On Friday afternoon April 16^th at approximately 3 p.m., Joseph Benzola locked the door of Metaphysical Books and Tools for the last time and walked away. Forever. After eight years Joe could no longer afford to keep the store going. In the last few weeks of the store’s life Joe had put everything on sale, slashing prices in half.

The store, which had been a lonely outpost for Mr. Benzola for many months suddenly teemed with excitement, people walking away with armfuls of books or CDs, incense or the wood icon of Hindu goddesses. They bought large candles for a dollar and “The Films of Ingmar Bergman” for twenty and on and on and on. When the sale ended Joe Benzola packed the remaining stock into several boxes and then into a station wagon until the store was entirely bare.

How had it happened?

Metaphysical Books was open for business at 83 Main Street, six days a week for almost 30 years. It was one of many local businesses that have made Sag Harbor’s commercial center very different from every other town in the Hamptons. No chain stores, no flagship stores for large brands and other designer stores that exist only to display items that will be bought elsewhere. And, for now, no 30,000 square foot CVS where the 7-Eleven stands.

The question is, was Metaphysical Books the leading edge of a trend or merely an anomaly of poor timing and bad luck.

The movie theater is for sale. Romany Gallery was approached by Starbucks. Other stores have disappeared and some limited hours because they have few, if any, customers out of season.

In the case of Metaphysical Books the reasons for its early success and ultimate failure are fairly straightforward.

“A 30 percent decline over the last 12 months and a 60 percent drop in the winter combined with the financial crises. It was a perfect storm of bad news for the store,” Joe Benzola said,

And then there is the Internet.

“Internet sources like Amazon and iTunes took away business by offering books and music at enormous discounts, often well below my wholesale costs,” he said.

Had something about the store changed, we wondered. What had he done with the store when he bought it?

 “When I bought the store, I changed it from a typical new age store to what became a cultural center for artists and lovers of the arts who enjoyed discovering uncommon items. An Albert Ayler or John Coltrane box set or films by independent film makers the likes of Kenneth Anger or rare recorded performances by blues players from the first and second generation of that genre.”

The store was, for many people, the singular source of uncommon books, art, musical instruments, incense, rare CD and vinyl recordings, candles, crystals and more. An eclectic array of merchandise not usually found in stores of its type.

There was always music playing softly in the background when you walked in. Often music you hadn’t heard in a long time, if ever. And the stuff was all there, out in the open, where you could touch it, read the liner notes or a few pages of a book, smell a scented candle or soap and sometimes talk to Joe about whatever it was. The store was a mirror of Joe’s own wide ranging interests, he was usually able to discuss objects in question or the field they covered.

And there were the people you’d run into in the store. People you knew or complete strangers. People with a passion for Bhudism or an ear for Mingus or an interest in some subject you’d never even heard of. People often talked to each other in Metaphysical Books. It was, many felt, an oasis, away from the maelstrom of the Main Street scene.

But much of the new age stuff didn’t sell well. The incense sold a bit. But less so the books about telekenisis or Angel Charms made of soapstone.

Another issue Benzola raised were the rents.

“Sag Harbor is turning into what East Hampton was,” he told us. “Rents suddenly going from $11,000 a month to $30,000.”

I talked to other store owners on Main Street. Most were under some financial stress. It had not been a great year for anybody.

But we found optimism, too, among the owners. Many had the feeling that business was about to turnaround and were determined to persevere.

As for Joe Benzola, his immediate plans are uncertain. He said he would take a breather and then, one possibility he was thinking about was creating an online store, dealing in some of the same items that the store was prized for.

Soon enough, there will be another store to take the place of Metaphysical Books. A clothing store is rumored. But for now all that remains is a spooky emptiness, where only yesterday the shelves were overflowing.

President, Stony Brook University

Faced with a 20% reduction, amounting to nearly $55 million, in New York State financial support over the past two years, I announced last week that Stony Brook University has been forced to make strategic cuts and streamline operations at its various locations. Notably, we are suspending the residential program and new undergraduate admissions at Stony Brook Southampton.

I have stated publicly on many occasions, however, that the university remains steadfast in its commitment to research and teaching at the site. The Marine Station of the pioneering School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (SoMAS) will continue to serve as a critical hub for landmark discoveries and breakthroughs in such areas as the atmospheric sciences, as well all the major disciplines of oceanography – biological, chemical, geological and physical. Similarly, the world-acclaimed Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing degree program and the renowned Southampton Writers Workshop will, as always, attract Pulitzer Prize and other award-winning novelists, journalists, poets, and champions of the written word to share their insights and experiences with students and the community at large.

Moreover, we are not abandoning our commitment to the nearly 500 affected Southampton students. We have enacted a number of immediate measures to ensure that they experience minimal impact as they work towards their degrees and on-time graduation. For example, we are expanding summer academic programs at the main campus and enhancing our student advisement services to assist students at Southampton so that they can continue their studies on the main campus without losing credits. Already, nearly 200 Southampton students have been so registered for the fall semester.

Academic programs that will no longer be offered at Southampton will be available at the main campus, including those environmental studies offerings that earned such wide distinction. SoMAS students will continue to take some of their fieldwork and laboratory classes at Southampton, with the remainder of their coursework at the main campus. Bus service between Southampton and Stony Brook will continue in order to accommodate them. Prospective students who have been offered positions at Southampton will also be able to matriculate at the main campus or receive a full refund of their application fee should they choose to go elsewhere. Most of the residential students have met already with our staff representatives and are being given priority in a dorm on the main campus, where they will be clustered to preserve the sense of community they built at Southampton.

I can assure you that all these steps, while economically necessary, were never ones we wanted to make. Our hands were tied by the massive cuts in state funding and the restrictions we face in controlling our own finances. Indeed, unlike public higher institutions in other states, including the University of Michigan, University of Texas at Austin, Penn State and Rutgers, we are not able to set our own tuition rate. And long periods have gone by without the legislature authorizing any incremental rise in tuition. When tuition was finally raised for the first time in spring 2009, after six years of inactivity, it was a double digit increase followed by another large hike in the fall of last year. But, rather than us keeping the increased funds to enhance the educational experience for our students, the state took almost all of the money for itself, to help alleviate its own budget problems.

Unfortunately, the fundamental cuts in our state allocation, coupled with a higher cost structure and a business model that relied heavily on state support made it impossible for us to continue the residential component of the Southampton location. It is, however, only one part of the response to the resulting fiscal crisis. We have already reduced our budget by some $20 million to help offset the severe loss in state funding. The remaining budget cuts total about $34 million, the deficit our university is facing in the coming fiscal year. The main campus will absorb $27 million, through a variety of measures, including reductions in administrative support and academic programs. In addition, we are also closing one location in Manhattan.

Nevertheless, we are in fact moving forward, looking towards ways to ensure that Stony Brook University remains strong for the 25,000 students we serve. Ultimately, we need the state and the public to consider education from a K-16 perspective and support sustained investment in higher education accordingly. We need Albany to recognize the key role research universities like Stony Brook play in economic development, jobs creation, and generating the innovation that drives new discoveries and creates new businesses for our region. The new strategic plan for the State University of New York system unveiled this week helps spell out how much we can do for the State if our potential is truly unleashed.

A key component is the Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act (PHEEIA), a measure contained in the governor’s budget and in modified form in the Senate Budget Resolution. PHEEIA, which allows the SUNY Board of Trustees to set a fair, responsible, and equitable tuition rate, would enhance our academic programs, improve our ability to generate revenue from public/private partnerships and end some unnecessarily restrictive accounting practices. We see PHEEIA as vital to our future, a critical tool that, in one fell swoop, will strengthen public higher education across the state, save millions of taxpayers dollars, and drive economic development and improve the quality of life here on Long Island and throughout the state.

But right now, in the absence of a budget with no apparent relief from Albany, we must be fiscally responsible and live within our means. With so many millions of dollars slashed from our budget, and with passage of PHEEIA uncertain, we have to be extremely diligent and prudent, and not stray from the core elements of our missions of research and teaching. Practically, this means we will continue to target programmatic reductions, eliminate those that are relatively expensive and impact a small number of students, and can be made in the framework of tenure and unionization constraints.?In short, to make us stronger in the long run as one of the top public research universities in the country in these challenging economic times, we need to be as efficient as possible. Strategic realignment helps us achieve this goal.

Recent MTA tax assessment increases levied on East End Businesses, followed by an announcement that LIRR rail service in our region is likely to be reduced or even eliminated, has East End elected officials speaking out with one opposing voice. The time has come for us to leave the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and establish our own Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to meet the public transit needs of the East End Towns. The goal would be to gain what might be called “transit independence” for our region; the ability to make our own decisions about how our transit dollars are spent and to define, develop and operate our own transit services.

Are our local politicians tilting at windmills or is it possible the goal of transit independence is reachable? Five Town Rural Transit, Inc., a citizen-based transit advocacy group formed in 2004 and made up entirely of East End residents, believes the answer is unequivocally yes. In the past five years, 5TRT and the Towns have defined a new level of coordinated rail & bus transit service for our region known as the East End Shuttle. And last year this concept was validated in a study conducted for us by the prestigious US/DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe). According to the Volpe analysis, a slightly modified version of the “Shuttle” concept would be technically feasible and it would cost less to develop than 5TRT originally projected.

5TRT also revealed that East End taxpayers already send over $60 million per year to the MTA in various tax assessments, without receiving a commensurate level of rail service. In fact, the lion’s share is actually used for transit in New York City, not on the East End. Further, the Suffolk County bus services we receive are funded out of County tax dollars. Inexplicably the MTA makes no contribution to bus services in Suffolk County, even though they do in Nassau County and New York City. This County bus service costs East End taxpayers another $3-4 million per year. In this case, at least, we do receive services, although they are in need of improvement and not coordinated with rail.

Could our tax dollars be better spent? Again, the answer is yes. According to Volpe, the entire East End Shuttle concept could operate for less than what we currently pay the MTA each year for the LIRR limited service we receive!

So, the questions of whether we could define and operate a better East End transit service and where the operating dollars would come from have largely been answered. We have a feasible new transit concept and we are already paying for it. The problem is we are not receiving it. Why is that so?

For reasons that are hard to comprehend because of our rural nature, the East End is in the jurisdiction of two New York City based organizations that collectively control our public transit situation. They are the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). NYMTC is a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). It is the gatekeeper for federal funding of transportation projects in its jurisdiction, as mandated by federal law. The MTA, in contrast, develops and operates the transit services in its jurisdiction, including the limited Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) service on the East End. As you might surmise, these two organizations are dominated by “urban” transit interests and needs; few funding dollars or transit services are focused on the “rural” needs of the East End. We represent only 2% of their metropolitan service population area and we receive far less than 1% of their investments. Simply stated, we have no clout.

In order to become transit independent, the East End needs to leave the jurisdiction of these two unresponsive agencies and form our own counterparts. This is not as far-fetched as it may seem. And there are precedents. For example, the Cape Cod region was granted MPO status by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and then established the Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority (CCRTA) in order to develop and operate its own transit services. The East End could take the following approach:

First, through what we believe would be a New York State DOT approval process, we could establish a Rural Planning Organization (RPO) to legally replace our current status as an insignificant part of NYMTC. Let’s call it the Peconic Transit Commission (PTC), and it would be comprised entirely of East End elected officials, employers and residents. The PTC would become the new gatekeeper for funding transit projects on the East End.

Second, we would then form our own Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to legally replace the MTA. Our NYS legislators Fred Thiele, Marc Alessi and Ken La Valle have collectively filed legislation to establish the Peconic Bay Regional Transportation Authority (PBRTA) for this very purpose. The PBRTA would eventually become responsible for developing and operating the East End Shuttle.

Establishing our own East End RPO and RTA would make the East End transit independent, but it would not be insure better services. We will also have to work very hard though our U.S. Representative Tim Bishop to acquire the needed one-time federal development funds to establish a new system. Receiving funding for transit is a highly competitive process in Washington. But the time is now.

by Mike Taibbi

14 February, Port au Prince– We heard there were protests downtown that were angry enough they could soon become riots, so we gathered our gear and headed that way. It had rained overnight, drenching downpours, the first rain in the month since the quake, but the morning skies were clearing.

When we got to the airport road, blue-helmeted UN peacekeeping troops tried to turn us around and away from the protestors we could see and hear from a couple hundred yards away, until the troops understood we were press.

It was a group full of rage and frustration, some holding signs in English saying ‘We Need Food,” “We need water,” “We need toilets,” “We need HELP!”  One man told me, through our translator, that the group all came from the tent encampment that had sprung up between the airport grounds and a wide sewage trough, a couple of thousand people squeezed in that fetid noisy space, and that it was the rains overnight that had pushed people over the edge.

“A baby was born last night and then died,” he said, “the mother with no cover from the rain.” He said most in the camp had lost loved ones to the earthquake, but that “living like this…with no help… it’s like we are dying mentally…”

Just then a tractor-trailer rig inched toward the crowd of protestors, who massed in front of it and forced the driver to stop. There was a big Red Cross logo tied to the front bumper and the driver… gesturing nervously… waved a manifest in front of the face of a man who’d climbed to the cab to confront him. Other protestors forced open the back flaps of the trailer, confirming there were no supplies inside worth taking. The truck was allowed to pass.

*         *         *         *         *         *

They wanted us to meet the mother who’d lost her child but she was no longer in her spot in the camp; no one knew where she’d gone.  Afterward we kept walking through the camp, not really a “tent city” in that there were few actual tents.  Most had fashioned shelters using nothing more than sheets or blankets or slabs of plastic dressed over poles or lengths of twine. In fact, the vast international aid community, 900 or more relief groups, had just reached a new consensus regarding tents… that even a good tent would provide poor cover in the coming rain and hurricane season and that the better way to go was to plan for sturdier structures of wood frames and corrugated tin roofs with a projected life span of three-to-five years. So the distribution of family-sized four-person tents had basically stopped at fewer than 50,000…with more than one million Haitians made homeless by those 40 seconds of horror on January 12.  We met dozens of them on this visit, some pointing to the two huge water tanks the Red Cross had installed two weeks earlier…that had not been replenished in more than a week.

As it happened, a Red Cross team arrived just then, led by a genial soft-spoken man named Stanley Miles, from Arlington Texas. He said it was still a huge problem getting gasoline and diesel so the trucks could make their deliveries, and that even when supplies have been delivered “they’re often hoarded by someone, I don’t know who, and they never get to the poorest people who need it most. We’re doing the best we can, the need is so great…”

MIKE TAIBBI is a correspondent for NBC News. He lives in North Haven.

First there was a mediator, then a Fact Finder, and then a lawsuit. It seems as though nothing has been able to resolve the contract dispute between Sag Harbor’s teachers’ union and board of education. So what’s going on? As the parent of a first grader who has been thrilled with our teachers and who has a lot at stake in the future of our schools, I decided to find out.

I brought together a small group of parents – independent from either side of the dispute – to learn more and find a resolution. We reviewed all the public documentation from both sides. We met with both sides. We asked questions and offered ideas: What if a group of parents recommend a compromise agreement? What if we mediate the dispute? What if we monitor the negotiations? Each time, the answer was no.

So, why can’t the two sides come to an agreement? Here is what we learned from this process and a Freedom of Information request that I filed with the school:

1) Salary Increase: TASH is asking for a 3.9 percent increase each year over four years; the board is offering 2.5 percent. Why can’t the two sides meet in the middle? These increases are in addition to a “step” increase that is already a part of the teachers’ salary schedule that provides annual raises based upon years of experience and amount of education. For example, a first-year teacher with a master’s degree earns $55,071; a teacher with 10 year’s experience, an MA and 30 continuing education credits earns $76,600. Each year they receive step increases ranging from 2% to 3.39%. Add the step increase to the additional raise that each side is asking/offering and you get a board offer averaging just over 5% each year (or a 20.72% increase over a four-year contract) compared to nearly a 6.6% annual increase requested by the teacher’s union (or a 25.6% increase over four years).

In Sag Harbor, however, first-year teachers are few and far between. Most of our 124 teachers have more than 10 years of experience and over a quarter have more than 20 years of experience, so the average teacher salary in Sag Harbor is $86,051.26/year; 32 teachers make more than $100,000/year and eight make more than $120,000/year. It’s a good thing, of course, when teachers have years of experience. From a budget perspective, it adds up. In 2009, our teacher payroll was $10,584,304.80.

The teacher’s union says that teachers should make a salary that rewards their professionalism, education and experience – and they’re right about that. In Sag Harbor, teacher base salaries range from $45,937 for a first-year teacher to $122,468 for a teacher with an MA and 75 continuing education credits or a PhD. Teachers can earn additional pay for coaching sports ($3,000 – $5,500 depending on the sport), providing programs such as the terrific Partners in Print, or overseeing clubs. Teachers also have summers off, when many of them work second jobs, and four weeks of vacation during the school year. But the stalemate is not over whether teachers deserve a good salary – they do. It’s when a district’s budget becomes top heavy with a disproportionate number of senior teachers and the growing cost of health and retirement benefits that the question becomes, how do we sustain these costs in the long-term and also afford art supplies, Spanish, sports, music, building maintenance and a much-needed pre-K program?

2) Comparable Salaries: TASH has expressed frustration that teachers in Sag Harbor make less than teachers in East Hampton. (Set aside for a moment that each district negotiates their contracts at different times so that at any one time your district will be slightly ahead or behind.) I compared the most recent salary schedules for the two districts and Sag Harbor teachers make about $2,000 to $10,000 less a year – depending on seniority – than those in East Hampton. There are other differences. East Hampton teachers have a 14-minute longer work day, larger class sizes, and more ESL (English as a Second Language) students. The biggest difference, however, is our tax base. Sag Harbor’s budget is not underwritten by ocean-front mansions and large retail businesses. Despite these salary differences, Sag Harbor has been able to attract and retain great teachers and the board obviously considers this when negotiating its pay scale.

3) Health Benefits: Health care costs have reached such crisis proportions in the U.S. that it has dominated much of the national political debate. The automobile industry blames health care costs for much of its troubles. The very wealthy and union members are the only two segments of our population left that enjoy excellent health care benefits, which some call “Cadillac plans.” Everyone should have such coverage! Unfortunately, the costs can be crippling.

To help control these costs, the board has asked that all teachers pay 15% toward their health care premium in retirement (currently, only teachers hired after 2000 are subject to this). This amounts to about $91/month for an individual and about $200/month for family coverage (based on the 2010 plan cost of $7,348/year for an individual and $15,972/year for a family). TASH rejected this proposal and the Fact Finder recommended instead that teachers hired after 2009 pay a higher contribution – 25% – to make up the difference. This perplexed me. What about finding a compromise where younger teachers don’t have to shoulder the entire burden? What about offering two health care plans – a lower cost one where teachers would pay nothing and the current “Cadillac plan,” which includes vision, dental and very low co-pays, where retired teachers would contribute a small amount to the monthly premium? Currently, Sag Harbor pays the full health insurance costs of 44 retirees; given the seniority of many of our teachers, this number will increase substantially over the next ten years.

4) Sick Day Buy Back: Upon retirement, East Hampton teachers are able to get up to one year of additional pay if they have the requisite number of unused sick days. Sag Harbor teachers want a similar benefit. East Hampton teachers won this perk in exchange for a 50% contribution to their health benefits in retirement and 65% for their spouse. So, what happens when you have several retiring teachers at the top of the pay scale who earn the buy back in the same year? This becomes an extremely costly proposal to implement. Perhaps the question we need to ask is: ‘What is the purpose of sick days?’

5) Work Rules: There are also differences between the two sides regarding the terms in which teachers work. For example, teachers are paid a stipend in addition to their salaries to monitor lunch times and the board wants to change that. Teachers are requesting a stipend for staffing overnight field trips and they want to select their continuing education classes. These issues seem easy enough, but each has budget ramifications. I always thought that supervising school lunches and field trips were part of a teacher’s job. Teachers should be able to pick their own continuing education classes, but each class they take enables them to move up the salary schedule and the class they pick might not serve the school’s needs. Would a compromise be for teachers to select whatever classes they want, but for the superintendent to have the final say as to whether the class qualifies for a pay increase?

There are countless more issues involved. On each issue, one side says the other won’t budge and the other side says that’s not true and no one other than the two sides can know for sure since members of the public are not permitted to witness the negotiations. Again, I asked and the answer was no.

This is what we do know. We are facing the most serious fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. National unemployment is over 10% and economists agree that number is grossly understated. Last year, President Obama froze the federal employee cost-of-living adjustment, which is somewhat equivalent to the step increase that teachers automatically receive each year (and since the terms of the expired contract remain in place until a new one is agreed up, teachers continue to receive their step increase, except for the teachers at the very top of the salary schedule). Because of budget crises, teachers in California, Iowa, North Carolina and Washington, DC are being let go. Mass teacher layoffs are pending in Florida, Michigan, and New York City, among others.

I want Sag Harbor to maintain the high levels of staffing we all currently enjoy. In the elementary school, for example, classes tend to be smaller, with a teacher and teaching assistant in each classroom. We also have more guidance counselors per student than similar districts. In recent years, we have begun to hear about more and more students being accepted to outstanding colleges. Sag Harbor schools are special, with extraordinary parent and community involvement, and I believe most of us would like to keep it that way. Yet, during Sag Harbor’s last board of education election, candidates faced a firestorm from members of our community who wanted to reduce their tax burden by decimating the schools, which account for about 70% of our property taxes. Fortunately, those of us who believe that we must invest in our children, teachers and schools won the last round. Will we again? How does the board “sell” significant cost increases at a time when many residents have lost their jobs or their incomes have been reduced?

As this dispute continues, the friendly camaraderie that once prevailed in Sag Harbor schools has dissipated. When teachers wear gray t-shirts heralding “Year 2 No Contract” at Halloween events and holiday shows, it feels like someone is raining on our children’s parade. When board members do not respond to legitimate questions or complaints during meetings, it leaves people feeling angry and frustrated. When parents cannot find the time to vote to support our schools, what message does that send to our children, our teachers, and our community?

So, how will we end this dispute? The board and the teachers union need to set aside personal grudges and start to respect each other’s perspective. They need to explain to us what the roadblocks are and be open to new ways of resolving problems. Parents and community members need to learn the facts and get involved. We can deliver a top-notch education at a price our community can afford and sustain. To achieve that, we must all work together. Anything less is to fail our children.

Susan Lamontagne is the mother of a SHES student, a future SHES student, and president of the Public Interest Media Group, Inc.

Nine years after September 11, 2001, the United States remains bogged down in a conflict that seems unwinnable to many Americans. Bishop seems to engage in this same type of pessimistic rhetoric, calling on the President to outline his plan for a full and unilateral troop withdrawal from the treacherous terrain that is Afghanistan. In fact, Mr. Bishop’s vehement opposition to the war in general reached an unprecedented height this past year, when he introduced an amendment to a U.S. Military spending bill requiring the White House to sign on to an Afghan exit strategy.  

Granted, Mr. Bishop is an extraordinarily talented politician. Democrats and Republicans alike view him as an important figure in the U.S. House of Representatives, admiring both his professionalism and his “normal Joe” attitude. In fact, my personal interaction with the congressmen in his Washington office only further confirmed this (although I was a young high-school student at the time). Yet, by taking Mr. Bishop’s voting record into consideration — not to mention his misjudgment on the Iraq War — one has to question whether he truly understands the unique characteristics and history of Afghanistan as a whole. 

First and foremost, I would like to say I am indeed a supporter of an enhanced U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan. I firmly believe, like many others, than an American defeat in Afghanistan would be severely detrimental to U.S. national security…not because the Taliban would threaten the United States with direct force, but because of the symbolic effect a U.S. defeat would have for Islamic jihadists throughout the globe. Whether or not Al’Qaeda is a major problem for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is the fact that Al’Qaeda militants will certainly exploit a Taliban victory to their advantage.

Citing yet another defeat of a superpower in Afghanistan (Great Britain in the 19th Century and the Soviet Union in the 20th) would only increase the recruitment ability of Islamic radicals who are intent on limiting American prevalence throughout the globe…regardless of ideological affiliation. We must remember that weakened resolve will not only translate into benefits for Al’Qaeda; it will also give a much-needed boost to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and Palestinian rejectionists in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Interestingly enough, President Obama’s decision to weigh all options — while necessary and understandable — may have a similar effect. Floundering for the next few weeks may very well give the United States a weak image internationally…a development that may not be so terrible if terrorist organizations were not spreading at unprecedented speed. Yet, as reality dictates, this could not be further from the truth. At the same time U.S. soldiers are engaged in Afghanistan, Al’Qaeda proxies are gaining strength in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and (of course) Pakistan. Taking into account all of these circumstances, one has to question whether waiting is really the best option for the United States.

There is one more point I would like to raise. It appears that Civil-Military relations have hit a significant roadblock, with National Security Advisor James Jones virtually telling General McChrystal to shut-up and keep his opinions to himself. Of course, discussing the war-effort and contradicting the President in public should be frowned upon, especially during a period of contention. Yet, at the same time, the U.S. Military is not entirely at fault. The White House response could have been much more constructive than the harsh rhetoric which was emanated recently.

Again, I cannot help but wonder if this strained Civil-Military relationship will result in devastating consequences for American interests in the immediate future. What White House officials see as a minor rut, terrorists and Islamic militants view as a divided U.S. Government unable to unite in the face of a common threat. I can only imagine what the Taliban-Al’Qaeda alliance would think if the United States enacted Congressman Bishop’s plan of premature withdrawal.

Note: This post was originally published on March Lynch’s blog at foreignpolicy.com

-Daniel R. DePetris is a student and political blogger at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh. He can be reached at http://depetris.wordpress.com

They shot out of the carrier and into the wild like rockets. Four mallard ducks – that once had a feather duster as mom – now dabble and splash in a fine pond. Next year, they’ll pair up and make more ducks. They have no clue they owe their lives to the kindness of Sag Harbor’s finest – our police force and highway department.

I suppose I’ve been living in and working out of Sag Harbor for the Wildlife Rescue Center of the Hamptons too long, because this is the time of the year when I think of us all as Meerkats. We who remain can stick our heads up out of our holes, look around, and see if it’s safe to come out again. I easily parked on Main Street this week.

So now my mind wanders back over this summer, and into the past, to contemplate the extraordinary kindness Sag Harbor demonstrates toward its wild neighbors. We should all know the unsung little things our village workers do for us.

Take the above-mentioned ducks. Now it could be argued that in the scope of things, four mallards don’t count for much. Yet these four, who had fallen eight feet into storm drains on Jermain Avenue, surely didn’t want to die the same week they had hatched. It took a miracle and hard work to save them.

The miracle was that some people were walking around the Otter Pond – neither talking on cell phones nor listening to I-Pods – and heard three fluff balls peeping beneath the busy street.

They called the Wildlife Rescue. I drove there and commenced what I call the “Ducklings Down the Drain Drill.” This starts with a call to the police, who faithfully respond.

On this day, we had extra drama when a well-meaning citizen, in the excitement of the moment, tried to lift one of the 200 pound iron grates. He succeeded only in dropping it way down into the sewer. The ducks were okay, but Jermain Avenue was not, now having a 2×4 foot hole in it. By the time Sergeant Paul Fabiano and Officer John Natuzzi arrived to assess the situation, a fourth duck was found in another drain.

It was Memorial Day Sunday morning. So we could only imagine how happy Village Highway Department Superintendent Jim Early would be to get this call on his day off. He’d be even happier when he learned he would need heavy equipment to put the street back together.

And yet, like always, he was there for us. Soon a crowd had gathered, and traffic was slowed. Highway worker Kevin O’Brien, obviously once an Olympic gymnast, was able to lower himself in and out of the drains with great agility, coming up with a duck or two each time. So maybe he did mutter a little bit, but he was there, our hero.

Within the hour, the four little ducklings were being warmed and rehydrated at the Wildlife Hospital in Hampton Bays, sitting contentedly under a feather duster, which substituted for mom.

Last winter, after a nighttime car-duck collision on Route114, a panicked driver found one of our street ducks, with a fractured leg, wedged into his grill. Our police carefully remove the female mallard. She was in a cast for six weeks and returned to the Harbor.

A number of animals find their way into our authorities’ hearts. Officer Barbara Mott once kept an injured squirrel in the office trash can until I could pick it up. The Chief has called about a baby catbird in distress, his brother, the Detective, alerted us to a crippled seagull. One night, I was most touched by a call that the police had a woman in the station’s lobby with a dying duck. When I got there I found her, crying softly, holding its bloody body against her pink, crocheted sweater. She was whispering comfort in Spanish.

Another time police called when a six-month-old fawn had been hit by a car and fallen on Jermain near Main Street. His little legs were fine, but he had serious head trauma. Quick treatment with anti-inflammatory steroids and IV fluids, and he was up the next morning, back in the wild the next day.

Maybe the most dramatic rescue I recall involved a Southampton Town officer who called for assistance at a residence on Ferry Road near the Haerter Bridge. When I arrived, a young doe, trapped in a “deer-proof yard,” had sprung back off a fence and impaled her entire body on a metal post. The outline of the post could be seen poking up beneath the skin on her back. She just stood there, with those big doe eyes, looking back at us. “I don’t really want to shoot her,” the officer said. “Just look at her.” He added that if the shot did not go well, the bullet could travel to the neighbor’s yard. 

I tranquilized her, and in a burst of adrenaline, my husband and I lifted her body up off the post. It was almost a scene from a Woody Allen movie. The entire time, the homeowner talked about his investment strategies.

After antibiotics and minor surgery, this deer too had cheated a horrible death.

Over at the hospital we have two posters that I love. One, features our largest local pelagic bird, the Northern Gannet, with 60″ outstretched wings. Beneath it a 1965 quote from Chip Taylor of the Troggs: “Wild Thing. You make my heart sing.” Another poster is a Peregrine falcon — which can occasionally be seen in the village — pictured over a quote from 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant: “You can measure the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”

We are blessed here with strong people with big hearts.    

                                    – Katherine Anne Porter

Not too long ago Bay Street Theatre received a letter from a former student who took part in our educational program who said, “…I had an experience of a lifetime that was much needed for a fifteen year old. You all left such a mark of inspiration on my life that encourages me still today. Thanks for your investment in my life and the life of others…”

Inspiring and investing in lives is part of what we do. And so we write to ask you, our East End community, to reinvest in us.

It will be of little surprise to anyone that we have been hit hard by the economy.  But what many folks don’t realize is that Bay Street is a not-for-profit institution which derives less than half of its operating income through actual ticket sales. The remaining percentage must be raised through individual gifts, government and corporate support, and fundraising events, with a preponderance of that income coming from the individual –that’s you.

Why save a theater? There are several reasons.

First, we are here to serve the communities’ needs. May sound corny, but it’s true. And we don’t mean simply keeping people entertained.

In recent years we have made a very concerted effort to open our doors for any and all community requests—and to be a good neighbor without being asked. We hold events and offer ticket donations to benefit other non-profits such as the Southampton Hospital, East End Hospice, our local fire departments and food pantries. We respond to the requests of our community by offering theater camp for kids and a home for Stages Children’s Workshop, and by providing low cost family entertainment such as the Classic Picture Show Film Series. We serve as a gathering place for the community, from holiday sing-a-longs to a place for Santa to visit. And we do all of these things at little or no cost to the public.

Second, the money you invest with Bay Street goes right back into the East End community. Throughout the year, we employ large numbers of people—from carpenters to piano tuners, from bartenders to plumbers. We shop in our local stores, frequent our local restaurants, and purchase supplies from our local vendors. We rent 10-12 houses and rooms at our local hotels. We purchase ads in our local papers and radio stations. Throughout the year we bring in over 25,000 visitors to this community who come to see our shows, and they too frequent our local establishments.

Finally, we firmly believe that having a theater that provides entertainment, education, and community support in all different forms, both on and off season, is simply a wonderful asset to any community. But Bay Street will not survive unless the community feels the same. We truly believe that together, with your help, Bay Street can survive and flourish so that our community here in Sag Harbor, on the East End, continues to be enriched and made more vital. 

If you feel the same, then any size donation is welcome and checks may be written and sent to Bay Street Theatre, PO Box 810, Sag Harbor, NY 11963. Or you may call us at 631-725-0818, or go to www.baystreet.org  and click on ‘Ways To Give’, or visit us on the Long Wharf in Sag Harbor.

Sybil Christopher, Murphy Davis, Julie Fitzgerald, Gary Hygom, Tracy Mitchell

Bay Street Theatre Management Team

By Mayor Greg Ferraris

I am sure that many of you have now read last week’s Point of View column penned by Richard Gambino. While I have refrained from responding to various letters, articles and editorial opinions over my six years of public service, I felt inspired to respond and set the record straight on numerous inaccuracies and potentially libelous comments contained in his column.

It is quite obvious that this column was an attempt to justify a stance against the Village’s review process through the medium of unaccountable journalism rather than the tried and true method of stating fact and reality. Fortunately, the Village has individuals like Planning Board Chairman Neil Slevin and other committed review board members who are willing to sift through this biased rhetoric of lobbying organizations to make determinations which are for the betterment of the entire Village without regard to self-interest.

Let me begin by stating that the proposal brought to the Village by Sag Development Partners for the Bulova building was undoubtedly the largest development project that the Village has seen in our modern era. This project as proposed, which was embraced by nearly all Village residents, would not only have resurrected one of the most historically significant structures within the Village, but provided a source of economic activity while completing the ongoing remediation of a documented Superfund site.

That being said, although I would love to take credit for all of the hard work and effort put forth during this arduous process, the Village Board of Trustees and I had no role in review of the application, except to the extent that the Village Board is the legislative branch that establishes the code that is implemented by the review boards. All of the appointed individuals on these boards are well-versed in their duties and worked tirelessly on the Bulova application, enduring more than 50 long, tedious public meetings that addressed every environmental issue that arose in the evaluation of the application, each of which were addressed in public, in detail and by submissions of the applicant and responses from the Village’s consultants. Had Mr. Gambino attended any of the meetings held in connection with this project, he would know the depth at which each issue was addressed and would have concluded that the review boards and the Village’s staff did a tremendous job of dealing with such a large-scale proposal and in fact did comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).

Mr. Gambino has repeatedly shown his ignorance to the facts and circumstances of this application and process. He alleges that the Village approved a plan to truck 30,000 cubic yards of “potentially toxic soil” from the site. The Village Planning Board did no such thing. Actually, prior to the submission of this application by Sag Development Partners, the Bulova property was the subject of a “Record of Decision” issued by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in 1996, which required the owner to remove the soil from the site. Pursuant to New York State law, a municipality is pre-empted from regulating any of the elements covered by the order and further, the order itself and its implementation is exempt from environmental review. In this particular case, the Village Planning Board asked the applicant to discuss the implementation of the NYSDEC mandate, who agreed, although discussion was not required. In addition, Mr. Gambino stated that the Village would incur liability as a result of any soil spill. In reality, liability for removing and transporting the soil lies with the applicant under the supervision of the NYSDEC as required by the order.

Mr. Gambino also incorrectly categorizes the recommendations of the Suffolk County Planning Commission (SCPC) with respect to the affordable housing component of the Bulova site as a “legal requirement.” The Planning Commission responded to two agencies involved in the proposal, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board, with a recommendation that the applicant provide affordable housing. The comments of the SCPC are recommendations, not legal requirements. According to New York State General Municipal Law, a referral to the local planning commission was required for this application. The law also states that the comments provided by the local planning commission are recommendations that may be overridden by the agency responsible for the project by a majority plus one vote. In this case, the Boards determined, as they had absolutely every right to do, that the Sag Harbor Community Housing Trust Fund was an acceptable alternative which addressed the community’s concerns about the provision of affordable housing and legally overrode the SCPC recommendations. As a matter of fact, the Village subsequently received a letter from the SCPC acknowledging that this was an acceptable alternative.

The column also alleges that the Village “bypassed” New York State environmental regulation. The Village prides itself on compliance with each and every aspect of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations. If we had been called upon to defend the merits of a suit alleging any improper environmental review, I have complete confidence that a court would rule in favor of the Village’s actions and review. The purpose of SEQRA is to incorporate environmental consideration into the planning, review and decision-making process of a local agency at the earliest possible time. To insinuate that the Village failed to do this is illogical. Before any determination was made as to the environmental significance of the project, the village review boards held more than 50 public meetings on numerous environmental issues, accepting public comment on each and every issue and requiring the production of thousands of pages of reports, information and expert testimony that was carefully evaluated by both the Planning Board and the Villages’ consultants. This is exactly what SEQRA requires.

The lawsuit against the Village that alleged defects in our procedure was dismissed on a technicality which was the result of plaintiff’s counsels’ repeated failure to comply with details for filing a suit of this type. Although the Village would have been successful on the merits of a challenge to its process, it became clear that due to the obvious defects in the Plaintiff’s petition, it was more efficient and fiscally responsible for the Village to first defend the suit on that basis. 

Mr. Gambino also questions the authorship of the final environmental review document that was completed in connection with the proposed project, insinuating that I had prepared an “in-house report” as part of the environmental review. In fact, an expanded environmental assessment form and summary report that evaluated the environmental impacts as well as provided a summary of all the information gathered was prepared and submitted by the applicant’s environmental planners, Frudenthal & Elkowitz. That final document is the effective equivalent of a final environmental impact statement and included all of the legally required elements and was accepted by the Planning Board as having adequately addressed all environmental concerns of the project. This process was innovative and not only addressed each environmental issue in public, but was paramount to the Board’s and the public’s understanding of the process and the issues. 

In connection with the process followed by the Planning Board, the author maliciously misinterpreted the comments by Planning Board Chair, Neil Slevin. According to the article written by Kathryn Menu that appeared in the April 2, 2009 edition of the Express, Mr. Slevin stated that, in connection with the environmental review process that was followed for the Bulova application, “I could not imagine for the life of me a process that is better for figuring out the challenges or impacts a development might present or where the community would have a greater opportunity to share their expertise and concern… The very thing we have been criticized for, I believe, is the best thing we have done. The public came to us…and we made the developer answer.” These statements demonstrate the very core of environmental review principles: public participation and calling upon the applicant to answer the questions.

As a matter of clarification, my comments about the Group for the East End were representative of their actions towards the Village with respect to the affordable housing concerns on the Bulova application. Despite the many environmental issues that were addressed throughout this process, the Group curiously focused their attention on a single social issue, the provision of affordable housing on-site, which seemed to me to be out of the scope of their mission as an environmental advocacy group. I would hope that in the future the Group would partner with the Village to deal with development pressures by offering their expertise rather than criticizing a Village Board that has taken substantial steps toward preserving the character and environment of Sag Harbor.

In closing, I find Mr. Gambino’s skills as a creative fiction writer are most impressive and provided last week’s Express audience with a very entertaining article at my expense, but he should have at the very least researched the basic facts. Is that not a basic premise of journalism?

By Richard Gambino

On April 2, The Express ran a front page story about a judge dismissing a suit against Mayor Greg Ferraris’ government by the environmental organization, The Group for the East End. The judge dismissed the case solely on a technicality. As stated by this newspaper, the technicality was that “the Group’s attorney, James Periconi, failed to name developers Sag Development Partners in the lawsuit.” And that technicality is all of the judge’s reason. As also pointed out, no judge or court has heard the merits of the Group’s suit, or the Village’s defense against it. Given all this, the response of Mayor Greg Ferraris is worthy of a skit on Saturday Night Live. Except, according to this paper, his statements are no parody — he really said them. Really.

The suit was about the Bulova condo project, which was approved by Sag Harbor’s Village Hall, without the Village requiring from the condo developer a Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the project as required by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Law.      Specifically, there are two issues. First, Mayor Ferraris and company approved a plan to truck thirty thousand cubic yards of potentially toxic soil on 3,750 large trucks past countless houses, schools and other buildings in, and far beyond, Sag Harbor. Second, the Village waived the legal requirement that the developers include in their condo thirteen units of affordable housing. Instead, the town fathers and mothers decided that the developers be allowed to contribute $2.5 million, or about $192,300 per unit, which, even in this time of economic recession, would not come close to buying a single dwelling in Sag Harbor.

The Express quoted the Chairman of the Planning Board, Neil Slevin, about the Village’s process in blessing the Bulova condo. He compared it to the board’s current process of reviewing the proposal for yet another huge condo complex, one called “Ferry Road.” He noted that with regard to the Ferry Road condo proposal, in the words of the article, his “planning board has asked for an impact statement and is engaged in the very process Samuelson advocates.” (Referring to Jeremy Samuelson, an officer of The Group for the East End.) Slevin’s logic here is stunning, and all too typical of Ferraris and company: We are asking for the New York State-required environmental impact statement for the large Ferry Road condo, therefore we were justified in not asking for such a statement regarding the even larger Bulova condo.   

But let’s go to Mayor Ferraris’ own dazzling statements, giving them the seriatim attention they deserve. Please, again, keep in mind this is not a parody. According to this newspaper, Mayor Ferraris actually said all the quotations of him that follow:

 

 “ ‘I am pleased with the court’s decision; however it feels like a hollow victory as the Bulova factory once again sits dormant due to the financial crisis,’ said the Mayor.”

 

Meaning that the developers may not have the money to build the condo during the current economic downturn. But fortunately for them they have Ferraris fighting for them, great advocate for condos that he is. After all, isn’t this what the voters elected Ferraris to do, be the  developers’ darling of the East End? No small accomplishment given that the South Fork’s governments are made up largely of developers and realtors, by developers and realtors and for developers and realtors. But with their Mayor Greg, developers have been truly and exceptionally blessed. Other governments out here have been content merely to approve endless McMansions. But their beloved Greg is determined to cover Sag Harbor with condo complexes.

 

 “ ‘I really question the motive and the direction of the management of the Group for the East End,’  continued Mayor Ferraris,  ‘who have morphed from an environmental advocacy group into a lobbyist organization engaging in social and economic issues outside their league. It is unfortunate that the village needs to expend tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money defending itself against these types of baseless claims and I can only hope that village residents recall this when funding these organizations.’” 

 

Spending “tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money” defending his right not to file a NYS-required environmental impact statement — how bravely responsible of our wise Mayor. The Group is a “lobbyist organization?” For whom? The sneaky local plants and wildlife? Our lands and waters, with their vile lust to remain healthy? Healthy for us, our children and grandchildren. Why, those people in The Group know no end to their inordinate moxie, chutzpah and nerve!

Unable to defend his indefensible decisions by reasoned argument, Ferraris  resorts to attacking the “motive” of The Group. Speaking of motives, Mr. Ferraris, what’s your motive for bypassing NY State Law? Oh yes, the in-house report you did on your own, including the plan for thousands of trucks full of potentially toxic soil. Why not just resolve this issue by asking the Bulova developers for the NYS-required environmental impact statement? What would be the harm of two studies? And now that you’ve opened the question of motives, what’s your motive for spending “tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money” to keep from doing this?    

Three thousand, seven hundred and fifty large trucks carrying thirty thousand cubic yards of potentially toxic soil past our homes and schools, not to mention countless homes and public institutions beyond Sag Harbor. Somehow Mr. Ferraris never mentions this. How noble of the Mayor to allow this, and then to spend “tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money” to insist on it.  And let’s not think of the cost the Village might have in defending against suits if there is even so much as a single mishap in which just one of those trucks spills potentially toxic soil onto a street lined by houses, or near a school or shopping center. And the cost in possibly losing against the suits. Mr. Mayor, don’t trouble you head about it, full as it is with “social and economic issues outside the league” of the rest of us.

Yes sir and madam, the next time your darker angels urge you to send a contribution to a local environmental organization, resist the temptation and send your check to the  Public Defense of Greg Ferraris Fund. But, then, he already has your money for this. Sorry.

A few weeks ago, Greg Ferraris was quoted in this newspaper as saying he would not run for re-election as mayor. Promises, promises. Whether he does or not, here’s hoping against hope that a candidate for the office steps forward who is dedicated to ending Sag Harbor’s Village Hall bending over backwards, sideways, and let’s not forget, forward, for condos. Even to the point of spending “tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money” possibly to put a huge population at risk. Before it’s too late.

 

RICHARD GAMBINO urges all to contribute generously to The Group for the East End (P.O. Box 569, Bridgehampton, NY 11932 ), and urges The Group to appeal the judge’s decision, as it has said it might. He has never served on the Group’s Board or committees.