Letters to the Editor: Concern for the Science Center

Riverhead

Concern for Science Center

The recent discussion about using eminent domain to seize the Long Island Science Center’s property at 111 East Main St. is deeply concerning — not only for what it says about local governance, but for what it threatens to take away from the Riverhead community.

The Science Center has outlined a clear, responsible and feasible plan to restore its property in phases, beginning with fully funded interior renovations and façade improvements. Phase One is more than a cosmetic update — it represents momentum, commitment, and a crucial step toward reimagining Riverhead as a hub of innovation, education, and family-friendly activity.

If Riverhead blocks permits or threatens eminent domain, it risks undermining a good-faith effort to bring world-class STEM experiences to our downtown.

Let’s also be clear about what we stand to lose. The Science Center is not just a property owner with plans on paper. It is an institution with exhibits ready to install, educational programs already developed and a proven commitment to serving our local youth. There is no better occupant for this space than a nonprofit dedicated to science, technology and learning. 

Riverhead says it wants revitalization. But revitalization without vision, without culture and without kids in mind is just gentrification in disguise. Interesting things create dwell time. The longer someone stays, the more likely they are to eat, shop, spend — and return.

The Science Center deserves our support — not a legal battle that wastes time, money and public trust.

Jeanne Fallot 

Riverhead

I support the LISC

To the Town Board and Supervisor: I am writing today in support of the Long Island Science Center and their continued presence in the Main Street facility. They have presented concrete evidence by architect Jordan Rogove on the sustainability of the present building with plans for expansion. Rather than have more apartment buildings, the center would be a good draw for the community — especially the children. I am excited to hear of the proposed planetarium. I have spoken to my neighbors and we all agree that cultural institutions rather than more apartments are preferable. 

I have lived and worked in Riverhead Town a very long time and wish to see a Main Street that meets the needs of its residents. Please cancel the condemnation proceedings and allow the Science Center to remain in place for all.

Janet O’Hare 

Southold

A good guy

When we moved here from Brooklyn, Elizabeth Neville was the Southold Town Clerk and what a wonderful, professional woman she was indeed. Hearing about her retirement I thought, “Goodness, who could ever replace her?” Dennis Noncarrow, that’s who. Mazel Tov to him on being honored for his work. He has helped me in the past — and the best part, to me at least, is that he answers his own phone.

Elaine Goldman 

Greenport

Convenient connections

It is outrageous that it has taken this long to put Damon Rallis behind bars — and the latest delay, supposedly to put his affairs in order and be with his family, is bogus. He has had over four years to put his affairs in order and be with whatever family wants to associate with him. During this time he was also granted the privilege of leaving his house from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Another sex offender in Southold Town was summarily sentenced and sent to prison. I guess it pays to have worked for the town and have political connections.

Ann Heller 

Wading River

The time is now

With Congress on break, it is a perfect time for Nick LaLota to hold in-person Town Halls. He could educate voters on how the tariff turmoil is helping us, or the benefits of major cuts to medical research, decreased NOAA funding, decreased education funding, decreased information service for Social Security beneficiaries, and more, as well as giving the Congressional job of funding and management of federal agencies over to the Trump administration. With markets down, inflation creeping up, warnings of recession, plummeting international relations, and other bad news coming every day, the taxpayers deserve answers!

Alan Daters 

Aquebogue

Immigration update

Following up on my Jan. 30 letter, “Enforce IRCA-1986,” further research revealed it did not protect the undocumented worker, thus allowing exploitation by businesses. It failed. The 1986 act had partial bipartisan support to provide amnesty for “certain classes of immigrants,” yet did not include sufficient employment protection for undocumented immigrants. Reagan (and later Bush, Clinton and Obama) had tried to give full amnesty, yet Congress each time could not fully unite in the act’s details, e.g., visas, green cards, working condition protections, salary, hours, legal protections, health care coverage (if any). Consequently, there exists continuous exploitation among undocumented workers in the workplace, particularly in the lack of health care coverage and inconsistent pay. IRCA-1986 was to offer amnesty and a pathway to citizenship. 

Following it was the Immigration Act of 1990, resulting in an increase of legal immigration, employment-based visas and the creation of the Diversity Visa Program. But there were pitfalls, too. Employment-based immigrants waited years for citizenship, as well as for asylum cases awaited trials. And between 1990 and 2014 several acts followed, allowing the immigration system to evolve. 

Yet, we find ourselves here today witnessing career politicians scapegoating immigrants and fomenting intolerance and prejudice. Why? Is it easier than working to function unilaterally as legislative, judicial and executive branches to establish an equitable and finally successful pathway to citizenship? Lastly, why did the May 10, 2023, H.R.3194 — 118th Congress pathway to citizenship bill — get flouted, resulting in its death? Time to resurrect it, legislative branch, and stop handing it off to the judicial and executive branches. The three branches are one.

C. Vélez Tracy 

Greenport

The threat to higher education

Many do not care about the recent struggles “elite” universities are having with President Trump threatening their funding. For those who do, following is part of a letter I (Barnard, class of 1978) wrote to the presidents of Barnard and Columbia colleges and Columbia University. Feel free to use it as a jumping off point for letters to your alma mater and all of the universities being threatened.

The recent actions of Columbia University to bend the knee to President Trump out of fear of loosing $400 million in federal funding are disgraceful. And, for the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my affiliation with Barnard College.

In return for caving to President Trump’s authoritarian threats, Columbia got nothing except a “maybe” they will get the [money] if they concede to every demand. In effect, Columbia has now made President Trump the president of the university.

I am truly shocked Columbia has abandoned its 270-year heritage of educational integrity. Under the red herring of fighting antisemitism, Columbia surrendered its academic independence by conceding to government oversight of professors and students in cherry-picked departments.

I am also shocked by the university’s complete abrogation of its responsibility to protect students’ First Amendment rights of free speech. Without a fight, Columbia is now willing to breach the confidentiality of student disciplinary proceedings and comply with the outrageous demands of the House Education and Workforce Committee for these records.

Most egregiously, it has signed a death warrant for many international students attending Columbia. Because the university abandoned its integrity, international students in attendance live under the threat of losing their student visa, deportation and imprisonment in a black ops prison in El Salvador.

While I attended Barnard College, my experience was enormously enhanced by the many international students who were my classmates and roommates. Now, because of Trump’s policies to eliminate freedom of speech and DEI, Columbia student swill be impoverished as DEI programs are eviscerated. Why would an international undergraduate choose to attend Columbia knowing it will not act in loco parentis and protect them?

Geri Armine-Klein 

Jensen Beach, Fla.

A fond farewell

If you open the dictionary to the words “incredible human,” you will find a picture of Oysterponder Dede Campbell. No matter what happened that required help, Dede was there to fill the need. She was an advocate for the homeless and the disenfranchised. Every year, she hosted a posada for the Latino community where the participants paraded door to door singing traditional music, reading the appropriate readings and enjoying yummy food of the season. With the help of another “saint-like” woman, Sister Margaret Smyth, if she learned a person was buried without a headstone she purchased one and had it installed. She always brought food for any who suffered a loss. She always had all the ingredients for a strudel and holds the world record on its preparation and delivery. She rounded up flu shots every year and gave them to the homeless at John’s Place while also using her nursing skills to assess if they had other needs. Many of the local dogs would pop up at her front door and eagerly await their treat, which she had stored on the other side. She was a great friend and will be missed by all who knew her .Godspeed, Dede. You are already missed and have left large shoes to fill. RIP. 

Carol Gillooly

Southold

Due diligence

Doing your “due diligence” means conducting a thorough investigation and analysis before making a significant decision. We buy a car and check the ratings, mileage and safety results. A credit card bill comes in the mail and we check it for accuracy. None of us would buy a house without a thorough check by an engineer. But so many of us take the word of Trump and DOGE on cutting “waste and fraud” in government. Cutting waste in government is a good idea but I, for one, want Musk and Trump to prove it to us, in writing. That doesn’t seem like an extreme requirement.

Rosellen Storm 

Cutchogue

If they won’t defend themselves 

History shows that large law firms either grow, remain relatively stable , or implode when something very negative and very public occurs and the firm subsequently goes under from the damaging publicity.

This time not one, but a substantial number of large law firms, have invited overwhelmingly negative exposure by bending their corporate knees to Donald Trump’s demands that they run their professional businesses according to his rules. He wants to dictate who they can hire and who they can represent. And to boot, they have collectively agreed to give him more than a billion dollars in free legal services, as he directs.

What these firms are now going to experience is (a) law schools uninviting them to participate in job forums, (b) non-partner associates looking for jobs elsewhere, (c) partners looking to transfer their practices to firms that didn’t do any knee-bending and (d) clients who support the rule of law leaving for representation by others with the guts to stand up to authoritarianism. 

Perhaps the biggest risk of all to these firms is that partners who were not involved in the decision to fold to Trump — and who control substantial amounts of business — will be disgusted and will take their clients elsewhere. If that happens, look for one or more of these firms to implode, and they will deserve it for failing to live up to their sworn oaths to uphold the law. They have voluntarily become parties to their own extortion.

As a member of the bar for more than 50 years, I am shocked to see that these huge firms, where partners earn millions of dollars per year, have caved to the demands of Trump and put their wallets ahead of their oaths as officers of the court to serve the public good. If any of them collapse, they will do so without my sympathy. If they won’t stand up and defend themselves, why should anyone hire them?

Michael Levy