO2 were the driving cause of climate change. The cause is the sun and its varied energy cycles. Did you know that in 1900 there were no deer on Long Island? They had been harvested for food and deerskin long before that? That it was American sportsmen (and women) who brought them back? The exact same can be said of the wild turkeys we see strutting around these last several years. Did you know that American sportsmen requested an excise tax on all guns, ammunition, fishing equipment, and accessories to be used in conservation of game animals, birds, and their habitat inside the U.S.A.? They could not operate in Canada, so a private sportsmen’s group buys threatened habitat and nesting marshes and wetlands in Canada. So-called environmentalists are new to the effort. Local sportsmen are the ones who made the preservation of the Oyster Pond preserve possible by keeping the property under one ownership. It was local people who made sure that Main Street had the utilities underground. No unsightly overhead wire mess. It is all there in your grandmother’s (Jeannette Edwards Rattray’s) books. Reprinting them all, I think, maybe even updating them, would be a very good idea. I would like to have them to buy and give to my children. There are thousands of newer residents who would be glad to add them to their libraries at home. PETER C. OSBORNE Dreaded Hell-Copters Wainscott August 6, 2015 Dear David: It is Thursday, Aug. 6, and I am trying to enjoy this perfect summer evening on our deck with family who have precious few days here. Unfortunately, the ongoing assault from above, primarily the dreaded hell-copters, actually forced us inside. In the past 90 minutes it has not been quiet for more than one minute at a time — and dozens of hell-copter flights are ongoing, one after another after another. We were here first — and over a mile from the hell-port. Why have we lost our right to the peaceful enjoyment of our home? And why, in an era of international scientific alarm over climate change, are the residents of East Hampton being forced to subsidize the largest polluter on the East End? The airport has morphed into an environmental disaster, with 27,000 complaints so far this summer! It is no more economically necessary than plastic bags. It should be closed, and a wind farm erected in its place. It’s time for a vote. BARRY RAEBECK Equality Is Elusive East Hampton August 9, 2015 To the Editor, “We are all created equal” has been a standard-bearer for America since the Constitution was enacted. Of course, it is a ridiculous statement. We may aspire to equality, and a healthy aspiration it is, but reality tells us that equality is an elusive and almost impossible goal to attain. So we move on to equal opportunity as the new mantra. But that involves the government in a huge way, and many of us are opposed to that idea. So equality turns to fantasy in the economic and political realms. Marriage equality begs to differ. How, in 50 years, we went from Stonewall to marriage equality is remarkable for America. But homosexuals are a small piece of the population, 10 to 15 percent, and recognizing homosexuality as life-as-usual doesn’t threaten the economic and political balance of the country. Everyone who is marginally conscious understands what happened to the American middle class. The economic transformation of the past 35 years has been brutal and horrifying. Yet there is always a concern that the American people may wake up from their indolent state and radically change the political landscape. To protect the economic changes and to ensure they will last forever, the electoral process needed to be rigged. Enter the Voting Rights Act and Citizens United. Jim Rutenberg’s brilliant New York Times article on the destruction of the Voting Rights Act at 50 explains it all. The plan to overturn the act began the day it was passed, and when Justice Roberts reached the Supreme Court it was only a matter of time before the deed was done. Since the early 1980s, Justice Roberts had been a major opponent of the act and had written dozens of articles calling for it to be overturned. Somehow, he convinced himself that those states that were preventing black people from voting since the Civil War had found God again and had turned over a new leaf, contrary to all the existing evidence. The Voting Rights Act, besides following the Constitution, had a strong political implication. Allowing black people to vote would change the complexion of Southern states with large black populations, some equal to the white populations. Certainly the right thing to do, but politically brilliant for the Democrats. Fifty years ago Lyndon Johnson thought he had set the country on a course that validated the Constitution and made our democracy significantly more democratic. He did, yet our democracy has taken hit after hit and has been reeling for the past decade. Gerrymandering districts and Citizens United were the two most destabilizing. Eviscerating the Voting Rights Act seemed like overkill after Citizens United turned the electoral process upside down, and next year when the Supreme Court decides to take the limits off of individual campaign contributions the nail will enter the proverbial electoral coffin. Equality will return to its place in the drug-induced fantasies of conservative politicians, and we will experience 20 more years of political idiocy. Rutenberg’s article, as well as the volumes written about trickle-down economics, etc., demonstrates that the changes that have taken place were by design, and a long time in the making. Greed and power lust trumping democracy and fairness. What our Constitution is really all about. NEIL HAUSIG Parties Were Rough Southold August 9, 2015 Dear Editor, In Bugsy Siegal’s story, when he was a young man, father of two girls, he asked my father if I could go along when he partied. I wasn’t steady on my feet yet. His parties were rough! One was on Arthur Avenue in the Bronx, in an old hall by the elevated tracks. Sixty or so, rough ground, danced, fought, and were extremely tough and scary to be around. He put me down on the space. I managed to stand. He bought a beer but I don’t remember if he fought anybody. He got close with one with slick black hair. He rolled under the steps going upstairs, the guy. We also went to a fancy party in a good area. Everyone was dressed up. One dark-haired skinny guy with a whitest smile just never stopped smiling. There was a contessa present that Bugsy’s face was close to, talk long enough, my little feet were shifting. My father allowed for me to go on the big trip to Malta. The Malta trip was the nutshell of the contessa’s conversation with Bugsy. We went by plane, and entered a castle door about 35 steps up. You could still hear the electric trolleys enough! Bombs off away, rumbled. We went to the big old door. The count talked long, and only in their Italian language. Their subject was stopping Mussolini at war up in northern Italy. Going around with Bugsy made it hard to sit still in my life, never-ending excitement. Once Bugsy took me to a fancy restaurant. Everything glass, walls, steps, chandeliers. Nineteen forty-seven, ’48? I looked up the glass steps and heard glasses chattering, soon it sounded like a locomotive was approaching us, louder and louder! Men, all at once, many fell off their chairs dead! I was lucky, no gunshots hit. It was a miracle! ANITA FAGAN
Published 4 years ago
Last updated 4 years ago
Letters to the Editor: 08.13.15
August 13, 2015