Letters to the Editor: Cutting comments short?
Riverhead
Cutting comments short?
As a regular attendee of Riverhead Town Board hearings for a decade, I became accustomed to supervisors concluding words that the record would remain open a specified time for additional public comments. I never knew whether that was from convention or a legal requirement.
So it came as a shock to hear Supervisor Hubbard say after the hearing on eminent domain for 127 East Main St. that the record was closed. The only justification given was that the attorney representing the town, Mr. Isler, had recommended it.
There is a pattern that when the town’s leaders sense public opposition growing to their grand ideas, they seek procedural reasons to limit debate.
In this case, it appears they don’t want delay in their intended plan to overshadow the east end of the Town Square with a five-story hotel and condominium. We avoided that fate for the west end because of successful public defense of the Long Island Science Center.
People should spend a few minutes standing in front of The Suffolk Theater and imagine whether they want to lose the vista provided by two-story structures flanking both sides of the visionary Town Square. There was deja vu in Mr. Isler’s proposal to shut down the hearing, given his role in defense of the EPCAL deal with the Ghermezians, when he was also ostensibly representing the town.
My understanding is that eminent domain is for public — not private — benefit and that the town did not purchase 127 East Main St. with our funds to hand the land over to a developer for his profit.
John McAuliff
Laurel
Hold on hotel
I think it would be a mistake for the Town Board to grant an exception to the hotel moratorium for the Capital One site (“Hotel bid at former Capital One Bank still stalled,” May 22).
With respect to “changing the character” of the Town, take a drive into Riverhead and see a harbinger of things to come. How about an extension of the Long Island Expressway?
If the hotel is built and thrives, congestion will inevitably result.
And what if the hotel is built, and it doesn’t meet the developers’ financial expectations? The town may be left with a partially finished eyesore.
In January, I will have lived on Long Island for 89 years, from Brooklyn, to Queens, to Nassau County and now the North Fork of Eastern Long Island.
You have a beautiful town out here. Hold on to it.
John Viteritti
Laurel
Yes on hotel
One of the things I have always disliked is seeing an empty building and down the block a new building going up.
Somewhere in our town, a new hotel will be built, and chances are, it will be worse than having one in this location. For that and a few other reasons, I support the Cardinale family’s plan to convert the [Capital One] property into a scaled-back hotel.
I don’t think it is better to leave the property vacant and don’t think anyone would want that for the property if they were the owners.
So I agree with Mr. Gieckel: Build it.
Margaret Feeney
Jamesport
Voter confusion
I remember reading that we weren’t voting in Aquebogue at school but in Riverhead. ( There was a very small black-and-white sign outside the high school with word “vote” on it. I don’t know the high school so I walked around until someone pointed to the gymnasium. I felt like the place to vote was being “hidden,” certainly not publicized, so only parents with kids would vote for school budget.
I’m curious about how change in voting places impacted the number of voters.
I own a house in Jamesport and this is my only residence.
Priscilla Devine
New Suffolk
LaLota and the big, beautiful bill
LaLota just voted to slash health care for the poor.
LaLota just voted to slash food benefits for the poor.
LaLota just voted to slash taxes for the rich.
LaLota just voted for the largest redistribution of wealth to the wealthy — in history
Ah, but never fear: Our hero was able to get us a break on SALT.
Andrew Torgove
Southold
Bullies
From the time they are small, we try to teach our children not to be intimidated by bullies. We have parents, school officials and “buddy benches” to help the kids navigate a society that has bullies. Now we have a “Bully in Chief” who has threatened banks, law firms, universities, businesses, etc., with retribution if they fail to cave to his demands. Luckily, we have courts that are doing their job to stop this as well as universities and law firms that stand up to him. The businesses I’m not all that sure of. Hopefully, they are like Marty McFly in “Back to the Future,” standing up to Biff and changing the future.
I fear we are in a precarious state right now and hope that the institutions that are threatened by him will stand like superheroes, tall with hands on hips, and tell him “NO” loud and clearly.
Rosellen Storm
Southold
Perspective on the public’s voice
As we continue to engage in important conversations about the proposed rezoning of our town, I urge decision makers to consider a crucial factor that’s often overlooked: Attendance at town meetings and civic association gatherings does not represent the full voter base, particularly those working tirelessly to keep our local economy alive.
In a recent conversation with Supervisor Al Krupski, I offered a perspective worth serious reflection. Civic associations tend to be well-attended by retired individuals who, with more available time, can rally quickly and frequently. These are committed and valuable community members, no doubt—but they are not the only voice.
Compare that to members of our local Chambers of Commerce — business owners, service providers, entrepreneurs. These are people whose days are consumed with running shops, managing teams, handling deliveries and, at night, raising their children. Between business operations and family responsibilities, they often don’t have the luxury of attending town meetings — yet they’re the ones most affected by zoning changes that affect lot coverage, parking and viable use of commercial property.
Many of these business owners spent years investing time, money and energy into developing locations under the original zoning. To now ask them to decipher complex proposed codes — often requiring legal or planning expertise — and fight to preserve the very conditions under which they built is asking far too much of the very people who provide jobs, local services and tax revenue.
Their absence from the room does not equal consent. Nor should it be misconstrued as apathy.
I ask that our town leaders factor in this reality and ensure decisions aren’t disproportionately influenced by the segment of our community simply most able to attend meetings. Every voice matters — even the ones too busy working to speak at a podium.
Vincent Guastamacchia
Mattituck
Now is not the time
As a supporter of all things in learning, I do have to concur with a May 1 letter (“Think twice about expansion”) that now is not the time for a $5.5 million dollar expansion. With the attack of the current administration on our learning institutions and places of knowledge, including libraries, their resolve seems to be rewriting history. Contrary to my admiration for current board members, I believe Mattituck-Laurel Library has enough square footage to meet these challenging times.
With an abundance of meeting rooms spread throughout the hamlet, our high school and elementary school, places of meeting and learning are underutilized — as is the Mattituck Park District community room — for meetings, seminars and classes for young and old — not to mention our local churches.
Our demographics are changing in the hamlets with the advent of more second-home owners and declining school enrollment, which was pointed to at a recent ‘’About Your Taxes” forum presented by the Mattituck-Laurel Civic Association. Given the high cost of homes and rent in the hamlets and the real estate tax creep, we should be deferring to our senior citizens to help them age in place.
In this instance, I would prefer the library board use its sizable reserve to fund repairs and help the taxpayer. I feel the info meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 17, at 5 p.m. is for a small turnout of people/voters, as the workers of Mattituck/Laurel would only be halfway home, if they are lucky — and many will still be working at that time.
Nicholas Deegan
Aquebogue
Eminent giveaway?
Three years after designating Joe Petrocelli master developer, Riverhead has still not held an eligible and qualified sponsor hearing as to his finances or plans for a Town Square — and has now started proceedings to seize Craft’D’s lease, so he can build another hotel and condo. The town has already spent millions and endless staff time and effort to subsidize a private project for a longtime Republican donor. But perverting the eminent domain process to put a small business out of business makes this author wonder if Riverhead officials work for our taxpayers or this developer. Quid pro quo?
Ron Hariri
Cutchogue
The Big Ugly Bill
I spent this Memorial Day weekend struggling with the meaning of the holiday, to honor those brave individuals who gave their lives to defend our Constitution and 250-year-old democracy.
The Big Ugly Bill now in front of the Senate attacks not only the heart of our federal government by gutting social and financial support provided to our population, blue and red alike, but also attacks the very foundation of our democracy.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the bill will cut $750 billion in health care, mostly from Medicaid, and $300 billion from SNAP food assistance. It removes a tax on gun silencers. It defunds FEMA, the Veterans Administration and health care and cancer research.
Yet the bill significantly increases funding for ICE border and deportation, the military, and calls for $3.8 trillion in the 2017 tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the top tax brackets. The CBO estimates these expenditures will add $2 trillion to $3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. This deficit increase will trigger additional cuts to Medicare of $500 billion.
But according to legal scholars, the most troubling provision in Trump’s budget bill, which will kill our democracy, is the provision that significantly restricts the authority of federal courts to hold government officials in contempt when they violate court orders. This provision would get the Trump administration off the hook for not complying with federal or Supreme Court orders already issued, despite that these orders were issued based on a violation of a person’s constitutional rights. That is very dangerous not only for the individuals involved in these court actions, but for you and me as well.
At this juncture, We the People need to bombard our senators, Democratic and GOP alike, with phone calls and emails demanding that they vote no on this Big Ugly Bill. And I urge everyone to reach out to their friends and family, particularly in states with GOP senators, to urge them to contact their senators to vote no. The time is now to be a patriot, to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law!
Barbara Farr
