The Wainscott School Wainscott February 18, 2015 To the Editor: As a member of the Windmill Village Affordable Housing group, it seems important to respond to the most recent letter put out by the Wainscott School Board. Windmill has proposed to build a 48-unit project for people who live and work in our community. The school board has objected to the project because it says that there will be a huge influx of children that will radically alter the Wainscott School. In October it sent out a letter to the East Hampton community indicating that the project will generate 70 to 110 school-age children. The projection was based on a study that was completed the month before, which the school had refused to release to the public. Windmill FOILed the school to release the study, which, remarkably, showed only 46 school-age children. It was a straight demographic study using Suffolk County, not East Hampton, data, and made no reference to the data from the four similar projects that already existed in East Hampton. Utilizing East Hampton demographics or any of the local affordable-project data brings the number of potential students to between 17 and 23, the number of kids going to the school’s kindergarten to third grade being 5 to 8. So. Responding to the letter from the school board is challenging. How does our town deal with a serious problem (local affordable-housing waiting lists have more than 1,000 people on them) when transparency is a major issue? Our community needs everyone to pull together on this issue. A fractious battle between the hamlets or with the town does a disservice to everyone. The question of how the school will be impacted by the project should certainly be taken into consideration, but the town cannot allow itself to be held hostage to the needs of our local elites. The response to the school board’s latest missive is, let’s sit down and work it out. As rapidly as our world is changing around us, we can keep it under control if we keep our heads and work together to solve our problems NEIL HAUSIG Inaccessible Hydrants East Hampton February 23, 2015 To the Editor: Following the record snowfall on Jan. 26 (30-plus inches in our community), many fire hydrants were buried in deep snow. As members of the Hampton Waters Property Owners Association, we cleared the snow from all the fire hydrants in our community this weekend. We urge everyone to do the same on their streets. On a couple of our side streets there were three hydrants that were completely buried and not visible at all. The fire department has enough problems to deal with when they fight a fire — let’s help out and do our part. A buried hydrant might make the difference between firefighters easily saving a house or losing valuable time locating a hidden hydrant. With fire hydrants that are completely buried under snow, the fire department may not know their exact location if the yellow hydrant symbols painted on the road surface are covered over with snow (as they have been). Hydrant markers (thin fiberglass rods, like the ones used to mark your property, that attach to the hydrant) would be a good solution for this problem. It seems that extreme weather conditions are becoming the norm; we might consider marking hydrants that seem especially vulnerable. ARTHUR BECKENSTEIN Hampton Waters Property Owners Association Shelter and Support East Hampton February 18, 2015 To the Editor: My name is Loretta K. Davis and I am honored to be the new executive director at the Retreat, the East End’s only comprehensive domestic violence services agency. For 28 years, this organization has been providing safety, shelter, and support for survivors of domestic violence and promoting stronger and healthier relationships among our East End families, friends, students, civic organizations, and visitors. This past year an undeniable awareness of the severity and reality of domestic violence has spread across the nation, enabling us to speak up for survivors who have been robbed of their voices. The No More campaign, spearheaded by the actress and part-time Hamptons resident Mariska Hargitay, has aired poignant and powerful television ads, the newest one most recently during the Super Bowl with a taped 911 call urging viewers to listen to what is not being said. Many people know our core services: emergency shelter, counseling, legal advocacy, 24-hour crisis hotline, and violence-prevention education programs. However, the Retreat offers other programs that you may not be aware of, including: • A self-sufficiency program for women that includes finance management, personal development, and job placement; • An initiative that works with fathers to prevent family violence; • Classes to promote healthy relationships among teenagers; • A program to provide rental assistance to families escaping domestic violence; • A collaborative effort to serve domestic violence victims with mental illness; • An antiviolence re-education program for offenders; • Programs that address campus security, sexual harassment, and transportation issues, and • A partnership to prevent sexual violence against youth. The Retreat will continue to expand its vast array of programs to meet the new needs of the community. Please take advantage of these programs. There is no need to weather the domestic violence storm alone. The Retreat is here for our community. And, as the most recent No More ad emphasized, please listen to what is not being said. You have the power to help a friend in need by simply listening and sharing the fact that confidential and immediate help is only a phone call away. Our hotline number is 329-2200. Get involved, volunteer, visit our thrift shop. Join us in the fight against domestic violence. Visit our site at www.theretreatinc.org. Thank you for being such a supportive community. I look forward to working with you. LORETTA K. DAVIS Clean Energy Solutions East Hampton February 23, 2015 Dear David, Christopher Walsh’s excellent interview with my colleague John Botos, in the Feb. 19 article “Town in Energy ‘Microgrid’ Contest,” gives your readers an insight into the work of East Hampton Town’s energy sustainability advisory committee in reaching its 2020 goal of supplying 100 percent of communitywide electricity needs with renewable energy sources. Included in the article is a review of the criticism Assemblyman Fred Thiele continues to express on how deceptively the New Jersey privately held company PSEG operates on Long Island. East End residents should be well aware our rates, already the second highest in the United States, continue to work primarily in favor of the PSEG stockholders. Alternative energy resources present PSEG a formidable challenge to the company’s dependence on fossil fuel solutions in meeting the growing demand for energy on the South Fork. PSEG has reduced its plan to build green energy installations and it has rejected a wind farm proposal in favor of more “peaker” plants to provide the additional power during high demand. As John said, the advisory committee and the town’s Natural Resources Department are working together to move forward in finding clean energy solutions that will meet community energy needs, and provide economic relief, while diminishing the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. This is good long-term news for a coastal community whose coastline is already challenged by rising sea levels and the frequency of extreme weather events. LINDA JAMES People From Afar East Hampton February 23, 2015 Dear David, Your newspaper of Feb. 12 was very interesting as it was bursting with information about the people from afar and how they control our town. Your articles turn my premise into fact. Let’s do a recap. “Large Basements a Problem.” I see the subterranean people have found a way to double or even triple the usable square footage of their homes. By going one or two stories down and outside the footprint of the house, they are creating underground compounds. Kenneth Collum, the East Hampton Village code enforcement officer, points out that these compounds could hold two to three times the amount of people who would usually occupy a home. How clever! I don’t believe the framers of our building codes ever gave that a thought. “More Money” was very interesting, as it involves pure profit, based around dividing a conforming lot into two nonconforming lots. It seems that the people from afar won’t purchase unless the variance is granted so the property can be subdivided. Now that’s arm-twisting at its finest! I certainly hope the neighbors speak up. This one should be followed closely, as I would like to subdivide my lot and build another house for family members. Last was “Home Goods Signs Weighed.” The people from afar say they need additional square footage for signs because the building is so large. How does the size of a building affect the town code for signage? If that were the case then the motels out east would be entitled to giant billboards for their signs. And, the big plus, the Home Goods management compares us to Patchogue and Riverhead where they have six-foot signs! So please keep up the good work exposing the carpetbaggers, and let’s hope our boards and committees can see through the smoke. We can preserve our rural character by standing up and pushing back! Respectfully submitted, JEFFREY R. PLITT Asking for Too Much Amagansett February 18, 2015 Dear Mr. Rattray: We are neighbors to the south of Thomas Onisko’s property, which, as your Feb. 12 article “More Money, or the ‘Big Picture’?” states, is now being considered for a subdivision that would require a substantial variance by the town’s zoning board of appeals and a subdivision waiver from the planning board. When we purchased our property in 2012, it was with the understanding and knowledge that our 1.348-acre parcel was located in an “A” residence district under the town’s zoning code. In this zoning district, the minimum lot area is 40,000 square feet. It has been to our great surprise and frustration that suddenly a neighbor, whose parcel runs along the entire length of our northern property line, may have the ability to divide their one-plus-acre parcel into two nonconforming half-acre lots. The approval of such an application would completely change the nature of our neighborhood along Further Court and Further Lane, as well as devalue all the surrounding properties that conform to the one-acre zoning law. We would be particularly affected, in that the proposed house site would be 40 feet away from our bedroom and loom over our now tranquil property. It is clear to us and many of our neighbors that the application and the proposed subdivision are all about “more money” and that the “big picture” is not in the heart and mind of Thomas Onisko or the potential buyer/developer he may have in place. This is a situation where substantial profit is at stake for the buyer of the Onisko property (which was first placed on the market in 2012), and there is no substantial evidence that the profit will be used for anything other than to pad his or her own pockets. These decisions strongly affect the future of neighborhoods, villages, and towns. The only goal here should be the preservation of the zoning plan that was put into place by the town board and reaffirmed in the 2005 comprehensive plan. If this application is approved, what is stopping other one-plus-acre lots from asking for the same variances in order to maximize their economic benefit? More important, property owners and members of the community who buy property in good faith and try at all costs to honor the history of the neighborhood and zoning plan should be able to trust that the rules cannot suddenly be changed for the benefit of one person. This application is asking for too much from the zoning board and the planning board. A parcel that conforms to current zoning should not be turned into two substandard lots for the sole purpose of benefiting an owner who is just trying to squeeze every penny out of a sale. Very truly yours, ALLEN LESTER GRIBETZ ANDREW PETERS The Village at Night East Hampton February 21, 2015 Dear David, I am all for people expressing their opinion in letters to the editor and generally not one to respond when in disagreement. However, Susan Harder’s letter last week was so full of misconceptions and ugly rhetoric that I must comment and set the record straight. One of the changes in the village lighting code proposal required that all interior lights be turned off one hour after the close of business and all display lights off by 11 p.m. That would mean no lights on in any store in the village after 11 p.m. Think about that. Driving through the village or coming out of a late movie or dinner — there would be no lights in any storefront! This is not a scare tactic or misunderstanding, but a fact of what was proposed by Ms. Harder. The term “ghost town” that Ms. Harder chastised me for using was actually the term used back (in early 2014 I believe) when I was asked to sit on a committee, initiated by the L.V.I.S. and the village, which included the Chamber of Commerce and the artist community, to see what could be done “to improve the village ghost town appearance created by empty storefronts.” As to Ms. Harder’s claim that Mayor Rickenbach’s characterization of written correspondence received regarding the proposed changes to the lighting code — 8 in favor and 11 opposed — “was misleading because many [it was one] were from local organizations that collectively represent thousands of residents.” If that is the case, my letter represents over 85 businesses, many that are husband and wife, or family-owned, and collectively employ thousands of people. I am not sure what number that brings those opposing to. The Chamber of Commerce opposed it, not sure how many that adds. (Is this silly yet?) Everyone at the public hearing, with the exception of Ms. Harder and one other speaker, flat out opposed the proposal or asked that it be re-looked at, to go slow and evaluate all the impacts. As Ms. Harder seems to think that businesses’ opinion shouldn’t matter and that they are not part of “the community,” I point out that several village residents spoke about how they enjoy walking in the village at night and told the village to leave the lights on! Fortunately, the village trustees are not basing their decision on numbers, but on the content of the draft. Ms. Harder’s derogatory statements about the East Hampton Business Alliance are shameful and untrue. I am proud to say that the E.H.B.A. is an advocate for the business community. We want businesses to flourish, we want people to have opportunities here to make a living, and we want our beautiful town and village to thrive. Many of the businesses Ms. Harder spewed ugly comments at in a previous letter are direct descendants of our founding families! Businesses are the ones who generously donate to all the school, church, and firehouse fund-raisers. We need these businesses. To say that the E.H.B.A. opposes all legislation is a lie. Many proposals we don’t take positions on, some we support, and some we oppose. Legislation we oppose almost always can be reworked and result in better legislation, fair and balanced. We have spent many hours behind the scenes and on committees doing that. We live here too, and want what is best for the entire community. Don’t be so naive (or cocky), Ms. Harder, to think the lack of requests to you for information means people don’t care. They do, but they choose to get help and information from one of the many other resources available. It is incumbent on all of us to use energy more efficiently, and yes, turning all the lights off is one way to do that. However, there are other solutions that are more appropriate for a business zone. We thank the village trustees for hearing all the concerns raised and for their willingness to address those concerns and go back to the drawing board. Best regards, MARGARET TURNER Executive Director Disappointing Changes Sagaponack February 23, 2015 To the Editor: The East Hampton Town Board, on Feb. 2, issued a revision to the proposed regulations that would return some peace and quiet generated by the airport. The revision was based on discussion about what are the proper (read legal) definitions of noisy aircraft. The change would exclude turboprop planes and noisy propeller planes being subject to any restrictions at the airport. These types of planes foment much of the complaints about the airport, and by being able to escape the restrictions that helicopters, jets, and other noisy aircraft are subject to, will increase in frequency. It is not clear what triggered this change but one wonders what advice from Kirsch and company (East Hampton Town’s aviation legal consultants) contributed to this retreat. They previously discouraged any effort to limit aircraft activity because of their view of Federal Aviation Administration omnipotence. The legal opinion of the board’s original position was supported by Cravath, Swaine & Moore. This town board was elected in large part in reaction to the prior board’s close ties to aviation interests and its refusal to understand the demand for quiet enjoyment of our homes. The residents of our community have a growing resentment of F.A.A. iron-fisted control, are not attorneys, and have finely tuned, natural, God-given organs for classifying loud and noisy aircraft. This board should resolve itself to comply with the will of the people, get legal counsel from competent attorneys, and be resigned to the inevitable legal contests from vested aviation interests. Those aviation interests are already at work. If the revisions remain we will see the consequences this coming season. Continued intolerable aircraft noise may require reinstituting the original restrictions. A failure to control aircraft noise will once again enrage the East Hampton electorate and residents of other surrounding towns. If fears of lawsuits from aviation interests were part of the retreat, they may come anyway, but from neighboring towns that also bear the costs of uncontrolled aviation. The news of the changes to the proposed law are especially disappointing in light of terrific accomplishments the board had already achieved. I hope, along with others, they continue their good work and resist the aviation interests that have so compromised our environment. STEPHEN LEVINE Least Favored Child Montauk February 17, 2015 Dear Editor, While the progress that has been made by the East Hampton Town Board’s airport committee to significantly curb flights and their attendant noise at East Hampton’s airport is admirable, has anyone thought about the consequences for Montauk? Yes, Montauk. Remember us? Part of the East Hampton “family” that is often relegated to feeling like the least favored child. Banning thousands of takeoffs and landings will not stop the flying. It will be diverted to Montauk’s airport. Not only will we inherit their air traffic problem, but they’ll be foisting upon us the additional abuse of increased road traffic, since most if not all of these commuters will be making their way back toward the western environs of East Hampton. Is this really the solution?! We sympathize and support the committee’s efforts in trying to reclaim the quality of life for their residents. We only ask that they return the same consideration and courtesy to the residents of Montauk. Sincerely, RAYMOND CORTELL Half-a-Loaf Wainscott February 23, 2015 To the Editor: I am puzzled by the town board’s half a loaf is better than none approach to essential airport restrictions. Already there is an online offer of unlimited monthly air transport between New York City and East Hampton for $2,000. The “curfew” of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. is nice for birds, but humans will still lose daylight and evening peace all summer. Some helicopters, some time, some noise level? Some nonsense. Why is the board siding with the privileged few instead of the privileged many? Why do commercial interests have preference over residential ones? Why is our board responding tepidly to a huge environmental toxin in our midst? If there is a fire, we put it out — we don’t form a committee. We have a major problem, and our elected officials need to deal with it forcefully. If they are so petrified of commercial operators suing our town for the right to wreck it, close our airport, rather than pander to a half-dozen companies greedily intent on ruining the quality of life and property values all over the East End. Ban helicopters, seaplanes, and commercial operations. Anything less is damaging and unjust. BARRY RAEBECK Helicopter Noise Mattituck February 18, 2015 To the Editor: I fully support the East Hampton Town Board in their efforts in dealing with the ongoing issue of helicopter noise. The proposal will lend itself to minimize noise pollution as well as environmental pollution. As we all know, the American Lung Association has given Suffolk County an F in ozone air quality in the state, for the last 15 years in a row, and every time a helicopter flies over a populated area it leads to a huge impact on the quality of life for the communities of the North and South Forks as well as the detriment to the environment. In a calendar year there are 25,714 landings taking place, which break down as follows: 7,044 helicopters and 18,670 fixed-wing aircraft. Now the question needs to be asked, how much carbon dioxide are we, as a community, being exposed to? Do health matters not play an important role in our quality of life? It will be interesting to know if anyone from the Eastern Region Helicopter Council lives in the areas affected by the helicopter intrusion. Perhaps only then will we see a change in dynamics. After all, if they are not environmentally concerned, perhaps protecting the real estate value of their homes might spark an interest! We live in areas that have a delicate ecosystem, and corporate America cannot ravage our environment in the name of corporate profits. Rerouting the helicopters will not necessarily solve the problem. What needs to happen is to totally restrict helicopters’ use of the East Hampton Airport. Again, I applaud the East Hampton Town Board for all their efforts in preserving our environment and quality of life! MARIE DOMENICI The Din Overhead Sagaponack February 23, 2015 To the Editor; Below is a graph sent to me by the East Hampton Airport last summer. I am directly in the path of flights taking off and landing. My house is shown (barely) by the yellow and black mark near Haines Path. This illustrates the appalling number of aircraft overhead on a typical summer day. Jets, seaplanes, helicopters, prop planes — it makes no difference what is flying over us, the noise is intolerable. There is no way to enjoy our own backyards on summer weekends. Aside from the din overhead, is it going to take a jet slamming into a house or a pool filled with children to make the point that this is an accident waiting to happen? It would seem that the issue of helicopters has been addressed, but why not the rest of the aircraft? Why is the town board waffling on the issue of severely curtailing the number of flights permitted, regardless of the type of aircraft? We should be banning all flights to and from the airport between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. year round, as well as implementing the turnaround restrictions already suggested. That is the only hope for restoring peace and guarding safety for the East End. Sincerely, SUSAN CALDWELL Wet Junk Sand Amagansett February 20, 2015 Dear David, On a recent snowy evening, waiting at a bar for my Match.com date — he of the Grateful Dead T-shirt — I overheard the following: “So how’s the Army Corps of Engineers internship going?” “I have learned that there are multiples of stupids.” “That is an approved theory.” “I’ve just left a fashion showing for the emperor’s new clothes.” “I hear you’ve conned people into wanting to believe that 14,500 bags filled with wet junk sand, placed on 3,100 feet of Montauk dune, is a soft solution to beach erosion!” “Yup.” “14,500 bags of wet junk sand is a fort!” “The town can call it affordable housing.” “It is illegal. A 2007 town law prohibits hard erosion-control structures, and sandbags are only allowed in an emergency, for six months.” “People are panicking, and the Army Corps has the money to do this.” “Stupid! The town will have to pay for the cleanup — 14,500 bags will not hold. It will be an expensive mess. What will you do?” “Buy the emperor a catapult!” All good things, DIANA WALKER Permission to Kill East Quogue February 20, 2015 Dear David, As I understand it, God created life. Aside from Muhammad, who in hell gave these guys (the Islamists) permission to kill? Um — I think I just answered my own question. Truly, LANCE COREY Why a Negative View? East Hampton February 18, 2015 Dear Editor, In a recent, rather heated, verbal exchange with a friend over the merits and effectiveness of President Obama, I got quite carried away and began screaming at what I perceived as his complete ignorance. I was then, not so politely, advised by my own inspector general and longtime critic of 57 years that my friend’s expressed opinions were the prevalent view in the country and mine were not. I wonder now, why there is this huge negative view of Obama’s policies, carried through during the past six-plus years, although I still believe that history and historians will treat this president in a much more benevolent and positive way than these current critics. My life and that of others I see around me is infinitely better than when Obama took office. The economic fears have dissipated; there are no youngsters dying in stupid wars overseas; the job market has vastly improved as has the stock market, and people are spending again. Now, I am a constant staunch defender of liberal and progressive national and local policies, and have been since I became politically active in the 1950s. I fully understand that my very strong opinions, freely voiced as they are, were born in my heritage and nurtured through a lifelong personal and professional battle on behalf of the maligned and outnumbered underdogs of the world. A sort of liberal superhero. At present, I know that I am not consistently reasonable in my arguments and sometimes lack the accurate historical data to back them up, all of which leaves me vulnerable to counter-opinions. But when I hear the oft-repeated critique nomenclature used to support the opinions of the opposition, it drives me bonkers. Repetitive disrespect for the office of the presidency and the person of our first black president and our first black attorney general sometimes pushes me beyond any cool approach I should have in discussing the whole liberal-conservative thing. Add to that some of these ill-conceived, poorly grounded or substantiated criticisms, and the ever-present but sometimes hidden racist connotations used against liberals — the so-called code words like “freeloaders,” “welfare freaks,” “food stamp abusers,” “excessive unemployment benefits,” “voter ID,” “wealth-sharing,” and, from some of my more volatile Jewish friends, as just used by my friend in our verbal exchange, the not-so-subtle “schvartzes” — drive me over the edge. Hence this letter. I’d like to hear from some of your readers just what they think of why there is such a weakness in Obama support and support for progressive thinking in the country in general. Now it may be that what I hear, and what my wife sees, is the result of a generational gap. A gap that is vastly narrower now than it has been, as the youth of today become politically active and bring with them a fresh view of race and gender, as well as the economic spirit of the country and its large split between the 1 percent and the rest. Time will tell. But we have an election coming in less than two years. Where will the country’s progressives be then? Who knows? Anyway, as soon as my friend uttered the right-wing taboo vernacular using that word for “black,” and expressed the usual abhorrence for Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, and everyone labeled progressive as “foils,” I tuned the man out. And now, suddenly, we hear from the former mayor of New York, he who wormed out of his first marriage with a hidden adulterous relationship, who tried to have an associate, a convicted felon, become the head of the country’s Department of Homeland Security, and who stands as a wimp of a man, husband, and father, saying, in an alleged “private statement,” that growing up in an Italian family gave him a lot of love for his country but that not growing up in such an Italian environment but only growing up as the racially mixed grandson of a white grandpa and grandma who loved him, attending the best schools in America, becoming a U.S. senator, leading the country for six and a half years successfully, leaves another lesser man without love of his country — although the slimy ex-mayor might still allow that loveless person to be patriotic. Right on, Rudy, keep us united behind our leader in the fight against horrible terrorism by scurrilously trashing the president of the United States and dividing our efforts — you @#$%^&* weasel. RICHARD P. HIGER A War Not Over Sag Harbor February 13, 2015 Dear David, For a long time I wanted to write about war and stories from warriors because of their special insight. I was in the Korean War for two years. President Truman called it a police action, which became a long, ugly war. Little did he know, a war still not over and now a nuclear threat. War has its own logic or insanity. If I was to update this comment, wars rarely have a strategy — only tactics that can get out of control. For 14 years we were promised an ending would come in Iraq and Afghanistan — not yet, but more deeply embedded, while drowning in a sea of lies and complexity. At present we’re on the edge to declare war against ISIS. This time the promise is for only three years; no American ground troops will be needed — already its first lie. Thousands are on the ground. Warriors must think the American people are gullible or stupid, but fear works the way our government manipulates the way we and the warriors think but fight all our wars. No reverence for life. Ninety percent of the victims are civilians. Out of nowhere, the film “American Sniper” has arrived across our country. No space here to tell a complex story of three warriors, two of whom may have had P.T.S.D., the third bordering on serious mental problems, now on trial for killing the other two. Just three lives that the politicians would have us forget. We soldiers of all nations who lie killed Ask little: that you never in our name Dare say we died that men might be fulfilled The earth should vomit us against that shame Warriors that we grieve for, God bless them. In peace, LARRY DARCEY Student of Neglect Boston February 10, 2015 To the Editor, Re: Avid reader Dear student of neglect, Lucius D. Clay, an American life Happy 70th remembrance. GEORGE RICHERT
Published 5 years ago
Last updated 5 years ago
Letters to the Editor: 02.26.15
February 25, 2015