Thank Our Veterans East Hampton October 30, 2014 To the Editor, On the occasion of the upcoming Veterans Day, the East Hampton Rotary Club would like to recognize and thank our veterans who have served our country. Members of the local V.F.W. and American Legion are valued members of our community. The V.F.W. provides transportation for veterans to area hospitals, organizes the Memorial and Veterans Day parades, drives guests to Maureen’s Haven, as well as decorating Main Street with flags for holiday celebrations and arranging trips for its members. The local V.F.W. offices are located on Montauk Highway in Wainscott, behind the very visible tank. They are open each morning until noon and members are available to answer questions that our local vets may have. In addition, there is a unique museum located in the facility. We suggest you visit the facility. For more information on our local V.F.W., please contact Commander Donald Schrage or Quartermaster Brian Carabine, both of whom are available at the V.F.W. facilities. The Rotary urges everyone to recognize and thank our vets, who have and continue to do so much for all of us. PAT GILCHREST East Hampton Rotary Club On the Roads East Hampton November 3, 2014 Dear David, Every week I read about another death or severe injury on the roads in East Hampton, caused by drunk driving and drug use, or just plain speeding and tailgating. And nothing seems to be done about it. Many drivers who are arrested are charged with simple misdemeanors and given short-term suspended licenses, but they go back to driving recklessly, seemingly immediately. And in last week’s paper, it was reported that it took two years to charge a man accused of driving while impaired. Speed limits are totally ignored and tailgating seems to be the norm, especially on Route 114, from the “suicide” intersection and the Stephen Hand’s Path intersection all the way to Sag Harbor. Even in the middle of the village, cars speed on Main Street. Jaywalkers also seem to be the norm, even though they are only a few feet from a crosswalk. There needs to be more police supervision of all roads, both by the local police and state police, since 114 is a state road. In the long run, there also needs to be more and better traffic lights and turning lanes and lights. For example, at Stephen Hand’s Path and at the “suicide” intersection, as well as many other places, such as Stephen Hand’s Path where Long Lane becomes Two Holes of Water Road. There also needs to be more severe punishments to make offenders more afraid of losing their licenses and their freedom. East Hampton has jumped in popularity, clogging the roads and making drivers impatient. The village is making progress in cutting down the deer population to reduce accidents. Now it’s time to reduce accidents caused by people. The local governments need to do more, much more quickly, otherwise they share in the responsibility. LARRY SPECTOR Proposed Roundabout East Hampton October 30, 2014 To the Editor, I had to go to Riverhead on two mornings during the last week. Navigating the major roundabout that takes you into the town center proved somewhat perilous both mornings, both going into and coming out of town, and definitely caused major backups coming into town. I said to the agent at the auto dealer’s service counter, after being a bit late for my first appointment, “That roundabout just doesn’t work.” He replied, “Well, there aren’t many of them around anymore and people get confused, they just don’t know how to use them.” This was a fine prelude to reading about the proposed roundabout at the difficult intersection of Toilsome and Buell Lanes with Route 114. My take is that they intimidate the timid drivers and encourage the aggressive drivers. I don’t think encouraging aggressive driving on Route 114 would be a great idea. It is already burdened by such driving and is the town’s hot spot for tailgating. I recommend a drive to Riverhead for all parties who have any deciding vote in this matter. Surely traffic lights would be a better idea. Everyone would clearly know when to go and when to stop. With a roundabout, no one really knows this. I admit the idea of a roundabout sounds like a solution, and they look great on paper, which I think is where they should remain. FRED KOLO Taxes and Consolidation Springs November 3, 2014 Dear David, In East Hampton, the existence of six separate school districts creates a problem of governance. Zoning and land-use decisions have financial consequences that are specific to and different for each school district. Yet, zoning and land usage are not determined by school boards. It is the town board, or people appointed or hired by them, that decides the size and number of residential lots within each district, the location of commercial properties, recreational land usage, C.P.F. purchases for open space, farming, and recreation, and, in the current controversy, the location, size, and type of affordable housing. Complete school consolidation of all districts would remove these governance mismatches, but it is also possible to devise systems that alleviate individual ones. For example, there could be a mathematical “whole town” school district fund for the taxation of commercial property. All (or some percent of) commercial property taxes would be paid into this fund, and then divided and returned to each district by a formula based mainly on number of students. In the case of affordable housing, any project that includes the town’s participation could have its school taxes assessed across the property values of all properties in all school districts. Essentially the entire town’s taxpayers would shoulder the school taxes of an affordable housing project. This would reduce the negative reaction (“not in my school district”) that arises whenever an affordable housing project is proposed. School tax rates and consolidation should not be dismissed by town board members as beyond their jurisdiction. As argued above, the town board makes many decisions that affect school taxes within individual districts. This arrangement complicates, some might say impedes, the town board’s ability to make decisions that are in the best interests of the entire town. Any impediment to good governance is reason enough for the town board to lead the request for New York State to force full or partial school consolidations. ZACHARY COHEN Tell the Real Story East Hampton November 3, 2014 To the Editor: I was appalled to learn (having come back to town after two weeks without The Star) of the East Hampton School Board’s shortsighted, defensive cancellation of The Star’s projected series on kindergartners’ progress in school (“Kindergarten Series Nixed,” Oct. 16). As a former education editor and reporter (for Time magazine) and an involved school parent, I know Amanda Fairbanks was embarked on just the kind of reporting that can help public education tell the real story of how classrooms work. Media rarely can afford to let a reporter spend enough time to see and describe the quiet progress of relationships between children and teachers. Unfortunately, most stories must follow the logic of the drunk who lost his watch in a dark alley but looked for it under a streetlight because the light is better there. Illuminating human learning takes time, and media usually have time only for the stories, which clearly are important, that can be based on school board decisions or a short “helicopter” drop-in to a classroom. This series would have been different. To be sure, permitting a reporter to get that close to nuances that matter might have risked exposing flaws. But the board’s hyper caution in overruling a teacher, superintendent, and parents who had approved a thoughtful, well-intentioned journalistic proposal has exposed just such a flaw. CHRISTOPHER T. CORY Aircraft Noise Impacts East Hampton November 3, 2014 Dear David, At the special town board meeting last Thursday, an expert noise analyst, Les Blomberg, a nationally recognized acoustician, of the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, revealed the results of an aircraft noise impact assessment, which demonstrated the extraordinary numbers of single-event noise impacts East End residents collectively experience. He described millions of disturbing aircraft noise impacts. Even aircraft noise mitigation advocates found these numbers jaw-dropping. At this same meeting, the public was asked to participate in identifying the problem of aircraft noise and suggesting solutions to mitigate it, via a one-page handout. This exercise is an integral part of the town’s approach to bringing significant aircraft noise relief to East End communities by the 2015 season. The description in this handout was off the mark. In no uncertain terms, this is a serious quality-of-life issue with impacts not only on the peaceful enjoyment of one’s home and property, but one with serious potential health impacts on all life below. Positioning the issue as an impediment to what is perceived as the Hamptons lifestyle misses the point entirely. This is not a rich vs. the uber-rich problem. Unregulated aircraft noise essentially abrogates our right to self-government by superseding our local laws and regulations, running roughshod over decades of careful land planning and preservation, and imposing on thousands, literally millions, of single-event noise impacts every year. The peaceful countryside is a big part of what East End residents cherish about our unique community. Our municipalities tax themselves to counter intense development pressure to preserve open space, farmland, and other scenic vistas that are a proud part of that 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. It’s not about class warfare. It’s about home rule. Sincerely, KATHLEEN CUNNINGHAM Quiet Skies Coalition Sound Coastal Policy Montauk October 28, 2014 Dear David: Your Oct. 22 editorial “Save the Structures, but Lose the Beach” contains a powerful message that I hope will resonate with our community and our town board. If the Army Corps plan proceeds, it will represent a misguided initiative to use $9 million of taxpayers’ money to protect approximately 10 privately owned properties. Additional Town of East Hampton and Suffolk County tax dollars will be used annually to maintain the geo-tube sea wall. Beyond the financial cost of this project, several nationally recognized beach geologists have already pointed out that the proposed geo-tube seawall will jeopardize our remaining beach in Montauk. Finally, I applaud the courage you demonstrate when you state, “Few experts who study the Atlantic Coast recommend anything other than structural retreat from eroding areas outside of the large cities.” I hope that your editorial and Surfrider Foundation’s efforts will motivate our elected officials to recognize the imperative to consider structural retreat as the basis for sound coastal policy. As one noted coastal geologist has already said, in Montauk, putting sand on top of geo-tubes is like putting lipstick on a pig. Nine million dollars of taxpayer money, plus annual maintenance expenses also paid by taxpayers, plus placing our remaining beach at risk, to allegedly protect 10 private properties through construction of a misguided seawall, is not a prudent investment. And it certainly does not represent sound and defensible coastal policy. As Surfrider has said, “Don’t bag our beach!” JAY LEVINE Gift Horse East Hampton November 3, 2014 Dear David, The East Hampton Star’s editorial “Save the Structures, but Lose the Beach” was spot on. It’s hard for the East Hampton Town Board to look a $9 million federal gift horse in the mouth, but that’s exactly what the board needs to do. Education is key and is currently lacking in understanding why the Army Corps of Engineers proposed sandbagging of Montauk is misguided. Your editorial spelled it out well. Geo-bags are not a soft solution. Sincerely, STEPHEN MAHONEY Vice Chairman Eastern L.I. Surfrider Foundation Army Corps Proposal East Hampton October 31, 2014 To the Editor, Thank you for the Oct. 22 editorial supporting Surfrider Foundation’s position on the downtown Montauk Army Corps of Engineers proposal. I wholeheartedly agree with your position and Surfrider Foundation’s position on the project. Kind Regards, CAROL CHOI Without a Beach Montauk October 31, 2014 Dear David, My wife and I are in complete agreement with your editorial supporting Surfrider Foundation’s position on the downtown Montauk Army Corps of Engineers proposal. We are members of the Surfrider Foundation and homeowners in Montauk. There have been numerous examples of the damage done by attempts to armor the beach. Without a beach, Montauk is nothing. We hope that the town board stops ignoring the warnings of numerous coastal experts and reconsiders its position, which favors a few privately owned properties to the detriment of the entire community. WALTER and CHRISTINE BRIDGES Not Safe East Hampton November 3, 2014 Dear David, Thank you for bringing much-needed attention to our shorelines in your editorial “Save the Structures but Lose the Beach.” I have attended Town Hall Meetings, watching and listening to the Army Corps of Engineers’ presentations of geo-textile tubes to “save” a row of oceanfront properties and was originally very impressed by the “soft” structures and financial package supplied in Hurricane Sandy relief. However, I failed at that time to understand that any structure on the shoreline is not safe or sustainable. Structures create downdrift scouring, resulting in further and often more significant beach loss. I do hope the Town of East Hampton will use the proposed $9 million in a more environmentally sound manner than entertaining any structures on our shorelines. Sincerely, SHELLY BREDAU Being Up Front Montauk November 1, 2014 Dear David, Thank you for being up front and not pulling any punches in your editorial. I agree. I’m sure everyone else who lives here agrees. I hope they read your piece. P.J. DELIA Thanks for Editorial Montauk November 2, 2014 Dear David, Thank you for your editorial supporting Surfrider Foundation’s position on the Army Corps of Engineers proposal. I agree with your position and Surfrider Foundation’s position. CONNIE JUDSON Alternative Solutions East Hampton November 3, 2014 David: As a member of Surfrider, I agree with your position. There are alternative solutions to replenishing and preserving our beaches. Regards, ROBERT KOHR But — Geo-Tubes! Montauk October 26, 2014 Dear David, Thank you for your editorial supporting Surfrider Foundation’s position on the Downtown Montauk Army Corps proposal. I’ve been a longtime visitor and have over a decade of home ownership in this hamlet. I’m not thrilled with the path Montauk has had to endure recently, but geo-tubes! What are my children going to inherit? Live, respect, pay forward. GLEN MORDECI The Beach Lands Amagansett November 3, 2014 Dear David, It is beyond ludicrous to even think that when the Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of East Hampton put reservations on 1,200-plus acres of beach lands at Napeague, it would only apply to commercial fishermen. In my view, it is extremely lame. The townspeople have many uses of the beach lands from the very beginnings of East Hampton Town: The picking of cranberries and beach plums is still being done by the townspeople today, the setting up of try works to try out the whale oil, from both drift whales and those harpooned (these try works were always located north of the dune line), walking, riding, swimming, etc., are all common uses of the beach lands, then as now. Those people who chose to paint the sea and dune lands probably started here in the late 1800s. The words “beach” and “to the ocean” had very different meanings than they do today. Beaches in colonial times meant “all sandy lands not fit for cultivation.” With Napeague, the whole area from main sea to bay was the “beach.” The allotments and lands sold were always bounded by the south beach, south which was at the limits of arable land. In the 1800s, for decades the town trustees annually passed an ordinance prohibiting horses and neat cattle from grazing on any of the town’s beaches from Hither Hills to Wainscott. With today’s description of the word “beach” said horses and cattle would starve to death. When the town trustees directed the highway commissioner to lay out Indian Wells Highway to the ocean, where does this road end? It’s at the dune line, same for Ocean Avenue in East Hampton, Napeague Lane, Atlantic Avenue, etc. They all were described as being laid out to the ocean. When the town trustees ordered the layout of Atlantic Highway from Indian Wells to Wainscott, the road was to be built “as close to the ocean as possible.” The entire road was midway between the double dunes until at Wiborg’s Road, where the double dunes narrowed to nothing. The town trustees suggested that the remainder of Atlantic Highway be located on the flat part of the beach, south of the dune line. This was not practicable, so this part was abandoned. The townspeople, since colonial times, always considered the high-water mark to be where the vegetation ceases to grow, thus the words “to the ocean or bay” was at this line, not down to the water’s edge, as the thinking is today. The “vegetation line” being the “high water mark” is also found in the “Southampton Town Records, Volume VIII.” On March 24, 1931, the Beer v. Hotchkiss matter was decided. It was a case concerning the allotments of the Quogue purchase. The Court of Appeals of New York wrote as part of its decision that “the final arbiter was usage. Doctrine had not established itself sufficiently to be superior to practice. To learn what the law was, we must try to ascertain what the colonists of those days believed it to be, and to learn what they believed it to be we must try to discover what they did.” There are many examples of “to the ocean” in our town records actually being the dune line. The East Hampton Village charter from New York State marks the south boundary of the village limits to be the general line of beach grass, most of which was along the dune line. Beach lands sold from Amagansett to Wainscott all had the southerly boundary as the general line of beach grass beyond which no vegetation can grow. This was “usage” as declared in the Beer v. Hotchkiss case. This infamous 1882 board of town trustees who sold the beach lands to Benson and Terry, also on Dec. 4, 1882, literally sold eight miles of beach lands and all the harbors and several parcels of underwater land to John Bowman from New York City, and to Sleight and Power several underwater lots at Sag Harbor. When this action by seven members of the board became known, the townspeople were furious. At the annual town meeting in April 1884, the townspeople voted out all 12 members and put in 12 new town trustees and gave them legal powers to prosecute and recover all the beaches and harbors sold. This process took 11 years. If it wasn’t for this action at the 1884 annual town meeting, all harbors and most beach lands would have become private property. In December 1895, upon recovery of the commons, the town trustees appointed a committee to name the privileges to be reserved in the sales of the south beach. The reservations were to be nothing more than the common uses of the beach lands the townspeople had been doing for decades. They were: First, the right of fishing, landing fish, packing, and caring fish. All fish to be removed within 24 hours. Landing boats seine nets and fishing tackle of whichever kind. The drawing up of boats and leaving the same on premises sold. Also the spreading and drying of nets and seines upon premises. (This was always done on the beach grass, north of the dune line. I did this with Francis Lester in 1954 when we were gill netting for bluefish at Two Mile Hollow. We used a hand barrow to walk the nets out over the beach grass.) Second: The right to land whales, to cut up, cart the same or any part thereof. The right to land and haul up boats and the tackle used in the capture of whale and leave same upon said premises. Third: The right to pass and repass to walk or ride to sit or stand or lounge on said premises. Fourth: The right to shoot and hunt. Fifth: The right to place bathing houses and safety lines and arbors, but the same not to obstruct the public travel upon said beach. Again, in the 1931 Beer v. Hotchkiss case, the New York State Court of Appeals decision the court stated that: “. . . courts do not look at records with over technical eyes after the healing acquiescence of a century and a half.” This surely applies with the Benson and Terry deeds of 1882, which have an acquiescence time frame of 132 years of public use, plus the 1895 further explanation of what the reservations mean. In Jeannette Edwards Rattray’s 1953 book on East Hampton history and genealogies of early families, she wrote on page 2, “. . . but for Robert Moses and the vigilance of East Hampton’s Town Trustees regarding water front rights, no beaches might be left today where East Hampton’s public might go without encountering ‘No Trespassing” signs.” I was a member of this team of vigilante town trustees in 1980 and 1981, when we had before us two development plans of the beach lands — Dunes at Napeague and Mitchell Dunes. The developers wanted the trustees to remove the 1880s reservations that covered the entire subdivisions. We would not agree to remove these reservations unless it was clearly written on the final subdivision maps that the developers do not purport to hold or convey title to land south of the map limit line that was along the crest of the dunes — pretty much in conjunction with beach grass line. The town trustees also would not allow the sand road, which led east from Napeague Lane to the passage through the dunes to be raised up, thus creating a steep bank at the dunes’ natural cut. Many times this passage would be the only place to be able to get on and off the ocean beach. This natural cut, through the dune at the east end of Marine Boulevard, was to be in a reserved area, where no construction of any type would be allowed. Many years ago, when I spoke about the town’s beach lands, I cited an English parable that deserves stating again, to wit, “The law locks up the man or woman who steals the goose from off the common, but leaves the greater villain loose who steals the common from the goose.” Cheers, STUART B. VORPAHL No Parking Anytime Amagansett November 3, 2014 Dear Mr. Rattray, There have been several letters to the editor in local newspapers regarding parking on Dolphin Drive over the last few weeks, but none more filled with misinformation than a recent letter to The East Hampton Star published on Oct. 30. Despite political threats, which have no place in an issue encompassing a bona fide contradiction in the town code, and many inaccuracies contained in the letter, only one issue is central to understanding why the town board should affirm no parking on Dolphin Drive. That issue is, what does the town law have to say about parking on Dolphin Drive? The plain facts regarding parking on Dolphin Drive, as determined by the town clerk, are 1. that Dolphin Drive was originally dedicated as “No Parking Anytime” in 1974 and 2. the town is unable to document the origins of a change, apparently made sometime prior to 1992, that allowed permit parking. As the town is unable to certify the underlying parking ordinance under New York State Town Law, the original 1974 “No Parking Anytime” should prevail as the current town law. Town officials should support the law and should expeditiously return the signs to “No Parking Anytime” on both sides of Dolphin Drive, either by board vote or executive order. The writer of the letter to The East Hampton Star has also confused the issue of parking on Dolphin Drive with the possible need for parking for the newly adopted nature preserve. The proper time and place to consider the size and location of parking facilities, if any, for the nature preserve should take place during preparation of a management plan for the site. At the recent public hearing the chairman of the nature preserve committee shared this view and pledged to complete the plan and provide recommendations to the board prior to the next summer season. In defense of Dolphin Drive residents and members of the town board, it should be understood that there had been no parking on Dolphin Drive for 40 years and, from a legal perspective, there should still be no parking on Dolphin Drive. Further, restricted parking signs where residences begin are a common safety precaution for all visitors and residents at all beach access roads in the Town of East Hampton. Dolphin Drive was no exception to this common-sense rule until late August of this year, when the signs were changed in the early morning hours without notice to anyone, not even the town board. Baffled, the residents simply asked their town representatives for an explanation. Wouldn’t you? NORMAN EDWARDS On Dolphin Drive Amagansett November 3, 2014 To the Editor: I am a resident of Dolphin Drive on Napeague. After 40 years of “No Parking Anytime” signs on Dolphin Drive, workers came in the early morning hours on Aug. 22 and changed the signage to permit town permit parking on both sides of our 20-foot-wide street. The town board knew nothing of this action, and its origins are very mysterious. Like Michael Corleone in “The Godfather Part II,” we are very curious who gave the order. We suspect it was a punitive prank by pro-development forces within town government to punish us for advocating that the South Flora dune opposite our houses be included in the town’s nature preserve — a measure the board unanimously voted a couple of weeks ago. The nighttime signage change, without notice or hearing, raises substantial questions of fairness and the rule of law in our town. Since the illegal signage went up, various groups (mainly consisting of people we have never seen in our neighborhood) have come out in favor of parking on our street, even though it is so narrow that if vehicles park on both sides, fire trucks and ambulances will not get through. People are claiming, very offensively, that parking has always existed here and that we are “elitists” trying to prevent access and to guard the beach for ourselves. This is absolutely untrue. We are middle-class semi-retirees living in modest houses, not mansions, and we merely want to be treated consistently with other streets in East Hampton. On the other beach access roads in town, there is no on-street parking, and typically a small parking lot gives access to the beach. We have one too, on Atlantic. Why are we being treated differently, and insulted in the process? I invite all readers to visit Dolphin Drive and see for themselves. MERI WALLACE No Help for Fishermen Springs November 1, 2014 Dear Editor; This letter is in reply to the letter Reg Cornelia wrote to The Star in reply to a letter he wrote that I replied to. Wow! I hope this can stop here. It’s getting silly. Mr. Cornelia seems to think my first letter was about him. That wasn’t my intent. I did, however, say that it was a partisan letter from a local Republican Party officer who was insinuating that his favored candidate, Lee Zeldin, would be better for the fishing industry simply by saying that Congressman Tim Bishop has not done enough for the fishermen. Mr. Cornelia has since stated he is indeed a conservative Republican partisan, and I’m fine with that. Also, I hope Mr. Cornelia doesn’t assume this reply is political in nature, because by the time it’s published the election will have passed and it won’t influence anything. What my letter was really about was, if Tim Bishop is so bad, what has Lee Zeldin done to be so good? We fishermen working in the industry haven’t seen much help from Bishop and nothing from Zeldin. Mr. Cornelia seemed to be offended at that, wrote a letter and proceeded to give me a handout from the Zeldin campaign naming, with bullet points, the good he’s done for the fishing industry. Unfortunately the list is nothing more than a statement of bandwagon initiatives he jumped on, overstatements of his influence with fisheries management and the governor, and fluff that doesn’t help any fisherman. No wonder we haven’t heard of anything Zeldin has done. He hasn’t done anything. But more important, I urged Mr. Cornelia to ask Mr. Zeldin if he would consider a plan to restore research money lost to the fishing industry. Mr. Cornelia hasn’t made any reply to that question and already the loss of that money has borne rotten fruit. Management uses science to set quotas. “The best available data” they say. This year they used data to determine the age of the striped bass. Vital to understanding the health of the stock, they say. There are two ways to determine the age of fish. One is very accurate but expensive, one is very inaccurate but cheap. There is no research money, so it was cheap, and as a result the fishermen will lose 25 percent of their quota for each of the next three years. Management agrees the data is flawed, but it’s “the best available data,” so too bad. Mr. Cornelia says he cares for the fishermen and their children, so no matter who is in D.C. or Albany, he should ask questions on our behalf. Otherwise, every two years the fisherman becomes nothing more than a campaign prop. BRAD LOEWEN Law Must Be Changed Water Mill October 14, 2014 To the Editor, Two years ago Southampton Town passed a rental law. The pretext was that landlords were filling their homes with as many people as possible, hence 12 people at $375 per month each — do the math. There is nothing further from the truth. All this law did was make the landlords responsible for the illegal actions of the tenants. A couple signs a lease. Next month eight people are living there. What can a landlord do? Nothing. As the law is, it takes up to three months to evict anyone and costs a lot of money — lawyers, court fees, sheriff, etc. The expensive homes on the ocean and bays will not comply. If caught they will simply pay the fine. Cheap in retrospect. The law must be changed at the state level and make illegal tenants responsible for their own actions. The cost of bringing up the homes to code will be high; every home in East Hampton has some violations. Codes change and what was okay last year is not now. The towns can’t get the illegal tenants out and neither can the landlords. Be careful, East Hampton. You’re letting Big Brother right into your living room. People should be responsible for their own actions. Sincerely, J.B. SMITH The Pushback Amagansett October 27, 2014 Dear David, “It’s unconstitutional!” I went to a recent East Hampton Town Board work session where a rental registry was discussed. “It’s unconstitutional!” appears to be the pushback from those that don’t want their landlording M.O. held up to the light. I thought I’d try it as a tactic with my flood insurance provider, who wants me to pay one-third more unless I can prove that I do not live in my mailbox: “It’s unconstitutional!” I brought it up as an argument with my doctor who suggested more vegetables: “It’s unconstitutional!” I leveled it at my date when he made the assumed close of a certain post-dinner activity: “It’s unconstitutional!” All good things, DIANA WALKER Events in 1989 Plainview November 1, 2014 To the Editor: To me, the most interesting items in the Oct. 23 East Hampton Star were about events that happened (or didn’t actually happen) 25 years ago, in 1989. The first was in “The Way It Was.” It said, “A new, and much more accurate test for Lyme disease may be on its way, according to Bernard Berger, a Southampton dermatologist who was among the first doctors to treat the disease on the East End. Stressing that research was still going on, he said the test, if properly developed, would be able to detect the DNA of the Lyme spirochete. ‘Hopefully we would be able to make a diagnosis with certainty in a couple of hours,’ he said. ‘But you don’t want to say anything for fear you’ll jinx it.’ ” Well, Dr. Berger did say something, and perhaps he did “jinx” the development of that “new and much more accurate test”— because this week’s 25-years-later Star editorial “On Chronic Lyme” tells us that “after nearly two decades . . . some patients diagnosed with Lyme do not feel better after standard antibiotic treatment.” Hopefully, when The Star reruns these items in 2039 under “50 Years Ago,” an anti-Lyme vaccine will by then have virtually wiped Lyme disease out of all human populations (if not also deer, and all other animals too). And when it is reprinted in 2064, under “75 Years Ago,” may Ebola have also succumbed to some miracle vaccine. If I’m still around, I’ll be sure to write in about it. By the way, I checked a world map in an atlas and measured the straight-line distance between the Montauk Lighthouse and the capital of Liberia, and found it to be equivalent to approximately 4,000 miles. So, if airplanes had never been invented. The other old item that intrigued me was in the sports section’s “25 Years Ago in Bonac Sports,” Oct. 5, 1989. It read “Scoreboard: Look for the Cubbies to upset Oakland in the World Series and (finally!) bring a title home to the long-suffering Chicago faithful.” Which puzzled me, because the poor Chicago Cubs (then having already been without a World Series victory for 81 years, since 1908) didn’t even get into that year’s World Series! The Oakland A’s beat the San Francisco Giants (despite a big earthquake). However, in 2005, the Chicago White Sox did manage to “bring a title home to (some of) the long-suffering Chicago faithful,” by beating Houston in that year’s World Series (their first in 88 years, since 1917). The Cubs, however, are now at 106 years and counting. As Brooklyn Dodger fans always used to say (until their first championship in 1955), wait ’til next year. RICHARD SIEGELMAN Formidable Trouble Amagansett October 27, 2014 To the Editor, I am angered, embittered, mortified, infuriated, and betrayed. But really not shocked or surprised at the inability of the Obama administration and its refusal to accountabilities to the tremendous mistakes it has made in six years of his inept agenda. The worst part initially how he was elected not only once but for another term. He is a person who has abdicated his “throne” in full throttle from the get-go! It is reassuring he was not the German leader, because our language would be German and twisted and distorted sick ideology. We bow down to him as idiots. Our forefathers who built this country are crying at the most credible country waning before our eyes. Pitifully his doctrine is permeating into voters’ brains into a travesty of no return. I just hope the conservative Americans finally wake up after this election. I believe and unfortunately all should because “we” (the country) is in formidable trouble. Sincerely, LINDA PRINCE Too Many Don’t Vote East Hampton November 1, 2014 To the Editor: The Bishop-Zeldin election demonstrates the basic philosophical disconnect that defines the disintegration of our democratic system of governance. Bishop seems pretty okay. Zeldin is a village idiot. But voting for Bishop means endorsing the mindless gridlock of the current system. Voting for Zeldin is just really dumb. What to do? The essential problem lies not with our two parties, nor the politicians who represent them. They do whatever they can to get elected. Misrepresent, distort, gerrymander, violate the electorate, etc. Purchasing politicians is not new but is openly accepted. Any scheme, legal or not, is okay until proven otherwise. Democracy is dead, if it ever lived, at least in the U.S.A. The solution to the problem lies not with any of the aforementioned but with the electorate. Voters are not responsive to, nor responsible for, the system. In 1789, only landowners had the right to vote, and that is the underlying issue that tricks the system. We never properly integrated or educated the rest of the population as it was permitted to participate in the electoral system. Consequently, too many people don’t vote. In the midterm elections sometimes less than 30 percent of the electorate participates, making it possible to win an election with 84 percent of the electorate not voting for you. Democracy? No president has ever won 50 percent of the electorate. Sure, 50 percent of the votes cast, but if 70 percent of the electorate voted, that’s only 35 percent. A simple solution: If democracy is a function of participation and responsibility, then people should be rewarded on that basis. If, for example, less than 70 percent of the electorate votes in the Bishop-Zeldin contest, the election is considered void and the district loses its representation for two years. If it happens in a senatorial race, the seat goes away for four years. If one doesn’t participate in the process, one doesn’t get the benefits. The entire political landscape would be redefined. Gerrymandering, inhibiting voter participation, massive outside spending would lose their value. Any district that understood the real dollars cost of not being represented would rapidly get its act together. Voter turnout would increase dramatically, and some semblance of democracy might reappear in our country. Mandatory participation would become the benchmark for everything connected to the government. No participation, no benefits, no perks. We would become responsible for who we elected, not who we declined to vote for. Losing representation for a few years should energize the political process and make people realize that the system is only what we allow it to be. NEIL HAUSIG Impending Disaster East Hampton November 2, 2014 Dear Editor, This letter is being written three days before the midterm elections. So far, every talking-head, so-called political consultant seen or read has predicted a Republican sweep with the Senate falling into Republican hands. The House of Representatives, they say, will remain with a Republican majority. As a progressive Democrat, I have stopped reading the newspapers or listening to the news as the impending disaster approaches. Just thinking of two years of a lame-duck president being battered from all sides and unable to get legislation passed or even vital appointees approved, amid what promises to be an unending quest for power with threats from the right, and seeing a nut case like the hog-slaughterer Joni Ernst of Iowa actually be a U.S. senator, makes me sick. Those of you who were rooting for a Republican victory will now, upon reading this, know the result, and if those results pleased you, you should still bear in mind the old adage, “Be careful what you wish for.” Now I will close with the secret hope that maybe, somehow, the so-called “unlikely” voters actually came out and voted and saved the country from a divided and nonfunctioning government, and made the prognosticators wrong. RICHARD P. HIGER
Published 4 years ago
Last updated 4 years ago
Letters to the Editor: 11.06.14
November 5, 2014