Letters to the Editor

Kindness
    La Grande, Ore.
    December 20, 2011
To the Editor:
    My heartfelt thanks to the wonderful community of Montauk for its support, compassion, and friendship for my father, Jorge Rosa, over the years and also for its caring, concern, and help while I was in Montauk for Dad’s funeral service.
    Members of the Montauk community, the local merchants, and Father Michael of St. Therese of Lisieux Catholic Church made a sad and difficult time much more bearable, as did the friends who where there to honor and celebrate Dad’s life.
    Special thanks to my friend Jane Behan Bimson, who has been such a support over the years to both my parents. Her twice-weekly visits to my parents, bringing them the trifle dessert they so enjoyed and her loving-kindness, will never ever be forgotten.
    To the community of Montauk and to Jane, thank you for the kindness and compassion you have shown me, and I wish you a very wonderful Christmas.
    In gratitude,
    WENDY ROSA-MONDA
Watchful Eyes
    Montauk
    December 20, 2011
Dear Editor,
    My name is Hank Lackner. I am the owner and operator of the fishing vessel Jason and Danielle, home-ported in Montauk. I would like to thank Chief Walters of the Montauk Coast Guard and Bill Wilkinson for their constant oversight of the dredging project in Montauk Harbor.
    Although we did not get the jetties dredged to our desired 17-foot depth, I believe without their watchful eyes, the fishermen of Montauk would have never gotten the job done as well as it was. It appears to me that the 12-foot depth was achieved, and, at least for a few months, we can transit the jetties without fear and continue to land our fish in our home port while stimulating the local economy.
    Thank you,
    HANK LACKNER
Time and Energy
    East Hampton
    December 16, 2011
Dear Mr. Rattray:
    On Sunday, Dec. 11, the Springs Fire Department made available delicious holiday dinners for delivery to clients of East Hampton Meals on Wheels and their family members, who were unable to attend the dinner at the firehouse.
    This service filled a tremendous need in our community, because the clients who received these holiday meals were homebound and unable to cook special holiday meals for themselves or for their families.
    We heartily thank all members of the Springs Fire Department, who skillfully coordinated the event with our organization and who gave so generously of their time and energy to make this holiday season pleasurable for many lonely individuals.
    We are thankful to live in a community in which so many organizations and individuals are concerned for the needs of their neighbors.
    Thank you again, Springs Fire Department.
    Very truly yours,
    CYNTHIA P. KABACK
    President
    East Hampton Meals on Wheels
Whiff of a Rat
    Falls Church, Va.
    December 20, 2011
Dear Editor:
    I had a nightmare last night. It went like this: I was part of a team of workers for the Town of East Hampton. Our job was to monitor the environment and serve as scientific advisers. Our charge included being watchdog, protector, scientific resource, and so on, all for the purpose of preserving and protecting the environment.
    One day we were informed that an official mission was under way, approved by the town administrators, to do some alterations to the salt marshes. Immediately, barges arrived with loads of peat and started dumping it on the marshes. I protested vehemently, first to the hired contractors, then to the town administrators. From the latter I heard, “Sorry, but we need the money that this will bring.” (The dream didn’t make the connection between the two.)
    I awoke distraught, and as I lay in bed I couldn’t help but notice the connection between the dream and what I had just read in The Star about what seems to be round two of the “let’s get rid of Larry Penny” campaign. (My Star arrives late, via snail mail, to my home in Virginia.) Although I am not in a position to judge the purported reasons for his suspension, or whether they are warranted, I thought I got a whiff of a rat.
    If the town does get rid of Larry, it must be diligent in its efforts to find a qualified replacement. He is a rare breed, extremely intelligent, rooted in our natural history, and an all-around qualified environmentalist, not to mention a warrior for the cause. I hope he is not on his way out, but if he is, I hope the town officials will seek a highly qualified replacement for him and not dismantle a critically important component of the town government.
    Sincerely,
    SUSAN JEWETT
Vast Conspiracy
    Bridgehampton
    December 26, 2011
To the Editor:
    Tim Sullivan finds a vast conspiracy behind Larry Penny’s suspension. He blames (in no particular order) Cathy Lester, the Nature Conservancy, Theresa Quigley, a pastry chef, Democrats on the East Hampton Town Board, Natural Resources Department staffers, Bill McGintee, a liquor salesman, Bill Wilkinson, Tony Bullock, Republicans on the town board, Brad Lowen, and Julia Prince, among others. The stupendous length, not only of Mr. Sullivan’s two-column letter, but also of his bipartisan list, leads one to wonder who has not been included on this list and why.
    It also leads one to wonder exactly what inspired such vehemence in Mr. Sullivan. This kind of behavior is usually confined to paid agents provocateurs, 12-step program dropouts, and jilted lovers.
MILES JAFFE
Profit and Monopoly
    Springs
    December 22, 2011
Dear Editor:
    I’m not surprised the Wilk-Quigley duo is proposing to ban fueling commercial fishing boats from trucks on our docks. It’s another demonstration of the contempt they have for the men and women who struggle every day in the fishing industry. I’m a bit surprised at your editorial, though. It seems you  don’t understand the issue or haven’t heard any of the past arguments. Let me refresh your memory:
    In the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program document and the town code it’s recognized in numerous places the need for reasonably priced and accessible fueling for commercial vessels. It doesn’t say environmental rules should be disregarded nor set prices nor worry of the cost of requirements nor be concerned with where fueling took place. Interestingly, fueling from trucks has a much better environmental record then land-based marina fueling has had. It left open the opportunity for enterprising business persons to provide a vital service at a profit they thought reasonable. It was fuel truckers who stepped in and met the cost and requirements to provide the service. Please note, it cost them money and effort to give this service. It’s not free but it’s the American way.
    A few years ago the town board proposed an addition to the code that would ensure truckers meet extra requirements for fueling over the docks to protect the environment, indemnify the town, and carry extra insurance, safety equipment, and other things. And each trucker agreed it was a good idea for their business.
    At the public hearing for the code addition many of the marina operators from town and their paid lobbyists were there to protest in the most despicable way. They accused truckers, without evidence, of environmental vandalism and ignorance, tax evasion, delivering illegal fuel, even the innuendo of showing favoritism toward enforcement personnel. But most of all they argued they were required to pay a lot of money and effort to meet the requirements for them to sell fuel and reap a profit. They thought truckers were unfair competition and should be banned. I guess the expectation of profit and monopoly in this town is the American way because that’s just what Wilk-Quigley is proposing. It’s too bad the past town board wimped out and didn’t act.
    Your thought that a company set up a fueling station on a dock is wrong. It will only provide reasonably priced and accessible fuel to some and then only if the town requires it. The town could have its own fueling facility and pump cheap fuel, as it does for millionaire jet owners at the airport. But that doesn’t offer the monopoly marina owners demand or impede the fishing fleet, as some wish.
    Maybe it’s best to confront, by code, any public concerns and let business people do business.
BRAD LOEWEN

    Mr. Loewen is a former East Hampton Town councilman. Ed.
Against the Patents
    Amagansett
    December 20, 2011
Dear David,
    This evening my bride and I went to John Papas for dinner.
    Lo and behold, sitting at a booth was former Town Justice Roger Walker. Ever since his decision against the town’s patents as they pertain to my fish license case, on May 18, 1999, I have wanted to know what in the Lord’s name he was talking about in his decision against me.
    Roger wrote more than a page about who would purchase or not purchase the Indian lands at Montauk in the late 1600s.
    He cited and underlined sections of the Dongan Patent about these Indian lands, then declared, “This court is hard pressed to conclude that the defendant has a valid defense of his argument given the aforementioned excerpts from the Dongan Patent itself.”
    At John Papas I asked Roger Walker, What does the purchase of Indian lands at Montauk have to do with my refusal to purchase a New York State fishing license?
    I was stunned by Roger’s reply. Roger stated that he never did any such thing, that I must have the wrong person.
    It is not very often that someone can render me speechless as Roger Walker did with his comments about the decision he signed against the patents and me on May 18, 1999.
    When I gathered back my wits, I asked my bride, “Is that Roger Walker?” She assured me it was he.
    Since 1999 I have been told several times that someone other than Judge Roger Walker wrote this dumber-than-a-box of rocks decision.
    Perhaps this is why he told me at John Papas that he never did any such thing.
    My question is, where’s the justice? There certainly was none for me in East  Hampton Town Justice Court.
    Cheers,
    STUART VORPAHL
Most Insidious
    East Hampton
    December 23, 2011
To the Editor:
    During these days closest to Christmas, one would think that the selfish advocates of federal control of noise regulation at East Hampton Airport would have the charity to quiet, at least temporarily, their campaign of misrepresentation. But one would be wrong.
    The latest airport promotional salvo, in your 22 Dec. letters pages, asserts that there is “an honest disagreement” about the best approach to airport noise control. It continues that the “anti-airport . . . special interests have enjoyed almost exclusive political influence over town airport policy for most of the past 15 years.” In today’s New York Times, Paul Krugman writes of the “post-truth” political era at the national level. Well, we have it right here in East Hampton.
    The aviation interests would have us forget the unscrupulous process that led to runway expansion, the town’s 1990s expansionist airport layout plan that could not stand up under scrutiny, and the town board’s substantial indifference to the years of recommendations from its own airport noise abatement advisory committee. So much for noise abatement’s “almost exclusive political influence.”
    And, the most obvious nonsense is the characterization of airport noise victims as “special interests.” The narrow group of wealthy (and some uber-wealthy) airport users and advocates must now be looking in the mirror. Apparently, they cannot imagine a grassroots uprising of airport noise victims.
    But the “honest disagreement” assertion is the most insidious of the falsehoods. The airport proponents and the town board majority talk over and over again about the Federal Aviation Administration as “a partner” and about F.A.A. “cooperation.” They say those things even though they know that the F.A.A. has never consented to curfews or other noise limits at an airport subject to the grant assurances that come with F.A.A. subsidies. In only one case, that of Naples, Fla., has an airport succeeded, but only by order of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and after millions of dollars in litigation.
    Moreover, the aviation interests also know that in the National Helicopter Case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which construes federal law in New York, has made this area of federal law abundantly clear: Without grant assurances, a municipal airport proprietor like East Hampton Town can impose reasonable nondiscriminatory airport noise limitations on aircraft if based upon a sound environmental impact study.
    In other words, the airport special interest proponents know that the F.A.A. has never cooperatively allowed curfews or other noise-limiting aircraft restrictions at airports under grant assurances from federal subsidy. And they know also that municipal airports like East Hampton’s can impose such restrictions absent such grant assurances. Yet they keep telling us just the opposite. “Honest disagreement,” indeed!
    It is critical for the relief of our community from excessive jet, helicopter, and seaplane noise that the town not accept any further F.A.A. funding. When current grant assurances expire on Dec. 13, 2014, the town will be able to enforce effective airport noise control.
    Until the end of 2014, we can watch the town proceed with its “cooperative” approach. That should be a reasonable period for testing the efficacy of F.A.A. cooperation. Why should not the aviation advocates agree?
    Sincerely,
    CHARLES A. EHREN JR.
Will Be Stuck
    East Hampton
    December 26, 2011
Dear David:
    It is sad indeed to read Judith Hope defending the pocketbooks and privileges of private aircraft owners, including herself and her husband, Tom Twomey, by railing against imaginary “anti-F.A.A. activists.” Judith Hope was once an environmental activist who well understood that it was the responsibility of East Hampton Town government to balance financial gain for some against the loss of recognizable place for the many. No more, it seems.
    There are no “anti-F.A.A. activists.” The dispute over the imposition of airport noise upon the many for the benefit of a tiny handful of aircraft owners such as Ms. Hope and Mr. Twomey is not about personal animus toward the F.A.A. It is about the fact that F.A.A. policy obstructs any use restrictions, such as curfews or exclusions of airport types, at an airport subject to its control. If East Hampton takes more money from the F.A.A. for a deer fence, as Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilman Dominick Stanzione want to do, we will be stuck with F.A.A. control for 20 more years.
    As things now stand, the relevant agreements that give the F.A.A. control of access to East Hampton Airport will expire on Dec. 31, 2014, three years from now. At that time, the East Hampton Town Board, as airport proprietor, would have the power to limit hours of operation, reduce the number of airport operations, and/or exclude aircraft types, such as helicopters, deemed too noisy, all for the explicit purpose of protecting the community from noise.
    We know this with certainty because the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has said so in the case of National Helicopter v. City of New York. The jurisdiction of the Second Circuit includes East Hampton, and its word is the law here unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise. But here’s the catch. The city’s heliport was not subject to grant assurances that give the F.A.A. control over airport access. Santa Monica Airport also achieved use restrictions, because it too was not subject to F.A.A. control over airport access.
Federal Aviation Administration policy is never to consent to use restrictions for any airport subject to its authority under a grant agreement. The F.A.A. has never done so. In Naples, Fla., the F.A.A. refused its consent. Naples succeeded, but only after a multiyear court battle that cost a reported $6 million.
    Burbank tried. The F.A.A. of course refused, specifically citing its grant agreement with Burbank Airport, and Burbank did not bother to sue the F.A.A..  
    Can Ms. Hope, Mr. Twomey, or the East Hampton Airport Association identify any instance in history where the F.A.A. has agreed to use restrictions at an airport subject to its control? Diligent search has found not one. It would be welcome if they could back their claims about F.A.A. cooperation with some facts. Indeed, can they identify any single airport out of the 20,000 in the country that has successfully controlled noise while subject to a grant agreement with the F.A.A.?
    The most important point, however, is this: If, as Judith Hope claims, the problem can be solved by cooperating with the F.A.A., show us. There are still three years to run on the existing F.A.A. grant agreement. That is plenty of time to obtain whatever relief the aircraft owners claim we can obtain from the F.A.A.. Go ahead: Demonstrate to the community that you are not just inventing a falsehood out of financial self-interest. (Has there ever been a polluter that did not claim that its emissions either didn’t exist or would cause no harm?)
    What is most striking about the aircraft owners, who are the only ones who benefit from F.A.A. subsidies, is that they are hell-bent to take more F.A.A. money before we know whether noise can successfully be controlled while subject to a grant agreement with the F.A.A. Any rational person, sincerely interested in solving the noise problem, would want to know whether we can solve the problem before ceding the town’s proprietary powers to the F.A.A. for another 20 years. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the aircraft owners are indeed desperate to take the money before we know the answer lest the facts prove them wrong.
    There is no provision in federal law for early termination of an F.A.A. grant agreement. If the claims of the aircraft owners are wrong, what will they say when we are again stuck with the F.A.A. for 20 years and nothing has been accomplished — “Oops, sorry. Too bad for East Hampton, but great for us who still don’t have to pay the costs of the airport?”
    Sincerely,
    DAVID GRUBER
Strange Day
    East Hampton
    December 22, 2011
Dear Editor,
    My great-aunt Filomina Tutti-Lini and I were strolling through Herrick Park when a big ol’ black 10-gallon hat zipped by us. It was only a foot off the ground and moving fast. Zia Filomina took off after it, dived under the brim, and popped up a few seconds later.
    “Giuseppe, itza Rick Perry.”
    “I thought he was six feet tall?”
    Zia told me that in Texas he is, but as soon as he crosses the border he shrinks.
    Mosying along, we noticed a large crowd had gathered under an oak tree. They were looking up at a man who was dressed like Davy Crockett. He was out on a limb shouting, “Better red than live with the fed. Let’s be bold and go back to gold; standard that is.”
    Zia said she liked the man in the tree, but she thought he would be happier in the last century.
    It was a strange day, as a big-headed lizard ambled by and nodded at us. Zia, who is fluent in Lizardo, started chatting. When they finished, she told me he was a Gink lizard, subspecies hippocritii, and that he was going to Tiffany, thanks to the generosity of his Uncle Freddie and Aunt Fannie. He was also amused that he had three wives while his two pals, who could have as many as they liked, had only one each.
    “Mama mia!” cried Zia as a portly, pasty-faced fellow, decked out in a pink tutu, gold ballet slippers, and a rhinestone tiara, danced by. He was up on his toes, flapping his arms and singing, “I’m not gay, I’m just lively.”
    “Zia, is chubby Michelle’s hubby?”
    “Si.”
    We went to lean against a tree. It came to life, stuck out a hand, and said, “Hi, I’m Mitt.”
    I had all I could do to stop my great-aunt from launching a devastating side kick to the chops.
    “Giuseppe, why you stop me? I make splinters outta him.”
    “Zia, he’s from Bain Capital.”
    On our way to get some pizza, we passed a man in a business suit shouting, “I’m the other Rick.”
    No one paid attention. I ordered a slice with anchovies and mushrooms, excused myself, and went to the restroom. When I came out I saw Zia Filo­mina pressed up against some middle-aged black man who looked like he was measuring her. When she came over I asked if the man was trying to raise some Cain with her.
    “No, his name is Kingfish, and he say I’ma the same size as his wife. He also say that he’s leaving town to meet his goomba D.S.K. in Uz Beki Beki Beki.”
    Our thoughts turned to dinner, and we were off to see Bob and Kevin at Park Place Liquors to pick up a bottle of Ruffino Riserva Ducale. Rounding the corner we heard a most beautiful voice saying, “Yes, we can. Hope and change,” and other inspiring soundbites. We didn’t see anyone — the only thing we saw was an expensive-looking sound system, a coatrack with an empty blue suit hanging from it, and a life-size, cardboard cutout of the president fluttering in the breeze.
    There was a tag in the breast pocket of the suit. It read “Bought and paid for by your Wall Street buddies.”
    “Zia Filomina, It’s Hobson’s choice.”
    “Watza that?”
    “There’s no choice at all.”
JOE TOTO
Now Are Captive
    East Hampton
    December 19, 2011
Dear Editor,
    Every day, in every way, I am reminded why I have never voted for a Republican candidate for any office, anywhere — city, state, or federal, and never will. They are duplicitous, lying, two-faced four flushers whose interests have never coincided with mine.
    Now, here, today, my determination to avoid Republicans as the plague they are is stronger than ever. They declare openly that their sole aim is to defeat President Obama, and then they oppose every positive change he and his administration propose to lift the country out of the major recession they caused. They deny him the support every president needs.
    They block appointments to major agencies. They filibuster every positive effort. They deny additional judges that are desperately needed. They oppose ending the war in Iraq. They deny unemployment benefit extensions, deny payroll-tax-waiver extensions, scream about oil pipelines that offer few permanent jobs, cut college Pell grants, cut food stamps and meals for poor kids, rip out or diminish spending for health care, ignore public support for middle-class tax cuts, and fight to extend millionaires’ tax benefits.
    They are oblivious to the needs of the population other than upper middle class and millionaires. They threaten Social Security and Medicare — the lifelines of millions of senior citizens, and they keep the world markets on edge with the uncertainty that comes with zealots: You never know which way they will go.
    John Boehner, their erudite, crybaby, supposed leader in the House, cannot cement the deals he makes with his opposite number. He is consistently coming back with proposals different from the ones he had agreed to after he is bludgeoned by Tea Party extremists that the Republicans allowed to gain veto positions in the party and now are captive to them.
    Public opinion means nothing; environment means nothing; fraud in voting is bandied about while they cut voting rights around the country though there is no proof of such fraud! Oil would benefit their big-money donors, so they support unlimited, uncontrolled offshore drilling after gutting oversight regulations. Global warming doesn’t concern them, nor does science in general, but invasion of our bedrooms and our sexual orientation becomes important to them. Religious promotion is paramount to free speech, and gun control is an anathema to them while thousands die each year.
    Want to vote Republican? Go Ging­rich; he fits the bill perfectly.
    Okay out there, you conservative minions, tell me where I am wrong.
RICHARD P. HIGER
Taking Its Toll
    Sag Harbor
    December 22, 2011
To the Editor,
    This letter is addressed to the uniformed members of the armed services, the uninformed, those in denial, victims of mind control, those too young to understand, and those prepared to give up their lives for their country. Beware!
    In Iraq and Afghanistan hundreds of thousands have been deployed four or five times with pockets full of mind-altering drugs and returned with intensified cases of post-traumatic stress disorder for the rest of their lives.
    We recently learned the Air Force is having similar problems with drone operators. Their long hours of work and shift changes are creating high levels of stress, along with P.T.S.D. Pushing buttons and launching drones so frequently has caused the deaths of many innocent civilians and children and is now taking its toll on drone operators.
    Beware, slaves of capitalism, the bottom line is money.
    In peace,
    LARRY DARCEYKindness
    La Grande, Ore.
    December 20, 2011
To the Editor:
    My heartfelt thanks to the wonderful community of Montauk for its support, compassion, and friendship for my father, Jorge Rosa, over the years and also for its caring, concern, and help while I was in Montauk for Dad’s funeral service.
    Members of the Montauk community, the local merchants, and Father Michael of St. Therese of Lisieux Catholic Church made a sad and difficult time much more bearable, as did the friends who where there to honor and celebrate Dad’s life.
    Special thanks to my friend Jane Behan Bimson, who has been such a support over the years to both my parents. Her twice-weekly visits to my parents, bringing them the trifle dessert they so enjoyed and her loving-kindness, will never ever be forgotten.
    To the community of Montauk and to Jane, thank you for the kindness and compassion you have shown me, and I wish you a very wonderful Christmas.
    In gratitude,
    WENDY ROSA-MONDA
Watchful Eyes
    Montauk
    December 20, 2011
Dear Editor,
    My name is Hank Lackner. I am the owner and operator of the fishing vessel Jason and Danielle, home-ported in Montauk. I would like to thank Chief Walters of the Montauk Coast Guard and Bill Wilkinson for their constant oversight of the dredging project in Montauk Harbor.
    Although we did not get the jetties dredged to our desired 17-foot depth, I believe without their watchful eyes, the fishermen of Montauk would have never gotten the job done as well as it was. It appears to me that the 12-foot depth was achieved, and, at least for a few months, we can transit the jetties without fear and continue to land our fish in our home port while stimulating the local economy.
    Thank you,
    HANK LACKNER
Time and Energy
    East Hampton
    December 16, 2011
Dear Mr. Rattray:
    On Sunday, Dec. 11, the Springs Fire Department made available delicious holiday dinners for delivery to clients of East Hampton Meals on Wheels and their family members, who were unable to attend the dinner at the firehouse.
    This service filled a tremendous need in our community, because the clients who received these holiday meals were homebound and unable to cook special holiday meals for themselves or for their families.
    We heartily thank all members of the Springs Fire Department, who skillfully coordinated the event with our organization and who gave so generously of their time and energy to make this holiday season pleasurable for many lonely individuals.
    We are thankful to live in a community in which so many organizations and individuals are concerned for the needs of their neighbors.
    Thank you again, Springs Fire Department.
    Very truly yours,
    CYNTHIA P. KABACK
    President
    East Hampton Meals on Wheels
Whiff of a Rat
    Falls Church, Va.
    December 20, 2011
Dear Editor:
    I had a nightmare last night. It went like this: I was part of a team of workers for the Town of East Hampton. Our job was to monitor the environment and serve as scientific advisers. Our charge included being watchdog, protector, scientific resource, and so on, all for the purpose of preserving and protecting the environment.
    One day we were informed that an official mission was under way, approved by the town administrators, to do some alterations to the salt marshes. Immediately, barges arrived with loads of peat and started dumping it on the marshes. I protested vehemently, first to the hired contractors, then to the town administrators. From the latter I heard, “Sorry, but we need the money that this will bring.” (The dream didn’t make the connection between the two.)
    I awoke distraught, and as I lay in bed I couldn’t help but notice the connection between the dream and what I had just read in The Star about what seems to be round two of the “let’s get rid of Larry Penny” campaign. (My Star arrives late, via snail mail, to my home in Virginia.) Although I am not in a position to judge the purported reasons for his suspension, or whether they are warranted, I thought I got a whiff of a rat.
    If the town does get rid of Larry, it must be diligent in its efforts to find a qualified replacement. He is a rare breed, extremely intelligent, rooted in our natural history, and an all-around qualified environmentalist, not to mention a warrior for the cause. I hope he is not on his way out, but if he is, I hope the town officials will seek a highly qualified replacement for him and not dismantle a critically important component of the town government.
    Sincerely,
    SUSAN JEWETT
Vast Conspiracy
    Bridgehampton
    December 26, 2011
To the Editor:
    Tim Sullivan finds a vast conspiracy behind Larry Penny’s suspension. He blames (in no particular order) Cathy Lester, the Nature Conservancy, Theresa Quigley, a pastry chef, Democrats on the East Hampton Town Board, Natural Resources Department staffers, Bill McGintee, a liquor salesman, Bill Wilkinson, Tony Bullock, Republicans on the town board, Brad Lowen, and Julia Prince, among others. The stupendous length, not only of Mr. Sullivan’s two-column letter, but also of his bipartisan list, leads one to wonder who has not been included on this list and why.
    It also leads one to wonder exactly what inspired such vehemence in Mr. Sullivan. This kind of behavior is usually confined to paid agents provocateurs, 12-step program dropouts, and jilted lovers.
MILES JAFFE
Profit and Monopoly
    Springs
    December 22, 2011
Dear Editor:
    I’m not surprised the Wilk-Quigley duo is proposing to ban fueling commercial fishing boats from trucks on our docks. It’s another demonstration of the contempt they have for the men and women who struggle every day in the fishing industry. I’m a bit surprised at your editorial, though. It seems you  don’t understand the issue or haven’t heard any of the past arguments. Let me refresh your memory:
    In the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program document and the town code it’s recognized in numerous places the need for reasonably priced and accessible fueling for commercial vessels. It doesn’t say environmental rules should be disregarded nor set prices nor worry of the cost of requirements nor be concerned with where fueling took place. Interestingly, fueling from trucks has a much better environmental record then land-based marina fueling has had. It left open the opportunity for enterprising business persons to provide a vital service at a profit they thought reasonable. It was fuel truckers who stepped in and met the cost and requirements to provide the service. Please note, it cost them money and effort to give this service. It’s not free but it’s the American way.
    A few years ago the town board proposed an addition to the code that would ensure truckers meet extra requirements for fueling over the docks to protect the environment, indemnify the town, and carry extra insurance, safety equipment, and other things. And each trucker agreed it was a good idea for their business.
    At the public hearing for the code addition many of the marina operators from town and their paid lobbyists were there to protest in the most despicable way. They accused truckers, without evidence, of environmental vandalism and ignorance, tax evasion, delivering illegal fuel, even the innuendo of showing favoritism toward enforcement personnel. But most of all they argued they were required to pay a lot of money and effort to meet the requirements for them to sell fuel and reap a profit. They thought truckers were unfair competition and should be banned. I guess the expectation of profit and monopoly in this town is the American way because that’s just what Wilk-Quigley is proposing. It’s too bad the past town board wimped out and didn’t act.
    Your thought that a company set up a fueling station on a dock is wrong. It will only provide reasonably priced and accessible fuel to some and then only if the town requires it. The town could have its own fueling facility and pump cheap fuel, as it does for millionaire jet owners at the airport. But that doesn’t offer the monopoly marina owners demand or impede the fishing fleet, as some wish.
    Maybe it’s best to confront, by code, any public concerns and let business people do business.
BRAD LOEWEN

    Mr. Loewen is a former East Hampton Town councilman. Ed.
Against the Patents
    Amagansett
    December 20, 2011
Dear David,
    This evening my bride and I went to John Papas for dinner.
    Lo and behold, sitting at a booth was former Town Justice Roger Walker. Ever since his decision against the town’s patents as they pertain to my fish license case, on May 18, 1999, I have wanted to know what in the Lord’s name he was talking about in his decision against me.
    Roger wrote more than a page about who would purchase or not purchase the Indian lands at Montauk in the late 1600s.
    He cited and underlined sections of the Dongan Patent about these Indian lands, then declared, “This court is hard pressed to conclude that the defendant has a valid defense of his argument given the aforementioned excerpts from the Dongan Patent itself.”
    At John Papas I asked Roger Walker, What does the purchase of Indian lands at Montauk have to do with my refusal to purchase a New York State fishing license?
    I was stunned by Roger’s reply. Roger stated that he never did any such thing, that I must have the wrong person.
    It is not very often that someone can render me speechless as Roger Walker did with his comments about the decision he signed against the patents and me on May 18, 1999.
    When I gathered back my wits, I asked my bride, “Is that Roger Walker?” She assured me it was he.
    Since 1999 I have been told several times that someone other than Judge Roger Walker wrote this dumber-than-a-box of rocks decision.
    Perhaps this is why he told me at John Papas that he never did any such thing.
    My question is, where’s the justice? There certainly was none for me in East  Hampton Town Justice Court.
    Cheers,
    STUART VORPAHL
Most Insidious
    East Hampton
    December 23, 2011
To the Editor:
    During these days closest to Christmas, one would think that the selfish advocates of federal control of noise regulation at East Hampton Airport would have the charity to quiet, at least temporarily, their campaign of misrepresentation. But one would be wrong.
    The latest airport promotional salvo, in your 22 Dec. letters pages, asserts that there is “an honest disagreement” about the best approach to airport noise control. It continues that the “anti-airport . . . special interests have enjoyed almost exclusive political influence over town airport policy for most of the past 15 years.” In today’s New York Times, Paul Krugman writes of the “post-truth” political era at the national level. Well, we have it right here in East Hampton.
    The aviation interests would have us forget the unscrupulous process that led to runway expansion, the town’s 1990s expansionist airport layout plan that could not stand up under scrutiny, and the town board’s substantial indifference to the years of recommendations from its own airport noise abatement advisory committee. So much for noise abatement’s “almost exclusive political influence.”
    And, the most obvious nonsense is the characterization of airport noise victims as “special interests.” The narrow group of wealthy (and some uber-wealthy) airport users and advocates must now be looking in the mirror. Apparently, they cannot imagine a grassroots uprising of airport noise victims.
    But the “honest disagreement” assertion is the most insidious of the falsehoods. The airport proponents and the town board majority talk over and over again about the Federal Aviation Administration as “a partner” and about F.A.A. “cooperation.” They say those things even though they know that the F.A.A. has never consented to curfews or other noise limits at an airport subject to the grant assurances that come with F.A.A. subsidies. In only one case, that of Naples, Fla., has an airport succeeded, but only by order of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and after millions of dollars in litigation.
    Moreover, the aviation interests also know that in the National Helicopter Case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which construes federal law in New York, has made this area of federal law abundantly clear: Without grant assurances, a municipal airport proprietor like East Hampton Town can impose reasonable nondiscriminatory airport noise limitations on aircraft if based upon a sound environmental impact study.
    In other words, the airport special interest proponents know that the F.A.A. has never cooperatively allowed curfews or other noise-limiting aircraft restrictions at airports under grant assurances from federal subsidy. And they know also that municipal airports like East Hampton’s can impose such restrictions absent such grant assurances. Yet they keep telling us just the opposite. “Honest disagreement,” indeed!
    It is critical for the relief of our community from excessive jet, helicopter, and seaplane noise that the town not accept any further F.A.A. funding. When current grant assurances expire on Dec. 13, 2014, the town will be able to enforce effective airport noise control.
    Until the end of 2014, we can watch the town proceed with its “cooperative” approach. That should be a reasonable period for testing the efficacy of F.A.A. cooperation. Why should not the aviation advocates agree?
    Sincerely,
    CHARLES A. EHREN JR.
Will Be Stuck
    East Hampton
    December 26, 2011
Dear David:
    It is sad indeed to read Judith Hope defending the pocketbooks and privileges of private aircraft owners, including herself and her husband, Tom Twomey, by railing against imaginary “anti-F.A.A. activists.” Judith Hope was once an environmental activist who well understood that it was the responsibility of East Hampton Town government to balance financial gain for some against the loss of recognizable place for the many. No more, it seems.
    There are no “anti-F.A.A. activists.” The dispute over the imposition of airport noise upon the many for the benefit of a tiny handful of aircraft owners such as Ms. Hope and Mr. Twomey is not about personal animus toward the F.A.A. It is about the fact that F.A.A. policy obstructs any use restrictions, such as curfews or exclusions of airport types, at an airport subject to its control. If East Hampton takes more money from the F.A.A. for a deer fence, as Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilman Dominick Stanzione want to do, we will be stuck with F.A.A. control for 20 more years.
    As things now stand, the relevant agreements that give the F.A.A. control of access to East Hampton Airport will expire on Dec. 31, 2014, three years from now. At that time, the East Hampton Town Board, as airport proprietor, would have the power to limit hours of operation, reduce the number of airport operations, and/or exclude aircraft types, such as helicopters, deemed too noisy, all for the explicit purpose of protecting the community from noise.
    We know this with certainty because the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has said so in the case of National Helicopter v. City of New York. The jurisdiction of the Second Circuit includes East Hampton, and its word is the law here unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise. But here’s the catch. The city’s heliport was not subject to grant assurances that give the F.A.A. control over airport access. Santa Monica Airport also achieved use restrictions, because it too was not subject to F.A.A. control over airport access.
Federal Aviation Administration policy is never to consent to use restrictions for any airport subject to its authority under a grant agreement. The F.A.A. has never done so. In Naples, Fla., the F.A.A. refused its consent. Naples succeeded, but only after a multiyear court battle that cost a reported $6 million.
    Burbank tried. The F.A.A. of course refused, specifically citing its grant agreement with Burbank Airport, and Burbank did not bother to sue the F.A.A..  
    Can Ms. Hope, Mr. Twomey, or the East Hampton Airport Association identify any instance in history where the F.A.A. has agreed to use restrictions at an airport subject to its control? Diligent search has found not one. It would be welcome if they could back their claims about F.A.A. cooperation with some facts. Indeed, can they identify any single airport out of the 20,000 in the country that has successfully controlled noise while subject to a grant agreement with the F.A.A.?
    The most important point, however, is this: If, as Judith Hope claims, the problem can be solved by cooperating with the F.A.A., show us. There are still three years to run on the existing F.A.A. grant agreement. That is plenty of time to obtain whatever relief the aircraft owners claim we can obtain from the F.A.A.. Go ahead: Demonstrate to the community that you are not just inventing a falsehood out of financial self-interest. (Has there ever been a polluter that did not claim that its emissions either didn’t exist or would cause no harm?)
    What is most striking about the aircraft owners, who are the only ones who benefit from F.A.A. subsidies, is that they are hell-bent to take more F.A.A. money before we know whether noise can successfully be controlled while subject to a grant agreement with the F.A.A. Any rational person, sincerely interested in solving the noise problem, would want to know whether we can solve the problem before ceding the town’s proprietary powers to the F.A.A. for another 20 years. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the aircraft owners are indeed desperate to take the money before we know the answer lest the facts prove them wrong.
    There is no provision in federal law for early termination of an F.A.A. grant agreement. If the claims of the aircraft owners are wrong, what will they say when we are again stuck with the F.A.A. for 20 years and nothing has been accomplished — “Oops, sorry. Too bad for East Hampton, but great for us who still don’t have to pay the costs of the airport?”
    Sincerely,
    DAVID GRUBER
Strange Day
    East Hampton
    December 22, 2011
Dear Editor,
    My great-aunt Filomina Tutti-Lini and I were strolling through Herrick Park when a big ol’ black 10-gallon hat zipped by us. It was only a foot off the ground and moving fast. Zia Filomina took off after it, dived under the brim, and popped up a few seconds later.
    “Giuseppe, itza Rick Perry.”
    “I thought he was six feet tall?”
    Zia told me that in Texas he is, but as soon as he crosses the border he shrinks.
    Mosying along, we noticed a large crowd had gathered under an oak tree. They were looking up at a man who was dressed like Davy Crockett. He was out on a limb shouting, “Better red than live with the fed. Let’s be bold and go back to gold; standard that is.”
    Zia said she liked the man in the tree, but she thought he would be happier in the last century.
    It was a strange day, as a big-headed lizard ambled by and nodded at us. Zia, who is fluent in Lizardo, started chatting. When they finished, she told me he was a Gink lizard, subspecies hippocritii, and that he was going to Tiffany, thanks to the generosity of his Uncle Freddie and Aunt Fannie. He was also amused that he had three wives while his two pals, who could have as many as they liked, had only one each.
    “Mama mia!” cried Zia as a portly, pasty-faced fellow, decked out in a pink tutu, gold ballet slippers, and a rhinestone tiara, danced by. He was up on his toes, flapping his arms and singing, “I’m not gay, I’m just lively.”
    “Zia, is chubby Michelle’s hubby?”
    “Si.”
    We went to lean against a tree. It came to life, stuck out a hand, and said, “Hi, I’m Mitt.”
    I had all I could do to stop my great-aunt from launching a devastating side kick to the chops.
    “Giuseppe, why you stop me? I make splinters outta him.”
    “Zia, he’s from Bain Capital.”
    On our way to get some pizza, we passed a man in a business suit shouting, “I’m the other Rick.”
    No one paid attention. I ordered a slice with anchovies and mushrooms, excused myself, and went to the restroom. When I came out I saw Zia Filo­mina pressed up against some middle-aged black man who looked like he was measuring her. When she came over I asked if the man was trying to raise some Cain with her.
    “No, his name is Kingfish, and he say I’ma the same size as his wife. He also say that he’s leaving town to meet his goomba D.S.K. in Uz Beki Beki Beki.”
    Our thoughts turned to dinner, and we were off to see Bob and Kevin at Park Place Liquors to pick up a bottle of Ruffino Riserva Ducale. Rounding the corner we heard a most beautiful voice saying, “Yes, we can. Hope and change,” and other inspiring soundbites. We didn’t see anyone — the only thing we saw was an expensive-looking sound system, a coatrack with an empty blue suit hanging from it, and a life-size, cardboard cutout of the president fluttering in the breeze.
    There was a tag in the breast pocket of the suit. It read “Bought and paid for by your Wall Street buddies.”
    “Zia Filomina, It’s Hobson’s choice.”
    “Watza that?”
    “There’s no choice at all.”
JOE TOTO
Now Are Captive
    East Hampton
    December 19, 2011
Dear Editor,
    Every day, in every way, I am reminded why I have never voted for a Republican candidate for any office, anywhere — city, state, or federal, and never will. They are duplicitous, lying, two-faced four flushers whose interests have never coincided with mine.
    Now, here, today, my determination to avoid Republicans as the plague they are is stronger than ever. They declare openly that their sole aim is to defeat President Obama, and then they oppose every positive change he and his administration propose to lift the country out of the major recession they caused. They deny him the support every president needs.
    They block appointments to major agencies. They filibuster every positive effort. They deny additional judges that are desperately needed. They oppose ending the war in Iraq. They deny unemployment benefit extensions, deny payroll-tax-waiver extensions, scream about oil pipelines that offer few permanent jobs, cut college Pell grants, cut food stamps and meals for poor kids, rip out or diminish spending for health care, ignore public support for middle-class tax cuts, and fight to extend millionaires’ tax benefits.
    They are oblivious to the needs of the population other than upper middle class and millionaires. They threaten Social Security and Medicare — the lifelines of millions of senior citizens, and they keep the world markets on edge with the uncertainty that comes with zealots: You never know which way they will go.
    John Boehner, their erudite, crybaby, supposed leader in the House, cannot cement the deals he makes with his opposite number. He is consistently coming back with proposals different from the ones he had agreed to after he is bludgeoned by Tea Party extremists that the Republicans allowed to gain veto positions in the party and now are captive to them.
    Public opinion means nothing; environment means nothing; fraud in voting is bandied about while they cut voting rights around the country though there is no proof of such fraud! Oil would benefit their big-money donors, so they support unlimited, uncontrolled offshore drilling after gutting oversight regulations. Global warming doesn’t concern them, nor does science in general, but invasion of our bedrooms and our sexual orientation becomes important to them. Religious promotion is paramount to free speech, and gun control is an anathema to them while thousands die each year.
    Want to vote Republican? Go Ging­rich; he fits the bill perfectly.
    Okay out there, you conservative minions, tell me where I am wrong.
RICHARD P. HIGER
Taking Its Toll
    Sag Harbor
    December 22, 2011
To the Editor,
    This letter is addressed to the uniformed members of the armed services, the uninformed, those in denial, victims of mind control, those too young to understand, and those prepared to give up their lives for their country. Beware!
    In Iraq and Afghanistan hundreds of thousands have been deployed four or five times with pockets full of mind-altering drugs and returned with intensified cases of post-traumatic stress disorder for the rest of their lives.
    We recently learned the Air Force is having similar problems with drone operators. Their long hours of work and shift changes are creating high levels of stress, along with P.T.S.D. Pushing buttons and launching drones so frequently has caused the deaths of many innocent civilians and children and is now taking its toll on drone operators.
    Beware, slaves of capitalism, the bottom line is money.
    In peace,
    LARRY DARCEY