Move Boat Party
To the Editor,
I wish to thank Tom Halton for this thoughtful letter of August 16th.
As a summer resident/year round taxpayer for 57 years I have watched with anxious eyes the increased pressure put on these fragile coves. I no longer, or rarely, see the birds, fish or wildlife of yesteryears.
It is good to know others care and perhaps will be able to move events like this boat party to areas less prone to destruction as our precious coves.
With regard to the monstrously ugly and over-the-top disproportionate Bulova condo spectre, Sag’s village fathers, and mothers, have for years been the most willing dupes since Sampson let Delilah cut his locks off. More, they are once again about to prove themselves such in the face of the developers’ latest move. Is this characterization unfair? Well, consider the latest heap of “b.s.” (builders’ shill) the village fathers, and mothers, are about to embrace, and you be the judge. It gives new meaning to “shovel-ready” project.
As reported in the Express, on August 25, 2011, the latest builders’ shill is that they (the builders) want to change their agreement to pay the village the remainder of $2,524, 600, so that they would not have to pay it until after the condo complex is built, and individual apartments are sold. They paid $582,600 when the deal was made, so they still owe $1,942,000. We are told the condo complex will cost $100 million to build. But the developers just can’t proceed because they can’t afford the $1.94 million to be paid in installments as they proceed — less than 2 percent of the building cost. Right.
More, the developers want the Village to approve this, and other changes in the agreement they made, quick, quick quick, before the planning board’s next meeting on September 27, 2011, or the whole project might not go forward. Ever, ever, ever! Right. The b.s., as reported, is that “Without almost immediate approval of these changes …” it was “questioned whether or not this opportunity would pass by both Cape Advisors [the developers] and the village at large.” And that would mean Sagageddon, which the village fathers, and mothers, would never permit! And, “Cape Advisors founder Craig Wood announced the condominium project could move forward as early as this fall, but only if the planning board allowed these three changes.” Isn’t “could” a lovely word? It means, “maybe, maybe not.” Right.
And still more, the article told us that the chief government shill over years for the Bulova project, former mayor Greg Ferraris, “said that he and Schoen [the village lawyer] both agreed that their input into the evening’s discussion should be kept minimal.” Let’s see: the village lawyer is to remain mum, but Planning Board Chairman Neil Slevin says that the payment deferment proposal and other “questions” “needed legal counsel.” Right.
This follows more than three years, during which Sag’s fathers, and mothers, shielded the Bulova project from a lawsuit by the Group For The East End about the environmental concerns surrounding it. In the proud words of the then mayor, Greg Ferraris, doing so cost “tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money.” Speaking of government accountability, is the village board going to tell us just how many tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money has been spent so far on the Bulova fiasco? Right.
Moreover, Sag’s fathers, and mothers, did it with such legal pettifoggery that no judge heard the merits of the case. And none ever will. The plan includes sending some 700 truckloads of toxic waste from the site past countless homes and schools. So it can definitely be said that regarding this, and other environmental concerns, Sag’s fathers, and mothers, are proceeding according to the highest political standard of our time, that is, “You’ll find out all about them after it’s done!” Right. And, of course, the village fathers, and mothers, in 2010 renewed the developers’ expired building permit, after, of course, much, much deliberation. Right.
So, as said, does anyone doubt that the village fathers, and mothers, will allow more of its locks to be trimmed, and more taxpayer money be vulnerable, perhaps even before this letter is published? Right.
In light of all this, should the term “willing dupes” be changed to the word “collaborators”? Right.