Letters to the Editor: C.P.F. Water 08.04.16

Pandora’s Box

Amagansett

July 22, 2016

Dear David, 

Good for you! As tempting as a generous water quality improvement allowance from the flush (sorry) C.P.F. might be, it could open a Pandora’s box of development. We want no, none, not at all unessential development (affordable housing, health care facilities excepted).

We should heed Larry Penny’s (Star’s “Nature Notes” column) advice: Drive less, walk more, pee on the ground (easy for you, Larry). Live in smaller houses, turn off unnecessary lights, raise veggies and chickens (assuming a yard, right?).

Please continue to hold our town board to considering its responsibilities — environmental and crowding — far beyond the next few years.

All good things, 

DIANA WALKER

More in the Spirit

Springs

August 1, 2016

Dear Mr. Rattray,

Your last couple of weeks’ editorial pages concerning amending and extending the C.P.F.’s permissible usage to include water quality projects expressed caution. Notwithstanding last week’s articulate, detailed, and well-reasoned letter from Peter Wadsworth, I have to agree that we need to look at this gift horse a little more closely.

Expressing this concern before the town board at its July 21 meeting, that this C.P.F. change could be a backdoor to satisfying the county’s seemingly insatiable wish for yet more development and higher density, the board assured me that if I read the proposed local law, that concern would be addressed.

While there are prohibitions within the proposed local law Section 112-4.4 K. and Section 112-4-5 G. that expressly prohibit approval of any project whose primary goal is to increase density or intensity of use, it seems that it depends on the good offices of the town board and associated town approval agencies to guard against that being an ancillary result of any project, whether primary or not.

While our current town board is clearly on the side of limited density and improving water quality, no such prediction can be made for the future. It would be better to craft legislation that specifically addresses even the possibility that our necessary water quality improvements could even tangentially allow for a future increase in density and development. Such a change would be much more in the spirit of the C.P.F. as originally designed.

IRA BAROCAS

C.P.F. Referendum

East Hampton

August 1, 2016

Dear David, 

We applaud our town board for proposing a referendum to extend the life of the community preservation fund and allow for C.P.F. funds to be used for groundwater quality improvement. 

We share your concern as expressed in your editorial last week about the need to strengthen the proposed law so as to absolutely assure that C.P.F. funds will not be used for projects that result in increased growth, and believe that such a change will prevent a boon for developers; however, we do not think the referendum should be delayed for more investigation as you suggested. We recommend that the language of the proposed law be tightened to absolutely prohibit use of C.P.F. funds for new development. 

Our town is in a water-quality crisis, and its leaders need to be able to combat the conditions that are causing nitrogen levels to rise to levels that are killing the marine life in our bays and endangering the quality of our drinking water and affecting our ability to recreate, thereby degrading the quality of our lives.

No time should be wasted in giving the town board the power to do so. We met with Kim Shaw, director of the East Hampton Town Department of Natural Resources. Ms. Shaw told us that the proposed law will enable the town to carry out marine and other water quality improvement projects, as well as assist homeowners in replacing their cesspools and septic systems with equipment that more efficiently breaks down and eliminates toxic waste. The antiquated systems are the source of wastewater that finds its way into our groundwater, as well as into our bays. Our drinking water is also in peril if we don’t have ways to improve its quality.

Simply acquiring land to prevent development is clearly not the whole story. Without the ability to prevent pollution the town is fighting a losing battle. This would be so even if there were absolutely no further development and all developable land were acquired by the town. The town must have the ability to prevent existing homes from causing groundwater pollution. 

The proposed law will enable it to do so!

RONA KLOPMAN

BETTY MAZUR

DAVID J. WEINSTEIN