SOUTHOLD
A reminder on Strong’s
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Strong’s yacht storage buildings in Mattituck. Much has already been said about the erosion, pollution and environmental damage that would accompany the construction of the proposed storage facility. The long-term irreparable harm that the facility would have on the inlet and surrounding area is unprecedented and will negatively impact countless people while benefiting only a select few. Not only does the expansion of the facility threaten vital parts of the local ecosystem but, even the scaled back proposal raises important social and economic issues.
If Strong’s proposal is approved and a storage facility is built that can accommodate 80-foot yachts, those very large vessels will be passing through a narrow inlet that is a popular area for local community members, including children, to kayak, paddle board and swim. The inlet also supports a thriving local fishing industry and provides recreational opportunities for visitors. The inevitable increase in the amount of traffic and the number of large vessels passing through the inlet will jeopardize the local fishing industry. Perhaps even more important than the inevitable economic damage is the potential for serious accidents that can occur when an 80-foot yacht is navigating the same narrow waterway in which children and adults are swimming and enjoying other recreational pursuits.
When deciding if Strong’s proposal should be approved, it is essential that the well-being and safety of the local community and the preservation of the fragile ecosystem are priorities. The future of the environment and the welfare of the community are much more important than the profits and convenience of a few.
Linda Toga
GREENPORT
Loitering law is ‘superficial’
The [Greenport Village] loitering law is the most superficial solution to a pervasive problem — and more importantly, a misuse of our understaffed and underfunded police force.
The related article (“Village passes la to combat loitering,” Aug. 29 ) reports the concerns of local store owners who say drunken disorderly people are impacting the charm of the village, defiling their property and affecting their income. These legitimate concerns can be described as nuisance or property crime.
The article then reports a big increase in 911 calls from homeowners and tenants also being impacted by drunken disorderly people. These village residents , and their children, are witnessing overdoses, are fearful to go outside, and can’t escape viewing people having sex within eyeshot of where they live.
The loitering law provides police with the ability to shoo drunken disorderly people down the road. This is not a solution. A solution would be if the BID installed tall, attractive and locked fencing at both ends of every alley.
Without the pressure of responding to nuisance calls our police would be able to respond to the increase in 911 calls and prevent potential crime.
The loitering law is a toothless tiger and solves nothing. There are already laws on the books to ticket or arrest people for vagrancy and public drunkenness and lewd behavior. Let’s get our priorities straight that crimes against people are much more serious than crimes against property.
Geri Armine-Klein
SOUTHOLD
They don’t care
Another school year has barely started and already another significant school shooting is in the national news. That reminded me of an observation I made a few weeks ago.
I was in Greenport getting ice cream with my visiting grandchildren when I saw a man around my age (70s) who was also there with two much younger children, presumably his grandchildren, and his wife.
What struck me was the T-shirt he was wearing, which stated “Don’t Fear Guns” above the distinct outline of an AK-47-style weapon. Below that it said: “Fear a Government That Fears Your Gun.” This was printed on both sides of the shirt.
My immediate thought was if the children he was treating to ice cream were in school, or when they do get there, they will be subjected to “active shooter drills” as part of the “curriculum.” I know my grandchildren go through them and have expressed fears of what could happen if a gunman was in their school. They are old enough to have seen many such incidents on the news and to be well aware of them. These horrible shootings have real, profound effects on American students; I wonder what that man I saw will tell his grandchildren about “active shooter drills” and about the effects of children being shot with military grade weapons?
Will he tell them that because of his attitudes — and those of likeminded people and the Congress representatives they elect — there is no chance this problem will go away or even dissipate in the future?
Philip Wasilausky
CALVERTON
LaLota fails to call out hate speech
Former President Donald Trump last week decided to spread an ugly, unfounded rumor about legal Haitian immigrants eating people’s pets. The rumor was initiated by an Ohio neo-Nazi group called Blood Tribe. After Trump amplified that conspiracy theory during the presidential debate, hate groups descended on Springfield, Ohio, calling in bomb threats and terrorizing its Haitian community. It’s important to note that these 20,000 legal Haitian immigrants had been invited to Springfield to bolster its depleted work force.
What was Nick LaLota’s response to Trump’s irresponsible hate speech? He rushed to Nassau Coliseum to proudly campaign by Trump’s side. Even when Trump disparages the military and pledges to pardon rioters who brutally attacked police, LaLota has proved to be a Trump sycophant. It’s time to elect someone who will put country over party.
Jerry Silverstein
MATTITUCK
We’re all the problem
We all are responsible for the problem dividing America, whoever you vote for.
We have allowed people to be called deplorables. We have allowed people to call into question someone’s place of birth.
Few people were marching in the street protesting when the Obamas were smeared with racist propaganda. Few people were marching in the street calling out the looting and violence that paraded itself as a protest.
There have been plenty of violent protests on both sides of the fence we have now collectively erected.
None of that will ever be right.
That’s not how democracy works.
Publicly demeaning commentary depriving someone of their humanity should not be tolerated any longer, no matter who you vote for.
Violence and suppression of freedom is not limited to one party or the other. In 2016, people I love voted for Trump. People I love voted for Hilary. In 2020, people I love voted for Biden. People I love voted for Trump.
There are a lot of things wrong with this country that need fixing, but there are more things that are right. Start talking to people you don’t know and be open to where they might be coming from. Or why they think and feel the way they do. We are all the problem and we are all the solution.
Steph Gaylor
MATTITUCK
More sign stealing
Last week in Laurel, hours after a Harris/Walz sign was erected on private property with the permission of the owners, it was taken down by unknown persons in broad daylight.
The sign cost $85. A police report was filed.
While I realize this is nothing new, I’m reaching out to my community to ask that we respect each other’s right to put out political signs without worrying that someone will come onto our property and steal them. Although we may not always agree on political issues and candidates, I’d wager that most of us agree that we cherish our freedoms and rights in a democratic society.
So let’s all leave the signs alone.
Let’s not have our police spending time on petit larceny and trespassing reports when a dire emergency may be occurring. Let’s remember that we may not be on the same side of the aisle, but we are family, friends, neighbors— and those bonds are so much more important.
To quote [Maya Angelou’s poem “Human Family”:] “We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.”
Jane Flinter