In the last few decades, another trend has been afoot in public education: programs offering nutritious food, preferably locally produced.

Considering lifestyle trends nowadays, with two parents working — if there are two parents in the house — the convenience of having a cafeteria has become somewhat of a necessity. Many families rely on take out, leaving their fridges nearly bare. When you add commutes into the equation, other parents simply don’t have the time to prepare their children’s lunch, and whatever anyone’s opinion, there are children arriving at school without a meal. These are the children who need the cafeteria program.

In some cases, a school lunch is the most nutritious meal a child will have throughout the day. In the same way that schools have been tasked with teaching children about social, ethical and sexual responsibility, the schools now have the ability to shape their student body’s eating habits and relationship with food. The school has a captive audience and is reaching children in their formative years when habits are developed. Schools should encourage these youthful eaters with a menu leaning towards healthy, and environmentally responsible, choices. Take away their option of eating a slice of pizza or Pop-Tart or bag of chips. When a teenager is hungry they will eat whatever is put in front of them. By removing unhealthy options, you are aiding them in making healthier choices.

This is not to say that students should be blindly led towards the organic and natural food trough. The school should also deepen the connection and understanding student’s have to where their food is coming. A class, student or teacher, should champion a garden and produce program at the high school and see if this food can be incorporated into the cafeteria. The garden can also provide a great backdrop for a biology curriculum. In the same way schools try to inspire future scientists and artists, they should be inspiring the future farmers or agricultural researchers of today.

In short, we obviously feel the cafeteria is a necessity for the contemporary school. Yes, the school should work to make this program fiscally self-sustaining, but perhaps it shouldn’t expect to break even this year and should budget for the program more realistically. As with any new business, the school appears to still be working out the kinks of the program, though we hope Dr. Gratto’s plan gets this economic equation right, because it would be a loss to the school community if the program was dismantled.

While not uncommon — many historic buildings nationwide have fallen into a similar fate — it tugged at the heartstrings of village residents, many who feared as a private residence the church’s doors would forever be shuttered to the community at large.

This week, we have been given hope the church may well retain a semi-public use, but more importantly, remain a vibrant part of the Sag Harbor community for many years to come.

Amagansett artist and businesswoman Elizabeth Dow has contracted to buy the former church with plans to bring her wildly successful textile business and internship program into the heart of Sag Harbor. We could not be more excited about the prospect.

Celebrating the arts has long been a part of our culture in Sag Harbor, whether through the writings of author John Steinbeck, our celebrated artists who call the village their home, to our galleries that line Main Street, to Bay Street Theatre — who many cannot imagine the village without — to Liz Joyce’s Goat on a Boat Puppet Theatre, which has brought a largely European tradition of theatre into the lives of our children.

Dow has shown similar passion for the arts through her company, her Mixed Media art supply store and in the direction she has taken Amagansett Applied Arts — a go-to venue in East Hampton for those searching for engaging arts curriculum for the young and old.

We see Dow’s proposal for the former United Methodist Church as one that will breathe life into a vacant, historic building in disrepair, and follow the vein that increasingly feeds our village. That it has an educational component only makes the concept more appealing, as we imagine our artistic high school students finding a new craft under her tutelage.

The proposal’s biggest hurdle is the requirement to rezone the property into the village business district, which has its drawbacks. If Dow chooses to sell the property years from now, an irresponsible developer not sensitive to the village’s character or needs could create something none of us, Dow included, would like to see: think late night bar.

That being said, with strict covenants and restrictions in place to ensure the building’s proper reuse now and always, we believe the board can, and should, allow Dow to move forward with her plans without pause.

The fate of the former United Methodist Church has been one of uncertainty. As its former congregation prepares to settle into its new home, it appears we have an opportunity to give them peace with a happy end to what has been a sometimes gloomy story.

If Dow’s work is good enough for The White House, we would imagine it should be good enough for us. 

The Eco Walk, we believe, will be a great addition to the Sag Harbor schools’ campus and will hopefully be a model for creative education. There are opportunities for students to see how the natural world grows and evolves around them, and since so much of our life on the East End is connected to the natural world, we believe this makes an ideal classroom.

And once again local officials and community members are stepping in to save this institution of higher learning, which harkens back to the Save the College at Southampton movement when Long Island University was leaving the area. A university is no doubt an asset to the South Fork community in a number of ways. As State Assemblyman Fred Thiele pointed out, it produces hundreds of professional jobs in an area that is limited in terms of these kinds of positions. Furthermore, it enriches the community and rounds it out. And having the campus in operation as a school is a much better idea than the alternative, an 82-acre condominium or hotel, which is slowly becoming a dime a dozen on the East End.

Though we have found the marine science and writing program to be top-notch, we agree with Thiele that the college would be served best by rounding out its offerings with a more liberal arts program. We see the campus as an unbelievable opportunity to cultivate the cultural and academic resources at the disposal of our community. A little while ago, there was talk of establishing a Shinnecock language program at the college. We feel this should be expanded to perhaps include a Native American studies department. As an historic area, perhaps there could be courses in historic architecture and preservation. Think of the possibilities with a hospitality program and the relationships that could be developed with the restaurant and hotel industries.

These are just a few ideas we have been toying with but linking the studies at the campus with the assets within the community we feel is a key aspect in making this institution sustainable. It is also important to foster a sense of community partnership, and while this has been achieved in dribs and drabs we would like to see the campus more fully integrated into the community. Perhaps, one step to facilitate this process would be to re-open the train station at the college to allow easier access to the campus from other parts of the East End and Long Island, though this will take some kind of partnership with the Long Island Rail Road.

However, the white elephant in the room regarding anything that happens to this campus is money. The last two incarnations of the school ended simply because of dollars and cents. Until we can be shown how the school will break even, or be economically viable, we will remain cautiously optimistic that this is a reasonable course and not a design for a two or three year educational operation.

The Suffolk County Water Authority has put the East End on notice. Officials maintain water usage hasn’t yet reached full blown crisis proportions, but the public’s reaction to their efforts is telling. It is interesting that rates of use remained unabated despite a vigorous campaign on SCWA’s part. We doubt that this most recent round of publicity and continuation of the Stage 1 alert will lessen the burden placed by Southampton Town residents on the county water system.

We also doubt that the homeowners of these large estates, which are driving this demand, are plugged into these local issues. If they were, why didn’t they already change their water habits?

The jury is still out on what impact the SCWA efforts will ultimately have. In the meantime, we have a suggestion that has been enacted in other areas to augment services provided at a town or county level. We encourage the county and town to explore an impact tax on water usage. For the people who insist on hydrating their massive lawns at least once a day (even on days it rains because irrigation systems are set on automatic), we hope they won’t mind paying an extra tariff for this non-essential watering activity. If the SCWA can track where the most water is being pumped and in which general area, then this should be a cake walk to tabulate users of water over a certain threshold and tax them accordingly. And if officials are adverse to a tax, which can be a troubling word for some politicians, then fines could be implemented for those using more than their fair share in summer months.

The monies collected could be allocated in a number of ways. The funds could go towards education programs on water conservations or towards water projects, like the system updates and additional wells the SCWA is already looking into. But perhaps this money could also fund renewable energy projects or provide relief to residents who seek to install water recycling systems in their homes. Those who are intent on overusing resources should pay for those who want to decrease their carbon footprint.

Show Your True Colors

Over two years ago this community came together in a moment of sorrow and disbelief to show love and support for a fallen son of Sag Harbor —19 year-old Marine Lance Corporal Jordan C. Haerter, who died heroically defending the lives of others in Ramadi, Iraq.

When Jordan came home, the procession was breathtakingly sad, but also a testament to the strength of our community and others, who celebrated Haerter’s sacrifice by lining streets throughout Long Island, waving flags and displaying signs of gratitude as his parents brought him home to forever rest in Sag Harbor.

This past June, we found ourselves once more lining Main Street to honor another fallen soldier, Army First Lieutenant Joseph Theinert, a 24-year-old resident of Shelter Island who also counted Sag Harbor as his home. Once more, across Long Island, droves of residents turned out to pay tribute to Theinert’s service, and we were reminded that our loss in both of these great men was felt by many outside the own community, many who have also laid sons and daughters to rest, children whose sacrifice will never be forgotten.

This Saturday, we have an opportunity as a community to honor not only Jordan and Joseph once more, but also the wounded veterans who have returned home from combat and will be riding in this year’s Soldier Ride event.

Jordan’s mother, JoAnn Lyles, is entreating residents in Sag Harbor and beyond to decorate their homes, step onto the street, set up water tables on the cycling and walking routes and cheer on the riders of this event, which will raise thousands of dollars to help wounded soldiers returning from overseas combat. These are men and women whose lives are forever changed, and who, no matter what one’s position on the conflict, deserve our support and gratitude.

On Saturday, The Express will don red, white and blue at our Main Street offices, and we encourage the rest of our local businesses to do the same. As for residents, break out bunting, erect your flags and join us on Main Street or on the Lance Corporal Jordan C. Haerter Veterans Memorial Bridge as we welcome these riders, and this event, into our community.

It’s the least we can do.

But as the years went by, financial circumstances changed in Sag Harbor, as did the desires for housing. Old homes were snapped up and converted back into grand single family residences. That left a shortage of small living spaces that, by their very nature, served to house those who work in the community, be it year round, seasonally or for a week or two.

Which is why illegal accessory apartments have cropped up all over the village. Housed in former garages, attached wings or back sheds, they have largely flown under the radar of municipal law.

Until now.

Recognizing not only the existence of these apartments, but their importance in housing a vital segment of the community (as well as providing needed income to owners), the village has developed a new amnesty law that would give up to 50 of these apartment owners the opportunity to make them legal in exchange for bringing them up to code.

We like the idea very much, and hope that many owners come forward to make their accessory apartments legitimate living spaces. But we’re bothered by the notion that only owners who can prove they have used their buildings as illegal apartments for at least five years are eligible for the program.

While yes, that is technically the definition of amnesty, we feel that the law rewards illegal activity, and punishes law abiding residents who may have outbuildings that they never converted to rentals knowing it was illegal. Perhaps it’s the village’s intention to first offer the option to those already operating apartments on their property, but if 50 of these owners don’t come forward to take advantage of the law, we strongly advocate it be expanded to allow others with buildings on their property that meet the square footage requirements the opportunity to create accessory apartments, provided they’re willing to put the money into them to bring them up to code.

We feel the village can easily maintain control over the situation by setting the maximum number of apartments it will allow. So let those property owners willing to come forward and invest the time and effort do the work — and let’s make some real progress in safely housing those who earn their living in this community.

Attention developers: rulings by these boards are not just polite design suggestions. They are, in fact, law and what you’re required to do to proceed. If you’ve been approved for a three foot high, wide space picket with mesh, don’t go putting up a four foot high solid stockade and try to blame it on your insurance company.

We can almost hear the lawyers from here. “Go ahead, put it up. So what if it’s not what they approved. Once it’s there, it’ll be a lot harder for them to make you take it down than it will be for us to go to them again with a design change.”

In this case, the Ferry Road developers maintain that they put up the more invasive fence to dissuade vagrants from gaining access to and living on the property. Please. They’re vagrants… if they really want to move in, do you truly think another 12 inches is going to stop them?

We’re sick of people who put up whatever they want, regardless of what was approved by village boards (or ignore village law altogether — see “legs” story on page three), then make it the village’s (and the taxpayers) responsibility to rectify it.

The building department has reacted to this controversy by issuing a stop work order for the fence. Hmmm. Call us pessimists, but just maybe that order would have been a bit more effective had it come before the fence was completed. 

And this time, it was not an issue of too many 20-somethings buying too many weekends at a house suitable for a family of four, but rather, a homeowner who was perhaps so eager to make a buck that he not once, but twice in a month neglected to sufficiently vet his tenants — and we use that term loosely. In both instances those “tenants” were a group of nearly 20 underage teenagers looking to have a good time in our village. Predictably, the cops were called to the home both times because of excessive noise. The neighbors must’ve been pleased.

We’ve seen it time and time again, homeowners pleading ignorance, not only to the Southampton Town law which requires rentals of a minimum of 30 days, but knowledge about who’s actually renting the house. Please. If you’re charging over $1,000 a night, as this homeowner was, in addition to making sure all the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors are operational, you ought to be putting some effort back into knowing who’s staying in your house.

Being duped once by a bunch of wily teens from up-island? OK, we’ll buy that. So what’s the excuse the second time? Ignorance is not bliss in this case — especially when we witness duplicate violations over successive weekends. If you’re going to  operate your home as a business, that’s your choice. You’d better do it in a way that’s not only legal, but considerate to your neighbors and your tenants as well.

Take some responsibility. If you’re not out here, skim off some of that $1,000 a night profit and hire someone locally to check on what’s really going on at your property. Because when it comes right down to it, as the homeowner, you’re the one who’s going to do the jail time if it gets to that point.

It wasn’t some alley in lower Manhattan, but the parking lot at Long Beach in Noyac where hundreds of people walk each week. Mothers pushing carriages. The youthful jogging earnestly. Seniors taking a stroll before the hubbub starts.

Summer is here and it’s time, apparently, for lazy and thoughtless people to dump their garbage next to the trash cans that are set along the mile-long drive at Long Beach.

We could argue the Town of Southampton needs to put more garbage cans out, or needs to pick the garbage up more frequently, but the real problem is people who just don’t want to take responsibility for their own trash.

For years we have watched as people, confronted with a full garbage can and believing they are doing the right thing, leave their bags of trash next to the can. Or, worse, watch as people drive up to the cans in their cars, take a few furtive glances around, and plop down what is obviously the bag of garbage they just pulled from under their kitchen sink.

The result the next morning is torn bags and garbage strewn across the roadway.

What people don’t know — or choose not to believe — is that dogs, raccoons and other animals see these unprotected bags as midnight snacks, and when the early morning walkers arrive they are greeted with garbage unfurled.

A reasonable person takes responsibility for his or her trash, and if there’s no room in the trash can nearest you, look for one that is less full. If they’re all full, take the trash home. Don’t leave it for someone else to clean up, or for some rat to chew on.

For example, here in Sag Harbor we have a 15-foot pair of female legs firmly planted alongside Ruth Vered and Janet Lehr’s Madison Street home. The Larry Rivers sculpture has created something of a stir in the neighborhood, with some people loving it and others hating it.

Apparently one member of the Sag Harbor ARB is in the latter category. When Vered and Lehr came before the ARB this week to get approval for exterior paint color and permission to make needed repairs on their home, ARB member Tom Horn, Sr. abstained from casting the deciding vote on the issue at hand because he doesn’t happen to like the gams.

To be fair, Vered and Lehr were told two years ago they needed to get a building permit for the legs, and have thus far failed to do so. And while the exact nature of Horn’s aversion to the legs is unclear, aesthetics is clearly an issue. Perhaps he deems them too large and out of character with the shrubbery and urns at neighboring properties. Or perhaps he feels those shapely limbs might pollute the minds of Sag Harbor’s youth. Or maybe he’s just afraid they might take a tumble on a windy day and crush a passerby — now that might be a legitimate concern, and one we assume a building permit is designed to prevent.

We do know one thing. Horn’s abstention from voting on a legitimate application because he doesn’t happen to like what’s in the yard is inappropriate. Have Vered and Lehr ignored the law that requires them to get a building permit for the structure? Yes. But in that case, it’s up to village code enforcement to pursue the matter. It is unfair for one person to hold up needed repairs and a paint job because of art. By this rationale, should we let the village’s historic homes fall into disrepair because we don’t happen to like what’s on the lawn? If the legs weren’t there would Horn have approved the application? 

We completely agree with ARB member Diane Schiavoni who said the legs are a separate issue. They are indeed.

As far as we’re concerned, the legs are a recognizable piece of art by a celebrated internationally renown (and now deceased) American artist. Irregardless of their provenance, freedom of expression should be allowed in this capacity — with a building permit, of course. So we say “Let Larry’s legs stand” (or stride, which is a more  accurate description of what they’re doing).