Something for Everyone Amagansett August 29, 2015 To the Editor: Having just read the New York Times article on the “Outer Cape Cod,” in which the author keeps comparing the serenity of that area to the hectic pace of the Hamptons, I feel I need to defend them! For many years, we owned a western Catskill farmhouse, set at the foot of a scenic mountain on 100 pristine acres in the middle of nowhere, and we spent every Friday bribing, paying, and threatening our kids to come out there with us. When we decided to give up on our country retreat, all we wanted in our next home was a place our children would want to come! So we bought a house in Amagansett. I guess you have to be careful what you wish for, for now, 25 years later, our six kids and their spouses and our five grandchildren fight for bedrooms! There is something for everyone — East Hampton Village, with shops and movies for the teens, bay beaches for the kayakers, paddleboarders, and toddlers, dunes for the hikers, paths for the bikers, fancy restaurants for celebrations, gourmet shops for the chefs, beaches for the walkers and dog walkers, and the ocean for everyone. Perhaps serenity, isolation, and solitude is not for everyone. The Hamptons are our perfect family retreat! CAROL BROWN Government Is Essential East Hampton August 29, 2015 Dear David, This past week I have been in the process of composing a letter to you concerning our community’s need for an active town government. Although I will not abandon entirely the thoughts that I composed, I must commend you and your readers to an excellent journalistic exposé that appeared in Sunday’s New York Times (and online on Aug. 28), titled “The Battle for the Soul of the Hamptons.” The writer likens the recent growth in transient populations, spurred in no small part by Airbnb, proliferation of nightclubs and restaurants and plans for more of them, as well as the unceasing development of McMansions, to the Manifest Destiny that drove American pioneers 150 years ago. It quotes East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell as saying that the implementation of local laws and the efforts of citizens groups and politicians are aligned in a fight to protect “the heart and soul of this community.” You, David, are also quoted in the article as saying “oh my God, it’s more crowded than it’s ever been before,” and that we are reaching “. . . an amorphous tipping point.” I do hope that this article is read by your readers, as it really sets out in chapter and verse why we need an activist government to preserve our community. We often hear people of a conservative bent say that less government is good government and there is no question that this has become a popular ethos in the new millennium. A close cousin to less government is lower taxes and the cruel but effective argument that benefits programs are a culprit that must be eradicated. This is an argument that easily distracts some people from the reality of our need for government to protect us in many, many ways from the unrestrained desire for profit at the expense of our community — a desire that was clearly demonstrated to be bipartisan at the recent town board meeting in Montauk, where people from every part of our community expressed their dismay at what has happened there and called for action. Most recently in the Aug. 20 edition of The Star, in my letter to you titled “To Control the Chaos,” I iterated recent actions by the East Hampton Town Board to reign in the exponential growth of crowds overflowing nightspots in Montauk and along the Napeague stretch. I made a particular point of mentioning that Margaret Turner, a Republican candidate for town board, opposed a law recently passed preventing motels from opening bars. I mention this again because people should realize that it is the Democratic-controlled town board that has and will continue to take the steps necessary to curtail and control exploitation for profit’s sake without regard for the effects on the community at large. Think of what the consequences would be, in terms of increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic, of turning Duryea’s shack into a 6,350-square-foot restaurant capable of serving more than 200 people, as well as knocking down the adjacent Duryea family home for a parking lot. Our town is a good platform for debunking the myth that we don’t need government. We live in a world where government services are essential to our existence, and government regulation of excesses, in the form of violation of existing laws, must be prevented. Examples of services include roads and highways, police, schools, environmental protection including water quality, acquisition of undeveloped land with community preservation funds to protect the aquifer and control overdevelopment, implementing a plan to preserve the Montauk business district from the onslaughts of storms, social services for the young, the old, and the infirm, and affordable housing for the working people who serve our community, including policemen, schoolteachers, tradespeople, and many of the brave people who serve on a volunteer basis in our fire districts. The East Hampton town government provides, coupled with some federal and state aid, for all of these except the schools, which are directly taxed. I believe that we have reached the tipping point to which you alluded, David, and that our town board, as currently constituted, has the will and the ability to reverse the conditions that we are beset with, by enforcing existing laws and, where needed, passing new ones. DAVID J. WEINSTEIN Little to No Bail Montauk August 26, 2015 Dear Editor, Last week’s police report had several people arrested for driving while intoxicated. All were released on $1,000 or less bail, and three had no bail, according to The Star. A New York City woman lost control of her car, crashed into some trees, and the car burst into flames. She told the police that she hit something in the road. Thank God that something in the road was not a somebody in the road. She was released without bail. How many man-hours did that one D.W.I. cost the town from the police, E.M.S. personnel, and firefighters who volunteered their time? I am sure if someone took a loaded gun and waved it on Main Street, that person would be arrested for second-degree reckless endangerment and sent to Suffolk County jail with a bail of no less than $5,000, as they should be. So why then we do not see someone who is driving a 4,000-pound S.U.V. drunk, weaving all over the road, and also probably talking or texting on his/her phone, as not as serious? The town is spending all this money with bringing in other police agencies to get control on all of this, which is good. But what good are all of those efforts if our town justices keep releasing with little to no bail? Anyone, local or visitor, who can’t follow the laws or respect our community should have to take a ride to Suffolk County jail and get bailed out there. I believe that over all we do not have a major D.W.I. problem in our community, but with all the transportation options we have — L.I.R.R., taxis, the Jitney, and all the shuttles running around, there is no excuse for drinking and driving. Defendants tend to be on their best behavior and somewhat remorseful when they go before the justice on their bail hearing. Maybe the judges should ride with the police on a Friday night and see firsthand how arrogant and belligerent a drunk can be. Police and correction officers tend to see the worst side of drunks, and by the time they go before a justice they are usually sober and an attorney usually speaks for them. I am sure if a defendant showed up to court in that same condition as they were when stopped, the justice would be setting a much higher bail and sending them off to the county jail for contempt of court. I am a retired correction officer who has seen countless people sober up in jail only to be told that they had seriously injured or killed someone the night before. According to MADD, the average defendant drives his or her car drunk 80 times before he or she is ever arrested. Maybe if they had seen the inside of a jail on the first arrest, this could have been a wake-up call, and a senseless accident with an innocent person killed could be avoided. As U.S. citizens we are thankfully protected by the Eighth Amendment, which protects us from excessive bail. But nobody should be able to crash and burn a car while drunk and be back on the street in the matter of hours. KEVIN MOEN A Special Chair East Hampton August 26, 2015 Dear Editor, In mid-June, I had foot surgery that resulted in some complications, involving concerns about infection. While I was treated, I had to be very careful not to allow water or sand near the incisions. Fortunately there are now special surgical supplies that do prevent this from happening (seal-tight bandage/cast leg-covering). But then, the activity I missed was the beach. As you know, the weather has been glorious. Well, it turns out that the East Hampton beaches are equipped with a special chair that transports people who have difficulty walking on the sand. Atlantic Avenue Beach in Amagansett has a chair, and the lifeguards came to pick me up and return me to the parking lot whenever I came to the beach. They were unfailingly polite, pleasant, and happy to do so. Of course I was always apologetic in asking them to push or pull me, but they consistently made me feel that it was no problem and a part of their job that they were pleased to perform. So, I would like to express my appreciation to the East Hampton beach authority who had the foresight to provide the chairs, and my sincere gratitude to the wonderful lifeguards who made it possible for me to enjoy the sun and surf. PAULINE WALLIS Food Trucks at Beaches East Hampton August 31, 2015 David, It’s not a bad thing to provide beachgoers with food and drink at Georgica, Two Mile Hollow, and at the beaches already providing such services. Of course these providers should be licensed by the town and villages. Part of the agreement to let these food trucks operate should be an agreement to provide cleanup at the site, the whole site, and to do so every day they operate at the site. A failure to help to keep the areas clean should be a loss of the license to operate in those areas. The owners of the trucks will argue that all of the trash will not be made by purchases from their business. Tough. If you want to make a buck providing food and drink you will have to do your duty to keep the beaches clean. Trash strewn about the area is a real problem. The waste made at the beaches should not add to this problem. TOM FRIEDMAN Bad Idea Springs August 31, 2015 To the Editor, I was appalled reading the article titled “Food Trucks on the Menu?” in the Aug. 27 paper, indicating the possibility of allowing food trucks at village beaches. Barbara Borsack, the assistant mayor, with this ill-conceived idea, is intent on destroying the bucolic nature of some of the most beautiful beaches in the world. Food trucks in the village beach parking lots would turn the village shoreline into a noisy, smelly, crowded, and garbage-filled Coney Island beach atmosphere. Her idea demonstrates her incredible lack of understanding of the fragile beach environment. Increasing usage of the village beaches is also an odd concept, considering the limits of nonresident beach permits issued annually. This is bureaucratic incompetence, and disregard for the Village of East Hampton Vision Statement, adopted in 2000, which states, “the Village of East Hampton is committed to the avoidance of assaults on the senses which in the case of this village are especially dependent on the aesthetic quality and physical attributes of the community. Among these are the general form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of structures and open spaces and the retention of the unique aesthetic quality that is part of the character of the Village of East Hampton.” I think the mayor, assistant mayor, and village trustees need to reread their own vision statement that was created to “protect and secure this extraordinary village for future generations.” Does Barbara Borsack have a relative or friend interested in starting a new business at the expense of the community? I can’t imagine any other reason for this bad idea, and she might consider resigning her position before she ruins our gorgeous, pristine, natural preserves of beach. Sincerely, MICHAEL HASTALIS Dogs Roaming Free East Hampton August 25, 2015 To the Editor: There is a reason for leash laws; they should be observed and enforced. Poor Angus, the sweetest of dogs, was out for a walk to Main Beach with his owners. Luckily both of them were there, and able to fend off the unleashed bulldog that charged and attacked. In spite of their quick action (i.e., scooping up their scared pup), Angus suffered a broken leg and a great deal of bleeding. Dogs roaming free? It just isn’t fair — to the other dogs out there, or to the people walking them. JUDY DISTLER Beach Meet-and-Greet Amagansett August 31, 2015 Dear David, Many, many sincere thanks from the Democratic and Independence Parties’ trustee candidates to the local vendors who contributed so very generously to our beach meet-and-greet barbecue on Sunday. We welcomed this opportunity to throw a party, meet with so many members of our East Hampton community, and answer their questions about the role our trustees play as well as some of the issues facing this board now in 2015. And what better place to celebrate our unique heritage than on the breeze-swept shore on a balmy summer evening? Again, thank you to all who helped to make this such an enjoyable and informative event, from the nine trustee candidates on the East Hampton Democratic and Independence Parties lines: Rick Drew, Francis Bock, myself, Bill Taylor, Pat Mansir, Tyler Armstrong, Zach Cohen, Brian Byrnes, and Deb Klughers. Sincerely, RONA KLOPMAN Much Has to Be Done Springs August 30, 2015 To the Editor, Perspective is important. Do you assess the worth of a town board by its own press releases, or by accomplishments? I am seeking the office of East Hampton Town supervisor, and want our town government to do more than talk. We need to have action before crises explode. We need a town board that does more than proposing new laws and bragging about spending taxpayer money. As Larry Cantwell’s term as supervisor nears conclusion, a partial list of unresolved and fumbled issues becomes overwhelming: Our town workers have no contract. There has been no additional provision for public access to the ocean beach. The town has made no effort to provide attainable housing for those who work in East Hampton. Enforcement of public quality-of-life issues was cut back by this town board in 2014 and the first half of 2015. Citations for “public misconduct” were down 47 percent, and the 2015 budget reflected the drop in summonses by acknowledging lesser revenues. A plague of uncontrolled taxis remains in spite of conspicuous mayhem. Bad laws regarding light trucks and a rental registry were proposed, and flopped. No protection has been provided to downtown Montauk for two hurricane seasons. The airport has had safety disregarded and is mired in a welter of litigation. Much has to be done, and there has to be a sense of urgency to do it. The survival of our town requires full-time effort. I will devote myself to that task. Sincerely, TOM KNOBEL Republican, Conservative, Reform Candidate for Supervisor Inexcusable Disregard Montauk August 31, 2015 Dear David, In last week’s issue, critics responded to my Aug. 20 letter. Interestingly enough, they did not refute the content of my letter. Simply put, my letter spoke about the town board’s inexcusable disregard for the years of disruption and discord that festered in Montauk. I brought to light another example of its complacency, and that is the one currently going on with taxicab companies. There are laws on the books pertaining to them, yet there is no enforcement. The bottom line is that the board is out of touch with our community as a whole and chooses to only pay close attention to small interest groups. One letter writer misleads readers in stating that the town doubled the police force. In actuality, overtime is being paid for more police presence, and obviously this is not sustainable! What is the plan for next summer? Another letter writer tries to make one believe that you must be physically present at town board meetings to know what took place. Most people know that meetings are televised. Out of three letters, only one good point was made, and that was the fact that we are in a crisis. The leaders of our community have put us there. These writers did not disagree with me but chose instead to write misleading and negative letters as well as their opinion of my lack of qualifications to run for office. Apparently, only a politician should be considered. I own and operate my own business, Protec Servces Inc. My company is very successful and each year proves to be better than the one before. I treat my customers with respect, I return phone calls, emails, etc. I address issues when they arise and seek to remedy them promptly. Our town leaders should be treating citizens in the same manner. They should be listening to their concerns, and look for compromises and solutions without delay. These are the qualifications that are most important to being a successful leader. If I am elected, I will pay attention when the community speaks. I will listen to the experts and make decisions based on common sense. Last but not least, I would like to thank my stepfather, Capt. Paul Forsberg, and all of my family, friends, and supporters who were aboard the Viking Superstar last Saturday night for the campaign fund-raising cruise. Our sail from Montauk to Main Beach, East Hampton, to view the fireworks was an amazing event and will be most memorable! LISA MULHERN-LARSEN The writer is a Republican candidate for the East Hampton Town Board. Ed. Tommy’s Tricks Springs August 31, 2015 Dear David, The East Hampton Independence Party takes the candidate selection process very seriously because its members know their endorsement is extremely important in our local elections. Their screening committee, led by Elaine Jones and Pat Mansir, is composed of thoughtful and knowledgeable locals who spend a lot of time and effort individually questioning potential candidates. They are very thorough, they do their homework and they care about our town. This year, after thoroughly interviewing every candidate who wanted to screen, the Independence Party backed Larry Cantwell for supervisor and Peter Van Scoyoc and Sylvia Overby for the town board positions. Tom Knobel, a supervisor candidate and local Republican Party boss, was not chosen. Tom, a board of elections official, knows all the political tricks and wants to undo the Independence Party decision any way he can. Please remember that the last time an Independence Party screening committee decision was overturned by political trickery, the result was William Wilkinson getting two more years to wreak havoc on the town. This time Tom quickly removed and replaced one of his chosen Republican ticket-mates and is now running in her place a political newcomer whose main qualification seems to be her ability to force a primary for the town board seat. Please vote to uphold the hard work and effort of the Independence Party screening committee and to stop Tommy’s tricks. Vote for Sylvia and Peter. BILL TAYLOR Candidate for East Hampton Town Trustee Purely Political Reasons Amagansett August 31, 2015 To the Editor, As a highly concerned Dolphin Drive resident, I thought your editorial “Managing Public Lands” in the Aug. 27 issue was a mixed bag. You hardly seem to know what you feel, as you acknowledge that “it is understandable that some property owners might fear a potential onslaught on their streets” and that parking on the edge of the South Flora Nature Preserve would be “unsightly.” Then, without transition, you are nonetheless calling us nimbys and referring to our “hyperbole about damaging ecological effects.” Please specify which of the following statements is “hyperbole”: 1. A primary dune entirely within the South Flora Nature Preserve protects my home and those of my neighbors against ocean flooding during severe storms. 2. About a third of that dune was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. 3. The informal pedestrian pathway across the primary dune, to date not maintained by the town, is causing severe erosion — at one point a side trail walkers have cut to the vehicular access has created a 64-foot scar. There are also visible footprints up and down all the dune faces, and vegetation is becoming sparse. 4. The beach has already been discovered by the share-house and tourist crowd, and has similar problems to Montauk beaches, including illegal fires, alcoholic parties, etc. 5. The sole purpose of the proposed South Flora parking (regardless of whether you place it on the dune or on the street) is to drive more pedestrian traffic across the fragile, eroding primary dune. 6. The nature preserve committee should have analyzed this erosion risk in its draft management plan, but didn’t. It couldn’t possibly have recommended parking here if it had done its job properly, and apolitically. It is easy to call people nimbys, but there are things people rightly don’t want in their backyards. You have extensively covered the desire of the citizens of Montauk not to have people urinating on their lawns, for example. My neighbors and I don’t want Montauk-style congestion blocking emergency vehicles, and we don’t want the South Flora dunes eroded, especially the primary dune protecting our homes. It’s that simple. At an early meeting considering Dolphin Drive parking, before the town board was apparently overwhelmed by all the shouting about “beach access,” Larry Cantwell gently told one of the parking advocates that town policy is not to impose beach tourist parking on quiet residential neighborhoods — there are other solutions. That sounded like a good, reasonable, and humane policy to me. It only got lost in the noise when the unelected politicians championing South Flora parking began screaming loudly enough. This, by the way, is an important point — a townwide environmental and engineering study considering where to create additional beach tourist parking would never have picked South Flora or Dolphin Drive. Never. This whole flap is happening because certain people, none of whom has ever been elected to any East Hampton office, decided for purely political reasons that there should be parking here. I offer you a phrase I just coined: these people are I.Y.B.s — in your backyard. I hope in your future coverage and editorials you will understand that the things we are opposing are the same that the people of Montauk and all of East Hampton are, that anybody would. JONATHAN WALLACE Dolphingate East Hampton August 31, 2015 Dear David, The Star accurately surmised in an editorial last week that the Dolphin Drive dilemma is simply about a few selfish neighbors who under no circumstances want to see any public traffic near their homes. East Hampton has at least six public preserves that do allow public parking, so a precedent favoring public parking at preserves has historically existed; I believe these are Amsterdam, Boys and Girls Harbor, Culloden, Sammy’s Beach, Fresh Pond, and Shadmoor. Public parking is necessary so that these resources can be shared fairly by everyone, including families, sportspeople, the elderly, and the disabled. There is absolutely no logical reason why Dolphin Drive should deserve special treatment. Supervisor Cantwell should have nipped this in the bud from the get-go. The East End Dunes Residents Association could have been told that the town must allow at least some parking spaces on their public street, and that granting 12 or so parking spaces there would not throw the Earth off of its tilt. Pro-environmental groups and individuals, including the Surfrider Foundation, the town’s nature preserve committee, the town trustees, the Montauk Surfcasters Association, the New York Coalition for Recreational Fishing, David Buda, and Ira Barocas, have made a good case for permitting parking at Dolphin Drive. Many noted politicos representing various parties have made the case for fair public parking at Dolphin Drive as well. Tom Knobel, the Republican candidate for supervisor and a former trustee, has pleaded with the town to accommodate the public with at least some parking. Fred Overton, the sole Republican board member, favors parking at Dolphin. I’d follow the Democrats Zach Cohen and Deborah Klughers anywhere — both are vocal advocates for public access. But how dumb is it for this mostly Democratic town board to turn Dolphin Drive into a hot-potato political issue? The board’s apparent kowtowing to a small, elite group of homeowners has caused hundreds of fishermen and their families, not to mention thousands of other public-beachgoers, to seek other candidates, ones who are vocally pro-access as stewards of their beaches. Mr. Cantwell appears to be kicking this issue down the road. One wonders how he’ll bungle the looming Napeague beach issue, where the town must claim the beach for the good of the public. Heaven help us if the trustees don’t have a lot of say on that issue. Dolphingate is rife with inconsistencies. It’s really East Hampton’s own Area 51, with seemingly teleported historical documents gone missing that may have shown Dolphin Drive was intended to have public parking. Pretty convenient that all of the documentation mysteriously disappeared, isn’t it? Missing and reappearing signs, with information that is incorrect according to code, or that may intentionally or unintentionally have kept beachgoers away from public streets and public beaches. Homeowners who have, according to one local newspaper’s report, taken a public right of way and used it to build their own driveways. Yet, while the town was quick to erect signage that makes it impossible for us to park, it sure is slow to correct those who may have unlawfully built driveways on public land. Has selective law enforcement become the town’s policy under the Cantwell administration? Shouldn’t beaches bought with C.P.F. funds have a requirement that they be administered and managed in a manner that allows the public to enjoy the beach? When did nod-and-a-wink politics become acceptable here? Suffolk County and Albany legislators should be watching what is happening at South Flora, after some of East Hampton’s past fiascos. Supervisor Cantwell and the Democratic Party members of the board, instead of allowing elitists to dictate their public parking policy at Dolphin, should act boldly and decisively in the best interests of the vast majority of their constituency. Or would this board rather act after someone gets hit by a truck while attempting to cross Montauk Highway or suffers a heart attack walking the 1,000 feet to get to the existing path at South Flora? Please, it’s not too late to set a precedent that doesn’t limit access to South Flora to a relatively few people who are fortunate enough to live close to a beach that was bought with public funds. Sincerely, JAY BLATT No Reason to Enter Amagansett August 27, 2015 To the Editor, Proponents of the management plan to create a parking area along Dolphin Drive, ostensibly to create additional beach access in an area that presents no barrier to beach access, often repeat the mantra that since the preserve area was purchased by community preservation funds, the people who reside in the EEDRA development have “no right to a private preserve.” We agree. We too have contributed to the collective cost of the original decision to purchase the preserve area to curtail further commercial development along the stretch. But, as residents, we have a right to disagree with a town entity whose focus is presumably preservation but which, along with a cabal of nonresidents, presumes, sometimes arrogantly so, to undo the pristine nature of the preserve with an overkill solution to a nonexistent access problem. Lately efforts have been made to sugarcoat the perception that the EEDRA residents are a bunch of elitists who want to keep the South Flora preserve to themselves and wish to exclude any others from access. The recent feckless and generally fact-less editorial posted by a local publication is the latest attempt to paint the issue with a one-color brush. If the editorial writers of this tabloid would have bothered to get off their journalistic rear ends, they would have uncovered a few facts that they neglected to mention. To wit: The preserve is such thatthere is no reason to enter it at all, for any purpose. There is no trail or path on the preserve for residents, or the public, to utilize without jeopardizing the dunes. The current trails, one for vehicle access and another for walkers, do not impinge on the major area of the preserve. The aforesaid publication, seemingly uninformed that the management plan calls for cutting and grading a 23-foot area off the current roadside, gives the impression that all that is proposed is to allow parking on the current roadside. Fails to mention that the plan also proposes a fence on the eastern side of this cleared area. The publication then goes on to claim that the residents here have “usurped” the land and annexed town property and rights of way. The annexed land and town-owned rights of way the editorial refers to is the area on each side of the 20-foot roadways throughout the development, which is the prevalent situation in many areas of East Hampton. Do the writers think our residents built the current roads here, and are part of a mass conspiracy with other homeowners in East Hampton to “usurp” town property? And speaking of conspiracy, the publication goes on to accuse the residents of removing parking signs and replacing them with No Parking signs on all the streets and asks, incredibly, “Who did that and when?” Maybe an editorial writer who pretends to be a journalist would have thought to check that out with the Highway Department to get an answer instead of leaving the impression that residents have nothing left to do but pull up highway signs and put up new ones in the dead of night! Where does this so-called journalist think we got new No Parking signs from — Walmart? The editorial writers ignore the fact that the No Parking signs on Dolphin Drive were there for close to 40 years, as are most of the other parking signs in the development. If you are looking for culprits, look no further than the nature preserve committee, which had the No Parking signs removed from Dolphin Drive without any authority to do so, and, when challenged, had to put them back as they were. The facts are these: There is no problem with beach access in this development that warrants clearing a considerable area of the South Flora Nature Preserve to give town residents a “right” to access a preserve that no one, even the “elitists,” has any reason for entering. There already exist vehicle and pedestrian sand trails that allow access to the beach without trampling the preserve. And sufficient parking at Atlantic Drive gives the lie to the idea that this plan will “relieve” a nonexistent beach parking problem and preserve the “right” of town residents to enter a preserve that was never intended to be traversed. We now have the irony of the nature preserve committee proposing to do just that. ROBERT CONTI Negative Impacts Springs August 30, 2015 To the Editor: Kudos to The Star for its editorial pointing out the hypocrisy of Jonathan Wallace and the more rabid residents of East End Dunes Residents Association concerning parking on Dolphin Drive. Mr. Wallace’s personal attacks on me in the same issue are not worth responding to. I’ll match my record on environmental issues with his anytime. But Mr. Wallace and his neighbors should look closer to home if they’re really concerned about negative impacts on the environment. Each EEDRA lot is a tiny 115 by 64 feet, complete with its own cesspool. No reserve, no buffers. We don’t know what the original dunes looked like because they’ve been almost entirely leveled. Mr. Wallace should spend some of his seemingly limitless energy correcting or attempting to mitigate these negative impacts on the environment before hectoring his fellow townspeople who merely want to park their cars and walk to the beach. REG CORNELIA The Cry of ‘Liar’ Amagansett August 24, 2015 Dear David, The word “liar” comes frequently, perhaps too frequently, to the lips of Mr. Reg Cornelia, the vice chairman of the local Republican Party, when addressing the nature preserve committee’s Dolphin Drive parking plan for the South Flora Nature Preserve. It’s the same as overusing the word “elitists” for a neighborhood which another local publication recently characterized as “being comprised of modest homes and tiny lots.” I suggest that Mr. Cornelia is the liar, in that he is a member of the East Hampton Nature Preserve Committee, a committee dedicated to preserving and protecting our open land, beaches, and natural resources, and overtly and brazenly uses this position, with its attendant power and profile, to shamelessly manufacture a political beach access parking controversy and promote it from the platform of the committee. This is an outright abuse of municipal power and belies the whole purpose of the committee. The cry of “liar” can only be used so often with credibility before it turns, by degrees, into “wolf.” MIKE STERLACCI Legal Titleholders Amagansett August 30, 2015 Dear Editor, In response to Bill Taylor’s letter on Aug. 6, he totally has that wrong. The June court ruling stated that “the plaintiffs (homeowners) hold unbroken chains of title from the Benson deed to the subject beach area, that is to the high water mark or line to the Atlantic Ocean.” Thus we are the legal titleholders to the beach, and we can proceed to trial on that point and every other one of our complaints. Also, why the heck aren’t you fighting for access at Dolphin Drive, an $8 million public beach that there is no access to? And you want the East Hampton taxpayers to pay millions in legal fees and damages to condemn our beach to make a Daytona-style tailgating party without toilets in one of the most densely populated stretches of beach in the Hamptons? Our kids can’t play on the beach without us being terrified of them being run over. The state park is adjacent and has no human settlement whatsoever, much less risk of our kids getting hit, and would stop the current bleeding of taxpayer money over our beach. Why not look for smart alternatives that make everyone satisfied, versus polarizing residents and causing the town to spend millions of taxpayer money unnecessarily? That’s what the Republicans are calling for. CINDI CRAIN Majority Rules East Hampton August 31, 2015 Dear David, I happen to be one of the “bums,” as in “Throw the Bums Out,” you referred to in your editorial this past week. Between us bums, we have about 125 years’ service to our community. We all are active in the Springs Fire Department, we get up at all hours of the night, whether for a fire, accident, or sick child. What contribution have you made to the community, other than sitting on your little throne, making disparaging remarks, and denigrating the members throughout the state, who perform a free service and give tremendous hours of our time to an unappreciative person like yourself? A five-year term is of utmost importance, because it takes a good part of that time to learn the state laws governing the use of the tax dollars, in the proper form, at all times. The senior commissioners help the newcomers to understand the fiduciary responsibility to use the funds properly. Now as far as the emergency communications tower is concerned, you apparently are unaware of the communication problems that we have with our pagers, but also our calls come over our cellphones. The tower will assure the county has communications as well as our members. If we don’t get the call, we can’t come to your aid. Our hand-held radios are rendered useless in most areas, as well as our hospital contact radio within the ambulance — a heart patient who needs medicine cannot have it until it is approved by the hospital via radio. I am sure you wouldn’t want a family member unable to receive what they need to save their life until the ambulance travels six miles to the village, where radio contact can be established, which you then lose when you reach Wainscott. As the engineer at the last meeting stated, anything less than 150 feet will not cover Springs. Apparently Mr. Buda did not hear that and kept asking why, over and over, ad nauseam. Apparently there are only a handful of people in Springs who don’t want the monopole — the overwhelming majority do, and in this country, majority rules. It’s democracy at its best. CHRIS HARMON Why Not Elsewhere? Springs August 31, 2015 Dear David, Why do some people not understand that we who oppose the Springs cell tower are on their side — we want better communications for ourselves, our fire department and emergency services. We care as much as anybody else about the safety of our volunteers and citizenry. We merely want alternatives explored to this ghastly tower in the midst of a residential area. No alternatives have been explored. Why does the tower need to be on the site of the fire department and on property owned by the fire department, and not elsewhere? It is right in the middle of a residential area. Would you want this monstrosity in your backyard when other communication solutions exist? Why does the Village of East Hampton charge upwards of $135,000 a year for dispatch service to the Springs Fire Department? Why did the consultant hired by the Springs Fire District Commissioners present misinformation about the State Environmental Quality Review Act requirement for assessment on any structure over 100 feet? The tower is now 150 feet and will be 162 feet (with antennas) when completed. The fire district claims to be exempt from zoning laws, but they are not exempt from the SEQRA requirement. The SEQRA review the fire district commissioners have done is, so far, a joke and dishonest. They declared themselves exempt from review and then gave themselves the authority to approve their own application. Confused and dismayed, MARY SPITZER My Bike, Abandoned East Hampton August 27, 2015 To the Editor: A few years ago, shortly after I moved to East Hampton, I purchased an antique road bike that I saw for sale on the side of the road. This red thing caught my eye, and I knew that I had to have it! It was a beautiful rusty-red color. I think it was Italian-made, an old racing bike. Having grown fond of the roads and the scenery out here on the East End, I was eager to put it to use. And I did. For a while, at least. Now, that once-favorite bike sits idle. Collecting dust and cobwebs, it lies sadly on its side, forgotten in my shed. It’s as if someone moved away and left it there. But no one moved away. I am still here, still living in East Hampton, and I would still love to use that bike. The only problem is, I am terrified of doing so. Truth is, I left my bike abandoned because I decided that every time I ride it on the roads out here, I am risking my life. That is how I feel when I use my bike on my road (Oakview Highway) and the roads in and around the town of East Hampton. I am terrified. And what kind of town do I live in where I have to feel terrified of riding my bike? Today I witnessed, for the second time in my life, a bicyclist being hit by a car on Hamptons roads. (The first incident was earlier this summer.) A young man, apparently on his commute to work, or perhaps on his lunch break, was hit by a car. He nearly lost his life, but luckily the car managed to stop before running him over. The bike itself was crushed and sat underneath the front bumper of the car. The man was on the ground. Blood covered his face. I pray that he will be all right. Normally, I would dismiss this as an incredibly unfortunate event, and continue to proceed with caution on these insane summer roads. “It’ll all be over soon,” I used to tell myself at this time of the year. But this time is different. Because this is the second time I have witnessed such an event in my life, and it somehow has managed to happen in one summer! Now, I do not mean to sound like some old-timer who has lived out here his entire life and has witnessed the demise of his once-quaint town. In fact, I represent quite the contrary. I have only lived here (by living here, I mean in the winter, too) for four years, and I just turned 29 years old. In a way, I am an anomaly — a “young” working person who is trying to make a living in the Hamptons (I know, sounds crazy, but it is possible). Anyway, what I am getting at here, is that for me to want to write in to the local paper about this should stand out as something very unusual indeed. The first thing I thought about when I witnessed each of these horrific bike accidents was, don’t ride your bike during the summer. And for this reason, I don’t. The second thought that entered my mind was, how could I raise my kids in a place where this seems to happen all the time? And furthermore, why does it have to be this way? Is it possible to make the roads out here a) safer and b) more bike-friendly? In other words, how can we encourage better driving habits? I would argue that it is entirely within our means to make our community a better place to live in this sense. And I think it is a shame that we cannot achieve basic things like safety on our roads during the summer months. The issue I am talking about extends way beyond bicycles. Everyone has stories of how they narrowly avoided a car accident, or witnessed something absurd on the roads. I have many of my own. But I won’t bore you. I will however say that I am tired, I am fed up, and I am honestly afraid I will get killed on the roads out here. It is absolutely insane. The blatant disregard for other peoples’ well-being, the in-your-face aggressiveness, and the ignorance of the law and ignorance of common courtesy is mind-numbing. I now drive around ready for anything (anything!) to happen. Sometimes, I half expect a car to come racing out of nowhere and slam into me, causing me to spin out of control. It’s like I am in a remake of a Mad Max movie. (Oh wait, that already happened.) But seriously, folks, is it possible to drive anywhere without being cut off, without almost crashing, without witnessing someone pull the most boneheaded maneuver that you can possibly imagine? Something has got to give! This, however, may be the saddest part. I, for one, do not feel comfortable raising kids in a town where people get mowed down on their bikes by cars. How can anyone choose to raise a family in a place like that? What if that were my kid, lying on the side of the road with his bike crushed under a car? I do not have kids yet. But when I do (and I hate to admit this because I love it here in East Hampton), I hope I live in a safer community. With safer roads, and safer, more considerate drivers. Maybe then I will be able to dust off my favorite antique bike, and actually put it to use. With a heavy heart, SCOTT McDERMOTT Project in Jeopardy East Hampton August 31, 2015 Dear David, It looks to me as if the town board is trying to reduce the number of children who would live in the proposed Stephen Hand’s 49-unit affordable housing apartments by requiring an increase in the proportion of units that would be reserved for senior citizens. This would, of course, lower the number of the project’s working families, and thereby its school-age population. Senior housing is surely needed, but the shortage for families who work here is more extreme. The town board’s actions, a pronounced retreat from its earlier strong support for families’ housing, is in response to complaints from the Wainscott School Board that children of these families would inundate their small school and destroy its specialness. A Town Planning Department report issued in March this year effectively rebuts these assertions, but the project as needed, and perhaps the construction of any project at all, is in jeopardy. The Wainscott School Board’s opposition is a tribute to the capacity of the comfortable to feel afflicted. They are also concerned the project will increase their taxes, but Wainscott’s school taxes are by far the lowest in the town — about 60 percent lower than Springs and 40 percent lower than East Hampton, Montauk, and Sag Harbor. The median value of a house in Wainscott, about $3 million, is the highest of any hamlet in town. And let us not forget this is a public school paid for by public funds to prepare the town’s children for responsible and productive lives. It is possible the town’s efforts to lower the number of children who can reside in the housing violates both the U.S. Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988 and New York State’s Human Rights Law. I hope all involved will check this out. Sincerely, RICHARD ROSENTHAL Remind the Voters Amagansett August 28, 2015 Dear David, Would you be so kind as to remind the voters, especially those East End New Leaders: affordable housing!? Thank you. All good things, DIANA WALKER Deer Eat Everything East Rockaway August 23, 2015 Dear Editor: I have been fortunate enough to own a small home in the village since 1969. I could, and did, mow my own lawn, cut my hedges, and plant flowers and vegetables. Having just passed 80, I can no longer mow the lawn or cut my hedges. That’s just fine because until recently I could still grow some tomatoes and lettuce and plant flowers, lots of flowers. That is no longer possible. The deer eat anything and everything they can. I have come to hate the bloody deer. I read articles and letters in The Star that offer plans like sterilization, or put up fences around your property, or just plant the following because the deer don’t like them. Well, neither do I. Further, my wife has reached an age where Alzheimer’s has claimed her mind, so I have little excess funds available for fencing. It goes for medicine and caretakers, not property fences. I recall not so long ago that the town would designate a hunting season for archers and a shorter one for shotguns. Then many of the hunters would often donate the carcasses to the needy. It seemed to work out just fine. Why can’t we go back to that simpler solution? Sincerely, STEVE HARWIN Open Space in Springs East Hampton August 31, 2015 Dear David, The town’s use of the community preservation fund to acquire property in Springs is, in my opinion, a wise decision. The current and proposed acquisitions will guarantee that those parcels will never be developed. We know that overdevelopment leads to environmental degradation, overcrowding of schools, and an increased number of septic systems which threaten water quality. Preserving open space in Springs will also protect property values in that hamlet. I see this as a win-win for the town and Springs homeowners. SUE AVEDON Squaw Road Springs August 31, 2015 Dear Mr. Rattray, Last week’s East Hampton Star editorial in favor of the community preservation fund purchase from the Nature Conservancy of the former Olson property on Squaw Road proved prescient as well as correct. At the end of a long Thursday evening, our town board voted unanimously to support the acquisition, much to the joy of the majority of the Duck Creek Farm Association membership, and to the benefit of the entire town, which enjoy the bounty and beauty of Three Mile Harbor. Two old houses, two old cesspools, and two additional septic systems, will be removed by the Nature Conservancy. I believe this is the first C.P.F. purchase strictly for open space and passive recreation that specifically targets navigable water quality improvement in our town. The substantial harbor frontage will be allowed to return to its natural state, providing a run-off buffer to the harbor, lying as it does at the base of two downhill roads. I congratulate the board on its evident commitment to our surface and ground waters and for their past purchases of properties to protect our aquifers. The accolades would be incomplete if we did not also recognize the efforts of the Nature Conservancy and its local staff in working to make this happen. Bravo to you all. IRA BAROCAS President Duck Creek Farm Association Women’s Alliance Event New York City August 31, 2015 Dear Editor: Right after the Aug. 22 East End Women’s Alliance event at which Bill Baird, myself, and others were honored for “lifetime achievements,” I spoke to Mrs. Helen Rattray for the first time at a private luncheon for all the honorees; Mrs. Rattray herself had been honored — a fact she failed to mention in her Aug. 27 column in The Star. She asked me what I thought of her paper’s previous (Aug. 20) article about this event and I said that it seemed to have missed what Bill Baird and I had done over the course of a half-century. She said, “Well, it was written by an intern.” She then told me that she had no idea of who I really was, was not at all familiar with my work, had read none of my books, but that she was “now going to read everything, starting with ‘An American Bride in Kabul.’ ” How Mrs. Rattray moved from this declaration of ignorance to the phrase she uses in her Aug. 27 column to describe me was, at first, a complete mystery. From my being a complete “unknown” (at least to her), she describes me this way: “Ms. Chesler, as is her modus operandi, expressed controversial opinions about Israel and Islam and having argued against ‘multicultural relativists.’ ” On Aug. 20 of this year, Mrs. Rattray — using her being Jewish as a credential — wrote an article in favor of President Obama’s deal with Iran. She admits to being strongly opposed to Prime Minister Netanyahu and, in her review of a book, hoped that the book would help “sway American opinion in favor of the accord” (with Iran). In the Aug. 27 column mentioned above, Mrs. Rattray also praised Eleanor’s Legacy, certainly a praiseworthy group, but one that recently honored Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who herself just signed onto Obama’s — talk about controversial! — highly controversial deal. I suggest that Mrs. Rattray’s left, partisan, Democratic Party political conformity has colored, ever so slightly, her account of the EEWA event and of my speech. In fact, once she discovered or was informed about our difference of opinion on this single issue, she attacked my views on a subject that played a negligible part in my speech by choosing to diminish my considerable feminist accomplishments. PHYLLIS CHESLER Major Feminist Work New York City August 31, 2015 To the Editor: I am a former, long-time homeowner in East Hampton. Friends invited me to attend the East End Women’s Alliance event on Aug. 22. The Star’s coverage of that event left everything to be desired. As a lawyer, I can assure you that the work done by both Dr. Phyllis Chesler and Bill Baird constitute unique and major feminist and legal achievements. In addition to her writing and teaching, the work done by Dr. Chesler, in terms of submitting affidavits to the court on behalf of immigrant women being threatened with honor killings, is pioneering and incomparable feminist work. I heard her speak about it at the EEWA event but it was not mentioned, let alone praised, in The East Hampton Star. I can also testify that her work on mothers unjustly losing custody of children and on the mistreatment of female psychiatric patients has changed our world. Anyone who was not there will not know that she also challenged and urged feminists to oppose ISIS’s rape brothels and to rescue these sex slaves. Perhaps in the future your newspaper will send more reliable reporters to cover such events. SUSAN L. BENDER Women’s Equality Day Jamaica, Queens August 31, 2015 To the Editor: It was with disappointment that I read Ms. Rattray’s Aug. 27 column describing the East End Women’s Alliance’s Women’s Equality Day event. I for one refuse to be judged wanting by the standard of just how many “under 50 participants” there are at any given event. If young women do not have the wisdom to learn from those who have gone before it is not only their loss, but that of the entire movement. Just witness where we are with the current attacks against abortion rights. The main presenters, Phyllis Chesler and Bill Baird, are both individuals I have worked with and put my life on the line with for decades. To describe Dr. Chesler as having “controversial opinions about Israel and Islam” as her “modus operandi” is to tip one’s hand as to one’s own political orientation. What is controversial to some is a description of reality to another. And if speaking out boldly against honor killing, cliterodectomies, and the codified rape culture of ISIS is being a “multicultural relativist” — count me in! As for Bill Baird, saying only that he hopes that a “biography written about him will find a publisher” diminishes this great warrior for women to a poor petitioner looking for a handout! A dose of Santayana would be helpful here: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” MERLE HOFFMAN Second Wave Feminism Springs August 31, 2015 To the Editor, I have been happily attending events sponsored by the East End Women’s Alliance since the early ’70s and did so again last Saturday at the East Hampton High School. I listened to speakers who were being honored that day, including Helen Rattray, and looked forward to reading a report about the occasion in the next edition of The Star. Not unexpectedly, there was an article or column under her byline. It coupled the EEWA event with a fund-raiser taking place that weekend (Eleanor’s Legacy). Since I did not attend the latter, I cannot speak to what was written about it. However, I was surprised and a little disquieted by several aspects of her report concerning the former. Because all the honorees are accomplished individuals, I had expected to read something about their work and contributions to Second Wave Feminism. Instead, Marilyn Fitterman and Judith Lerner, both passionate speakers and feminists, had the briefest of descriptions and were essentially identified or characterized by title and nothing more. Bill Baird, a genuine hero in the struggle for reproductive rights, fared slightly better although he was barely covered. Then came the belittling concluding sentence about his hopes and hunt for a publisher of his biography. Phyllis Chesler received the worst of it, described as having a controversial modus operandi, especially with respect to her opinions about Israel and Islam and argued against multicultural relativists. Did we hear the same speech? Ms. Chesler mentioned Israel only once — and in passing — and she spoke for 16 minutes about many other things. During her remarks she carried, with specificity, the Second Wave feminist vision into the present and future. I agree that few people in the audience were under age 50. Not mentioned was that there were very few in the audience who were over age 50 either. The pioneers are aging out, and the next generations have not been sufficiently engaged or inspired by the work of their foremothers. That is why it is essential that we conscientiously document, archive, and report on the work done by those who formed the modern women’s movement. And that is why I am writing this rejoinder to her report — to remind those who are privileged to hear first-person accounts of the work done by early feminists that they record and transmit that information to the public, with accuracy and respect and as fully as possible. Future scholars and future generations will be relying on the legacy of those written words. ELEANOR PAM On Behalf of Women Amagansett August 31, 2015 To the Editor: Last week, The Star covered the East End Women’s Alliance event for Women’s Equality Day but did not convey our sense of urgency that women’s status is not significantly improving and that our hard-earned rights are being eroded. Women still earn less than men, and some states have made it almost impossible for women to exercise their right to choose abortion. Marilyn Fitterman, former National Organization for Women-New York State president and past chairwoman of the East Hampton Anti-Bias Task Force, noted that a speech she gave 23 years ago on women’s status could, dishearteningly, be given today with little or no revision. Her reasons for loving NOW are that it is the only multi-issued organization fighting for women’s rights in this country and that it does so without financial support from the government. Fitterman, a fiery activist, urged audience members to join her Women’s Army for Equality. Yes, men may join too. Helen S. Rattray, publisher of The East Hampton Star, reviewed her history and experiences as a woman publisher and journalist. Sandy Rapp, feminist composer and singer, sang “She Will Rise,” a tribute to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, based on Maya Angelou’s 2008 support of Hillary. A founder of the Women’s Strike for Peace, Judy Lerner continues her activities for peace as chair of the U.N. Peace Action International Group. Ninety-three years old, she exemplifies Walt Whitman’s hope “to cease not till death,” an inspiration to all of us to keep up the fight for justice. Our keynote speakers, Bill Baird and Dr. Phyllis Chesler, have taken militant action on behalf of women and suffered for their commitment and courage. Bill Baird has been called the father of reproductive rights because of his 52-year fight for women’s right to contraception and abortion. His struggles resulted in a 1972 Supreme Court decision that made contraception legal for single women and that underlay the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision giving women the right to choose abortion. He described the vicious, often violent tactics used by antichoice supporters, holding up graphic fliers and posters. He was arrested eight times in five states for his lectures, and the threats against him caused him to move his family from their Long Island home. Phyllis Chesler, author of 16 books and over 1,000 articles, has testified on behalf of mothers in custody cases, counseled Muslim women threatened with violence for being “independent or Westernized,” and fought to integrate the Wailing Wall in Israel. She described a radical and visionary Second Wave movement in which she played a leadership role from 1967 on and which tackled hundreds of issues that were not spoken about before. She discussed the ways in which fundamentalist passions are currently threatening feminist gains worldwide; further, she called upon feminists to “own” our own issues now, to take a stand against barbaric misogyny, tribal and wartime practices involving sex slavery, rape, stoning, forced face-veiling, child marriage, and polygamy. LTV is airing the entire event. We urge every reader of The Star to watch this program. LILIA MELANI Sanders’s Success Sag Harbor August 31, 2015 David, I wrote on this topic once before. Recent current events have motivated me to return to the question: Have we failed or succeeded? I believe we need to examine the evidence before us. As we know, only 12 percent of Americans have trust in Congress. And the majority of our citizens no longer vote, 80 percent of us disapprove of our wars, we haven’t won a war since World War II. The cost of losing amounts to $4 trillion to $7 trillion, including the aftermath, according to Nobel Peace Prize-winner Stiglitz and others. At the moment we are being tested by both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who have a desire to bust up corporate power. Over time, they will make an impact, but the American people must wake up. Three hundred thirty million people sleep. I keep up to date because peace and justice have been my ministry, starting with 30 years in the New York City Police Department. A retired lieutenant for generations later, still involved because I love my country, the one my 24 grandchildren will inherit. What kind of legacy are we leaving them? Let me get more specific. Most so-called pundits seem to be locked in a time warp and sound like parrots. Not too many are doing their homework. We need transparency for freedom, which we have also lost. Denial has never been a solution, but drowning in complexity and a big debt to China for fighting our wars? Sound stupid? Half a page in The New York Times of Aug. 26 reads “Sanders’s success in attracting small donors tests importance of ‘super PAC,’ ” appearing to draw more rank-and-file support than Obama did in 2008. Donna MacLitowetz, a Miami Beach retiree, likes Senator Sanders of Vermont so much that three months ago she sent his presidential campaign $10,000. His campaign sent back all but $2,700 because it was more than he was allowed to take under federal election law, but she wishes he had kept it all. The average donation, according to campaign officials: $31.30. About a quarter of Mr. Obama’s donors over the course of that campaign gave a total of $200 or less, according to a study by the Campaign Finance Institute. Mr. Sanders has raised more money in gifts of $200 or less than any candidate, Democrat or Republican. Many millions of dollars have poured into super PACs since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. I ask why are the poor being punished for being poor? Nothing new here. Yet when a Vermont legislator, Chris Pearson, offered to set up a super PAC to support the Sanders campaign, Sanders told him to “kill it,” because Sanders did not want to be beholden to the millionaires and billionaires. “We will sink or swim on what we get from the middle class of the country.” Finally, Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for Mr. Sanders, said in an interview that “it’s absolutely possible to win without a super PAC.” Yes, the American experiment is at risk. It will be a long time if ever we got another chance. LARRY DARCEY The Iran Agreement East Hampton August 27, 2015 Dear Editor, It is simply amazing and almost beyond belief that the entire membership of a national political party, without a single exception, will vote against the ratification of an agreement negotiated by the leaders of the six greatest nations on earth over a period of years, was agreed to, step by step, with the utmost care and consideration for national and international aims and interests, and completed with an attempt to achieve long-term peace thru negotiated agreement with the country of Iran. Are we saying that these countries are so selfish, self-absorbed, wrong, misled, or ignorant that they can be pushed aside, totally ignored, and factually humiliated by the Republican Party in the United States, joined by Jewish members of the Democratic Party, wrongfully thinking they are protecting Israel, who jointly and stupidly declare themselves to be smarter and better equipped to achieve an agreement as well thought-out and accepted by the parties than these great countries and their respective expert diplomats, scientific experts, experienced inspectors? Are we going to just sit by and allow inexpert political hacks like Donald Trump or Ben Carson or Ted Cruz dictate our most delicate foreign policy with sound bites that are wholly factually incorrect? Can we allow the virulent and toxic atmosphere surrounding our country’s politics to penetrate our thinking to such an extent that it causes us to lose valuable perception and understanding of the merits of this agreement and its value on the road to peace? The answer should be a resounding No! RICHARD P. HIGER
Published 5 years ago
Last updated 5 years ago
Letters to the Editor: 09.03.15
September 3, 2015