Letters to the Editor: 09.08.16

Effects of Climate Change

Sag Harbor

September 5, 2016

To the Editor:

The New York Times recently published two articles about problems arising as renewable energy sources expand their share of the market. One highlighted disagreements within the environmental movement, while the other told of difficulties in integrating large amounts of intermittent power into the electric grid.

In each case I wrote a letter to the editor advocating a fee on carbon emissions as the best solution to both problems, and both happened to be published. My intention here is not, however, to argue once again for that solution. Don Matheson did that very eloquently in The Star’s “Guestwords” column not long ago. Instead, it’s to draw your attention to three of the other letters that appeared in the same editions of The Times.

In the July 19 issue, a correspondent named Vien Truong pointed out that disadvantaged communities are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. He wrote, “Low-income communities and communities of color live with higher levels of pollution and greater vulnerability to climate-fueled disasters. Underserved neighborhoods are consistently left behind while green investments are prioritized in more affluent communities.” Think about the effects that global warming will bring to America — droughts, tropical diseases, rising sea levels, and increasingly severe storms — and then guess who will be hit hardest. Mr. Truong had it exactly right.

A similar disparity exists on a planetary level. Climate change will have the most harmful effects on people who live in the tropical regions of our planet, most of whom have few economic resources to adapt to the impacts and whose climate is already closest to the edge of livability. Moreover, they have no place else to go.

To take one example, India and Bangladesh face a fourfold threat: rising sea levels, cyclones of ever-increasing ferocity, depletion of the water-giving Himalayan glaciers, and — perhaps most ominous — failure of the monsoons, with consequent agricultural collapse.

Climate change is far and away the greatest environmental injustice in the world today. It’s too big a problem for the developed world to solve alone, but we have a moral obligation to lead and to hope that others will act in their own long-term best interest.

Then, in The Times’s Aug. 1 issue, high-level staff members of two different environmentalist organizations each called for an end to the fight between renewable energy and nuclear power. Michael Goggin, senior director of research at the American Wind Energy Association, wrote, “We hope that nuclear proponents will work with us to solve the real problems holding back all low-carbon energy, rather than waging internecine warfare.” And Laura Wisland, senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote, “We would do better to focus on reducing fossil fuel production instead of pitting nuclear against renewables.”

Could it be that common sense is beginning to win out over ideology? Let’s stop fighting yesterday’s energy wars and unite with people of conscience, whatever forms of carbon-free energy they may advocate and wherever they might be on the political spectrum, to bring about a just and livable world. 

JOHN ANDREWS

A Real Danger

East Hampton

September 4, 2016

To the Editor,

In case anyone hasn’t noticed: Violent storms, heavy rains, and high water flooding caused by rising seas are no longer just happening elsewhere, but are imperiling the coastline up and down the East Coast. 

Despite what’s obvious to anyone watching a weather report, Republicans continue to deny climate change, blocking all efforts to actually protect our country and secure our borders from a real danger. 

It’s embarrassing that China is a better partner than Congress in addressing the threat of climate change — another reason to vote for Democrats, up and down the ticket. 

NANCY LEDERMAN

The Food Pantry

Hamilton, N.Y.

August 31, 2016

Dear Editor,

I am writing to you with grave concern in my heart. I have known Kathy Byrnes and Gerry Mooney since the early days of Windmill I. They, and the folks working and volunteering with them, are some of the finest, most giving, community-oriented people I have had the privilege of working with. This nasty gossip regarding the food pantry would be laughable if it weren’t so despicable. Kathy and Gerry started the food pantry. It has grown, prospered, and now serves hundreds of individuals and families.

The Windmill board has requested that the food pantry relocate. This is to allow the space to be utilized for the tenants. Surely, East Hampton Town and Village have an appropriate place for the pantry. 

This unwarranted, meanspirited gossip must stop. Perhaps the community can come together in a positive way and find new and creative solutions to this matter. Actions speak louder than words.

ELAINE CONNELLY

‘Where I Live,’ Too

Sag Harbor

August 31, 2016

Dear David,

I am writing to express my appreciation for Kathy Engel’s “Guestwords” essay “Where I Live,” in The Star of Aug. 25.

Where Kathy Engel lives — here — is where I live, too. So I recognize the shame that goes along with the ease of calling this place home. Also that it takes courage to name the “contradictions” so vividly.

Racism has been part of South Fork life for much too long. I have to wonder if there is less now than when I first came here in the early 1960s. In some old, overt, and terrible ways, certainly. But there are many new ways, different kinds of ugliness and injustice. 

Thanks to The Star for publishing this important piece. Thanks to the Black Lives Matter marchers. We all need waking up.

CAROL WILLIAMS

Beach Is Precious

East Hampton

September 5, 2016

To the Editor:

I read with shock the proposal from the owner of 199 Lily Pond Road to encroach on our beach. The East Hampton beach is precious and we should not allow any building that takes even an inch from it. I am hoping that wealthy owners with skillful lawyers cannot take away our beach.

HERBERT DOOSKIN

Change the Flow

East Hampton

September 5, 2016

To the Editor,

As a native Long Islander, a resident of the Town of East Hampton since 1978, and a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency manager for almost 42 years, I think my appreciation for the town’s water resources would be rather obvious. So I looked with great interest when the town’s Natural Resource Department put the town’s water quality improvement plan on its website. 

Several things struck me. First, the “Water Quality Improvement Recommendations” for each and every one of the town’s eight watersheds has as its first recommendation “Residential septic system upgrades of substandard systems with nutrient removal.” 

While I can certainly understand that this is probably the number-one cause of nitrogen and bacterial loading in the town’s watersheds, there weren’t any scientific data in the report supporting this. So I went to the town’s own building inspectors and they, I might add under the promise of anonymity, said that they don’t do private septic system inspections after a system has been approved and installed. They reinforced what I already knew: The purview of such is solely with the County Department of Health and State Department of Environmental Conservation. This is not to say that the Building Department can’t do this and wouldn’t be amenable to doing this.

Second, the study was developed and paid for as part of the community preservation fund and proposes, beginning on page 40, to fund projects from the community preservation fund. Now this is a head-scratcher. 

The actual C.P.F. law is pretty clear: “Funds shall only be expended for projects which promote the protection or enhancement of the natural, scenic, and open space character for which the interests or rights in real property were acquired. . . .” Here the emphasis is on real property acquired. 

In short, you can’t spend C.P.F. money on anything other than real property. That means you cannot use the fund to upgrade private or, for that matter, public septic systems that aren’t purchased by the C.P.F.

Third, the study totally ignores the fact that there is an existing funding source for upgrading any and all private septic systems that are found to be inadequate. This is known as the state revolving fund, which was set up under the Federal Clean Water Act. The website for this can be found at epa.gov/cwsrf. The mechanism for getting projects funded through the State of New York is the New York State Environmental Facilities Corp. and that website is nysefc.org.

So why did the town sanction and publish a report that is short on science that appears to propose the illegal use of taxpayers’ money and for which a solution and funding sources are already available? 

I would suggest there may be three reasons: 

First, I would suggest that the readers look over the references to the report and draw their own conclusions. Note that you’ll see purveyors of advance septic systems. 

Second, it would require the town to go to the Suffolk Department of Health and D.E.C. and actually propose upgrade projects for septic systems. So somebody would have to actually test the private systems, find the offenders, show the cause-and-effect relationship with the watershed, and get the consent of the homeowners surrounding the watersheds for such. Now that is what government is supposed to do. 

I do suspect that given the demographics and politics of those surrounding the watersheds, this is a bit of a political issue, to say the least. Could this possibly change the flow of 2017 local campaign contributions as much as the flow of septic waste? 

Third, since the town has tied its water quality star to the upcoming election and the C.P.F. proposition, admitting that there is already a funding source would be counterproductive to getting a “yes” vote.

If, at a later date, a lawsuit reversed the use of the C.P.F. for the purposes that the town’s draft report indicates, then the town can wring its hands and say, “Woe is us.” 

I would suggest a lawsuit, as such, is probably inevitable. Or worse, the state attorney general might actually do his job and not allow the budget proposition. 

I would suggest there is a better solution. The town needs to get the science and engineering together to determine which septic systems are the worst offenders and develop a priority list. (This is not rocket science.) Then use that priority list to go to the county and state for specific project funding for septic upgrades, get the funding in the form of low interest loans payable over the useful life of the projects, and get to work at fixing the problem. Isn’t this a better way to move forward instead of trying to repurpose taxpayer money in, at best, a questionable way? 

It might be time to Brexit the 20 percent.

PAUL GIARDINA

Avoid This Nightmare

Wainscott

September 5, 2016

Dear Editor,

The proposed car wash traffic study was paid for by the applicant. How interesting! Of course, it came back that there would “not be a significant detrimental effect on traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site.” What sleeping beauty did this study? Of course, a 2 a.m. study would confirm this. 

Did the wizard happen to sit in a chair outside the post office and observe the parking lot at 11:30 a.m., every single day, that backs up to Stephen Hand’s Path and beyond almost to the Red Horse? I have traveled this road every single day, almost at the same time, for the past number of years. This is a fact that doesn’t need any questionable study, just a two-second look, to figure out how to avoid this nightmare.

In order to be able to return home, I must take Route 114 to Daniel’s Hole Road to avoid the almost 25-minute traffic jam to travel west.

So it is quite obvious that the study used outdated data. Apparently, the study didn’t use the 125 cars per hour the applicant submitted in the planning documents.

The question is, why wasn’t the New York State Department of Transportation, which has the jurisdiction on a state highway, asked to complete the traffic study? 

So I assume that if someone was arrested for D.W.I. or drugs, the court would allow him to use his own privately hired or borrowed testing equipment, and the resulting evidence would be accepted by that court? How ridiculous! This applicant insults the intelligence of all concerned by assuming that this would pass the smell test. 

Well, it doesn’t. How convenient that it is favorable to the applicant.

ARTHUR J. FRENCH

Understated Traffic

Wainscott

September 5, 2016

Dear Mr. Rattray:

The developers of the proposed car wash in Wainscott boast that they once “washed 2,500 cars in a single day for two days” (in Holland, Mich.). That’s 250 cars per hour. The planning documents submitted to the Planning Department quote 125 cars per hour, and the manufacturer’s website (TommyCarWash. com) says to “expect 140 C.P.H.”

Regardless as to the exact number, we can safely say that on a busy summer’s day (from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.), the car wash will wash anywhere from 1,000 to 2,500 cars.

But something doesn’t fit. These same people also commissioned a traffic impact study that concludes that “the proposed automated car wash will result in the addition of 29 new vehicle trips to the site during the weekday a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour.” This is only 290 cars per day.

We’re missing 710 to 2,210 cars. So where did all the cars go?

The traffic impact study states that the 290 cars are only those cars making an additional trip that they wouldn’t be making otherwise (20 percent of total cars). As for the missing 710 to 2,210 cars, the study presumes that these cars will be driving past the car wash regardless, so they’re not “additional” cars, and not counted (80 percent of total cars). That’s about 80 percent of the total number of cars that have disappeared, like magic.

Perhaps it is magic — a car wash that doesn’t wash cars!

But we all know that car washes are not magic, and the reality is that they attract cars. The reality is that the main users of a car wash in Wainscott will be those who live too far away from the only other two car washes on the East End, the car washes in Southampton and Amagansett.

The main users of the car wash, therefore, will include those who live in Water Mill, Sagaponack, Bridgehampton, Sag Harbor, and maybe Noyac. It is also more likely that these people would be making an additional trip to the car wash in Wainscott. According to the 2010 census, these people represent approximately 77 percent of the total number of people who would use the car wash.

In fact, the only people who are likely to use a car wash in Wainscott who would be driving past regardless (and not instead use the car wash in Amagansett) are those who live in Wainscott (the smallest hamlet by population) and farther east (East Hampton Village and East Hampton North). According to the 2010 census, these people represent approximately 23 percent of the total number of people who would use the car wash.

It’s not by coincidence that the traffic study grossly understates the additional trips, because this conveniently hides the majority of traffic that the proposed car wash will generate. The reality is that the car wash will generate anywhere from three to six  times the traffic quoted by the traffic study.

Needless to say, the traffic study is flawed. It uses outdated traffic data (from 2013) taken during the week, when it is quieter than peak weekend traffic, and extrapolates this old data using annual growth based on traffic 14 miles away that is half the actual growth rate. The traffic study uses a program that it admits is faulty, so traffic “has been assumed for the purpose of this report.” Finally, the traffic study fails to consider traffic on the adjacent residential roads, namely East Gate Road and Cowhill Lane.

Notably, the traffic study makes no attempt to reconcile the traffic study’s understated traffic of 29 vehicles per hour with the 125 vehicles per hour estimated in the planning documents. Either the traffic study is wrong or the planning documents are wrong.

We all know the truth, and we also know that a full environmental impact study is required by the East Hampton Town Code (§128-3-20. Type I actions).

SIMON V. KINSELLA

Stock Not Overfished

Springs

September 1, 2016

Dear David,

 The striped bass editorial (Sept. 1) gives an incomplete picture of the fishery’s current state. Total population of the species (males and females) is actually significantly above the level at which large numbers of fish can be harvested without overfishing the stock. Hence the stock is not overfished.

 The female portion of the stock, however, has dipped somewhat below the level considered most desirable for perpetuating the stock — a level that is not regarded as an emergency but which calls for some cautionary reduction of the annual harvest, a step that was taken in 2015.

 In 2017, females born in 2011 — an exceptionally large population — will become spawners, moving the species closer to the level considered optimal for spawning success. In other words, the stock is not “approaching a danger point,” as stated in the editorial.

The group cited in your editorial, Stripers Forever, is known for its agenda to end commercial fishing for striped bass, not for purposes of conservation but to transfer the commercial quota to the members of Stripers Forever and other sportfishermen. Were the group serious about striped bass conservation, it might advocate a maximum size limit (say, no fish taken that are over the size of 42 inches) so that the great fully mature females might be left to spawn future generations.

It is to be noted that big-game hunters seeking trophies are prone to kill lions, jaguars, rhinoceros, and other species that are most definitely in decline.

ARNOLD LEO

Secretary

East Hampton Baymen’s Association

Let Science Tell Us

Springs

September 5, 2016 

Dear Editor;

I’m writing you concerning your recent editorial “Striped Bass Need Help.” I don’t have an issue with your comments — well, maybe a little — but I’m curious why you chose to discuss striped bass as needing help now.

 We in the fisheries face comments, accusations, and denials of scientific and statistical data, as you noted, from well-funded and well-connected self-serving, special interests, and so-called environmentalists on a weekly basis. It’s not just striped bass. It’s sea bass, lobster, fluke, scup, bluefish, and eel. We’re no longer allowed to catch eels for food, but we can put many millions of them on hooks for bait to catch striped bass. It’s weakfish, winter flounder, horseshoe crab, whelk, shark, and tuna. Those damn Japanese. It’s menhaden, shad, alewife, herring, surf clam, and “forage fish.” Yeah! Any fish that’s eaten by another fish is now covered. They’re all in need of help.

 I am concerned that you said, “There is little doubt striped bass numbers along the Eastern Seaboard as a whole are in decline.” How do you know? And just because of a statistic that said female spawning stock is declining doesn’t take into account all the scientific data “along the Eastern Seaboard as a whole” that’s needed to manage any fishery. 

 So how do we help striped bass, or any other fish for that matter? We let science tell us what’s there. We don’t manipulate or deny the truth. And most important,+ we must consider that fisheries are a resource for us all, not just those who might want it for themselves, like Stripers Forever. We need science and data including the least-well-known, socioeconomic data. 

 Lastly, to paraphrase from your other editorial, “Airport Tipping Point.” As the separation between the elitists and the rest of society grows ever wider, in whose interest should those in power act? 

BRAD LOEWEN

 

Met With Congressman 

East Hampton

September 3, 2016

Dear David,

This week I met with Congressman Lee Zeldin to convey my concerns about the number of our veterans who commit suicide with a firearm. Post-traumatic stress disorder and the resulting depression have killed more of our troops than the enemy has. In addition, our civilian population who suffer acute depression also find a gun the instrument of choice in that moment of total despair. I asked Mr. Zeldin what controls he would recommend to keep weapons from people with the inability to control their impulses to end their own lives and too often the lives of others, who are mere bystanders in the troubled lives of these “shooters.”

Mr. Zeldin, as if he didn’t hear a word I said, started lecturing me on the need for better treatment by the V.A. for these veterans. I asked him to speak to me about better regulations governing how gun possession could be better controlled and what he personally is going to do to help correct this terrible waste of lives. I then heard another lecture on laws on the books that were not enforced by this administration. 

I asked whether he was influenced by the N.R.A. in any of his views, at which time, as if on call, his assistant opened the door to indicate the session was over. Mr. Zeldin then stood up, extended his hand, and thanked me for having been a veteran and for my interest in veterans affairs. 

I am not quite sure whether he didn’t listen to what I was asking, or that he just was going through the motions of glibly tolerating a problematic constituent. Could it have been that the mere mention of the N.R.A. was the signal to end the very brief meeting? Whatever it was, it was scary to see the impact that the mention of N.R.A. had on him.

I was glad that I met with Mr. Zeldin because it convinced me more than ever that this pompous and pedantic young man is not, cannot, and obviously will not be able to fill the office of a Tim Bishop, but more important, that he must not be allowed to bring the policies (or lack thereof) of the N.R.A. and Donald Trump to our Congressional district — or nation. We have a choice in this forthcoming election.

Anna Throne-Holst can and will replace the Zeldin arrogance with genuine compassion, courage, and well-thought-out action. Anna will bring sanity, respect, and dignity back to our district and to Congress. Anna will work across the aisle to get our Congress functioning again. We deserve no less. We deserve Anna Throne-Holst as congresswoman for the First Congressional District of the U.S. House of Representatives.

LARRY SMITH

She Isn’t Trump

East Hampton

September 1, 2016

Dear Editor,

How many people like and approve the idea of a course in patriotism in our schools? Do you support altering the curriculum of our public and private schools to include indoctrination of our children in nationalism, which has been proposed and made part of the campaign of Donald Trump?

He says it and he means it, to the applause of his surrogates.

Make you shudder? It does me, I’ll tell you. Visions of Saudi Arabia or Nazi Germany turning our kids into little programmed automatons fill my head.

Well, just continue to listen to this man Trump. The proposals are spewed from his mouth just as is his continued blaming all our crime and dope problems on immigrants that he will eliminate just as Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin targeted individual groups — Jews, Gypsies, Catholics — and picture the specter of police teams, deportation forces, and kidnap squads forcing taxpaying undocumented fathers who have been here for 15 or 20 years out of the country, mothers torn from their children, false criminal allegations, long-term incarcerations awaiting deportation, just think about it.

I recently asked all to vote for Hillary Clinton. I don’t care if she is far from perfect. She isn’t Trump, and that is what matters to me.

Today, after Trump’s latest screaming, frightening, crass, loud, ignorant, fascist, abnormal, ill-defined display in Arizona, it is abundantly clear that we must act now for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

You must vote for Hillary Clinton, or watch your country become a blot in history.

RICHARD P. HIGER

Empress Has No Clothes

Stony Brook

August 30, 2016

Dear Editor,

As a proud alumnus of Southampton College and former executive director of Angier Biddle Duke’s World Affairs Council of Long Island, I enjoy visiting the East End to reconnect with my roots and the natural beauty of the area. When I arrive I often purchase a copy of The East Hampton Star to catch up on the local news and what’s on the minds of my former neighbors.

In your Aug. 25 issue, it was interesting to read Christine Sampson’s “They’re With Hillary” front page article, Helen Rattray’s “Fight Night” article, and the numerous letters to the editor. Two insights from “Fight Night” provided a sharp lens to make sense out of what I read: 1. The audience on Aug. 15 at Guild Hall broke into applause when Howard Dean stated that “Hillary is truthful,” 2. The author and forum moderator Ken Auletta suggested that “people of today often pay attention to those mediums that reinforce their pre-existing opinions.”

For the benefit of Governor Dean and all those who cheered him again when he said, “Hillary will be a great president,” it might be useful to heed Mr. Auletta’s warning and ask why it is that “only 11 percent think Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy” in the Aug. 16 NBC presidential tracking poll.

A good place to start would be the legendary columnist William Safire’s Jan. 8, 1996, New York Times essay in which he describes Mrs. Clinton as a congenital liar. “She is in the longtime habit of lying, and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.” Twenty years later, a tired old leopard has not changed its spots.

In November 2015, Mrs. Clinton said that “every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” When asked if this included the many women accusing her husband of sexual assault, Mrs. Clinton smiled and said, “Everybody should be believed until they are disbelieved based on evidence.” Upon hearing these remarks, Juanita Broaddrick shared her pain. “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Arkansas attorney general, raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73 and it never goes away.”

At the Republican National Convention, Patricia Smith, the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, spoke of her experience with Mrs. Clinton. “I blame Hillary Clinton for the death of my son. In an email to her daughter shortly after the attack, Hillary Clinton blamed it on terrorism. But when I saw her at Sean’s coffin ceremony, she looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible. If Hillary Clinton can’t give us the truth, why should we give her the presidency?”

Before voting in November, your readers may want to Google the prominent feminist Camille Paglia’s March 2015 interview on YouTube. She described Mrs. Clinton as “a complete fraud” and “a woman that has enabled the debasement and exploitation of women.” She observed that “Hillary hitched her wagon to Bill Clinton after she failed the bar exam in Washington, D.C.,­” and she “has had no real career other than riding on the coattails of her horn-dog husband.”

Mrs. Clinton’s many lies regarding her private email server while secretary of state are well documented. Anyone needing a refresher may want to watch or read F.B.I. Director Comey’s responses to Congressman Trey Gowdy’s questions at the recent hearing. Comey confirmed Mrs. Clinton sent and received classified emails, used more than one device, did not turn over all work-related emails, and her lawyers did not read the 30,000 emails they deleted on her behalf. 

Most recently, former Secretary of State Colin Powell felt the need to prevent the Clinton campaign from pinning her use of a private email server on him. “The truth is she was using her private server for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did as secretary of state.”

Although I respect that many people of good will support Mrs. Clinton, Bill Safire’s 1996 essay rings very true today. The empress has no clothes, and this is not pleasant to look at. Perhaps that explains why Mrs. Clinton has not held a press conference since Dec. 5, 2015, and why most Americans recently polled by NBC do not share Governor Dean’s view that “Hillary is truthful.”

DANIEL B. KERR

What to Do

Springs

September 4, 2016

Dear David, 

News leaked out on a Friday, Labor Day weekend, hoping by Monday it would just disappear. The F.B.I. released notes from Hillary’s interview. She can’t remember, she doesn’t recall, she has a brain injury, therefore her memory of taking security classes is a blur. Hillary has no idea that a (C) on a page means classified, having 13 devices when she claimed she only had one. Note, these devices were smashed with a hammer in order to remove all information. On her server her attorney used a bleach-bit to wipe the server clean.

Do you really think 30,000 pages was about her yoga or even Chelsea’s wedding? This woman is so crooked, so dishonest, such a liar, so power-hungry, she let security information leak out in foreign countries. She has no idea what to do with devices, as her carelessness, according to the F.B.I., could have cost the U.S. dearly. Now, the F.B.I. — crooked as the Justice Department — my apologies to Martha Stewart, and Petraeus, a hero, for having to serve time or pay huge fines for a lot less than this dishonest woman named Hillary Clinton did. I wonder when the fix went in.

In God and country,

BEA DERRICO