The Gift Horse Needs Examination
Elected officials on the East End, as well as many environmental advocates, are barreling ahead with a plan to seek voter approval to draw as much as 20 percent of future community preservation fund revenue for water quality improvement. However, in presenting the initiative as a good thing, they have failed to study its potential impacts in a meaningful way.
If all goes as expected, voters in the East End towns will see a measure on their Nov. 8 ballots that, if approved, would extend the lifetime of the preservation fund to 2050. Shackled to this — improperly, in our view — is wording that would allow money to be spent for wastewater management and various projects. Its backers have pitched the program as necessary and overdue, and while it may be, just how it would affect such things as development, traffic, and housing density has yet to be explored. Anytime politicians say, “Trust us,” as they appear to be doing now, the public would be wise to be very, very skeptical.
Southampton and East Hampton Towns have put forward varying drafts of proposed ballot measures. The fine print varies a little, but over all they deal with private waste systems, stormwater runoff, and fertilizer contamination of waterways. So far so good, but where the real concern lies, at least in East Hampton and for us, is that it could provide incentives for small, neighborhood sewage systems. But wait, you cry, what’s wrong with that? A lot, unless a great deal of care is taken.
According to officials, there are 2,580 undeveloped commercial and residential parcels in East Hampton Town. Many of them remain open precisely because of problems related to water quality, such as a high water table, proximity to wetlands, or a neighbor’s drinking water well. Removing these barriers through a well-meant but poorly considered system of stand-alone sewage treatment facilities could cause an unwanted construction boom.
More houses mean more cars, more crowds, more frustration for residents and visitors alike. Just for fun, ask anyone (other than a gas station operator) if East Hampton needs any increase summer traffic. Who among us believes that anyone is going to say, “Yes, bring it on!”
At the same time, individual property owners who, because of their land’s constraints, might have been willing to sell it to the town at a reasonable price might instead be eager to maximize their income by choosing development over preservation. East Hampton officials won’t know what the effect will be in time for an expected hearing next month, and they won’t know in November.
On top of all this, the proposal vests too much power in the hands of the town boards. Methods of seeking a super-majority or getting planning board approval for projects in excess of a certain dollar figure, perhaps $1 million, would also appear to be essential. Imagine the chaos that would have ensued if the Bill Wilkinson, Theresa Quigley, and Dominick Stanzione East Hampton Town Board had its hand on this particular honey pot.
Before taking the matter to voters, the two parts of the referendum must be separated. Extending the preservation fund to 2050 is a terrific idea and should be approved. Using the fund to preserve open space and historic places is without question the right thing to do. Taking 20 percent for water quality might be a good idea, too, but an easy windfall of millions of dollars could lead to particularly inappropriate decision making.
As laudable as the goal of water quality improvement is, not enough is known yet about how making the money available would play out in the big picture. Waiting until next year, or the year after that, in order to take time to fully understand how the program might change the East End is the only prudent course.