In the latest of a series of debates, the three candidates running for mayor of East Hampton Village in the Sept. 15 election offered contrasting, often contentious visions for the village.
The Aug. 19 debate, between Deputy Mayor Barbara Borsack, Arthur Graham, a village trustee, and Jerry Larsen, the village's former chief of police, was sponsored by the East Hampton Group for Good Government. It was held virtually, in separate locations, with a moderator, Arthur Malman, chairman of the organization. Ms. Borsack and Mr. Graham, who is known as Tiger, appeared on screen from inside their homes, while Mr. Larsen, who is making his first bid for village office, used a campaign poster-style backdrop reading "Vote for Change."
In his responses to questions about issues ranging from outdoor dining to illegal vacation rentals, Mr. Larsen continuously insisted that neither Ms. Borsack, who has been a trustee since 2000, nor Mr. Graham, who was first elected to the board in 2017, has done enough to address some of the village's longstanding challenges.
The first question, about how to find a suitable location for a proposed wastewater treatment plant, elicited the first heated exchange. Ms. Borsack said the board is looking at places that would be "perfect for this kind of use," but that she could not yet divulge them. It would be up to the village, she stressed, to make sure, both in construction and operation, that the plant would not be a nuisance, either by sight or smell, to its neighbors. Mr. Graham agreed, remarking that Sag Harbor Village has had a plant since the 1970s, and "I bet most people have no idea where it is -- it's right in the middle of the village."
Mr. Larsen took issue with the project's development. The need for such a plant was first proposed in 2015, as part of East Hampton Town's wastewater management plan, he noted, and "the village board has not advanced anything."
Mr. Graham vehemently disagreed. "When I got on the board in 2017, one of the first things we started on was this project," he said. He pointed out that the board last year had voted to accept a proposal from a civil engineering firm to develop a plan for the plant. "Frankly, for Jerry to say that we've kicked it down the road is insane," he said.
"My point was, the study was done in 2015, you hired a consultant in 2019, that is not moving very fast, Tiger, not in my world," responded Mr. Larsen.
Ms. Borsack backed Mr. Graham's assessment. "It's absolutely true that we've been working on this all along since 2015," she said. "These things don't happen overnight." The board would soon have a plan to present to residents, she promised.
In 2018, the village board adopted a law that prevented the village's historic inns, which are pre-existing, nonconforming businesses located in residential districts, from holding sizable special events, such as weddings, outdoors. Mr. Larsen is the only candidate who supports changing the zoning code to allow the inns to operate as commercial enterprises, though all three candidates are in favor of relaxing the prohibition on outdoor events.
Mr. Larsen questioned why Ms. Borsack and Mr. Graham had voted for the ban in the first place. "Why didn't [you] sit down at the table with the inns then and try to help?" he asked. Mr. Graham said former mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. was not amenable to such negotiations, and both he and Ms. Borsack said they'd been trying to find ways to help the inns ever since the law was enacted.
On the subject of illegal short-term vacation rentals, Ms. Borsack and Mr. Graham said the village is considering hiring a firm to monitor online rental sites. The village code allows for month-long rentals or two week-long rentals per year. Mr. Graham said a new law would have to be enacted to make enforcement possible.
"This has been a problem for a long time, and again the village board just doesn't take action," said Mr. Larsen. "Why haven't we revised the code already, so we can enforce this law?"
"It's currently in active discussion," replied Mr. Graham. "I'm sorry if you're frustrated with the pace of change, but it's coming and we're going to manage it."
"By next summer, we should have something in place to deal with the issue," Ms. Borsack agreed.
Mr. Larsen also needled his opponents about allowing restaurants to use public walkways for outdoor dining. It was about time, he said. "We joke around on our team that it took a pandemic to get this board to move on outdoor dining."
Mr. Graham admitted that, prior to Covid, he had doubts about offering restaurants the use of village sidewalks, but given its popularity in the community, he said, "there's no reason not to go ahead with it" on a permanent basis.
"The pandemic has contributed to looking at this differently," said Ms. Borsack. In a recent interview with The Star, she had said she was inclined to allow outdoor dining only on private property, such as the plaza in front of Rowdy Hall, and the areas in front of Cittanuova and Babette's. During the debate, she seemed to soften that stance, and said she was not opposed to the use of public property.
Mr. Larsen's proposal to increase parking in the commercial district by converting parallel parking on Newtown Lane into angled, drive-in spaces similar to those on Sag Harbor Main Street, drew a negative reaction from both Mr. Graham and Ms. Borsack. Mr. Larsen said a traffic consultant he had hired had confirmed that Newtown Lane was wide enough to accommodate the new design.
The proposal "would be a disaster for traffic flow and for people backing up into traffic," Mr. Graham objected. "Main Street in Sag Harbor is much wider than Newtown Lane, by about 40 feet. I don't know what your consultant told you, but I have one of those little wheelie measuring things; I'll be happy to lend it to you."
"There are some parts of Sag Harbor Main Street that are wider," conceded Mr. Larsen, "but if you measure at the movie theater, it's actually a couple of feet less wide than Newtown Lane, so take your little wheel and measure it again."
Ms. Borsack also turned thumbs down to Mr. Larsen's plan, saying it would endanger people backing out. "I think it's unsafe, I don't like it, and I'm not in favor it," she said. She recalled that there had been diagonal parking on Newtown Lane "years ago," and that it was changed, "to allow for two lanes of traffic in both directions, to allow the traffic to flow better."
