C.P.F. Referendum Requires Reconsideration
The East Hampton Town Board appears ready to put a measure on the November ballot intended to provide up to 20 percent of the community preservation fund for water quality improvement. Despite its backers’ good intentions, this has the makings of a massive boondoggle, leaving far too much to the discretion of politicians, if it were approved by voters.
How soon we forget, apparently. East Hampton Town was rocked some years ago when then-Supervisor Bill McGintee misspent millions in community preservation dollars. Exaggerated cries that he was bankrupting the town were heard, and the debt to pay it back was hefty.
Now, state and local officials are working on a structure within which millions could be available for a laundry list of water-related projects, including sewage plants and, perhaps, grants to replace cesspools that leach waste into surface or drinking water. How the money would be spent would ultimately be up to future town boards — people not all that different from the ones who ignored the McGintee debacle until it was too late.
One huge problem is that excessive density has long been constrained by nearness to wetlands or the effect on groundwater of proposed developments. Now, with money for treatment systems, you can expect that to seem like less of a problem. Supporters of the measure say that the money could not be spent on things that “solely accommodate new or additional growth,” in the words of an East Hampton Town staff attorney. The key word here is “solely,” meaning that new and additional growth in once off-limits places might well be within the realm of possibility. As if East Hampton needs any more of anything. Come on, people, think.
Before the measure is taken to the voters, it must be made airtight, leaving no room for otherwise inevitable abuses, given politicians’ demonstrated proclivity to do the wrong thing when given the chance. Taking responsibility for its implementation away from them and placing it with a nonpartisan board should be something getting serious consideration.
Also important is decoupling the water quality aspects of the referendum from a proposed extension of the preservation fund to 2050. They are separate issues and must be presented to the voters as such.