Letters to the Editor 06.30.16

Miles Out of Their Way

East Hampton

June 27, 2016

To the Editor:

 East Hampton Village, wake up! Again this summer, on the weekends, it is “right turn only” when leaving the main parking lot onto Newtown Lane. This is not helpful.

 Every car must turn into the heart of the village, which only adds to the traffic jam leading up to the light.

 Hundreds of people who live in Northwest Woods cannot turn left to go home. They have to go miles out of their way (either to Route 114 or around the North Main Street I.G.A.) to get back home, causing everyone to drive an additional 7 to 10 miles or so.

 With all the tire-marker employees the village has, use one of them to direct traffic leaving the parking lot on weekends, in order to allow left turns so I can go home!

Very sincerely,

JANE ADELMAN

Show More Decorum

East Hampton

June 27, 2016

Dear David,

The East Hampton Town Trustees, an elected board, should show more decorum and patience and respect their meetings and refrain from such blatant behavior — such as some members losing their tempers and others using four-letter words while on LTV. Most of all, they should stop making snide remarks about the East Hampton Town Board members, who work extremely hard for our citizens and our hamlets.

My good friend the late Stuart Vorpahl, a longtime town trustee and beloved Bonacker, would have never put up with such tactics at a trustees meeting.

I would like to single out Tyler Armstrong, who appears very conscientious about his duties as a trustee. I would like to thank him publicly for the time and efforts he puts in in protecting our town and environment.

I would also like to thank Rick Whalen, who serves as attorney to the East Hampton Town Trustees. Finally, many thanks to Lori Carr, who serves as secretary at the trustee meetings and takes wonderful minutes.

Sincerely,

ELIZABETH VOGT RUSSUCK

Proper Flag Etiquette

East Hampton

June 27, 2016

Dear Editor,

I am not advocating that we illuminate our flags. I am simply advocating that we follow proper flag etiquette, which, according to the U.S. Flag Code, states: “Ordinarily it should be displayed only between sunrise and sunset. It should be illuminated if displayed at night.”

Maybe Susan Harder, who in her letter last week accused me of fake patriotism, might volunteer to help put up and take down our flags?

KEVIN MILLER

Out-of-Town Taxis

Montauk

June 26, 2016

To the Editor:

I cannot believe that the town has not done something about the invasion of taxis in Montauk. They were quick to jump all over Uber, but as far as I have seen they have done nothing about all of the other out-of-town taxis.

I thought that all taxi companies out here had to have a local address to do business. This is obviously not enforced, because there are taxicab drivers sleeping in their cars on the side streets and multiple cab companies using the same address. 

I was walking my dog with my 13-year-old daughter and one of the cabs stopped on the side of the road and the driver got out and peed on the side of the road. This is disgusting. 

I work at Douglas Elliman on Main Street, and during the day there are up to 15 cabs parked on both sides of the street and wrapped around the corner. Half of them don’t even stay within the designated spot, making it even harder to park. There are no places for our customers or the restaurant next door to park. Every two hours they just jockey around their positions. Then five or six drivers are standing outside our office being loud. It is so distracting trying to work. 

The town said that they were going to designate an area for them. When is this going to happen?

CYNTHIA IBRAHIM

Irony and Injustice

Montauk

June 25, 2016

Editor,

Nancy Atlas, a Montauk musician, along with other musical artists who spoke before the June 14 town board meeting, have every right to be upset with the current state of affairs regarding evasive music claims, current sound-level violations, and the overall predicament they find themselves in. Music is a very important part of Montauk, both as an art form in its own right and as an extension of the total Montauk attraction. As professional musicians, their right to concern themselves over legal issues affecting their livelihoods has great merit, but the town board has rightful prerogatives in insisting businesses adhere to certain lawful standards, regardless of when, where, or how they do so in accomplishing this function.

The irony and injustice of this situation is these musicians are being forced to fight the fight that is both ethically and legally that of the Montauk club and bar managements. There is where the true responsibility for unlawful action resides and it is there where adherence to the laws must be met. Whether through inaction or indifference, the delegation of this obligation to performers, artists, and employees, who have no other course but to comply with their employers’ neglect and unconcern, is cowardly and unjust.

To put forth the bar and nightclub argument that East Hampton’s enforcement procedures are some sort of anti-Montauk business ploy, some kind of obscure legal harassment, is sophomoric and a typical tactic employed to dodge responsibility. 

Fundamentally, as in all other businesses, it is the responsibility of the club and bar owners to be aware of the laws that concern the lawful operations of the businesses in which they participate. Real or pretended ignorance of the law is not a justifiable excuse and an indication of unprofessionally at best and, at worst, an ongoing, business-as-usual contempt of lawful compliance.

To believe that any of the Montauk clubs and bars found in violation of a basic, incorrect classification error deserves special treatment or a pass due to the seasonal proximity of a business cycle is to believe they are above the law and all other more serious violations are to be dismissed for the same reason.

Additionally, more than a few of these businesses have long records of annual, continuous noise violations, which is another unmistakable indication of the value they place on public regard, willingness to obey clear and well-understood laws, and like attitudes toward other forms of compliance.

At the June 14 meeting, the Surf Lodge was reported to be the recipient of a music classification noncompliance violation, one routinely mandated by the New York State Liquor Authority. This is a business that has benefited hugely from its location in Montauk. This is a business that, over its years of existence, has had multiple and continuous violations of the noise codes, a business that, in 2010, on being cited on three different occasions for the same noise violations under Chapters 117 and 185 of the town code, in order to avoid a possible redetermination of its music and entertainment permit, publicly pledged to take substantial measures to mitigate potential noise emanating from the premises, including, but not limited to installing and treating certain sections of the exterior wall to prevent amplification.

This cannot but beg the question that if the Surf Lodge can be in violation of such as simple, basic, routine requirement, such as the S.L.A. registration regulation, has it indeed fulfilled its 2010 compliance pledge?

Since no written summary, review, or completion of the promised anti-noise measures can be found, and the current town board has repeatedly avoided requests to investigate actual completion performance, it is hoped Surf Lodge management will step forward to publicly verify completion of this self-required project so this troubling matter can finally be put to rest.

In fairness to the musicians who gain employment in Montauk, current noise violation standards require additional investigation. However, there is an equal obligation to the rights of Montauk citizens who are negatively affected by current noise violations. The 250 noise complaints recorded in 2015 were from Montauk citizens, who have a legitimate right to their privacy and a peaceful environment.

The root to the primary problem is not music; it is music played outdoors in which the sound is dramatically carried over far greater distances than when performed within doors. The ultimate question then arises that, why should a music product being offered to a customer base within a radius of no more than 10-15 yards from its source be allowed to irritate, annoy, and aggravate hundreds of other citizens, up to and beyond a quarter mile from the music’s creation? It is selfish, unfair, and a waste of good music.

If indeed, the Montauk bars and clubs are serious and sincere in working within town laws and codes, there is a solution and proven example of effectiveness. The Amagansett nightclub Stephen Talkhouse years ago forwent any outdoor music performances in favor of an indoor music venue. Additional sound-retaining techniques were installed in the building and as a result, 100 percent of joyful, exhilarating, and powerful music is delivered to exactly the customers who it was originally intended for without a single bit escaping to a less-enthusiastic reception — a perfect example of a local business understanding and appreciating its responsibility to the community of which it has the good fortune to be a part, while still delivering what its customers desire. It’s a situation that, as of yet, is unheard of in Montauk.

TOM BOGDAN

Montauk United

Dysfunctional Traditions

Amagansett

June 27, 2016

Dear Mr. Rattray,

As a homeowner and seasonal resident on Whalers Lane, which abuts Truck Beach, I sympathize with those who relax and “recreate” in the weekend tailgating community there, and have observed the care with which they watch their children, remove their trash, and maintain harmony. The sense of community, which the O’Donnels described very eloquently in their letter last week, is certainly palpable, and indeed looks like a lot of fun.

I disagree, however, with the argument that this, and “tradition,” justify the environmental and aesthetic degradation of this beach in particular, and by extension, East End beaches in general. Last week’s letter from Cindi Crain summarized the environmental findings that should be at the heart of the discussion. (Ms. Pilgrim’s article on the topic also recapitulated the environmental and political considerations involved.)

I especially would like to rebut certain aspects of Mr. Blatt’s letter of June 23. There is no question that turning a natural area into a parking lot abuses it, as does driving on the sand and the aftermath of ruts, oil drips, forgotten bottles, etc. And to justify an unwillingness to consider alternatives to the current situation because homeowners “should have done their due diligence before purchasing their homes overlooking sands that have been used by East Hampton residents for centuriesor recreational purposes” is quite offensive: Some of us have had our houses for decades; the numbers of permits issued has ballooned since that time. Nor does it occur to the average buyer in March or September that this density of driving and parking on the beach on a July weekend could be possible. 

Local residents may have used the beach for recreational purposes for centuries, but I will warrant that they did not do so from 4,000-ton S.U.V.s and trucks until the 1980s or later. Before that, if you drove on the beach, it was because you fished from there, more or less commercially. This was the traditional and historical circumstance of beach driving, not tailgating with hundreds of other vehicles on a sunny afternoon. Also, there are countless examples of dysfunctional traditions that have been abandoned or modified over time: whale-slaughtering (to use a nautical one), foot-binding, witch-burning, the horse and buggy — you get the idea. The point is that traditions evolve.

Finally, Mr. Blatt conflates the issue of driving and parking on Truck Beach with Beach Access for All. As was written elsewhere in The Star, the town has failed in its responsibility to address the democratization of access to beaches, but there are other ways to do this than turning a blind eye to the destructiveness of beach driving.

These involve people walking from a real parking lot rather than driving onto the sand; that might require a rethinking of the parking regulations in the town and providing more user-friendly public transportation. Certain residents will object to such measures, but they ultimately would contribute to more equitable access to the resources here, and a stronger, more cohesive community.

 ALEX von HOFFMANN

I Declare

East Hampton

June 27, 2016

To the Editor:

In the spirit of Independence Day, I declare my right and those of my friends, family, neighbors, and pets on the East End to be free from the noise and aviation gas emissions generated by helicopters, jets, and seaplanes.

I declare the right of all wildlife to be free to live peacefully and propagate in the fields, woodlands, and beaches that East End residents have taxed themselves to preserve for both wildlife habitat and our enjoyment. 

I declare our children must be free of the negative impacts aircraft noise has on their ability to learn. I declare that our physical and mental health needs to be freed from the deleterious health impacts we know aircraft noise are causing, particularly in increased incidences of cardiac disease. 

Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard the town’s appeal of a federal court ruling imposing a temporary injunction on the town’s adopted once-per-week rule limiting aircraft that meet the town’s definition of noisy to one landing and takeoff per week to protect the public from noise. While the panel deliberates, the summer progresses, and noise impacts continue to rain down on all East End residents as we try to garden, hike, go to the beach, and generally enjoy the outdoors. Currently, we are not free to exercise our right to the peaceful enjoyment of home and property. 

In the meantime, the aircraft-noise-affected public is urged to continue to log complaints that will help the town board shape further policy while we wait to see if the once-per-week rule will be restored. 

One hopes that the town’s right to govern its airport in the best interests of airport users and the noise-affected alike will prevail in the Second Circuit. That decision will likely be rendered at the end of the summer, too late to restore some small portion of our freedom and rights. 

The residents of the East End are unfairly taxed by the aircraft noise and fuel emissions raining down on them from helicopters, jets, and seaplanes and need to be freed from this. East Hampton residents have a right to self-determination in managing their airport. Only home rule can remedy that. 

Sincerely, 

KATHLEEN CUNNINGHAM

Quiet Skies Coalition 

Aviation Pollution

Noyac

June 26, 2016

Dear Editor,

It’s not yet 9 on Sunday morning, and it’s pin-drop quiet in our neighborhood; I am very grateful to current East Hampton Town Board members for that. It’s as quiet at this hour in our garden as it was when the environmental impact review for the airport master plan measured background noise at locations in various communities; our neighborhood registered the lowest background noise level of areas tested. 

This pervading quiet is deeply relaxing. It permits uninterrupted Sunday-morning snoozing and encourages peaceful meditation and quiet contemplation of all that is good in our lives; that is so profoundly refreshing for the spirit. I try to banish the thought that within days, this quiet calm we cherish will disappear for months, replaced by a constant roar overhead as air taxis of all types begin anew their polluted race for profit across East End skies. 

I’ve been battling the growing scourge of aviation pollution for a decade, but feel as if I’ve been running in place. I’ve attended endless meetings, seen many resolutions, given up on the bloated bureaucracy that is the F.A.A. and on our comatose “representatives” in Albany, and waited, season after season, while the courts ponder a decade of aviation noise complaints, various studies, countless petitions, and pleas for noise relief from residents. If the courts affirm a decision that supports local control, the foesof the East Hampton Airport immediately attempt to have that decision overturned, ordering additional lawsuits to be funded by the big money — by those same out-of-­town and out-of-state aviation operators who tried, in vain, to conceal their attempts to buy the town board at the November local election. 

East Hampton voters handed those polluters a landslide result: Get out of town. But the courts, and maybe even the town board, just don’t get the message that we’ve had enough. With lengthy legal delays supposedly preventing any noise mitigation other than the merciful curfews, aviation profiteers are reaping enormous profit while residents and town boards in other towns wring their hands and faceless judges endlessly ponder the various lawsuits. “Justice” is surely a misnomer for this legal system of ours. 

Is there hope for saving the remaining peaceful qualities of the East End? Unlikely, say the majority of friends with whom I’ve discussed the issue, because Montauk is battling for its very soul, real estate developers are salivating over North Fork farm fields, and tracts of South Fork land not yet developed are grabbed by speculators to hold for future construction of gargantuan houses that will remain vacant all but a few weeks per year. And our elected representatives in Albany appear to be supporting any group but their constituents, the East End residents, the taxpayers. “Representative” is surely a misnomer for our Albany politicians, as they represent only one side, their aviation industry cronies.

So “should we move or should we stay” has become a topic for many homeowners, and some have already selected option one. But today, with background sound of temple bells and cardinals’ love songs in our ears, our group of friends is focused and unanimous. We’ve all fought battles before, won some, lost some, given up on others, but this fight for peace and quiet over our homes — we’re in it for the duration, whatever it takes and however long, because this Eden of ours is just too precious to give up on. 

Call your homeowners association, talk to neighbors and friends, join a group or form a group, but take action to end this worsening aviation tyranny over our homes and communities.

PATRICIA CURRIE

Blackouts and Redactions

Springs

June 26, 2016

To the Editor:

Once again, as in Wainscott last year, a school board’s objection to affordable housing by obfuscating the facts and ignoring the common good in favor of a cover-up has occurred, this time in Amagansett.

Brava to this citizen’s favorite citizen, Rona Klopman, exposing the Amagansett School District’s expenditure of $19,000 cost for a report they refuse to completely release to the taxpayers who’ve paid the bill. What’s written behind all those blackouts and redactions?

Censure to District Superintendent Eleanor Tritt and NIMBY citizens blind to the truth that their opposition to the East Hampton Housing Authority and this well-considered affordable housing plan is contrary to their own well-being and one of our town’s most vital, economic needs.

Something must be done! We cannot continue to “just say no” to our town’s middle-income housing requirements. 

ALEX MILLER

Release the Full Report

East Hampton

June 27, 2016

Dear David:

I am writing this letter to shed light on what I believe is behind the refusal of the Amagansett School Board to release the full report of the consultants it retained to evaluate the impact of the proposed 40-unit affordable housing development in Amagansett. 

I was a member of the board of directors of the Windmill housing corporation during the period of time that Windmill sought to sponsor an affordable housing development on a parcel of land on Stephen Hand’s Path, just west of Route 114 in the Wainscott School District. The town owned the land, and the Democrat-controlled town board wanted Windmill to develop it into 46 apartments. At the outset in early 2015, the prospects looked very good. 

Enter the Wainscott School Board. The board was dead set against the proposal, claiming that its “one-room elementary school” would have to be replaced because of the influx of new students. Windmill, in conjunction with the East Hampton Housing Authority, did an evaluation of the number of additional students who would be attending the Wainscott School and determined that the one-room schoolhouse could accommodate them, and do so with a small tax increase.

The Wainscott School Board retained a consulting firm and refused to release its report. Windmill made a Freedom of Information Law demand for the report, and a substantially redacted report was released. The Amagansett School Board has done the same thing.

The Wainscott School District has the lowest taxes by far of any of the five school districts in the Town of East Hampton — one-fifth of those in Springs. And protecting those low taxes is what engendered a very vigorous opposition to the plan to build 46 desperately needed affordable housing units.

Guess what? The Amagansett School District has the second-lowest school tax rate. 

The Wainscott School project never got off the ground because the town officials had concerns about the huge expense of litigation that was threatened by the Wainscott School Board and most certainly would have been forthcoming.

The page one article in this week’s Star accurately reflects the shenanigans that the Amagansett School Board is engaging in to foil (forgive the pun) the legitimate FOIL request made by Ms. Rona Klopman, an Amagansett resident with a conscience. I applaud her for retaining a lawyer to pursue the truth so as to help our community do justice for those in need. 

And the truth no doubt lies within the redacted portions of the report provided to Ms. Klopman, namely, that as was the case with Wainscott, Amagansett can well afford the additional taxes that will be required to accommodate the additional students — the number of which has been exaggerated by the Amagansett School Board in its public statements. The East Hampton Town Housing Authority has established the truth, which is that the Amagansett school building can physically accommodate the additional students, that the increase in school taxes will be minimal, and that the current school population is projected to shrink. 

Hopefully, the full report of the Amagansett consultants will be released. Even if it is not, the Town of East Hampton has the power to move forward on this affordable housing proposal with or without the approval of the Amagansett School Board. I believe it is time for the East Hampton Town Board to take a stand for justice, which in this case means creating affordable housing for people in need, including teachers, police officers, and so many other decent, hard-working people who work in our town and should be able to live here rather than having to face more than three hours of commuting round trip.

DAVID J. WEINSTEIN

Big Roadside Puddles

Springs

June 23, 2016

Dear David, 

Not to be alarmist, but at a time when we are reminded every day about the dangers of Zika virus being spread by mosquitos propagating in still waters — in Brazil it always seems to be in bottlecaps left around trash bins — here in East Hampton we are ignoring big roadside puddles that never seem to dry up. It might be a better use of town resources to take a day or two out of tree-trimming or mowing to fill those ditches with something that will eliminate the Zika potential of warm stagnant waters.

We use helicopters to spray the shoreline for mosquitos; if we can’t eliminate the breeding pools by filling them in, why not a ground-based spray unit. They’re using them in Brazil, why not here?

GEOF DRUMMOND

A Stolen Artwork

East Hampton

July 2, 2016

To the Editor:

When holidays such as Memorial Day and Flag Day, related to war, come up, I get angry all over again. This past Flag Day again brought to mind something that has stuck in my craw for quite some time. Insofar as possible, what was stolen by the Nazis should be restituted to its rightful owners. But it appears this has still not always been done.

Before World War II, my grandparents Strauss owned some art in Germany. This was seized by some of Marshall Goering’s thugs. After the war, at least one such work, “Dilapidated Farmhouse” by the Dutch artist Jan van Goyen, was sent to the Museum Jeu de Paume in Paris and registered officially and internationally as a stolen artwork. Before this registration could be properly publicized, it appears the painting was auctioned off by Sotheby’s to a Boston philanthropist. Since then, we have been trying to negotiate its restitution, in whole or in part.

However, we cannot do so, because we cannot find it. We cannot find it because Sotheby’s refuses to tell us who bought it; nor to either enable us to contact the buyer or permit us or our lawyer to try to negotiate any sort of settlement. Sotheby’s claims it is prevented from doing so by its confidentiality agreement.

It is surprising to me that a reputable company such as Sotheby’s is taking a position that seems clearly immoral and contrary to the Washington Principles. Surely some sort of resolution could have been arrived at, whereby Sotheby’s client keeps the work, this time legally and correctly; whereby Sotheby’s acts honorably, and whereby my grandparents’ heirs receive at least something for their work. Anything I receive I would gladly give to charity.

STEPHEN E. ADLER

Call the Manufacturer

Amagansett

June 24, 2016

Dear Editor,

I would like to describe an incident that just happened to me with the hope it might be a warning to others. 

My washing machine broke just as my daughter and her two young children were arriving. I panicked and looked in the Yellow Pages and called a repair person. He claimed he could make room for me that day (very unusual). The price for walking in the door was $175. Being desperate, I agreed.

Two men arrived, the “boss” and his assistant, who looked either drunk, stoned, or sick. The “boss” looked at my washing machine for two seconds and then asked if he could use my bathroom. I said sure, but when he stayed in there for almost 10 minutes I began to worry. He finally emerged with a piece of paper where he had written down what the repair would cost. The repair consisted of replacing a small part that he didn’t have but could order and have in a few days. 

He presented me with the staggering amount of $596. I said that no way was I going to pay that kind of absurd amount, and he said okay, but you still owe me the $175. 

I called the company, Fast Appliance Service, after he left, and complained. I mentioned that he had strangely stayed in my bathroom for a long time and they said the reason was because the washing machine was in there. The washing machine is not in there. They apologized and said they could do it for $350. 

Meanwhile my daughter had the sense to call G.E. directly. They came the next day with the part and did the job for $202.

I strongly believe that this is a scam. They give you an outrageous estimate, assuming you’ll refuse, but meanwhile they collect the $175 walk-in-the-door money for doing absolutely nothing. Never again. Just a warning! Call the manufacturer.

RUTH PREVEN

Coming to a Head

Springs

June 22, 2016

Dear David.

Does anyone remember when Hillary Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, were pictured walking on a tarmac calmly — and she told the press she had to run for her life as she was being shot at? Then said she misspoke after pictures surfaced. Remember when she said videos caused the killings of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, actually spoke to the parents face to face and gave them this cock-and-bull story about the deaths of their children. She knew it was a terrorist attack but she lied. She lied about her emails and all that is coming to a head. This woman lies about everything because she doesn’t know the difference between lies and truths.

Lee Zeldin has done fantastic work after only one term in Congress. He has saved Plum Island, has passed amendments for the fishermen so they can earn a living, but we need to remove him and praise Bishop, who demanded money after doing a favor for a constituent? Listen, favors have payback, ask Hillary. The Clinton Foundation received plenty from countries that perform inhuman atrocities, as long as they pay, she delivers.

Before you go to the computer and type out reports you hear on radio or TV think about your own candidate, be fair.

In God and country,

BEA DERRICO

 

America the Beautiful

Hampton Bays

June 23, 2016

To the Editor,

I would like to express my feelings per a letter by Judith Hope (June 9). I feel many people struggle, either mentally or physically, to get through this beautiful life God has granted us. Why should Hillary Clinton be so admired? Of course there are many reasons on her part, one no less being a huge ego.

For a former first lady who claims she and her husband didn’t have two nickels to rub together upon leaving the White House, from all reports, they are worth quite a few million, not to mention the Clinton Foundation and all of its millions. These are people who should have zero respect.

Moving on to Barack Obama, I feel he has divided the country immensely. He has surrounded himself with people who want to destroy the very fabric our great country was founded on. Unfortunately, the Republicans don’t want to go up against the “regime.” All you hear is the blame game. Whatever happened to fessing up to a mishap?

In summing up, Ms. Hope is correct when she stated that this election is not about socialist Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton. Hard-working Americans want a president like Donald Trump. He may lack the finesse and political correctness, but after eight years of having a community organizer tearing apart America the Beautiful, what’s so bad about trying to make America great again?

Yours truly,

JOHN PAGAC