Your intent, efforts, and reach to the community and subsequent wide response to “The Future of Sag Harbor,” was highly comprehensive and informative. It offered  both an analytical and emotional assimilation of data that will initiate and empower creative thought on the subject for some time to come.

A successful business is a constantly evolving living mix of many things, including, but not limited to, quality, originality, location, timing, access, price, costs, trained and willing staff, and marketing. I also ascribe to the rule of “good luck” being “persistence meeting and grasping opportunity.” We saw the “for rent” sign and immediately rented the space. Our landlord loves the village, we recognize and share his passion, and enjoy a mutual opportunity to bring a unique creative element to the Village that would otherwise not exist for us, or the Village.

What can we change and improve, as rents rise in a fixed physical environment with defined space sizes, and newly established laws to help “Save Sag Harbor?”  As the defined space becomes smaller, the ascent and rate of rent becomes higher and faster. We can all strive to engage and train the best staff we can obtain. Many have been forced to seek and engage trained people from further up Island. It is not the optimum desired choice, for a myriad of reasons, but a necessity with the current labor force available. But it brings more vehicles, to an already strained parking debacle; which further limits acceptable business access.

We should not assume that simply by limiting business square footage, to smaller footprints, that we can retain the independent business mix many seek to maintain and nurture.  We need to recognize and discuss the opportunity of marketing, branding, and advertising that this offers larger chains.   The increase of smaller store units, which by definition brings higher rent, does NOT have importance to larger firms seeking branding.  It actually provides them an opportunity, a form of less expensive advertising, and ultimately sales, as local “independent” business owners cannot compete and will fail, with their strategic ability to pay more, to get less, and to build their anchor and brand it within this local environment.

John Nolan is quite correct, “you cannot use zoning to protect businesses from competition.” In fact, I believe you are more vulnerable and ultimately will hasten their demise. Hal Zwick aptly pointed out, in talking of chains, they perceive “our like retailers, are not there”, and that’s why ultimately, like water, it is exactly where they will flow, to Sag Harbor. They will fill the void and utilize the opportunity. We should not continue to make it so easy for them!

Many contributors acknowledged the requirement of quality, on it’s own, and as an underlying principal to bring success. Consumers, regardless of our independent business focus or costs, demand and expect quality to “at least” remain the same, if not improve. As David Brogna astutely stated, “It has to be the first resort.” However, it is not only the consumer or business that can define what survives, or not. We must provide consumers easier access and quickly improve our current parking issues.

Timing has been well discussed and it seems generally agreed there is a significantly more amount of business done in the summer season, when there are more visitors, residents, tourists, and the large boats that make Sag Harbor so unique among the Hamptons. However, it brings yet more automobiles,

Globally, small villages and towns have created innovative and attractive “green” parking structures, which pay for themselves over time, and are funded many ways, including through the sale of interest bearing bonds. In this time of low interest, our creativity and imagination are our only limitation.

We’ve seen shifts in small villages from Germany, to the streets of South Beach, Florida, to Montego Bay, Jamaica. They, and many others, have redefined and innovatively improved access. Parking structures are no longer unsightly buildings, but can actually be extremely “green”, enhance the environment, and raise significant revenue for a village, as you shift and IMPROVE access to the business’s you seek to save. Many storeowners on Main Street have clients complaining, they wanted to stop in, but were pressed for time, and simply could not find a spot.

We would prefer and propose to pay a daily fixed fee, as business owners, and subsidize our employee’s costs, rather than paying the numerous parking tickets we accrued and paid for our clients, and staff, in 2011. If we’re not at the lots by 8-9AM, there are no “all day” parking spots. On another note, where in Sag Harbor can any handicapped individual park, and how many accessible all day spots are available to them, to facilitate them working a full day in the Village, without being required to move their car every two hours? It’s simply unacceptable, if it’s even legal.

What if the Village offered businesses the option of purchasing “HARDSHIP” stickers for owners and employees only, to extend their parking rights OFF Main Street locations? It will raise and provide the Village continuity of additional revenue and save us closing a business, to keep shuttling our cars, or simply paying tickets, which we had to do, while working with clients in the gallery throughout 2011.

Time is a commodity money cannot buy, once its lost, it is gone.  It should not be consumed searching for a parking spot. We can change that, save time, diminish stress, extend their shopping and spending, and make it a significantly more PLEASURABLE experience!  We have an obligation to facilitate and improve access, in less time, and not have customers circling Main Street looking for a space to spend money in our Village, or simply are encouraged to leave and buy elsewhere.

There is an enormous advantage and distinction for businesses that are fortunate enough to be the owners of their own buildings.  They make money via the enhanced value of the building, over time, regardless of how much business they can achieve.  They earned and deserve that!  But, the Village will lose business diversity, if all of the “independent” non-building owners are forced out, to others that can afford to view the high rents as a simply a marketing and advertising expense.

I must say, from my own experience with non-profits, The Retreat, among others, that contributions from the general public and government have become more difficult to obtain, so I do not see how the public or the government can be called upon to subsidize the lack of access or other issues we face, unless we offer a return for their investment in our near mutual future. One secret to the survival and success, with the non-profits we serve, has been our transparent willingness to share and work aside other non-profits to achieve our mutual goals. That collaborative synergy provides us strength and is the future for our survival.

We sought to unify Galleries to establish a common calendar timing of our openings, or “Art Walks”, as they are called in Miami, LA, Savannah, and elsewhere. Robert Evjen and Benito were helpful, but unfortunately we were not as successful with the galleries, yet, but will revisit this again shortly. This would establish Sag Harbor as a destination on a more weekday and annual basis, which supports the other businesses, especially the restaurants, that both employ so many and serve us all. The article identified auxiliary business owners with the same hope and vision, wherein we would all benefit from a more strategic symbiotic relationship.

Cashing out of Sag Harbor was often mentioned in the article. Please note, that as our property taxes continue to aggressively go up, our actual property equity values will certainly plummet, and initiate another exodus of homeowners unable to pay their new increasing tax bills.  One only needs to look at Westchester, and the numerous North-shore Up-Island communities to see the reality and history of that.

There are many valuable and creative contributors in the effort and article put forth, by your paper, but unless we seek to work unselfishly, and collaboratively, in union, we will not prevent the inevitable that the majority of us philathropists seem to not desire or see in our future.

The Partnership for a Drug-Free America offers some excellent tools and tips for parents on how to help your teenager stay away from drugs. Putting our kids in “lock-down” and bringing drug-sniffing dogs into their schools is not among them.

The use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools has been on the rise in recent years, sniffing in school districts from Long Island to Washington State. “After numerous searches during the last five years,” says the superintendent of Connecticut’s Southington School District in the New York Times, “the dogs have not led authorities to any illegal narcotics.” Meanwhile, marijuana and prescription drug abuse among teens are on the rise nationwide.

After a survey of students on the East End indicated high rates of drug use, Sag Harbor’s Board of Education voted unanimously to allow drug-sniffing dogs into Pierson. But the real problem might actually be the survey itself. Students were asked “if students are using drugs” – not how many students or how often. Since the questions were vague, for all we know, the survey respondents were talking about the same six kids. But this policy’s reliance on faulty data is not the point.

ACLU chapters from New York to Washington argue that there is “little to no evidence to support claims that [drug-sniffing dog] programs deter drug use, reduce drug-related crime, or increase perceptions of public safety.” What they do provide, perhaps, is a false sense of security and a hostile learning environment.

Members of Sag Harbor’s Board of Education and the school superintendent are quoted as saying that the purpose of these dogs is to “get students into counseling.” The actual policy they approved states that police will be standing by to make an arrest. Whenever there is a disconnect between what policy makers say and what the actual policy states, there is reason to be concerned.

The fact is we don’t need dogs to get students into counseling. School officials already have the legal right to search student lockers. They already have the authority to act on suspicions. What they don’t have the right to do is turn every student into a suspect just for walking into school.

What can be done? According to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the first year of middle school — or age 13 — is the year children are most at risk for starting to use drugs. Boredom is a major risk factor and inhalants such as paint thinners, household cleaners, magic markers, etc. are the preferred substance. The dogs don’t sniff for these. Even they know how bad this stuff is for your brain. After inhalants, children and teens turn to alcohol and prescription drugs. The dogs won’t be sniffing for these either.

Drug prevention experts recommend that parents start talking with their kids about drugs and alcohol long before they are teenagers – starting as early as kindergarten – and keep those conversations going with “teachable moments.” Michael Jackson’s death, Amy Winehouse’s, and now in all likelihood Whitney Houston’s are a few examples. When you talk about it often enough, your child will get the message: “There goes another celebrity making a dumb decision to do drugs.” Once your child turns 13, experts say, you should assume that he or she has been offered drugs. Engaging in role play when your child is younger can help prepare him or her to handle those sticky scenarios.

On Facebook’s Sag Harbor Parents Connect, there has been a somewhat heated debate about whether drug-sniffing dogs are a good idea. Most parents have weighed in for it, believing that this approach will root out the users and if a child is innocent, there is no need to worry. Yet innocent students are very much at risk if someone plants drugs in their lockers — not an inconceivable scenario. And both innocent and not-so-innocent students may be arrested. Let’s face it. We can probably find more adults who dabbled with drugs as teenagers and later thrived than we can young people who were dragged through the juvenile justice system and came out okay.

Drug-sniffing dogs are on their way to Pierson, but this highly questionable tactic does not eliminate the need for all of us to do the proactive work it takes to prevent drug abuse. Parents need to educate themselves about the signs of drug use, maintain an early and open dialogue with our kids about drugs, and make sure that our community offers plenty of healthy risks that teenagers can engage in.

Are we doing enough? Apparently not. Will drug-sniffing dogs solve the problem? So far, the weight of the evidence says no.

Despite its somewhat cantankerous reputation, Sag Harbor is in the midst of some glamorous real estate make-overs. Recent projects include new condos, the overdue Bulova reconstruction, and extensive changes to Harbor Heights gas station. Whether development should be cheered or jeered seems to be a matter of perspective and contentious debate.

So why mess with success? And who has the right to stop free-market forces which drive changes on Main Street?

In truth, the appeal of the village is deeper than its building facades. There is still a tangible community fabric on Main Street, long gone from the larger neighboring towns. Sag Harbor shops and stores have an authentic vitality and collectively create a quirky local personality. The Kramoris Gallery, Sage Street Antiques, the shell store and stylish Ruby Beets tell you that Sag Harbor is unique. Restaurants range unpredictably from the American Hotel, Page and Paradise to the pizza store, the Corner Bar and Murphs, which still runs darts tournaments. The streetscape is an interesting place to be because it reflects a local economy. Sag Harbor conveys a sense of location, like no other place. Its community character, embodied in an economy of small stores, is undoubtedly more fragile than the appearance of its buildings.

Sag Harbor would not be the same place if local shops and small town uses were gradually erased by the sleek sameness of uniform, national formula stores. Without community will, a vigilant press and an alert local government, Main Street could easily morph into SoHo or Rodeo Drive, or any of a thousand upscale, featureless shopping streets visible across modern homogenized America.

Environmental protection is good for business. People and businesses are drawn to places which preserve their historic and aesthetic roots. Most people concede that it is wise to protect historic buildings and spaces from damaging physical changes. But progressive New York State environmental laws go considerably farther. Modern environmental protection includes less obvious and tangible aspects of the environment. Not only do we evaluate traffic and noise impacts, but also impacts on the quality of historic and neighborhood character. Aesthetic resources, too, are recognized for environmental protection. Even economic displacement resulting from development can be considered. A diverse local economy is a critical component of Sag Harbor’s character.

Those who claim that real estate development cannot be checked without tampering with the “free market,” place no economic value on the intangible parts of the environment. Instead, they exalt in the juggernaut, and smugly dismiss the inevitable loss of local stores and shops. “Goodbye cranky service, hello Starbucks and the Gap. Get over it.”  Yet Main Street diversity creates Sag Harbor’s appealing character and personality. It contributes to appreciating real estate value. It deserves protection.

Protecting a diverse, authentic local economy is not impossible. It is not socialism or the elimination of competition. It just means that the planning process can legitimately review economic impacts on community character resulting from the intrusion on Main Street of national formula stores. For example, developers can lawfully be required to analyze economic impacts on Sag Harbor’s merchants and shops before decisions are made.

We would not permit a developer to damage a historic building in the interest of progress and profit. We should be equally unwilling to permit large uniform stores from damaging the array of small local businesses, which define Main Street.

Political power can balance the power of money and development. Strict planning requires community support. Residents must attend and speak out at public hearings. Political involvement is essential. Elected officials have to absorb the message that rigorous and expansive environmental review is the key to Sag Harbor’s preservation. The village must fairly and rigorously apply existing zoning rules. It must fight litigation brought by well-heeled developers. Eventually, the Sag Harbor will earn a reputation for mandating objective and meticulous environmental review. It is the only way it can chart a future based on local needs, not development dollars.

Saturday afternoon, July 9, 2011, was one of those warm summer afternoons in The Hamptons. Since my body feels aches and pains, Diana and I have been swimming for many years as we feel rejuvenated afterwards. So this afternoon, we set out to do that. We had to drop off Elyse (our daughter) at the Southampton Library, so we took the opportunity to go to the ocean in Southampton while Elyse was taking a class at the library. We have been swimming mostly in Havens Beach in Sag Harbor, where there are no waves. On this afternoon, we wanted to see the waves and swim in its waters.

We biked to the ocean. Even before we saw the ocean, we heard the loud pop of the waves breaking. I asked Diana, “We are going in those waters?” She made some gesture.

I knew the loud pop spelled danger. Because my back had been very sore recently, I really wanted to swim. Diana and I stood in front of the ocean to study it, when to go in, how big the waves were, which way the current was moving, the cadence of the waves, etc. We stood next to the ocean, longer than we ever have. We knew it was dangerous.

I decided to go in the water while Diana chose not to go in. It was a big mistake. I felt that once I crossed over the area where the waves were breaking, I would be able to swim beyond them, and do so safely, as I’ve done all my life. Such was not the case this time. So I told Diana, “I am going in.” I hurried in, as the waves were breaking quickly. I faced the first wave, it was very large, 10 to 12 feet, I tried to go under it as I have so many times, but this time the undercurrent was the strongest I have ever felt, and I took a tumble that almost knocked me out.

I knew immediately I was in trouble, so I decided to try to get out quickly. I found myself not able to get out. I was in trouble. The strong waves were coming quickly, and there was no way to avoid being taken by them.

The first wave took me about 100 yards east. I tried to flag Diana but she did not see where I was. There was no one on the beach 100 yards away. I knew this was serious. If I could not get Diana to see me in trouble, whose attention could I get? I wondered. And I prayed.

Seeing that I could not get her attention, I panicked for a few seconds. I continued to pray, and parts of those prayers were that I did not want to leave Diana alone. I asked God to spare my life. I told God I was not ready for heaven. I told Him I could not leave Diana in this manner. All the while being taken down by a powerful wave every few seconds.

One of the times I was taken down, I prayed feverishly that God would spare me from hitting my head on the sand. As I prayed that prayer, as I was approaching the bottom, my body got turned around and I gently touched the bottom with my face. It was as though I kissed the sand with the cheek of my face. I felt the soft sand with my face. I knew then that God helped me at that very moment, that He was with me indeed. And He helped me from hitting the bottom of the ocean head first.

I could not believe that each time I came out I had less energy. I worked hard at staying calm and afloat, but the waves were beating me up really bad. I was beginning to lose my breath.

I asked myself, “Who” can I reach here to help me?

As I was praying I noticed two young men, just west of me placing towels on the beach, and walking east on the shore. I said, “There! I have to get their attention.” I was taken down again, but just before I went down, I waved at them the best I could. As I was going down I heard one of them say, “Does that guy need help?”

I came up and I had to make sure they knew I needed help, so I yelled the best I could. As I was going down again I felt they got in the water to help me. One of them reached me and tried to stand me up. I could not stand up. They were not able, and I knew they struggled to drag me out of the water. I was almost gone. I did not have much energy. I felt that one or two more times taken down by the waves was perhaps all I had left. God in His mercy had these young men come to my rescue.

Somehow lifeguards, police and paramedics were there immediately. I then noticed that one of the two young men that pulled me out of the water was Ben Moritz. Not only did God send two able young men, but one that I have known and loved (along with his family) for many years. When they were dragging me out of the ocean, I heard Ben tell his young friend, “This is Fausto. He coached me in soccer. He is from my church!”

Since we had dropped Elyse off at the library, we were to pick her up after our swim. When I saw her, I realized how special and what a miracle had just taken place. I got to see her again. God heard my prayers in time of great danger. I could see my beloved wife Diana again, hug her again, and give Elyse the biggest hug she’s ever felt. I told her that to see her was the sweetest sight. She asked: “What happened!” Somehow she knew something happened. We told her the story.

The following morning I was able to go to church. One of my favorite hymns was being sung. The words in part go as follows: “Give thanks to the Holy One. Give thanks because He’s given us Jesus Christ, His Son. Let the weak say I am strong, let the poor say I am rich, because He’s given us Jesus Christ — His Son.” I sang that loudly.

And oh, I give thanks. Every day at every moment.

Over the years I have prayed for many. In various parts of the world, and by phone, and have seen miracles. A drug addict being delivered at that very moment, or a devil-possessed man also being delivered instantaneously. And to now having felt God’s very hand deliver me from near drowning is beyond words.

God deserves so much more than I could ever give in return. That is called grace. His grace towards me, towards us all! That is what God is all about. Amen!

Government can be too small, but it can also be too big.

During the Great Recession we have looked for chances to consolidate government where it would be more efficient. We should be equally diligent in looking at government entities that have become too large, expensive and unaccountable. The perfect example is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) which seems to constantly cost more and more in taxes and provide less and less in service. We would be better served on Long Island by the break up of the MTA into smaller more efficient and accountable units.

This brings me to the recent proposal by the Long Island Association (LIA) to study the concept of consolidating Suffolk and Nassau County into one county to be known as Long Island County. While I never oppose the concept of a study, this just seems inherently to be a bad idea.

First, from the perspective of the East End, if you think County government is already too big and far away and indifferent to our region, how can doubling its size and moving the center of power even further to the west be a good thing? Attempting to address the unique needs of the rural East End with its farms, fishing and tourist based economy would be that much harder as part of a county that would have more than 2.8 million people. If there were a 22 member Long Island County Legislature, the East End would have one member.

From a broader perspective, County government was not meant to serve 2.8 million people. It is local government. Nassau and Suffolk are already the two largest counties in the State outside of New York City, which does not have County government. Thirty-nine of New York’s 57 counties outside of New York City have 150,000 people or less. This new mega-county would become just as large, inefficient, and unaccountable as the MTA.

If we really want to improve government efficiency on Long Island, we should pursue the concept of the State of Long Island with three counties, Nassau, Suffolk and Peconic. State Senator Ken LaValle and I are the sponsors of A.1406/S.1453 which would establish a bi-county commission to study the feasibility of the State of Long Island, and A.2082/S.1312 which would establish a procedure for the creation of Peconic County.

Long Island is larger in area than the states of Rhode Island and Delaware. Our population is larger than 19 states. For the years 2002-2004, Long Islanders paid $8.1 billion in State taxes and received back only $5.2 billion.

As for Peconic County, it was confirmed long ago, that smaller Peconic County could better focus County resources on East End needs and reduce the County share of the property tax by 50 percent.

Admittedly, the creation of new states or counties of any sort is a long shot in the current climate. Nevertheless, it is always a fruitful exercise to focus attention on the East End as we fight for our share of government resources on the Federal, State, or County level.

However, let’s focus on what alternatives provide more efficient government. Bigger is not always better.

Sammy was a nervy little rascal who wasn’t bothered by killing. Some said it was because he was black, but there’s many a superstition about black cats and their connection to death, mostly as omens.

Sammy was my neighbor Kate’s cat, who loved to stalk birds from the shadows; so I used to chase him from my yard with my imitation of Donald Duck screaming, “You Bastid!”

He came to hate that phrase, based on his body language, as he ran away, shaking his head as if to say, “Okay, Okay already.”

Sure Sammy was a pest, chasing the birds I had attracted by my two bird feeders, landscaping and year-round fresh water supply, but he couldn’t help himself, it was his nature to kill and he did it well. That’s why someone said he was named after “Sammy the Bull,” Gravano, who only admitted to 19 murders at the John Gotti trial; Sammy the cat could do that in a month.

While walking out my door one day, I saw a flying chipmunk bouncing off the side of my large oak tree, followed by a shadow ten times his size.

“Oh NO, Sammy,” I screamed as I leapt off the stoop just in time to distract him mid-air as he was gaining on the chipmunk. His paws skidded in the gravel path as Sammy hung a left and the chipmunk headed straight to live another day.

That was just dumb luck, being able to catch him mid-flight, in the act, for no matter how many times I chased him out of my yard, within hours he’d be back. Sitting in the garden, relaxing by the fountain, waiting for slow birds; he was telling me I might own my yard, but it was his killing ground, and he was proud of it. He had nothing to be ashamed of, as Mark Twain said, “ Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.”

I admired Sammy; in a way he reminded me of myself as a wild child/alleged adult. The more I tried to police my yard the more brazen he became waiting in the shadows under the evergreen tree, by the bird feeder, where some birds scour the ground for seeds, dropped by sloppy birds at the feeder.

Next door my neighbor Kate had a very different perspective, as Sammy was the cute little lovable cat she had saved from the gallows of Animal Control, by going to Elsa’s Ark, run by Pat Lillis, an Irish woman with a heart of gold and a benevolent boarding house for a menagerie of furry orphans. She deserves a bundle of funding and a glowing biography for her tireless, selfless service to the least powerful among us: the pets that are treated like so much trash by those who abandon them.

Kate’s Sammy was the guy who came flying in the door, up onto the counter top, and onto the back of the couch, he was always flying ; was he flying for joy or was he practicing his predator dance in the air?

She said his body had changed over the years, getting thinner and longer, and I must admit at 14 years of age he looked like a long distance runner: long  and lean like a tiny panther.

Even though Sammy was a rascal, if you’ve ever had a pet, you know they grab a special little piece of your heart for good. Even though Kate was embarrassed by his bird harvesting, he wasn’t; and the bird corpses he brought to her, he thought of them as presents. Kate just didn’t have the same taste in “dining al fresco.”

Sammy was killed last night, in the middle of the night by someone speeding down a street eight houses long. How much speed do you need on a street so short? it’s just damn reckless. It’s not like they’re going through my neighborhood, it’s a giant cul de sac, if you go down my street you are going to my neighborhood.

This is a quiet block in a quiet neighborhood until Memorial Day, when some “visitors,” come out to spoil the peace and quiet they are allegedly coming out here to enjoy. It is an irony to die for, in Sammy’s case, and I feel like I’ve lost a neighbor because someone needed to speed down an eight house long street.

Sure Sammy was a testy rascal, but he was killed by the most dangerous animal on the planet: a car driving human*

*32,708 humans were killed by humans in cars in 2010, countless pets.

The William Cauldwell House

By Julie Penny

It was a rare pleasure for me to be off to a Southampton Town Board public hearing where I knew the board was about to do the right thing. In this case, impart landmark status on an architecturally and historically significant waterfront Victorian house built in 1892 in Noyac’s erstwhile “Northampton Cottage Association” now known as the Northampton Shores. Its original owner who had it built, William Cauldwell, had been a New York State senator.

On my way into Town Hall I ran into a woman in the vestibule who was unfamiliar with the building’s layout. She asked if I knew where the “Landmarks” board was having its meeting. I said, “Are you here to support the landmarking of the Cauldwell house?” She introduced herself as Shelby McChord, the daughter of its owner, Cyril Baldwin. I said I was so happy to meet her, that I was with the Noyac CAC and we were thrilled to support the landmarking of her property as it’s such a beautiful gem. I told her the town and we in Noyac owe her family a debt of gratitude in trying to preserve such a lovely and historic jewel. It would be great if other like-minded owners would step forward to guarantee future generations living links to their past heritage.

Seeing that I was a true believer in her cause we became fast friends on our way up to the second landing where the town board would be holding a pro-forma public hearing on the matter. We sat together during the hearing while members of the Landmarks and Historic Districts Board made their presentation to the town council as to the worthiness of providing landmark status to this particular house. Then, Ms. McChord spoke on behalf of her family. Alarmed by the demolition of other beautiful old Victorians on her street, over the last five years Shelby McChord began waging — in what turned out to be — a successful campaign in placing this remarkable bit of our history on both the State and the National Register of Historic Places.

Lastly, I spoke on behalf of the Noyac Citizen’s Advisory Committee and its support for landmarking it. Members of the town council spoke approvingly about the home’s museum quality features that have remained basically the same as when it was built in 1892. They enthusiastically passed the resolution imparting landmark status on the house. It now bestows some protection on a building that represents a singular and priceless bit of our town’s history.

Let me digress. As some of you may recall, the town launched a Hamlet Study for Noyac around 2003. I was the chair of the Noyac Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) at the time. While I retired from that role a few years ago, I still remain a member of the CAC. One of the many things I did as part of Southampton town’s Noyac Hamlet Study committee was to take an inventory of the places that give Noyac its unique sense of place. I did this with Marlene Haresign who was not only a member of Water Mill’s CAC, but of the town’s Landmarks and Historical Districts Board. Armed with my latest Hagstrom map and Marlene’s Suffolk County tax map and her binder full of notes, photos and copies of old maps that dated back throughout the 1900’s, 1800’s and 1700’s, we time-traveled our way around Noyac. For history buffs like ourselves it was a labor of love. Over the course of a few days I chauffeured us around locating and cataloguing historic homes, family plots, cemeteries, farmsteads, businesses, beachfront bungalow colonies from the Victorian era on down to the 1940’s. These were then mapped and incorporated into the final Noyac Hamlet Center Study.

One of the magical places I took Marlene Haresign to see was Northampton Shores just west of Jessup’s Neck. It began its life in 1888 as the “Noyac Cottage Association.” Thanks to the Long Island Railroad, wealthy urbanites discovered the undeveloped shores of Noyac where they then came to flee New York City’s stultifying summer heat. These “cottages” with their carriage houses, though seasonal, were, in fact, substantial Victorian homes—our own mini Great Gatsbyesque Gold Coast. Bayside, the piece de resistance of this private enclave, is Peconic Avenue which hugs Little Peconic Bay. Several of these Victorian beauties, set against the backdrop of wide green lawns kissing the bright blue waters of the bay have incredible panoramic views of the Peconics. In 2003, when we inventoried them and included them into the Hamlet Study they were all intact and glorious to behold, like a string of heirloom pearls set along the shore. When, after an absence of several years, I revisited the area again I noticed a change. One of the old dowagers, a stunning Victorian was gone. I grieved the passing. Between tear-downs, exterior renovations, and a new faux Victorian, the street was rapidly losing its charm and historical significance

Fast forward. During the town board hearing I sat with the final 2004 Noyac Hamlet Study booklet on my lap opened to the pages of the houses we inventoried on Peconic Avenue. I whispered to Shelby: “How many of these homes are gone now?”

“Three” she noted, pointing out on the list the ones gone to the wrecking ball. I was incredulous. And, therein lay her own impetus in wanting to get their house landmarked by the town, for although she had gotten the house on the State and National Register of Historic Places, the town’s landmark designation would afford it the most protection if it ever were to leave the family’s hands.

The William Cauldwell house is a melding of architecture, craftsmanship, location, time and place, and history. Except for some plumbing and modern appliances, practically nothing has changed — inside or out — since it was built. It even contains some of Senator Cauldwell’s original furniture. It’s a well-kept, pristine and stately Queen Anne Victorian that has been in Shelby’s family for 80 years where they’ve enjoyed summer after summer. Family lore has it that her father, Cyril Baldwin, won it in a poker game. It’s been his fervent wish to protect it intact. As is noted in the narrative for the National Register of Historic Places, it’s virtually “one of the last of its kind on the Noyac shore.”

Besides being a senator, William Cauldwell, was a newspaperman. The year he built the house, “1892,” is carved into an outside chimney and into the front of the fireplace in the “Great Room.” As a politician, his signature piece of legislation brought a part of Westchester County into New York City’s orbit. When “Morrisania,” an area he represented as senator, became part of the Bronx, it was greeted with great fanfare. He also published and edited The Sunday Mercury, a New York City newspaper. He’s been “credited with introducing several famous writers such as Mark Twain (Samuel Clemons) to New York.” He published columns ranging from opera, the weather and baseball. On a roguish note, he also served a stint in jail for some dubious dealings when he acted as one of the trustees of an estate.

It was still early evening when the town board voted to grant landmark status to the Caudlwell house. As we were leaving Town Hall, Shelby extended an impromptu invite to come over to see the house on my way home. The prospect of a guided tour by the owner of a house I so admired was one I couldn’t refuse. Driving over the moraine dark clouds gathered; it started to rain lighty.

I pulled up to the left of the circular drive in my car where once horse-drawn carriages stopped under a “porte couchere” that’s connected to the front porch entrance. Here, safe from the elements, the occupants could alight. The four other times I’d been down this road were sunlit and during the day. This presented a whole different aspect: dusk on the cusp of a storm. For one thing, I wasn’t viewing it from the road in a slow-moving car, but standing right next to the house in all its Queen Anne majesty: all steeply gabled roof, porch couchered , with copper-hooded dormers and Palladian windows; sawtooth clapboarding.

My eyes could linger on the details. The sky took on a sulfurous yellow tinge, the wind picked up whipping the trees; it downpoured. We dashed up the stairs to the front porch. From there she pointed to the carriage house and the well house.

Years ago, I had the pleasure of being a tenant in a Queen Anne’s Victorian. Like the Cauldwell house, it had some block colored glass windows that I just loved. It also had corn husks in the walls as insulation; but the walls of the Cauldwell house walls, Shelby, pointed out, did not. It has no insulation, that’s why it’s only used seasonally. They’d found out when they tried to rewire the house, that all the walls — both interior and exterior, had no insulation and were all cross-braced “making new electrical work almost impossible.” But, structurally, the bracing has provided great strength allowing it to weather severe storms and hurricanes unscathed.

Walking into the house, I felt like I was aboard a great ship. Outside its northern and northeast windows, on all three stories, the bay spreads out expansively. Inside, you’re cradled by its rich wooden interior, wide planked floors, ceilings and walls that are made of beaded wainscotting. The wood, she noted, maintains its original varnish.

It was the small utilitarian details of 1892 that still existed that gave me great delight: like the wall mounted holder for the “buggy whips” that was hung by the front door exactly where Senator Cauldwell had placed it; the double push-button light switches of the type that I remember in my grandmother’s pre-World War apartment. And, when we went out onto the glorious rear wrap-around porch with an unstoppable view of the bay, I was enthralled because, on this stormy evening, Shelby busily took the rocking chairs and placed each of their backs up against the porch wall with the rear part of their rocker blades propped up on a band of wood running along its base. This keeps them stationary. It prevents them from moving about in high wind, and, with it, the annoying sounds of the rockers slapping the floor in dissonance.

On the 3^rd floor she pointed to an original ladder that gave access to a small hatch in the roof known as a “scuttle hole.” It was used to climb out to get a good view of approaching boats. I wondered if this feature, probably commonplace, was the derivation for the name of Bridgehampton’s “Scuttlehole Road.”

Except for the commodes, the bathrooms, some of them tiny, had original fixtures. In the larger ones, only the claw-footed tubs had been re-glazed.

One of my favorite spots was the sleeping porch balcony on the third story with its undulating decorative fretwork. From this cozy aerie the view is stupendous. Standing there I could imagine Senator Cauldwell, whose portrait hangs inside, looking off to the eastern boundary of the Northampton Cottage Association preparing to walk over to its 500 foot dock, now long gone, where boats trafficked to Sag Harbor and Greenport. Perhaps to greet friends arriving by ferry to stay at the hotle at the east end of Peconic Avenue…when it was a hotel. I salute the town board for voting to landmark one of the treasure’s of Noyac’s past for Noyac’s future.

125 Main Street is a colonial style building dating from the 1750’s, and is in the Sag Harbor Historic District. As such, it is historically and architecturally significant. It is therefore unfortunate that last year the Sag Harbor Village Board of Trustees issued a license agreement to the current owner, developer James Giorgio, to excavate the three feet of village-owned land in front of the building to make way for a new street level entrance. The ARB subsequently approved raising the building as part of a restoration campaign that would include installing a new foundation and retail entrance at ground level.

Last May, the owner’s architect, Chuck Thomas, approached the ARB about demolishing the building and reconstructing it in-kind using new and salvaged materials, citing unsound conditions. If they could demolish, Thomas offered, they would no longer seek to excavate and install new retail space at the basement. Instead, they would seek to lower the building 18” to improve accessibility to the retail space.

The real reason they want to demolish 125 Main Street is because this building is a 250-year-old wood frame structure and it is delicate. Too delicate to make their previous plans (lowering, raising, take your pick) cost effective. It’s easier to start from scratch with a building that looks the same and has a few salvaged shutters on it. The good news is that the previous ARB approval was conditional upon the other elements of the restoration. It’s now null and void, and should have no impact on the new decision.

The ARB has two issues to consider: the dangerous precedent of allowing the demolition of a building within the Sag Harbor Historic District; and the reality of what an accurate reconstruction would entail, both architecturally and from a regulatory stand point.

Sound preservation practice dictates that one intervenes as little as possible to avoid damage to the fabric of a historic building. A proposal to demolish a serviceable building from the 18th century solely for a commercial purpose is therefore horrifying. If the ARB approves this proposal, it will set a precedent that could jeopardize the future integrity of the historic district. Developers would henceforth be able to reference 125 Main Street when seeking to make their property more commercially viable by tearing down instead of restoring.

The building has not been deemed structurally unsound by the village. If there are problems stemming from its original method of construction or age, they do not necessarily justify demolition. Documentation supporting their argument that rehabilitation is not possible must be furnished to the ARB. The ARB must employ an independent professional with experience in historic structures to conduct the conditions assessment at the owner’s expense, as is within its purview according to village code. If the ARB rejects the proposal, the owner may appeal based on financial hardship. He would have to demonstrate that the building is not financially viable without being raised or lowered. Considering that the building is in service with at least one commercial tenant, the ARB cannot in good conscience find that 125 Main Street is not already making a reasonable return.

The ARB should encourage the owner to just build an access ramp and abandon these convoluted plans. The relationship between the stone terracing, the stoop, and the porch is architecturally important. Would the reconstruction maintain this important relationship? How could it be replicated if the building is being lowered?
And reconstruction would not be easy. If done right, it will be difficult and costly, and require scrupulous oversight. The Sag Harbor Historic District is listed on the state and national registers of historic places. As such, the proposed work must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The threshold required for a completely accurate reconstruction under those standards is challenging.

If the ARB were to enter into a legally-binding agreement allowing demolition and reconstruction, the board would have to monitor and enforce the agreement, requiring significant time and resources on its part. The agreement would need to explicitly state that each building element would have to be dismantled by hand, numbered, stored appropriately, treated according to certain standards, and re-installed. Any replacement member would need to match the original in material, dimension, profile, and finish. It would also have to require review of architectural drawings at certain phases, i.e., 50 percent completion, 75 percent, and 90 percent. Does the ARB have the resources to do this type of review?

Additionally, the owner would need to give specifics about exactly how much fabric he intends to re-use.
Finally, the ARB would need to have legal resources to support them. Anecdotes abound of historic buildings being dismantled and put in storage, and then never reassembled, or being lost or stolen. For instance, the infamous story of the Liang Stores, a prefabricated cast iron building designed by James Bogardus in 1849, and also known as “the building so nice they stole it twice.”

Aside from the regulatory challenges, there is also the practical complexity of reconstruction to consider. Regarding the difficulty that would be involved in reconstructing 125 Main Street, Richard Pieper, Director of Preservation at Jan Hird Pokorny Associates, said “Even for a cast iron building, which is as modular as you can get (except for Quonset huts) reconstruction is problematic. But for a 1750 building?” Hopefully the ARB and the developer will realize that this isn’t a practicable option for either of them. I urge concerned Sag Harbor residents to let the ARB know how they feel before their next meetings on July 14th and 25th.

Jackie Peu-Duvallon is a Long Islander and holds a masters degree in historic preservation from Columbia University. She is currently a preservation consultant working in New York City and Long Island. She previously worked for the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

In the Village of North Haven, this concept was practically all but forgotten until just last month, when resident Lawrence LaRose got out, rallied his neighbors, raised some noise and — after appealing to the village board to rescind a newly passed law allowing for a 140-foot tall cell phone tower on village property — was the cause of great change.

The village complied with his wishes and rescinded the law.

LaRose is one of three candidates on next Tuesday’s ballot for North Haven Village Board of Trustees. There are two seats open and while La Rose won’t be receiving our endorsement this time around, it’s not because we aren’t pleased by his efforts to engage in local government and better his community. Even if the cell tower debacle seemingly prompted his foray into public service, LaRose didn’t take his campaign lightly. He did his homework and proved a vested member of the North Haven community with numerous ideas on how to make it better.

But a successful government is a two-way street. And last month, North Haven Village was witness to democracy in its purest form. Because when the people spoke, the village listened.

So we endorse current village board members Jim Smyth and Jeff Sander because they listened to what the community had to say, and put great effort into doing what the people said was right.

What’s more, until this heated election season, Smyth and Sander have served on a board that has worked hard to ensure property taxes remain level, and controversies remain at a distance.

Though we couldn’t see a reason to toss either Smyth and Sander out of their seats in favor of LaRose, we hope he continues to be a vocal part of the North Haven community and are glad for the spark he added to a somewhat quiet spit of land in recent days. We would love to see LaRose get a seat on one of the village’s appointed boards in the meantime where he can really delve into the inner-workings of this municipality. We would encourage others to do the same. Because, if there’s anything residents of North Haven can learn from what transpired this election season it’s this: you do have a voice.

Until his term expires, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy clings to the raft of his position in a choppy sea of questions needing to be answered. They won’t be because of a deal struck by District Attorney Tom Spota.  One’s left feeling we’re only seeing the tip of an iceberg atop a wide-spread but submerged obstacle—that of chasing money to attain or remain in political office.  Pity Spota didn’t shine a light on it to help disinfect a system gone awry. Though they say Levy didn’t personally profit by it, Levy’s campaign war chest swelled to $4 million dollars as a result of “pay-to-play.”  Levy turned the money over to investigators to be returned to donors and won’t run again. Apparently, once a straight-arrow kind of guy in these matters, Mr. Levy had come to believe that “pay-to-play” was okay because all the other politicians were doing it.  But that’s the problem, isn’t it?  Believing it’s okay using pay-to-play as a device to pay for the ever-escalating costs of campaigning because it’s become the new, but quite smelly, normal.  The whole system is irretrievably corrupted.  So corrupted and impacted with boatloads of money that we need to rotor-rooter the entire political sewer.  It’s become a problem of calamitous proportions.  One our democracy can not survive; especially since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 2010 in favor of “Citizens United”  in their landmark decision which drowns out we mere mortals in the tsunami of money that corporations—even  foreign interests—can spend to buy elections and politicians.  Once bought, the politicians pay back their benefactors handsomely.  On a national level we see how Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Coal, Big Agribusines, Big Banking, the nuclear, pharmaceutical, health insurance industries shamelessly get what they want.  Bought politicians no longer even bother to hide their depredations against us as they fulfill the wishes of their corporate paymasters with laws that deregulate, that under-fund the work of critical oversight agencies, that exploit our natural and human resources, and that give them tax breaks and loopholes and subsidies on the backs of the midle-class and poor.  The public’s health, welfare, and economic well-being is being sacrificed on the altar of corporate profiteering.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission decision makes the scale of the corrosive pillage on the White House, on the Congress, on the Judiciary, all the more easy.  It’s even enabled the U.S. Chamber  of Commerce whose raison d’etre is getting carte blanche for big business, as opposed to small business, to funnel in tons of money from foreign interests to help buy our elections by supporting GOP candidates.  America is for sale and goes to the highest bidder.  In this world both Republicans and Democrats prostitute themselves, but by far the Republicans get the most cash and corporate backing.

Public Interest goups, the League of Women Voters (LWV) among them, have advocated long and hard to get money out of elections so we can have clean and fair elections.  This March, the LWV and coalition partners filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of public financing for campaigns.  The brief supported Arizona’s threatened “Public Financing” law enacted in the late 1990’s which leveled the playing field so that “people who aren’t wealthy and who don’t have wealthy friends could compete against those who are privately funded.”  Republicans want the law repealed (along with our public-funding option for presidential candidates).  The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the case in late June.  Arizona’s law has worked well in  getting the corrupting influence of money out of state elections.  However, it’s been challenged in the Court by dint of  2007 and 2010 decisions that hold that free speech requires free spending.

Now, based on last year’s Citizens United decision one can only surmise that it, too, will be defeated defeated 5 to 4 by the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative Republican majority.  Justice Thomas should recuse himself from deliberationg on the case as I’ll explain later.  Citizens United went whole-hog in destroying a hundred years of settled law by extending to corporations the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money (under the guise of “free speech” under the First Amendment) in electing their candidates.  Five Supreme Court Justices:  Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy have extended “personhood” to corporations with First Amendment rights mistakenly equating money with free speech.  Paradoxically, secretive big donors, billionaires, corporations, and their front groups don’t have to disclose who they are, how much they are spending.  “In eviscerating long-standing rules that prohibit corporations from using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes.”  And, they did just that—twice the amount  was spent in the 2010 midterm elections as oppsed to the 2006 midterm elections.  Unprecedented amounts of corporate money flooded the 2010 campaing process and we saw huge targeted campaigns with their front groups attacking principaled candidates who dared to challenge narrow corporate interests.  With insufficient money to defend or compete, these candidates were effectively mowed down by the tidal wave of money unleashed against them.  Obviously, this has a chilling effect on candidates and elected officials who will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance the public interest but injure the deep pocket corporations.

This past January, the non-profit interest watch-dog, Public Citzen, compiled a 70-page report, “The Effects of Citizens United on Elections and the Integrity of the Legislative Process.”  It shows the unbridled damage wrought by the conservative Justices’ opinion.  “The report also provides firsthand information about the mood in the halls of Congress and how staffs react when they see corporate lobbyists coming to call.  One staffer summarized the dangers posed to the integrity of the legislative process by the Citizens United decision when he asked at a congressional briefing sponsored by Public Citizen and other groups ‘How do you say “no” to a deep-pocketed corporate lobbyist who now has all the resources necessary to defeat my boss in the next election?’”

Citizens United was a game changer that scuttled the longstanding American tradition of prohibiting overt corporate spending to influence elections.  Sad to say, Public Citizen’s report indicates that nuclear money bombs to spread misinformation, and to wage misleading and attack ads against candidates by undisclosed donors and corporations do work.  They effectively sunk 60% of their targeted candidates in the 2010 election contests.  And, it’s money funneled into just “10″ of these outside groups that’s doing so much of the dirty-work.  “Nearly half the money spent ($138.5 million, or 47.1%) came from only 10 groups during the election cycle.”  Early last year, Justice Clarence Thomas voted for the infamous Citizens United even  though he had a clear-cut conflict of interest and it was incumbent upon him to recuse himself from the case.  Justice Thomas, turns out, violated federal law for years by checking off the “NONE” box on the judicial Financial Disclosure Reports he submitted for “Spouse’s Non-Investment Income” when, in fact, his wife, Virginia (”Ginni”) Thomas was employed by rightwing organizations from which she made hundreds of thousands of dollars.  These organizations also happened to benefit from Justice Thomas’ votes on a number of U.S. Supreme Court opinions, including last year’s infamous Citizens United decision.  One asks how can Justice Thomas act with such impugnity, and, without it being big news in the mainstream media?   Time and again we see our politcal and financial elites ignore the law and are never made accountable.

Law professor, Paul Campos, wrote in the Daily Beast that Thomas’ wife “was paid nearly $700,000 by the Heritage Foundation, a ‘conservative think tank’ between 2003 and 2007, as well as an undisclosed amount by another lobbying group in 2009.”  This isn’t small change.  The relevant question on the disclosure form isn’t complicated, both you and I could fill it in correctly, it’s that simple and straightforward. You can see the form yourself at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Thomas_Clarence/2009pdf

In July 2010, six months after her husband voted for Citizens United, Ginni Thomas founded, and, is president of, “Liberty Central,” a Tea-Party think tank.  It was started with only two secret contributions totaling $550,000.