Referendum on C.P.F.

A proposition appearing on the back of Tuesday’s ballot that would add 20 years to the life of the community preservation fund and allow up to 20 percent of its future income to be used for water quality projects is almost sure to get a majority of “yes” votes. Multiple advocates have pushed hard for the measure, and many voters will have heard only that it will advance environmental protection and want to sign on.

Assuming that the proposition will be approved, it now falls to its supporters, both in and out of government, to do what they should have done in the first place — get the details right. 

East Hampton Town, having been burned once by vague language in the enabling preservation fund law, should have been way more rigorous this time around. If the water program is allowed to operate as written, the costly projects that could be provided for under the proposition are an invitation to misuse and corruption. Environmental groups, excited about the prospect of millions of dollars to further their goals, have been blindly willing to look past the vague proposal’s shortcomings.

It is likely that some of its backers have glimpsed problems with the proposition but agreed to rush, calculating that aligning the vote with an expected high turnout for the presidential election would assure its chances of passing. Were it scheduled in a midterm election year, its prospects might have been diminished. Tying the water quality question to the extension of the fund for its original purposes was another way to assure its approval. In fairness to the public and for the quality of the debate, the issues should have been the subject of separate referendums.

After Tuesday, the lack of clear definition of what can and cannot be done in the law must be remedied right away. 

A “no” vote on Proposition 1 would be a way to warn officials and the environmental community that they still have a great deal of work to do to assure that the public’s money is spent properly and does not spur excessive development while at the same time sharply cutting funding for land acquisition.