Anti-Airport East Hampton October 26, 2015 To the Editor: I read with dismay your editorial “Republicans Damaged by Tainted Money.” As a local pilot, keeping the airport open and financially secure is an important issue for me. There is a lot of money being thrown at both sides of the issue. Pat Trunzo, David Gruber, and other special-interest groups that stand to profit if the airport closes have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars. I also wonder how much money the East Hampton Democratic Committee has taken from outside interests to close our airport? I am sure it was a lot! I find it hypocritical that The East Hampton Star demonizes the Republicans without mentioning all of the anti-airport contributions the East Hampton Democrats have taken in to close down our airport. My question to you is: What is the difference between some local pilots, airport businesses, and others contributing to Republican candidates and the Democrats’ not-in-my-backyard special-interest groups’ contributions? What is the difference between my contribution and Pat Trunzo’s or David Gruber’s? The answer: Nothing! (Except their contribution is much larger.) JOHN DUNNING Subversive Behavior East Hampton October 26, 2015 Dear David, I write to sound the alarm to East Hampton voters that the aviation industry, in the forms of a New Jersey-based helicoptercompany and New Jersey-based real estate developers, are pouring enormous sums of money into the Republican campaign for town board, presumably for future airport policy that would favor their plans to develop helicopter commuter service to our airport — business owners from New Jersey, mind you. Here’s the problem: Aviation interests in the form of direct contributions to both the Republican committee and other generous donations to the East Hampton Leadership Council, a registered political action committee, are trying to influence the outcome of a local election, without ever declaring their intentions. This subversive behavior is an attempt to derail our political process and the right of residents in our community to properly assess for themselves whether they wish to elect representation to the town board that was the first in history to proactively take steps to protect the public from health-threatening aircraft noise disturbances, or to choose those who wish to turn back the clock with business as usual promoting the needs of aviation investors over the peaceful enjoyment of home and property for humans and wildlife alike. This election is one of many hurdles East End residents must clear in order to codify the tenets of community character that is how we know our town from any other. This election will determine the next set of steps in the quest of the peaceful enjoyment of home and property that has just begun. This election will be our community’s chance to say a loud and emphatic no to out-of-state business interests who wish to influence this election in order to profit from their plans to ferry people back and forth to East Hampton airport, with no measurable contribution to the local economy. This election will determine our future. I urge your readers to cast their vote to preserve the initial gains brought to the aircraft noise affected public by Larry Cantwell, Sylvia Overby, and Peter Van Scoyoc so they can continue the important work that has just begun. Sincerely, KATHLEEN CUNNINGHAM Quiet Skies Coalition Local Control East Hampton October 26, 2015 Dear David, In the past several days the amount of money flowing principally from New Jersey helicopter operators, but also other aviation interests, to the political campaign of Lisa Mulhern-Larsen, Margaret Turner, and Tom Knobel, the Republican candidates, has doubled, to more than $250,000. More than half of that has gone directly to the Republican campaign committee, the balance to the political action committee set up by HeliFlite, one of the helicopter operators now suing the Town of East Hampton. It is settled law, recognized both by the Supreme Court of the United States and in multiple aviation statues adopted by Congress, that a municipal airport owner may adopt restrictions on the use of its own property for the purpose of protecting the public from noise. The federal courts, interpreting this law, have permitted weekend closure, curfews, limits on how noisy aircraft may be, and limits on the number of operations permitted in a given time period. The New Jersey helicopter interests, who are the guests of East Hampton at our airport, will have none of that. They care nothing for the right of the people of our community to decide democratically how much aviation is good for us and how much is too much. In an effort to bully the town, they have filed multiple legal actions all for the purpose of overturning the airport noise restrictions adopted by our town board last spring. They also seek to return control of our airport to the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington. They thought their legal offensive would bleed us and force East Hampton to its knees. But the joke has been on them, because the cost of the legal defense is paid entirely from airport user fees, that is by these aviation companies themselves. (Locally based aircraft pay no landing fees.) Hence, the legal defense costs the East Hampton taxpayer absolutely nothing. Having belatedly realized that the only pockets they are picking are their own, they now have the chutzpah to complain about the cost of the litigation they themselves brought! This is a real-life version of the old joke about the man who murders his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he is an orphan. Although much of the public doesn’t know it yet, the helicopter companies have already lost the main legal battle. The federal court affirmed the authority of the East Hampton Town Board to control access to the airport. And East Hampton has retained one of the two or three top appellate lawyers in the country to assure that the result sticks. Which brings us to the Republican candidates. Knowing that their lawsuits are doomed, the helicopter operators want Ms. Mulhern-Larsen, Ms. Turner, and Mr. Knobel to deliver East Hampton to them anyway. And, indeed, these three Republicans, who loudly proclaim their devotion to the local community, are ready and willing to hand our town over. They are already publicly opposed to the adopted noise restrictions and willing to take more money from the F.A.A., thereby ceding local control back to Washington. All it takes to dissolve the claimed devotion of these three to East Hampton and its people is for someone to flash a bankroll at them. Well, I’m here to tell the helicopter companies they have overpaid. They could have had Ms. Mulhern-Larsen, Ms. Turner, and Mr. Knobel for a lot less than a quarter of a million. Come Tuesday, the question is in the hands of the East Hampton voters. Do we believe in local control over our own community, democratic decision-making about how much is enough and how much is too much for our quality of life? Or are we prepared to hand our town over to Ms. Mulhern-Larsen, Ms. Turner, and Mr. Knobel and the New Jersey carpetbaggers they are working for. If we want our fate in our own hands, the way to do it is to vote to re-elect Larry Cantwell, Sylvia Overby, and Peter Van Scoyoc to the town board. The alternative is to find ourselves living in New Jersey — the land of strip malls, oil pollution, and corrupt government — without ever having moved. Sincerely, DAVID GRUBER Blind Partisanship Springs October 26, 2015 Dear Mr. Rattray: The best thing that’s ever happened to the East Hampton Democratic Party is the huge cash donation to the local Republican Party by mostly out-of-town airport interests. (Clearly hasn’t hurt your paper’s bottom line either, given the full-page diatribes from both parties.) Coupled with the cash, single-issue outsiders have loosed imported paid door-to-door campaigners and robocalls to the unaffiliated (me), urging votes against Democratic Party candidates at every level, county in particular. I’ve learned for instance that our president and Bridget Fleming are virtually one and the same, but frankly, failing to see the family resemblance, I will happily vote for her. I also picked up that the town board Democrats in general have been asleep the past couple of years. We know this to be untrue. But civil meetings, appropriately active use of our community preservation fund money, and continuing fiscal prudence, which began under Republicans, are frankly not enough. The foolishly short-term, expensive, and plainly wrong Montauk beach revetment is no substitute for real coastal planning. Critical issues of public access to public property and equitable distribution of townwide affordable work force housing are yet to be decided. Specifically, we need a town board that exerts real leadership for real people, not just the connected or intimidating interest groups either within or from outside town. Legal threats aimed solely at keeping the people who live full time and work in our town from encroaching on enclaves, or to protect specific businesses at public expense, or disrupt residents’ quality of life should not rule East Hampton. Montauk is the heart of our tourist industry, but beachfronts change, and the ocean is rising. Maintaining artificial levees is expensive and ultimately ineffective, as we learned in New Orleans. The South Flora preserve is ours: Let’s make sure we can easily use it. Wainscott and every other hamlet needs more affordable housing available to the work force, young households, and the elderly. The boutique school there can choose its incoming 20 by a residents lottery, and pay tuition for the rest. Our airport should be run appropriately for our resident pilots’ safety and convenience, and the peace and quiet of the rest of us. We need our own mosquito control district, as proposed by our excellent two-term town trustee, Deb Klughers, who should have the vote of every resident who truly cares about East Hampton. We need to stop the county routinely poisoning our wetlands and salt marshes by helicopter. We need townwide reassessment, with appropriate relief to homeowners whose new valuations may make their taxes untenable. None of this is about partisan posturing; it is about fairness, and our town’s welfare as a viable, diverse community in a healthy and beautiful place. Blind partisanship is detrimental to reason, especially at the local level. Local government is not the N.F.L., and the color of a shirt is nothing compared to the character, experience, qualifications and integrity of a person willing to serve the rest of us. We are fortunate to have had available the eminent Stuart Vorpahl to explain the source of the legal authority embodied in our town trustees, a body that possesses the longest continuous record of service to the public on our continent, though it is sad he has to repeat himself so frequently. Worse, Captain Vorpahl’s letter was prompted by a ham-handed partisan swipe by the Democrats, some of whose trustee candidates are self-interested, clueless, or political hacks, though Republican radio and print ads are no better. Shaming yourselves to put them out there shames us all, regardless of party. Do we have Democratic and Republican bottomlands, beaches, common lands, surface waters, shellfish, or water quality? Local parties routinely cross endorse fine people for other offices, highway superintendent, judges, etc., but do us a disservice by making trusteeship and the town board a zero-sum game. Maybe we need a better way to make sure that our town remains in fact ours. Who elected political parties to be our gatekeepers? Vote wisely. IRA BAROCAS Definition of ‘Tainted’ Springs October 25, 2015 To the Editor: Thanks to last week’s Star editorial, we now have a clear definition of “tainted” money: any funds, legally and openly spent, by a group which advocates a position (in this case pro-airport) that differs with The Star’s position (anti-airport). The anti-airport groups have spent a fortune, as is their right, to advocate on behalf of their concerns, but somehow these expenditures are not to be considered “tainted.” As propaganda for one side over the other, The Star’s editorial was no doubt effective. On its merits as a principled editorial stance, it was ridiculous and meaningless. You might say it was “tainted.” Sincerely, REG CORNELIA Absurd Claims Wainscott October 25, 2015 Dear David, Writing as an individual East Hampton taxpayer, I can only express incredulous astonishment at the absurd claims from candidates Lisa Mulhern-Larsen and Margaret Turner, whose public pretense is that they don’t understand how the out-of-state helicopter lobby is funding their campaigns. If they really don’t understand who is funding their campaigns, how can they be trusted on the town board with our tax dollars? Are they lying, or simply trying to fool us? Just last week, The East Hampton Star wrote in a perceptive editorial that “It is regrettable that the once-proud East Hampton Republican Party has come to this. . . . The Republican candidates may say what they will . . . but by being financed almost entirely by airport-related donors, they have shown themselves sorely lacking in judgment and unfit for leadership.” Exactly. DAVID DOTY Bought and Paid For Wainscott October 26, 2015 Dear David, Thank you for the great front page article in The East Hampton Star, “Airport Money Flows to One Side.” The data on the amount of money donated to the East Hampton Republican Committee by helicopter interests was astounding. It’s alarming that 75 percent of the money raised by the G.O.P. was given by Newersey carpetbaggers trying to influence our local elections. They wish to force the toxic waste from their dirty, noisy helicopters on the folks living on the East End. This tells me that the East Hampton G.O.P. candidates’ principles have been bought and paid for by New Jersey helicopter interests, which have no other interest in East Hampton but to disrupt our lives and dump their toxic waste from helicopters, poisoning our environment. It is horrible, unacceptable, and shameful that G.O.P. candidates sold out by accepting this blood money. Really, is that all it takes to buy these candidates? Their principles have very little value. It’s absolutely disgusting. One of the pillars of the national Republican Party is to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. At the heart of that is support for the 10th Amendment, which gives power not delegated to the states by the Constitution to the states or to the people. This is the essence of local rule and local control. The National Republican Party embraces certain libertarian principles to reduce government influence on our lives, like Federal Aviation Association control over East Hampton Airport. At the beginning of this year, certain key grant assurances giving F.A.A. control over restricting airport use expired. The control of East Hampton Airport was given back to the local people, and the local government was finally able to enact legislation setting curfews and restricting the number of aircraft using the airport. These restrictions mostly affected helicopters, thereby reducing the unbearable noise and toxic fumes plaguing the folks in our region. Taking a single dollar from the F.A.A. will subject the airport to new grant assurances for another 20 years, reverting control of the airport back to F.A.A. and unraveling legislation implementing these restrictions. All three G.O.P. candidates running for town board said they would take money from the F.A.A., giving control back to the F.A.A., in contradiction to G.O.P. principles. This is what the East Hampton G.O.P. means when its says in its ads it wants to “Take Back East Hampton”: take it back to F.A.A. control, G.O.P. principles be damned. This is unbelievable because they have compromised their G.O.P. principles for money given to them from New Jersey carpetbaggers who want to fly their magic carpets to East Hampton and destroy our way of life. To drive the point home, we find our Republican congressman, Lee Zeldin, assisting the Democrat-majority town board to regain local control of the airport by writing letters to the F.A.A., drafting legislation, publicly supporting the town board’s restrictions, and holding rallies in the Peconic region to promote the great work he is doing assisting East Hampton Town to bring much needed noise relief for the East End. He does this because he is a true Republican, upholding G.O.P. principles. The East Hampton G.O.P. are nowhere to be found. They have betrayed their own principles for the almighty dollar. I was born in Norway, where a word for this type of person was made famous after World War II. They are called “quislings.” The meaning of this word is traitor. It’s shameful! Sincerely, FRANK DALENE Pro-Airport People East Hampton October 25, 2015 Dear Mr. Rattray, Your editorial last week against the Republicans taking campaign contributions from so called “helicopter” sources was biased and anti-free speech. As a newspaper editor yourself, and the beneficiary of First Amendment protection rights, you should be have been more professional and provided both sides of the story. Basically, you wish to pick and choose who can have free speech and who cannot. It seems that you are perfectly okay with tons of anti-airport money being given to, and spent by, the local Democrats from people living in New York City — but businesses based in the same New York City should not be allowed to defend themselves when they feel they are being unfairly attacked by a township that abuses its municipal powers. The pro-airport sources believe the current town board is not fair and balanced. The pro-airport people believe the current town board comes to the negotiating table with their minds already made up and then goes on to violate federal laws against restraint of trade. So, they aren’t allowed to defend themselves in any way? However, the vocal anti-airport minority can do whatever it wants to push its agenda of closing the airport and, of course, you are okay with that. How unfair, and how typical of your paper being one-sided. The airport is a local asset and it brings much-needed revenue dollars to the local economy through salaries, taxes, and delivering passengers who spend money here on goods and services. The airport has been in this town way before homes were built by the very people who would like to see it closed. And also let it be known that the airport is one of the very reasons why the New York City donors bought here in first place. Shutting the airport, which this current Democratic town board obviously wants, is not supported by Republicans, and thus donations have come in. This is all perfectly legal, by the way, and protected by the United States Constitution. Sincerely, RICHARD GHERARDI New Campaign Slogan Amagansett October 26, 2015 Dear David, I’ve been reading in The Star about the disproportionate amount of campaign funds directed to the East Hampton Republican candidates by businesses and individuals with ties to the town’s airport. In this week’s paper, I learned that $115,000 is the new figure that HeliFlite and a handful of pilots and airport businesses have contributed toward the election of friendly Republicans, Knobel, Turner, and Larsen. Your editorial this week draws the obvious conclusion, that it is hard to see this as anything except a quid pro quo. How’s this for a new campaign slogan: If you want more noise, elect the Republicans. They will deliver on their promises — to the helicopter industry. Disgustedly, LARRY MARCUS Mindful Regulation East Hampton October 25, 2015 Dear David: The choice in our local election could not be more clear for those who love the rural beauty and tranquillity of East Hampton, and believe this is worth conserving. The Democrat-controlled board has worked to return an ethos of mindful regulation, environmental preservation, and protecting quality of life. This is in contrast to the typical Republican approach of unbridled development, degradation of our environment, and excessive monetary profit as king — people and environment be damned. The fact that the Republican candidates are taking over $100K from out-of-town helicopter corporations proves the truth of my words. Again, the vote is clear: Conserve what is best about our hometown, preserving an already excellent standard of living for most. Or sell it out so that the greedy few can get richer. BARRY RAEBECK My Position Wainscott October 25, 2015 Dear David, I think it’s important that people understand my position on the airport. From the beginning of this campaign I have said that I am not beholden to anyone and there will be no quid pro quos. I support the curfew at the airport and noise abatement measures to reduce the noise impacts on residents. Better testing that matches flights with noise complaints is needed to achieve this and a reasonable balance sought based on data and legal counsel. I support the airport advisory committee that has been working on these issues. It is important that the airport remains open, that it is maintained in a safe manner for our local pilots’ use, and that it remain financially self-sustaining and not become a financial burden to taxpayers. I have also been vocal about the need for elected officials to be leaders, to resolve conflicts and make hard decisions, which this current board has failed to do. Our hamlets feel there are inequities and it should not have taken the July public protest in Montauk to be heard and have town government do its job. Springs and the Montauk community have been pleading for help with noise, taxis, parking, overcrowding, and garbage for years. I know this because I was at the meetings. Four years ago Sylvia Overby and Peter Van Scoyoc campaigned on quality-of-life issues and promised immediate action, and then promised again in 2013 yet it took the incumbents till July of this year to respond. This is not leadership and four years is too long for residents to wait for action. We need to strengthen our Code Enforcement Department. Staff retention has been a problem. The town board must analyze why and look for ways to attract and retain qualified people in order to build expertise and history in the department. This administration has done nothing on planning for the future needs of our community. Our population is aging and many seniors want to downsize but have nowhere to go in East Hampton. We have a crushing need for attainable housing, which the current administration has badly neglected. We need to be setting aside land now for future use for housing for our young and seniors, an independent living facility, an emergency medical facility so we don’t find ourselves in the situation of having to buy back land from the community preservation fund. These can be done through private-public partnerships. Many of the problems existing today are the direct result of no planning and ignoring issues. We need a town board that is engaged and proactive, not reactive and passive. There will always be change and we need a town board that anticipates problems, thinks ahead of the curve, is inclusive in decision-making to keep East Hampton the place we all want it to be. I promise to be that person. I hope I may have your vote on Nov. 3. Thank you, MARGARET TURNER Candidate for Town Board True Impacts East Hampton October 26, 2015 Dear Editor: Voters of East Hampton should be alarmed by disclosures that the Republican campaign for town board has been largely financed by outside corporate helicopter and aviation interests. The acceptance of this money was a cynical political deal. Helicopter companies care only about their profits. Ultra luxury travelers care only about their convenience. Most residents now understand that local control is needed to reduce airport noise. Ordinary people want summer evening barbecues and quiet talk. I am proud to have participated in the recent litigation that revealed the true impacts of airport noise. Let’s take back East Hampton from the politicians who were paid to listen. I trust those who listen to real people because they actually care. Vote Democratic for a quiet East Hampton. JEFFREY L. BRAGMAN Track Record Sag Harbor October 26, 2015 Dear Editor, Political ads in last week’s edition of The East Hampton Star revealed everything voters need consider on Nov. 3; Democrats listed their track record of successes and Republicans don’t even have a plan. It’s the tried and true versus the completely clueless. If elected, the Republicans certainly will “Take East Hampton Back” probably years. PATRICIA CURRIE Yellow Brick Road Wainscott October 24, 2015 Dear David, Your editorial is right on target. Mr. Knobel’s addiction to special interest goes way back, to what caused the airport to transform from a local rural airport to the regional jet and helicopter facility it is now. I have challenged Knobel to explain what he and his cohorts on the then-town board did to the main runway. Of course, he has amnesia on that, because it was a cave-in to those special interests way back then. $115,000 in donations by these out-of- state operators doesn’t pass the sniff test. They see him as having an open mind? The question is what is on his mind to even accept this from the very people who are suing the town — us — to end run, to try to reverse what the Cantwell team, who are the only town board that had the courage to listen to the people and take action, accomplished. They had an open mind and listened to those who have been bombarded with noise and low-flying planes for decades. Knobel, standing there, like Sgt. Schultz, shows how clueless he is to the intelligence of the voters. Knobel’s political advertisements defy logic. The remarks are an insult to the voters, accepting Federal Aviation Administration money to vacate local control over “our facility,” so out-of- state operators can run amok with total disregard for people living here. Considering that the running mates are “pinch hitters” and weren’t his committee’s first choice compounds the matter. One states that she would only favor F.A.A., money when it comes to safety? Certainly not safety of the residents who suffer the danger on a daily basis. No matter what the reason, they favor wresting local control for another 20 years, which does not concern them one iota. When the donors crack the whip, they would snap to attention. To state that they are lacking in judgment is an understatement. Knobel’s comments about creating jobs? What does he intend to do? Just campaign rhetoric. Most of the jobs here are local craftsmen, keeping things afloat. So, their largely airport-funded campaign sheds light on the old Latin phrase. They should follow the yellow brick road that voters paved for Wilkinson, Quigley, and Stanzione. We saw what they did. Yours truly, Arthur J. FRENCH
Published 4 years ago
Last updated 4 years ago
Letters to the Editor: Airport 10.29.15
October 29, 2015