Setting it straight

To the Editor:

I am writing to set the record straight. In the September 8 issue of the Reporter, there was a wonderful full-page ad recognizing our local first responders on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. My name was added to the list of our Shelter Island Police officers in error. I am merely one of the police clerks, and I provided the list of names for the ad, but I am not a first responder. Out of my great respect for those who are/were, I wanted to make that clear, as I shouldn’t garner the praise that they so richly deserve.

JENNIFER C. ZACHA , Clerk, Shelter Island, Town Police Department

Apply the law

To the Editor:

It is with great concern that I write this in response to the letter titled ‘No to Gitlin’ published in last week’s Reporter by Supervisor Jim Dougherty. The letter describes at length the reasons why he believes Andrew Gitlin should not be able to build a house on his waterfront property. I will not go into the details of the letter or rebuff the numerous inaccuracies or personal attacks aimed at Mr. Gitlin, as these have already been dispelled previously. I will say only this; the home that Mr. Gitlin seeks to build has been designed in size, shape and placement within the parameters of the building codes of this Island and that of the state of New York. Its septic system was specifically designed to mitigate nitrogen drift and has been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health.

As the editor of the Reporter mentioned in his editorial, it satisfies the law. Mr. Gitlin’s personal life, the feelings of some of his neighbors, as well as election year politics are irrelevant to the wetlands application process. My own strong feelings about the environment and its preservation are equally irrelevant; the only thing that matters is the law as it currently stands.

As an Islander, as a community, as taxpayers, and as Americans we have the right to demand our elected officials apply the rule of law fairly and impartially. Therefore I ask that the Town Board relinquish its authority over the wetlands review process and place it in the capable and impartial hands of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This would prevent the ethical authority of the Town Board from falling victim to the allure of politics. Conservation and environmental mitigation are commendable goals without doubt. Let’s see a town government that works to realize these goals in a pro-active, sincere, but most importantly, a manner that does not degrade the impartiality of the law and our faith in it.

DANIEL FOKINE, Fokine Construction, Shelter Island

Independent thinking

To the Editor:

In reference to Supervisor Dougherty’s letter entitled  ‘No to Gitlin’ in last week’s issue, it is good to see that there are still members of the Town Board who can think for themselves in doing what’s right for the environment and residents of Shelter Island. The building codes are there for a reason and it is about time we stop abusing them by granting endless variances with absolutely no regard to their impact on the environment and the Island.

STEVE and MARGARET KOLLER, Silver Beach

Playing to crowd

To the Editor:

The case against the Gitlin application is weakened by relentless realities, like precedent, the law, and equal protection under that law. The new septic technology referred to is not yet accepted by Suffolk County and is anyway a red herring, since the septic will be further from the bay than many others already in the area for decades — ones owned by some of the same people now hounding Mr. Gitlin on properties not unlike the one in question.

In the end, you see, it is the same application, with all its pluses and minuses, that Mr. Dougherty voted in favor of just a couple of years ago. The only real difference I can find is that he is running for office this year and was not when he voted for it last time.

Mr. Dougherty has now twice publicly revealed his bias in this case, a situation that confirms what I have been saying all along about our wetlands permit process: that it is highly vulnerable to political pressure from outside, often applied by people who neither know the law nor care to … who want only to prevent someone else from having what they themselves possess.

In an election year, that can be a problem for applicants seeking fair treatment.

I understand the pressure Mr. Dougherty is under but it’s not right to succumb to it. As citizens, we ought not allow ourselves to become a mob and our leaders must not pander to a mob once it’s formed. Right now he is acting more like a wind sock than a compass.

To those upset by this whole thing, you need to understand that this is not a failure of law. Our law says there can be a house there because the law that governs our law says the same.

PAUL SHEPHERD, Shelter Island

Mr. Shepherd is a Conservative candidate for Town Board and also the candidate of his own Local Liberty Party. — Ed.

Truly accountable

To the Editor:

Upon reading the editorial in the September 22 issue of your newspaper [on making a decision about rules for non-conforming uses], it appears to me that the only ones who don’t understand our old, long-standing code are the folks at the Reporter.

As stated in the editorial, the board withdrew the non-conforming zoning proposal due to a large and general outcry to this misdirected attempt to change a perfectly workable code. It appears to me that this is exactly why a two-year term [for council members] is necessary.

When the Town Board ignores the electorate to further its own agenda, then change is necessary to maintain the good of the people and not their elected representatives. Majority rules and when the few dictate to the many, then freedom of majority expression is lost.

Making public officials truly accountable to their constituents is mandatory and apparently being ignored. Making the Town Board more accountable for their actions may quell some of their high-handedness over the will of the people.

Oh, and yes, the small, non-conforming C-zone businesses are very necessary to maintaining the Island way of life. Some, if not all of these business services could not survive in a high-rent district. They are innocuous in the community while performing many needed services, which under any other circumstances they could not provide.

Who wants to vote on a shopping center and where to put it? Perhaps between the Town Hall and the Presbyterian Church we could condemn and take by eminent domain all of the business property located there now, thus providing easy access for all of the students across the street. I will bid for a space to put in a video arcade next to the golden arches providing 24-hour service.

JACK KIEFFER, Shelter Island

Mr. Kieffer is the owner of the Dory, “a small business operating since 1925,” he notes. — Ed.

Campaign trash

To the Editor:

My experience with our Town Board has often been a “do as we say, not as we do” situation. So it is refreshing to see town supervisor candidate Glenn Waddington refusing to post campaign signs all over the island. While we all have a First Amendment right to post signs on our properties, Glenn supported a town code to limit the size and quantity of signs, sighting the visual pollution of our landscape. These large glossy signs are also made to be somewhat weatherproof. Hence, they are not environmentally friendly because they do not degrade quickly when disposed of.

Combine these signs with the scores of the glossy campaign cards that we each get in the mail from others running for various elections, we then end up with a lot more trash that is difficult to recycle and unnecessary in this first place. So much for our candidates deeming themselves as environmentalists.

Perhaps others running for office here will follow Glenn’s lead. There are many other (and better) ways here to have your name and position publicized. This newspaper has printed stories about each candidate and presents video interviews on the Reporter’s website. Advertising in the Reporter is offered at reasonable rates and the League of Women Voters of Shelter Island sponsors a debate. Our government access Channel 22 could also be used by all candidates and could even broadcast a live debate or two. All this at little or no cost to the candidate.

An argument against the proposed two-year term referendum is that elections are expensive. Producing and designing these polluting glossy signs and mailings are most likely the biggest cost. And what is the point of a sign with just the candidates’ name on it? Do they think that we all walk around in a hypnotic trance and will simply vote for the name that we saw most often and subliminally remember? They should not market themselves like a can of soup in the grocery store. I am interested in their integrity, honesty, life experience and capabilities. The candidates need to do a better job in making themselves and their positions here known. Then I’ll remember the name in the voting booth.

VINCENT NOVAK, Shelter Island

Wearing pink

To the Editor:

I just wanted to say “Thank you” to all of the people who came out to support my wife’s campaign “Real Men  Wear Pink” with a simple photo to increase awareness of everyone about the dangers of breast cancer

She has also, with help of many Islanders, had made by school students, painted by volunteers, some 60 two-foot pink ribbons that were given away free in late August that are appearing all over the Island as October (awareness month) approaches.

With the help and support of the Town Board, October has been declared for the second year now “Breast Cancer Awareness” month town-wide.

I can tell you this is not journey I would want anyone to take part in. Teresa’s mission has been to help educate women about breast density and screening in order that women everywhere are aware of their own density. There is a tremendous amount of information that’s available on the numerous types of breast cancer.

Please, as we approach October, encourage the women in your world to get to know about their own breast density (areyoudense.org) and get screened. It might save you own life or someone you care about!

I must say I was a bit disappointed with the placement of the photo in the fold last week and a casual non-news shot on the cover. I only hope that perhaps the entire group photo of 125-plus (not just the men) from last week might make the front page during the month of October. Breast cancer has touched way too many families on this Island and other communities to ever let us forget about it.

Thanks again to all who came out for the photo of “Real Men Wear Pink.”

Look for “Team Teresa” at the 5K, keeping Breast Cancer awareness front and center.

TOWNY MONTANT, Shelter Island

Deep and abiding

To the Editor:

I want to formally express how grateful I am for the fundraising event that my co-workers, especially Don Young and Beau Payne, at North Ferry put together for me earlier this month on the Manhansett. It was an extraordinary night in so many ways — the gorgeous ride around the Island, the spectacular sunset, the music, food, dancing, but most importantly the multitude of wonderful people donating, contributing, sharing and reveling, and the overall exuberant vibe. You are what made an event like that so much fun!

It’s hard to grasp the variety of challenges you face with ongoing treatments for cancer. I wouldn’t wish them on anyone, yet so many people have been through it or know someone who has. For me, that evening has made it all so much easier to deal with. The support and affection that was so much a part of that night has already helped me and I will carry that around with me probably forever.

All I can do is say thank you. But know that my gratitude is deep and abiding.

KAREN POLK, Greenport

Aquifer protection

To the Editor:

I have been following very closely the mention of the “protection of the freshwater aquifer” here on Shelter Island! Indeed anyone who is aware of the fact that most of Shelter Island has no other source of fresh drinking water but the precious aquifer is also concerned about safeguarding that “sole source” of water for most Island residents.

One might argue that the local water district (here on Shelter Island) could serve as another source of fresh water, but since that water would also come from the Island’s sole-source aquifer then the issue of the protection of that aquifer still remains a most critical problem, if it is ever to become “abused” in any way. (Also this water district is not large enough to “do the job”!)

The very township that is “looked to” to protect that aquifer has taken some steps to safeguard the aquifer and has installed “special drains” on our roadways to collect pollutants, hydrocarbons and all types of solvents, etc. This was the subject of a story in our Shelter Island Reporter following a gathering last spring in which the environment and the protection of the environment were of prime importance.

I find it so very interesting that your editorial recently makes special note of “stricter environmental regulations” and then states “nobody is even proposing them.”

How very interesting that you were able to make such an accurate observation and you are indeed so very right with your concerns regarding this issue! Might I, however, point out that there seems to be some confusion over fresh drinking water wetlands and saltwater wetlands. I agree that both wetlands are of major importance. The concerns for our bays, creeks and beaches is of major importance! But I must point out there is a vast difference in a freshwater wetland and a saltwater wetland. The freshwater wetland and its protection is vital to the source of our precious safe water for drinking. The simple truth is, if ever the aquifer becomes contaminated, area residents will lose their only ability to get fresh water from their wells. If anyone needs a reminder of the difference between a fresh water wetland and a saltwater wetland, all you need to do is recall the areas of all the flooding here on Shelter Island a few short years ago, when it took the township weeks and weeks of pumping to dry out all those areas that became flooded. So as I see it, when we speak of the protection of the aquifer, and speak of saltwater wetlands and freshwater wetlands, we are talking about apples vs. oranges.

Now, to get to your suggestion of “stricter rules and regulations,” I wonder how many residents here on Shelter Island are aware of the U.S. federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Water Drinking Act. For you see, the U.S. government foresaw just such a problem in any area that did not have a public water supply system and a single-source aquifer. So in 1974, they passed the EPA Fresh Water Drinking Act. It was done to protect your only source of drinking water, your well. So you see there are in place “strict rules and regulations” to protect our aquifer. But they allow local municipalities the discretion of watching carefully over their area to see that it is carefully adhered to.

On the EPA website, I believe you will find a wealth of information that has been put into a law that will protect the aquifer that we are all so concerned about and since 1974 there are many and all types of pollutants, oils, solvents, petroleum products, gasoline, paints etc. There are many, and all have the potential of finding a way into our freshwater drinking supply.

I wonder how many of you are aware that any business that uses any of these products is subject to a close review by the federal EPA and if they feel it is necessary to operate such a business, a permit is required. Any business of this type could be subject to providing a radius map of any freshwater wells for a quarter-mile radius of that potential business. But someone from the local municipality has to notify the EPA of that possibility happening, prior to it occurring. If the local government chooses to ignore the EPA, then I would guess they don’t know about what is going on, now, would they? If you might think this is not a very serious matter, then perhaps you might want to type in the official website of the “Township of Bernardston, Massachusetts.” Go to their “floor drain regulations” and see how concerned that municipality is over their aquifer. Pay close attention of the mention of toxic chemicals, synthetic organic chemicals and petroleum products also heavy metals, etc.

So you see we really don’t need any “stricter environmental regulations” for they are already in place. However, what we need are local public officials who do not ignore them and who know how to apply them. The permit process (and the agency) to safeguard your well is in place and it has been since 1974. But if no one asks for it, then what?

RICHARD KRAUSE, Shelter Island