Letters to the Editor: 07.19.12

Our readers' comments

Facing Traffic
    July 16, 2012
To the Editor:
    The editorial in the July 12 issue of The East Hampton Star is important. I would just like to add that if the following rule were adopted and adhered to, perhaps, some of these tragic incidents could be avoided: Pedestrians should walk in single file facing traffic, and bicyclists should ride in single file with traffic. This is the rule used on the roads in New York City’s Central Park and advised by municipalities elsewhere.
    Even when automobile drivers observe speed limits, one can suddenly come up on a pedestrian. Obviously, if the pedestrian is facing the traffic, he could move out of the way if he saw an approaching car. The problem is how to reach and educate people. The local papers, along with town officials who give rental and beach permits, and real estate agencies brokering rental leases, could all help to get out the word.
    Respectfully submitted,

Walk Left
    July 15, 2012
To the Editor,
    Please: Walk left. Bike right. Single file.

To Save Lives
    July 17, 2012
Dear David,
    “Out of control” is the phrase being used by many residents here to describe these first weeks of summer 2012. Sadly, the frantic pace of this season has already resulted in needless deaths of pedestrians on our roads. Now is the time to loudly broadcast the dangers of our country roads and to do it the same way that we alerted the visiting public to the dangers of the ocean — through education. It is obvious that visitors to East Hampton neither know nor understand the national — and international — rules of the road. And, like it or not, it is the responsibility of our town to teach them. Education in order to save lives is a worthy project, one that can easily be agreed on and one that should not raise the usual cries of “we can’t afford it.”
    Here’s a suggestion: Print a card — maybe 4 by 8 inches — listing the rules of the road in East Hampton. (The rules were listed in an excellent letter to the editor in last week’s Star.)
    To repeat, there are three:
    1. If you are on wheels — car, bicycle, skates — travel on the right. If you are on foot, walk on the left, facing the oncoming traffic.
    2. If you are driving a car, a truck, or a taxi, yield to pedestrians and cyclists.
    3. If you are walking or cycling, do so in single file.
    Next, distribute this card to every town office and agency, i.e., town clerk, town court, tax assessor, recycling center, etc., wherever the public visits. This was done recently and effectively to alert people to the dangers of the riptides of the Atlantic Ocean. The attractive card was, and is, displayed on the counter in the clerk’s office. And I would bet that many town merchants would gladly provide additional counter space for such an important public service.
    How about it, town board? Is it worth a try?

My 911 Call
    East Hampton
    July 10, 2012
To the Editor,
    How fortunate we are!
    On Saturday, June 30, my 911 call was calmly and assuredly answered by a dispatcher, Gerard Turza, urging me to stay on the line, a police officer would soon arrive. Officer Ryan Balnis was at my side in minutes. He very efficiently addressed my problem until the emergency medical volunteer crew — the driver, Kerry Griffiths, Len Schaefer, Debbie Field, and the attendant, Chermaine Cheang, arrived.
    I felt surrounded by family.
    To all of you, thank you so very much.

Horrible Smell
    July 13, 2012
Dear David:
    Recently in driving around East Hampton and Springs, we would go through areas with a horrible smell. Fertilizer? I wondered. Well, it was confirmed today when I was welcomed home by a horrible smell emanating from the yard next door. Not only was the smell irritating but my eyes started to burn.
    It is now hours later and we still have not been able to sit outside on this beautiful day. In fact we are prisoners inside with the windows shut.
    Is there a new kind of fertilizer being used this year? Personally this makes me long for the good old-fashioned smell of manure. We have ordinances against noise pollution, light pollution, even sign pollution. What about smell pollution?

Craig’s Lunch
    East Hampton
    July 13, 2012
To the Editor:
    That less-than-ecstatic review of Thomas McNamee’s biography of Craig Claiborne brought to mind the meals I used to share with Craig, whom I adored.
    In the 1960s I was a copy editor with The New York Times Magazine, regularly editing Craig’s copy for the magazine (it ran in what were then called “the women’s pages”: Fashion, Food, Home, Parent and Child), and we became pals.
    On days when the job didn’t require him to go to one of those fancy luncheons that he always said he hated to eat at midday, we would walk from the old Times building on West 43rd Street over to Eighth Avenue and duck into a long-gone little Greek joint, where he invariably ordered what he swore was his favorite lunch: a small can of tuna fish and a wedge of iceberg lettuce.

Historic House
    East Hampton
    July 16, 2012
To the Editor:
    I have a no-brainer for the town board, one that would have the full support of the citizens of East Hampton. How often does that come along?
    After taking office in 2009, Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and his bipartisan town board dealt with and faced down enormous financial problems inherited from the McGintee administration. Thanks to hard work, today the Town of East Hampton has a much brighter financial future than would have been expected a few years ago.
    In his first term, Supervisor Wilkinson and his board also worked tirelessly to straighten out the mess that was the community preservation fund. The town has resumed purchasing properties, and safeguards have been put in place. Supervisor Wilkinson and his current board can focus on properties that are meaningful to the town and its citizens now that the worst days are behind them.
    The no-brainer referred to above is the opportunity to purchase, with community preservation funds, the historic Stephen Sherrill house, one of only 19 properties in East Hampton listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The house, situated on 3 acres of the original 16-acre farm site, at 2 Springs-Fireplace Road, sits in the heart of “old” East Hampton farmland.
    Purchase of this historic house and land would give us all firsthand access to the history of East Hampton. How often does the board get an opportunity to make a purchase that has actual connections to the first founders of East Hampton, to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and to three generations of Dominy craftsmen whose workshop was located across the street from the Sherrill house? Imagine being able to look at the original deed of 1792 from Conklin to Sherrill, showing the metes and bounds which Abraham Sherrill bought, to “get out of the bustle of town.”
    It would be devastating to see this historic property bulldozed. We as a community are already invested in the “life” of this house and its 10 generations of Sherrills who have lived continuously in the house and who farmed the land from 1792 to 1968.
    A dedicated group of East Hampton citizens is willing to form a not-for-profit organization and create a history center at the house, raising private funds for its yearly operations. No taxpayer dollars would be spent. All that is needed is for the town to purchase the property through the community preservation fund. This purchase should go forward with the unanimous support of the town board. See, a real no-brainer!

Had a Dream
    July 16, 2102
Dear David,
    I was thrilled to read the last line of your editorial “Montauk Business: Law Unto Itself,” where you stated that “Perhaps the time has come to reconsider the hamlet’s incorporation as a village with its own set of rules and regulations. . . .”
    Carl Fisher had a dream for Montauk in 1926: to create a Miami Beach of the north. Sadly, his Montauk project went into receivership in 1932, before he could realize his dream.
    With incorporation, the new Village of Montauk could complete what Carl Fisher began over 80 years ago. Once sewers, water, and other necessary infrastructure services are installed, real development can begin along the oceanfront and in other underdeveloped or run-down sections of Montauk. The middle-class motels can be replaced with beautiful, state-of-the art high-rise apartments, hotels, and condominiums.
    The few remaining commercial fishermen can be moved to another hamlet, and the old town docks can become profitable, “themed” shopping and entertainment centers, with high-priced restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. The docks can also be the departure points for luxurious offshore gambling boats.
    With Montauk’s abundant but underutilized open space, the village could construct an 18-hole golf course to supplement the sometimes crowded Montauk Downs. The crowning glory could be a horse racing track set on a bluff overlooking the ocean. It would rival anything ever built in Miami Beach! Lastly, with no trustees or town regulations to contend with, Montauk can commercialize its beaches, offering long-term leases to hotels, surf shops, bars, and restaurants. This increased business activity will create more jobs and provide revenue for village coffers.
    Transportation has been a continuing concern, but getting customers and their wallets to Montauk will not be a problem. High-speed ferries from New York City will allow visitors to bypass the traffic on Montauk Highway, and the helicopters that have been so disliked in East Hampton will certainly find a warm welcome at an expanded Montauk Airport.
    The people of Montauk have chafed for more self-determination than they feel they receive under the yoke of East Hampton Town government. If Montauk incorporates as a village, it can move with lightning speed to realize Carl Fisher’s dream. I suspect that within a decade, Montauk as we know it will be unrecognizable.

Dramatic Change
    July 13, 2012
Dear David:
    Your July 12, 2012, editorial titled “Montauk Business: Law Unto Itself” raises an interesting issue: Should Montauk, with its supposedly errant commercialism, be sent to the corner like a misbehaving child, or should the hamlet be kicked out of class (our town) completely?
    It’s interesting that several years ago, when downtown Montauk was going to seed, the call for enforcement and oversight was minimal. But now, a rejuvenated Main Street and adjoining businesses have put Montauk in the crosshairs.
    Your suggestion of special favors for special people on the part of the town supervisor is a rather tired slogan that has been dragged through many a local election. It is hard to imagine that Mr. Wilkinson, a self-proclaimed two-term supervisor (who would want more?) stood to gain anything from seeing the Ronjo become the Beach House, apart from the transformation of a garish and outdated motel. As to the “atmosphere of bonhomie at the grand opening of the Beach House” (your phrase), I am rather put out that I was not on the short list.
    Your editorial does underline the obvious fact that Montauk is undergoing a dramatic change in terms of business activity. This is no longer the Montauk of yore, when the signature commerce involved the Fisherman’s Special train bringing anglers to the old Montauk fishing village. We have new players now, young entrepreneurs with fresh ideas and resources who are remaking the identity of this area.
    When Bill Walsh, the former coach of the San Francisco 49ers, was asked how his team won three Super Bowls during his tenure, he simply said, “We communicated.” Rather than targeting businesspeople for their sometimes overzealous efforts, let’s get people together for an informed discussion on what should and should not be done.

No Favor
     July 16, 2012
Dear David,
    Your bracing editorial highlights a growing problem of the current town administration: In the name of supporting the local economy, it too often overlooks the skirting of town laws. The Montauk Beach House, operating under a certificate of occupancy that fails to mention its bar, its beach club, and its music, got a pass on applications to the planning board.
    The administration is saving expenses by leaving its code enforcement staff too depleted to check accumulating ordinance violations. Some homeowners in Springs feel they scream about overcrowding to deaf ears. Some residents in Montauk and Amagansett are persuaded that we must “go easy” on over-the-top nightclubs, illegal group houses, and drunken beachgoers for the sake of the economy.
    For government to overlook its laws, or economize on measures to enforce them, is a dereliction of its duty. Ultimately, it’s no favor to the economy. The implementation of planning and zoning procedures designed to protect sanitation, water supplies, road access, the traditional look of Main Streets, the natural environment, and the charm of residential areas is critical to attracting both tourists and second-home owners. Allowing more nightclub patrons and uninhibited entertainment than the infrastructure or the residents can tolerate will soon deter both groups from being here.
    The town’s leadership may think it desirable to adjust some of the procedures that businesses or others find burdensome, and perhaps some laws should be more restrictive. If so, it should confront those tasks. Meanwhile, it is obliged to enforce the laws we have, all year long and 24/7.

    Ms. Frankl is the chairwoman of the East Hampton Town Democratic Committee. Ed.

Respect for the Law
    July 15, 2012
    There is no question that we live in a community with a short but ever-expanding season where businesses, restaurants, and workers can earn enough to stay in business, and in the case of the employees, to be able to cope with our high cost of living. But if, in the pursuit of that objective, we destroy the very reason that our community is “good business” and a unique place to live, we have to stop and reconsider our agenda. As in all cases, it is a matter of establishing a balance in the decision-making process.
    The concern I have is reflected in the many recent articles in the papers and personal experiences where there has been a flagrant disregard for the laws and  codes; tolerating drunken behavior on the beaches and the highway, and huge, illegal parties — all, for the most part, accepted in the name of “good business.” What is clearly needed is strong leadership on the part of our supervisor, and an enlarged staff of motivated enforcers to regain respect for the law.
    As has been demonstrated on a national level, practically every week, the lack of strong executive action, the hesitancy to prosecute clear violations of the law (e.g., the 2008 Wall Street behavior with no prosecutions yet), has resulted in a strong sense of cynicism resulting in a government losing public support and trust.
    While our situation is far less in magnitude, a continuing blatant disregard of our laws and the inability or lack of desire to enforce them will have, in the long run, serious consequences, ones that might make our town less attractive and a “bad business proposition.”

Bodes Very Ill
    July 8, 2012
Dear David,
    The Republican benchwarmers at East Hampton Town Hall don’t want to be bothered with the practical needs of town employees: “Scares the hell out of me. Leads to a plethora of wants, fiscally irresponsible.” — W. Wilkinson (temporary town supervisor).
    Republican benchwarmers at Town Hall do condone short-term business arrivistes in Montauk (a k a “Dodge City”) who have no self-edit buttons and depend on lax local government oversight.
    In my opinion, enabling “Dodge City” bodes very ill; indeed, uncontrolled crowds make people testy and lead to serious problems.
    I suggest that for the remainder of the Republican benchwarmers’ term, a revenge fund be raised on behalf of town staff and the carpetbaggers be moved offshore.
    All good things,

Protects Her Practice
    July 9, 2012
Dear Editor,
    Last week in a New York Times article by Elizabeth Harris (July 3, “Tension for East Hampton”), Town Councilwoman Theresa Quigley once again doubled down on her reference to Springs residents as Nazis. This was her response to our request for enforcement of housing codes and zoning laws which restrict the number of occupants in single-family homes.
    She says, “People tend to blame the Latinos for all their problems, like blaming Jews for the troubles in Germany.” This is a blatant lie, and she’s full of it! We don’t blame any ethnic group for the problems associated with illegally overcrowded homes. We blame the supervisor and his erratic deputy who turned a blind eye to this practice.
    It was not unusual during World War II for Nazis to refer to others as Nazis so as to deflect attention from themselves. So the question is: Who is the real Nazi here?
    Inventing and utilizing this smokescreen protects her practice of representing businesses and greedy landlords who prosper from engaging in the purchase of and involvement in illegally renting properties. Since she is incapable of realizing the level of affront and the agonizing hurt her words cause, this miscreant will ultimately be relegated to the political junk heap — where she belongs. Not soon enough for us, however.
    The real rub here is that there is no outcry from the Democratic, Republican, or Independence parties on this heinous insult. Why do The Star, The Press, and The Independent fail to voice outrage? Why do the other members on the town board fail to publicly rebuke her continued reference to Springs citizens as Nazis? What accounts for the silence of the synagogues and churches who surely are aware of these Nazi comments?
    As it was in Nazi Germany, evil happens when good people stand by and do nothing. Well, citizens of East Hampton, you’ve got evil now!

Indian Wells
    East Hampton
    July 15, 2012
Dear David:
    It was disturbing to read that after listening to descriptions of drunken partying at Indian Wells beach, the chairman of the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee explained that he did not want to frighten the partygoers with stringent regulations because “These are mostly Wall Street people, they’ve got money and they’re spending it here.” Apparently drunks from Wall Street who endanger the public are more desirable than lower income drunks. Who said Americans don’t have class distinctions?
    However, if these people are arriving by bus and out-of-town taxis, they are probably bringing their beer, booze, and goodies with them. Meanwhile, the town has had to hire extra lifeguards because the behavior of these nonresidents on the beach and in the water is endangering swimmers. They are also leaving trash behind, necessitating more cleanup.
    If these spoilers are coming by bus and taxi and bringing their own supplies, then they are also leaving by bus and taxi, not staying long term in the village. They are probably costing the town more money than they are leaving.
    Instead of worrying about backlash from day-trippers, the town should worry about backlash from the year-round and second-home owners who pay the taxes and support the local economy.
    It was clear from the article that more marine patrols and ticketing would go a long way to alleviating the problem of drunken partying on what has traditionally been a safe family beach. Just as Twitter spread the word about the parties, Twitter would spread the word that participants are being fined for drinking, urinating on the beach, and violating noise codes. This seems like the perfect occasion for bipartisan action, and it was encouraging to read that Ms. Quigley said she would support hiring one or two additional full-time marine patrol officers for Indian Wells, and that Mr. Wilkinson asked for a proposal for additional staffing so the problem can be addressed this year. This is a much more appropriate response than the delaying tactics Montauk residents faced last year. Let’s hope they put our tax money where their mouths are.

Get in Line
    July 14, 2012
To the Editor,
    Regarding this week’s cover story, “Invasion of Beery Beach Blanketeers,” welcome to our world. What do you think we on Napeague have been dealing with and now are suing the trustees and town over? This is exactly the sort of behavior we have to put up with every day of the week, particularly summer weekends.
    But take your situation with drunkenness, public urination, and loud music and add 100-plus cars (which nearly run over our children), many, many unleashed dogs, fully naked sunbathing, wafting barbecue pits, kegs by the dozen, big tents, and oh! the garbage left behind — and then you’ll get a sense of why we finally took action.
    So I ask of The East Hampton Star and of those who attended the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee last week: You think the behavior at Indian Wells is front-page news? Sorry, get in line.

Drunken Hordes
    East Hampton
    July 16, 2012
Dear Editor,
    Does “Local Law 24-1979” exist or is the “No Alcoholic Beverages” sign posted at our local beaches the scrawlings of an unknown, irrelevant graffiti artist? The signs have been posted at the entrances along with dictates as to dog and truck usage, open fire controls, and specifically, “No Alcoholic Beverages: Local Law 24-1979”! What is disturbing and suspicious is the fact that these signs (posted for years) have, oddly, been deleted from the beach at Indian Wells, Amagansett.
    Strange, the signs are missing and this beach is singled out for mass abuse. This has been my choice of beach since childhood, and I always headed west for seclusion and quiet. The “invasion” to which your recent article refers became an issue for me and many others (especially those with children) last summer.
    Aggressive, negative behaviors attributed to the copious amounts of alcohol at this beach drove us off twice last summer. Bottles were being thrown into the surf. Men were urinating openly at the base of the dune. Some were defecating in the ocean itself, leaving stools to wash up at the edge. Young women were being assaulted, when, despite their screams of protest, they were dragged and tossed like a bag of garbage into the water. One girl, dragged through the sand, had her bottom stripped to her thighs by the friction, exposing her and causing her great humiliation.
    It was with this that I approached the lifeguards to do something. Then I called the police and waited half an hour before storming from the beach in disgust as no one came to address the issue. In my call to the police I alluded to my deep concern that after five hours of drinking, most of the 100 to 150 men and women would pile into cars and drive dangerously and illegally from the parking lot.
    While your article states that many ride buses or vans, many (if not the majority) of them tear out of the area en masse, in private vehicles.
    Sylvia Overby might “like to have a glass of wine late in the day on the beach,” she may be capable of doing that. I have seldom seen people having one glass of wine, one beer, or one shot of tequila at that time or at that venue. All it takes is a couple, and driving reflexes and awareness are substantially altered.
    Beyond that, the safety of the community is compromised. For Ms. Overby to note the existence of the law, complain about the lack of police enforcement, and then state she likes her wine on the beach is a violation of the trust we place in her to lead this town through these tribulations. If our public officials do not show a public respect for our laws and ordinances, then why shouldn’t people come from outside with the specific goal of abusing our facilities and “partying”?
    Last summer when I spoke with the police regarding this issue the officer stated definitively, “We have a zero tolerance policy for open containers on the beach.” This summer the restrictive sign is mysteriously missing and the lifeguard I debated (vigorously and concisely) stated with all certainty, “There is no law against drinking on the beach.” Well, boy, what about the behaviors?
    “Local Law: 24-1979” posted conspicuously! Sylvia Overby blames police for not enforcing this law! Police state “zero tolerance” and longstanding respectful citizens in masses are complaining, and yet there is still some confusion as to whether the law actually exists?! Absurd!
    Other ordinances and laws are enforced vigorously on that same beach (dogs, trucks, fires). These are quality of life issues. This drunken horde and the practice in general are life-threatening. I resent being patronized and lied to about my rights in this matter. We are all entitled to a safe and quiet enjoyment of the community; our beaches in particular.
    The town must be held responsible and liable. Now that this is being addressed and is on public record, any man, woman, or child harmed or killed by the tolerating of these known abuses falls financially and morally on the shoulders of officials and the town itself.
    I have not seen two uglier summers here since the late ’60s and early ’70s, when groupers, day-trippers, and public use of drugs and alcohol made our beaches a trash can, unfit for women and children. The quality of summer residents has taken a turn for the worse as we allow violation after violation in the quest to make enough money in three months to last the year. The entire community has become party central for a bunch of adults with no respect and no class. These are no teenagers or kids. These are well-off adults who have made a conscious and irresponsible decision to imitate Snooki, J-Wow, and the kids from “Jersey Shore.” They are a little “long in the tooth” for these behaviors. They are unattractive and dangerous.
    I never did care one way or the other whether a glass of wine was enjoyed at sunset. The law exists or it doesn’t. With the change in tone over the last couple of years perhaps full enforcement of the laws that do limit these abuses is not a bad idea.
    Thanks to Joan Tulp and the Ladies of Amagansett for their decades of service in preserving the qualities that make Amagansett and East Hampton so very special!
    Thank you,

    Beaches within the Village of East Hampton are posted “no alcohol.” Beaches within the town, including Indian Wells, are not. Local Law 24-1979 is an East Hampton Village law. Ed.

Egregious Example
    July 16, 2012
Dear David,
    This is what it has come to on our lovely, fragile beaches in Springs. This truck is just the most egregious example. On the other side of the truck, a family was settled in on beach chairs with a picnic, etc. Beach-driving sticker? I don’t think so.
    I often walk at Maidstone Park and routinely observe approximately 75 percent of the cars with no permit sticker. I know several people who have called the East Hampton Town police to ask for enforcement, yet I have never seen one ticket given.
    If the Town of East Hampton needs money for more and better code enforcement, I have a suggestion: Why not put some traffic officers at Maidstone Park and Louse Point over the weekends and just start ticketing? There is a treasure trove of revenue. Perhaps some enforcement will encourage people to observe the law. Many of the vehicles are late-model luxury cars whose owners could certainly afford a permit.
    My friends and I observe two types of violations regularly. An East Hampton Town permit is required to park at Maidstone, Louse Point, and other bay beaches. I believe these permits must be displayed on the left-side windows of the vehicle. Driving and parking directly on the beaches requires a separate and different beach-driving sticker.
    There seem to be many, many more cars at our bay beaches, and the numbers seem to be growing over the last few years. One reason for this may be that more homeowners are doing short, one-week rentals because of the economy. People here for a week do not go and buy a permit and apparently the word is out that there is no need to. Illegal year-round renters probably also contribute to the problem, as they would not qualify for free permits and would have to buy them.

At the Beach
    East Hampton
    July 16, 2012
Dear David,
    Have we all lost our minds? What has happened to the safety, and enforcement of codes in our town of East Hampton?!
    Someone drove me to see a little beach cove at Maidstone. It was a scene of sheer beauty, delicacy, and calm. Surrounded by thick brush and bushes, the small beach led to the bay, where the water was so shallow young children could walk in. The bay is very narrow, but permits a continual parade of sailboats leaving from and returning to the marinas. Pretty ideal.
    But wait, there are other things on this delicate piece of paradise — cars. Even though there is a parking area about 20 feet from the beach, people find it necessary to clog the beach with their ­SUVs. They park literally in the water, preventing others from sitting on the shore. They open their back trunks as if they are entitled to bring their homes with them. They are arrogant in their assurance that they will never be ticketed. And indeed they never are.
    Then we have Indian Wells Beach, where a new crowd is determined to use the beach as their public playground. The town actually had to put a third lifeguard chair there. The crowds are coming in the new easy way to get to beaches, by taxi or even limo. But these crowds require something more than pristine, peaceful, delicate beaches. They need to get high fast, and beer seems to be the answer to their prayers. Music is played so loudly that lifeguards need to fight to get it lowered so their whistles can be heard. Games are played with the beer cans — in the ocean. This requires the time and reaction of the lifeguards, taking them away from their main objective‚ saving people’s lives!
    I’ll bet Wilkinson’s response will be the same as last year, “Summer will soon be over. Just suck it in and bear it.” Where is the response of our government to these crucial issues? Where is their leadership?
    Why is there an impression that the supervisor doesn’t give a damn? Watch as he and Theresa pussyfoot around legal action in response to such questions as, should a private party on the beach have “enhanced” sound for their music? They obviously just want the summer to drift by. Code enforcement is the last thing on their program. They allow no funds toward it and ignore pleas by the department itself for more workers.
    These are the lawmakers the public has elected. Now they can watch the results. To some, “enhanced music at the beach” is the ocean.
    Yours truly,

More Trashing
    July 15, 2012
Dear Editor,
    It’s disheartening to see yet another New York Times article revealing the dark side of our beautiful town. This time, it’s about the weekend rush of the New York partying public that’s being featured, with the emphasis on their intention to booze it up just as soon as, if not sooner than, they arrive.
    As long as our elected leaders continue to ignore this element, whose “culture” is grounded in getting smashed, or worse, we will have to suffer this type of trashing of our own backyard. The season has only barely begun and we’re assaulted by criminal elements packing kids into lovely houses, hordes on our beaches partying to music blasting from amplifiers, and the usual disgusting details that go along with all of it.
    Ever since the (thankfully aborted) rock music festival planned for last summer, the signal was there: “Come and trash our town, it’s good for business.”

    Sag Harbor
    July 14, 2012
Dear Editor,
    Your reporter neglected to mention the purpose of my statement to the Sag Harbor Village Harbor Committee regarding the boat party that has been held in Sag Cove.
    I reminded the committee that the cove was the wrong place for the large gathering . . . for many reasons. But, also that the cove is teeming with diamondback terrapins, which is one of two species designated by the state for special regulation. The Department of Environmental Conservation can adopt regulations restricting destruction, disturbance, or taking of a species after petition by 10 or more citizens on behalf of that species.
    I said I could get 10 times that number of citizens to petition, if necessary, to relocate the boat party.
    The omission of these statements gave the connotation that I supported the party in the cove, which I obviously do not.
    Thanks for the opportunity to correct and clarify your article.

Major Contributor
    July 12, 2012
To the Editor,
    The public has been barraged with false and misleading propaganda about East Hampton Airport. Here are some facts:
    1. The purpose of the tower is, as has been stated, safety. That does not preclude an effect of the tower being noise mitigation, which, in fact, has already occurred.
    2. The grant assurances with the Department of Transportation do not expire in 2014. The purported settlement didn’t even so provide. It provided that after 2014 the Federal Aviation Administration would not independently enforce some of them. That’s like saying the cops won’t arrest bank robbers. The assurances will remain in effect, and anyone adversely affected by an action or inaction of East Hampton pertaining to the airport will still have recourse against the town for impairing their rights thereunder. Furthermore, the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion, which was the plaintiff, didn’t have standing to bring the action, the town wasn’t a party to the action, and the F.A.A. didn’t have the power or authority to modify the assurances.
    3. The effect of the town taking F.A.A. funds without an airport layout plan in effect at the time does not void the grant assurances where the funds were taken and applied to a federally funded improvement. It merely constitutes a waiver, for which there is precedent of the A.L.P. precondition for receiving the funds.
    4. Though there is undeniably some noise associated with the airport (as there is with the Long Island Rail Road), which affects some nearby residents, as the airport manager reports, of the 1,100 recent complaints, 610 were from 5 households and more than 900 were from 20 households, and the town and airport users are working diligently to adopt policies and procedures to reduce it as much as possible, a process which, incidentally, has been chronically impeded by airport opponents obstructing access to federal funds to do so.
    5. The airport is not an economic drain on the town. In fact, it generates in the neighborhood of $500,000 net positive revenue per year from fuel sales, landing fees, hangar and office rentals, and advertising and concession fees. In addition, the New York State Department of Transportation attributes 91 jobs and $12.6 million in economic impact on the area to the airport.
    6. The airport is not a playground for a wealthy few but, to the extent it is recreational, serves many of the same local residents and businesses who use the marina, ball fields, ponds, shooting range, and other recreational facilities. In addition, it is an important evacuation facility, as well as a base for incoming emergency supplies and personnel in the event of natural or man-made disasters, and just in the last week was reported to have airlifted two seriously injured people to hospitals.
    In summary, on any intelligent cost-benefit analysis, the airport is a major contributor to the community that should not be hobbled by being denied millions of dollars in federal funding available for the asking, with no repayment obligation, to install a deer fence, repave crosswind runway 4-22, upgrade the weather reporting equipment, and otherwise enhance its safety and noise reduction, both of which can be done more effectively with federal funds than without. Thank you, Dominick Stan­zione, for recognizing the foregoing and vigorously acting it despite the personal attacks and political fallout.

No Improvement
    July 16, 2012
Dear David,
    The propaganda that Jim Brundige, the East Hampton Airport manager, put out this week in the form of a press release was so silly, it was childish. If the reason the town spent over $200,000 on new equipment and over $600,000 on a control tower, so Mr. Brundige can misuse and manipulate statistics, then it was a waste of money because we all see through the smoke. The emperor has no clothes. If this wasn’t so silly, it would be crazy.
    Helicopter noise “tortures and torments” folks on the ground. Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Tim Bishop coined that term. If Mr. Brundige was beating me with a baseball bat and he reduced the number of hits by 34 percent, am I supposed to appreciate him for reducing the hits? Or, will I appreciate it when he stops?
    Statistical analysis has no bearing on the actual impact of those on the ground affected by noise. I can report to you after almost $1 million has been spent; there is no improvement in noise or safety at my house. I see it as a waste of money.
    Yesterday a seaplane came scooting in under the clouds at treetop level. There is a minimum altitude for fixed-wing of 1,000 feet. Were the controllers sleeping? Helicopters are still flying at treetop level. That is not safe. Aircraft are still operating at all hours of the night. The constant barrage of noise and attacks on the peaceful enjoyment of our property still exists.
    T.J. Matthews, the self-proclaimed environmentalist convinced Mr. Brun­dige to move the northern route west of Barcelona Neck because he wanted to get helicopters away from his house, not piping plovers, as he claimed. As a result, the helicopter noise has increased at my house, also for folks in Sag Harbor and Wainscott since 2010. That is the fact Mr. Brundige refuses to acknowledge. The fact that one individual influenced the airport manager to move a helicopter route based on a perceived environmental threat calls for an environmental impact study and full state environmental quality review. Mr. Brundige is not an environmentalist. He is not qualified to make such decisions. We now know the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already has a house on North West Creek.
    Mr. Brundige states the controllers are “working hard to mitigate noise in neighboring communities.” What about our own community? We are the voters!
    As long as we have an airport manager that believes helicopters must land on a glide slope, as fixed-wing aircraft do, we will not see noise reduction in our community. Helicopters are designed to fly straight up and straight down. Helicopters should maintain a 3,000-foot altitude over the residential neighborhoods and then circle down within airport property boundaries. That will not stop the torture, because I still get 75-decibel noise with helicopters at 3,000 feet, but it will be mitigation in our own community.
    In the last paragraph of Mr. Brundige’s propaganda release he uses statistics to marginalize the folks who call in to­ PlaneNoise, the noise hotline. When he says 5 households file half of the complaints and 20 households file 80 percent of the complaints he is insinuating that they are just crazy, continuous complainers. They also know your name, address, and phone number. The 20 households have been identified by them and labeled as crazy lunatics who consistently complain — nothing else. So if you want to have a reputation in this community as a lunatic, chronic complainer, simply continue to make calls to the noise hotline. Maybe a psychiatrist will show up at your doorstep one day.
    If this wasn’t so silly, it would be crazy. Mr. Brundige and this current administration are not very smart, sorry.

Common Good
    East Hampton
    July 16, 2012
Dear Editor,
    One thing that is probably true about East Enders is that we don’t much like noise. Many of us come here to escape it. Years ago, the noise-averse won an enormous battle when government forced all cars to install effective mufflers. Even though none of us wants to imagine life now among cars without mufflers, this same regulation hasn’t been effectively extended to trucks, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, motorcycles, powerboats, aircraft, or other internal combustion devices. The problem, of course, is that any further change is fought by the manufacturers of the offending machines. This would appear to be one of those moments in our social evolution when government is called upon to correct the occasional failure of the free market and insist upon a more common good in the form of noise pollution regulations.
     Lately the biggest offender of noise sensibilities around here seems to be aircraft coming and going from our local airport. Over the last decade or so, air flight has become increasingly popular with passengers and correspondingly unpopular with the nonpassengers below. With the exception of stage-4 jets, these aircraft seem constructed with no attempt whatsoever to mitigate the noise they make, which is horrendous by any standard. Eighty-five percent of the 6,000-plus complaints per year are filed against aircraft that are actually in compliance with prescribed routes and altitude. This disturbance of the peace is so great that the town has had to hire PlaneNoise at $15,000 per year to maintain a special hotline to handle the calls. Is there any other public annoyance on the East End that has required out-sourced complaint management?
     So, what should be done about this? Probably the best solution would be to follow the automobile precedent and force aircraft manufacturers to develop aviation technology that does for aircraft what the modern muffler does for cars. We know that progress has been made with jet engines, and we further know that technology for helicopters exists that allowed the marines to land in Osama bin Laden’s backyard and still catch him in his pajamas. With economies of scale, that same stealth technology could certainly be affordably added to commercial aircraft. Such a campaign, however, will take years and we certainly need to do something significant in the meantime.
    Nationally, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency seem to have no concern with aviation noise pollution. Locally, the town board has requested F.A.A. funds for a deer fence that will have the effect of extending the F.A.A.-mandated unrestricted access policy for another 20 years.
    The board has tried to appease the increasingly noisy anti-noise community with a number of ploys. One such is possible route changes that are the parallel of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Another is a control tower that excludes noise abatement as a factor in air traffic management. Finally, and perhaps most cruel of all, they’ve spared people from the din by dumping aviation noise pollution into our nature preserves (aren’t we glad that they haven’t thought of this solution to the town’s waste management challenges?).
    Surely the time has come for the town board to stop trying to minimize the thousands of noise complaints and to accept the responsibility that they command. If the town doesn’t trust its own hotline, it should commission an independent survey of people who live under the various flight paths.
    It is time to stop asking us to endure a trial period for noise-abatement proposals that are doomed by their own feckless logic. It is time for a good-faith commitment to restoring the town’s control over its own airport by rejecting F.A.A. grant funds and by beginning a serious and public conversation about how to strike a civilized and democratic balance between the interests of those who enjoy aviation and those who suffer from it.

Rescind Request
    East Hampton
    July 15, 2012
Dear David,
    It is Sunday and I’m writing from my residence on Wireless Road, where every few minutes jets, planes, propeller planes, seaplanes, and helicopters are flying very low over the roof, destroying my peace and tranquillity, interrupting my phone conversations, disturbing my concentration, threatening my health and safety, and even depriving me of the privacy of the outdoor shower.
    The irony is that noise from the air traffic actually has increased this summer over prior years, despite the promises by the East Hampton Town Board that the newly installed control tower was going to mitigate noise, promises that were repeated in the deceptive advertisements sponsored by the East Hampton Aviation Association. It appears the town has no more control with the control tower than before it committed to spending what is projected to be almost $1 million for its operation. No wonder the board did not want to use any of the fund surplus for the deer fence repairs!
    Residents are tired of special interests — hobbyists, privileged commuters, and businesses that provide services at the airport — benefiting at the expense of the rest of us. We pay taxes. We work, volunteer, and support our community.    Our lives have become unbearable while the jets get bigger and bigger, and more frequent, and more and more low-flying seaplanes and helicopters increasingly fly where they didn’t fly before.
    Now we’re advised that the noise complaints will be monitored by an “independent” company. PlaneNoise is a product of the firm of Robert Grotell, who happens to be the spokesman for the Eastern Region Helicopter Council. That sure sounds like a clear conflict of interest.
    It is time for all East End residents to realize that you don’t have to personally experience low-flying planes over your houses in order to be impacted.  The resulting noise and pollution is having a negative effect on our entire community, environment, and wildlife. Both individually and collectively, we must demand the town board rescind their request for Federal Aviation Administration funds to repair a deer fence, so that finally we can get back local control of our airport. 

Dishonest Effort
    July 16, 2012
To the Editor,
    The issue of noise abatement at the airport has a long history. The earliest letter that I wrote that I can find dates from May 24, 1988. That letter protested the East Hampton Town Airport Master Plan and acceptance of Federal Aviation Administration funds and the restrictions that accompanied the money.
    Voluntary noise abatement suggestions have been useless. Noise is ubiquitous. Aircraft activity has increased, and helicopters have been added to the offending roster of culprits.
    Aviation interests claim “concern” about aircraft noise, yet the problem only accretes. The latest dishonest effort to “control” aircraft noise is the control tower. It was promoted as increasing safety and mitigating noise. (I suppose increased safety is a consequence of the tower, but safest would be to not fly.)    
    The F.A.A. orientation meeting at the airport disabused us of the noise-mitigation goal of the tower. That, despite Councilman Dominick Stan­zione’s and aviation interests efforts to muddy the water about the originally stated intent.
    How much more time must pass before the East Hampton Town Board and other responsible people admit that restoring peace and quiet to the East End of Long Island requires limitation of aircraft activity? That means accepting no more F.A.A. funding (relinquishing control to Washington).
    Local control is a mantra of Republican politics. Ironic that Bill Wilkinson, Theresa Quigley, and Mr. Stanzione are not in agreement and go to the Washington money trough.

Impacts of Lead
     Sag Harbor
    July 16, 2012
Dear Editor,
    Small, piston-powered planes are hardly the biggest noisemakers in the air, so, unless they are flown at very low altitudes, they’re rarely a noise nuisance to residents. However, these mostly recreational planes use avgas, an aviation fuel containing lead. Lead was completely phased out of automobile gas some 16 years ago, because of health concerns, and avgas is now the only leaded fuel still in production.
    According to Marcie Keever, legal director for Friends of the Earth, a group which filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency in March 2012, “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has repeatedly concluded that lead is extremely toxic to humans, wildlife, and the environment and causes health effects even at low doses. . . .” The FOE recognizes aviation as “the single largest source of lead emissions in the United States.” And E.P.A. data from as far back as 2008 puts lead emissions from general aviation as high as 56.9 percent — of all lead in the air in the United States. But the E.P.A. and the F.A.A. have yet to approve an alternative unleaded aviation fuel for use in the U.S., and only after two lawsuits were filed against the E.P.A. has the agency, supported by the F.A.A., come forward recently with the goal to provide an unleaded aviation fuel by 2018.
    Why wait six years to approve an alternative fuel? Many members of the aviation community want more immediate action on the issue and a group of pilots has begun a grassroots movement to make unleaded fuel available at U.S. airports.
    Kent Misegades, an aerospace engineer, commented in General Aviation News that “While it is true that no approved — and affordable — lead-free alternative for 100 percent of all piston engine aircraft has been identified to date, it is accepted that at least 70 percent of the legacy piston-engine fleet of aircraft, and essentially 100 percent of the new fleet of Light Sport Aircraft may, with little or no modification, operate safely and legally on 91+ AKI ethanol-free, lead-free gasoline, a k a autogas or mogas.” And Mr. Misegades states further that autogas was approved in 1982 by the F.A.A. So why wait until 2018? Pilots want an alternative now, it’s available in the U.S., it’s cheaper than avgas, and it’s environmentally safe. So, who is blocking it?
    Lars Hjelmberg, of Hjelmco Oil, spoke in June at a seminar in Santa Monica on the development of unleaded aviation fuel. He said unleaded gas has been widely available in Europe for years. According to Mr. Hjelmco, an unleaded aviation gasoline known as Hjelmco 91/96 UL has been used since 1991 in Sweden by thousands of aircraft, flying millions of flight hours. Mr. Hjelmco said that although a few high-performance aircraft would need to be modified in order to use Hjelmco 91/96 UL, and modifications would cost between $3,000 and $15,000, an aircraft owner could, within a few years, recoup that cost with savings from the cheaper unleaded fuel (unleaded gasoline sells for about $1.50 less per gallon than leaded fuel).
    It appears therefore that there are at least two viable alternatives to avgas available right now. Owners of high-performance aircraft could surely afford the cost of any modifications and given the horrendous health impacts of lead — especially in children under 6 years of age — further delay is dangerous to all life.
    Airport proponents, such as the East Hampton Aviation Association, would do a far greater service to pilots, the community, and the environment by committing the thousands of advertising dollars currently spent supporting airport expansion and instead use the money to advocate immediately for earlier introduction of unleaded fuel. That would be money well spent.

Some Things
    July 16, 2012
Dear David:
    Susan McGraw Keber has a serious helicopter noise problem. So do Jim Matthews and many of their neighbors around Northwest Creek. They are right in the flight path of helicopters taking the northern route over Long Island Sound, which is now mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. On one Friday afternoon this June, Susan counted 23 helicopters over her house and complained of jet and other fixed-wing air traffic on the same day.
    I know what it’s like because helicopters used to fly over my house in Sagaponack. In those days there were no preferred routes or minimum altitudes so they came in low and loud. But I never experienced 23 flights in a day. Something should be done about it.
    Quiet Skies wants to limit the number of helicopters flying in and out of East Hampton Airport, something the noise abatement committee proposed years ago. But helicopter traffic has fallen by over 50 percent since its peak in 2007 and is now approaching the 1998 levels recommended by the East Hampton Airport Noise Abatement Advisory Committee, of which I was a member and helped create. Yet in spite of this precipitous decline in overall heli­copter flights, Susan and Jim still have a noise problem. So how much must helicopter traffic be reduced before it becomes tolerable? Or should we be looking for additional solutions?
    Even if the town never takes F.A.A. money again, no grant assurances will run out until Jan. 1, 2015. For at least three more summers including the rest of 2012, therefore, nothing proposed by the Quiet Skies people can happen. And litigation will surely delay their proposal for several more years. How many more summers should the residents around Northwest Creek be made to suffer? Or are there more immediate solutions that do not depend on grant assurances?
    Here are some things that could be done now to lessen the Northwest Creek noise problem:
    • Encourage more helicopters to fly the southern route over the Atlantic Ocean and Georgica Pond.
    • Lobby the F.A.A. to make the southern route mandatory.
    • Lobby the F.A.A. to make Plum Gut a mandatory waypoint on the northern route, thereby making the southern route a shorter and more attractive alternative.
    • Direct fixed-wing traffic away from helicopter routes so that people like Susan don’t get a double dose of noise.
    • Reverse the rotation of fixed-wing traffic around the airport periodically so that currently affected neighborhoods are relieved of constant noise.
    • Vary the voluntary helicopter routes so that no neighborhood bears all the traffic all the time.
    • Continue to raise landing fees to pay for the control tower and other costs of operating the airport.
    • Prepare a noise study, which will be required to limit helicopter traffic and defend the limits in court, whether or not F.A.A. grant assurances are in place.
    Why has the Quiet Skies Coalition rejected or ignored all of these solutions? It doesn’t make sense to me to inflict all the pain on a few neighborhoods like Northwest Creek and not offer a plan to do something about it for several (at least three) more summers.

David Koch
    East Hampton
    July 16, 2012
To the Editor:
    The Hamptons are beautiful with their farmscapes, ocean and bay beaches, and towns, but that loveliness is not matched by its cultural-political climate, mostly imported from New York City, of self-righteous left-liberalism, often silly political correctness, and in-your-face expressions of dogmatism. I offer as a recent case in point the loud, nasty, and wholly uninformed protest a week or so ago when David Koch held a fund-raiser at his Southampton home for Mitt Romney.
    Mr. Koch, a very wealthy owner of a private business, is supposedly trying to “buy the election” for Mr. Romney. Since he and his brother Charles often join forces on political and philanthropic matters, the protesters like to say Mr. Romney has “a Koch problem.” Every halfway balanced story on this “problem” points out that President Obama was the darling of big Wall Street money — and wealthy contributors from coast to coast — in 2008. But I want to make another point. For the sake of brevity, I will focus on David Koch; interested readers can look up Charles Koch for themselves.
    David Koch is not a billionaire suddenly jumping into politics to skewer Mr. Obama. For decades, he has been one of the most intellectual, principled, and active players in politics. His millions have helped to found and support political-intellectual think tanks, from the Cato Institute to the Reason Foundation. This was not election politics; this was intellectual research and education over the long term. Nor is Mr. Koch’s philanthropy in any sense limited to intellectual causes. He has been a supporter of cancer research, music and the arts, museums, and other cultural institutions for decades and decades. It is difficult to name a major New York City philanthropy that has not benefited — and greatly — as have universities around the country. Mr. Koch earned his B.S. and M.A. degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (and was their all-time star basketball scorer, by the way) and appreciates excellence.
    Nor have his efforts in politics been only via financial contributions. As early as 1980, he ran for vice president as the Libertarian Party candidate, spending days and weeks campaigning — facing voters all over the country with his ideas. What were some of the specifics (beyond political liberty and capitalism, the bedrock of his views)? Legalize drugs, especially marijuana, end all state laws that then criminalized homosexual relations (he supports gay marriage), end laws against suicide. He was an opponent of the war in Iraq and supports stem-cell research.
    He is far, far from the traditional conservative.  His beacon is political freedom: economic, social, cultural, and intellectual. He has devoted his entire adult life to these ideas. Why is he now putting huge amounts into electing Mitt Romney? May I quote the protesters? “Duh!” Because he sees President Obama as an out-and-out socialist, the most leftist president the country ever has had, a disaster for the economy. In other words, he has acted now and on this scale in electoral politics because in President Obama he sees an opponent of all the ideas for which he has stood and worked throughout a lifetime.
    That this educated, talented, generous, and politically committed man should be crudely attacked outside his home with bad puns and jeers at his guests (“Go Home Koch Whores”) by protesters as rude as they are uninformed and unintellectual, makes me wonder what I am doing in the Hamptons, beaches and scenery or no.

Benefit as Well
    East Hampton
    July 15, 2012
    Laura Weir, in her letter last week, demonstrates that she still doesn’t understand what the demonstrations against the rich Romney supporters are all about. In it she points out that the Democrats “have been financed by the likes of Warren Buffett and George Soros, who are billionaires, for years now.”
    What makes a person a 1 percenter is not solely their income. It is his or her efforts to use the democracy to further their own needs to the exclusion of the needs of poorer people. David Koch owns oil companies, and he wants to reduce medical and social programs for the poor, and lower his taxes, cut social programs, and have the government to drill and deregulate oil. Those in the financial industries want to operate with a minimum of regulations. They do not realize that a strong democracy must meet the needs of all, not just their needs.
    In contrast, Mr. Buffet and Mr. Soros both realize that for a strong country, the lower ends of the economic ladder must be served too. Mr. Buffet said specifically that he should be paying higher taxes. There are many 1 percenters like them. Millionaires like Roosevelt and Kennedy governed against the self-interests of their class.
    Because of the selfishness of the 1 percenters, the gap between the rich and poor has grown to be the largest it has ever been. Look at other counties with large income gaps. High-end people need bodyguards, live in gated communities, and there are riots (not demonstrations) in the streets. I don’t want East Hampton to turn into a limited-access community.
    The job creators and drivers of our economy are those in the middle class. When they have money they buy food, drive cars, buy stocks, and need homes. When they do this the 1 percenters benefit as well as them.

The Only Word
    East Hampton
    July 16, 2012
To the Editor,
    Early in Bush II’s presidency, he realized that the private sector had stopped investing in the country and stopped creating jobs. A deal was struck to allow several trillion dollars held offshore to enter the country at a very low tax rate. The money came back and then it went away. The conundrum for Bush II was that with low interest rates, minimal taxes, and little regulation the private sector stayed on the sidelines. Eleven years later it is still on the sidelines. Talk about less regulation: Lowering taxes is proffered as a snake-oil elixir to fix the economy. Renewing confidence is another dim-witted cure-all. No one, especially on the conservative side, talks about demand.
    Demand for goods and services is what the American dream has always been about and when demand is shuffled to the sidelines the American dream goes along with it. All the crap about President Obama not believing in American exceptionalism, not understanding the American people, disappears when demand is not the central issue.
    The United States economy has changed. It no longer works for a majority of the population the way it used to. The 20 percent who it still works for control a disproportionate amount of the wealth and are still living the dream. They also control our political apparatus and will never take any measures that might lessen their privileged positions. Their interests, plus the stability of corporate profits, mitigate the urgency and the necessity to get the economic system back on track. Their risk is political, not economic. Which party will profit most from taking power is their only real issue.
    Demand is rarely the central point of discussion because it raises the situation of our struggling middle class and with that the demand for real solutions. Demand means raising wages, creating jobs, distribution of wealth, none of which are a benefit to our ruling class.
    The nonpolitical alternative to our economic conundrum is the slow, (maybe 10-year) growth model, where Americans adjust to a lower level of living, lower their expectations and their children’s, and slowly grow their standard of living on the droppings of corporate profits.
    This model becomes more likely with the increase in the non-white population that will send the Republican Party into a 20-year tailspin until people figure out that the Democrats are equally as vile. When the fantasy of 8-percent unemployment finally goes away and people realize that the real number is between 16 and 18 percent, a clearer understanding of being screwed will be created. The realization that government’s only concern is maintaining its position of power and not improving the condition of the middle class may eventually redesign the political landscape.
    So demand is the only word that truly tests the veracity and integrity of our politicians. Mr. Obama occasionally mentions it; Mitt Romney never heard of the word. It should be etched in their heads, in their hearts, on their bodies. We may be screwed no matter what, but it’s better to be standing up then bent over.

Republican Way
    East Hampton
    July 15, 2012
Dear Editor,
    Hey Mitt, you say you don’t have the votes to win a national election? You say you are afraid the other candidate is better and more qualified than you, and has the votes of middle-class Americans and Latinos and African-Americans and women, all of which will get him elected? Tell you what we can and are doing for you:
    We have a series of voter-suppression activities being put into place under the guise of stopping voter fraud, and we have 23 Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures to do it. We’ll suppress more than 1 million voters in those groups in the key electoral states where the vote will be close. That should do the trick!
    Yes, we know all about voter suppression and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which requires pre-clearance by the Justice Department or a federal court for any changes in voting requirements, so what? We control the big-monied groups whose influence really runs the country — they’ll keep the Justice Department off our backs.
    We have full Republican control, and leeway is enough. Moral, you ask? Who cares — winning is all that is important! Right? So we’ll implement these moves, suppress the basic right to vote, and win the election. That is the Republican way.
    Oh, and by the way don’t worry, we won’t forget to spend some of our big bucks to deny, deny, deny that you committed fraud with your stupid moves in 1999, 2000, 2001 in filing misleading, false, and felonious statements with the Securities Exchange Commission, setting forth that you were the president, C.E.O., and 100-percent stockholder of Bain Capital, which statements were required by law to inform potential investors in Bain whom they were investing with. And we know Bain needed those filings to attract investors to get cash and buy you out. False or not, you were stupid to bring them up with this outsourcing nonsense. We’ll tamp it down.
    Don’t worry, we will tell the voters you were just being “technically correct” when you filed them and said you  resigned from Bain in 1999 and were not involved in outsourcing, as you stated. Besides the statute of limitations has run on the crime.
    Be assured that even if you do get outvoted in key electoral states we can always do like a 2000 Supreme Court move to declare you the winner.
    We’ve got it nailed with these stupid Democrats and voters.


Regarding pit bull attack I just received a petition for a new leash law, which is a typical knee jerk reaction to the horrible loss of a loved pet.if this gets anywhere,I am sure next up in the new world of nanny state will be limiting one pet per household. (We have two dogs). Or maybe we should tax the people who have yards big enough to let their dog run, because they don' t have to go to the dog park. The real question here is why didn't our tax funded animal control do anything when they had 20 complaints and knew these animals were suffering. Fire animal control! Shame on them. Have the animals been removed and the owner outed and fined? Audrey j davis Sagaponack