Shelter Island Reporter Letters to the Editor, Oct. 13, 2022

A good first step

To the Editor:

Peter Miedema should get a standing ovation for taking the decision to ban cellphones in his classroom, including collecting them at the door (“Teacher bans cellphones,” Oct. 6). The buzz of a text or WhatsApp message being received is almost as distracting for a student as looking at/using the phone because of the phenomenon of FOMO (Fear of Missing Out).

The use of cellphones in schools as well as in places of business has gotten way out of hand, particularly in retail or restaurant environments. How many of us have tried to get the attention of store employees or waitstaff only to see that they’re more interested in their phones than their customers?

Parents must also provide some rules and set an example, e.g., no phones during meals. I recall sitting at a restaurant counter and a father and his son had obviously just come back from Little League practice and decided to have lunch.

There was no conversation as Dad completely ignored his son since he was busy scrolling on his phone. The little boy looked forlorn, staring into space with nothing to do and nobody to speak to.

Younger people are losing their ability to communicate face-to-face which is really a severe handicap in the workplace. Banning cellphones in a class is a good first step in the right direction.

CHRISTINE HOUSTON, Shelter Island

Tactics

To the Editor:

I wrote to this paper after the 2020 election to say that our Rep. Lee Zeldin voted against our democracy by failing to approve the election of President Biden — who won the electoral college vote as well as the popular vote.

Mr. Zeldin is now running for governor of New York and I fear that he will use similar tactics to discredit this mid-term election. By his actions, he has endangered our democratic way of life in this country. 

I am ashamed that he was my representative in Congress.

NORMA SLOANE, Shelter Island

Vote no

To the Editor:

The long-awaited draft “housing plan” is finally out, right before the election, but just in time for us to learn it’s based upon a false foundation, concocted by a consultant who has lost credibility, and is, in fact, not a plan at all but rather a request for a blank check.

Foundation? When over 1,000 of us last year were asked about our priorities, “affordable housing” came in at #12 of 13 issues (water and ferries were #1 and #2). Supervisor Siller was “confused” by this, so his new housing consultant Nelson Pope Voorhis tried to fix it. But this newspaper’s competitor revealed last week that the new survey relied on “convenience sampling,” and concluded, “the results cannot be interpreted as representative of what Shelter Islanders, in general, think about these topics.” Yet, the “housing plan” is based on these results?

Credibility? Last week, the Suffolk Times reported that the “credibility of Nelson Pope Voorhis” was “under fire” for promising Southampton that they would “clarify any of the opposition’s hot-button issues” by seeking to have them “appear as traditional NIMBYs who consistently present misinformation to promote their own limited agendas.”

So, these are the independent consultants who wrote our housing plan? No wonder the Comprehensive Plan advisory board tried to dump them.

Plan? Forty pages of fluff with no specific information on eligibility, conditions, and procedures. Just this: build “at least ten new units of community housing.” “At least?” Just last week, it was 20-40 units. What will the number be after the election?

The referendum is not a one-time event to build a few apartments. It will irreversibly raise millions of dollars over 20 years for an ever-increasing number of units. That’s why you can be for some affordable housing, but vote “no” on the referendum.

BETH VAN DER EEMS, Shelter Island

Yes to affordables

To the Editor:

In a past letter promoting community housing, I outlined the way patriotic Americans often helped their fellows — the G.I. Bill, community colleges, libraries, even public schools. These could all be viewed as handouts or socialism.

If you’re not the type swayed by altruism, now I would like to highlight self-interest. Good old fashioned, “What’s in it for me?”

A while back my father needed an ambulance to take him to the hospital in Port Washington. The bill? Over $4,000. For a ride under five miles. Why? Because, without volunteer ambulance medics, the for-profit EMT grifters filled the gap.

Also, most municipalities pay for professional firefighters. Cost? $70,000 per person when all benefits and retirement funds are counted. These union jobs require hefty taxes to pay for them.

Both of these crucial services are free on our island. So, really, who is subsidizing whom? Aren’t the countless hours our volunteer EMS and Fire Department staffs donate a “handout” to all residents?

In the private sphere, if all the people needed to build, repair, roof, plumb, electrify, paint, and landscape our homes and businesses come from the Hamptons or North Fork, these services will be much more expensive. If you have ever used off-Island services, you know they are.

These added costs will burden those on a budget and reduce the value of everyone’s home since it will be widely known that most services must come from off-Island. The imbalance between customers and providers will be costly. It’s simple economics.

If housing costs remain prohibitively high, salaried EMTs and firefighters, plus off-Island services are our future. Nothing is perfect, but let’s give community housing a try.

JONATHAN RUSSO, Shelter Island

Swaying opinion

To the Editor:

Like most people, I hope and pray the upcoming election will be held fairly without incident, and of course that includes our own election here on Shelter Island. We have an issue of contention amongst the population, namely, those in favor of community housing and those opposed.

Those who have expressed opposition with a variety of well-founded concerns have been criticized by Supervisor Siller as misleading and even called liars. Even former councilmen Albert Dickson recognized that these residents have been unfairly “vilified” by the supervisor.

Yet, the supervisor continues to dismiss their concerns with the wave of a hand. Even worse, the supervisor has gone on record saying that if the referendum is defeated, his housing program will go ahead, regardless. I must have missed the coronation that gave Supervisor Siller the impression that he doesn’t need to listen to our citizens.

And now we are seeing the removal and defacing of the “Vote No on Proposition 3” campaign signs placed throughout the Island. Whoever is doing this is engaging in the same kind of bullying and deception.

Haven’t we heard and seen enough election interference over the past several years? It disgusts me that it is happening here. I hope those responsible are found and brought to justice. 

JOLANTA ZONCA, Shelter Island

Yard sign etiquette

To the Editor:

Before there are increased complaints regarding the political yard signs across the Island, I’d like to remind our neighbors that the Shelter Island Democratic Committee made their policy clear over many years.

To clarify: The placement of political yard signs in our community are only with the property owner’s permission. We do not place signs on public locations. If an unwanted sign is placed on your property, it can be removed by you or someone authorized by you.

It’s your property and it’s your right to express yourself.

Also, after Election Day, Nov. 8, please remove your signs. Be respectful of your community.

HEATHER REYLEK, Chair, Shelter Island Democratic Committee

Doing the obvious

To the Editor:

Nothing ever changes. That’s the lesson here today. Certainly not Mr. Siller, whose appetite for spending is as prodigious as ever, and whose ability and desire to listen still inversely proportional to it.

It takes talent to make clean water controversial, yet that’s what’s happened, largely because, as in his first life, Mr. Siller was unable to keep his thinking right-sized when it comes to spending public money, or inflicting his will on others. Instead of doing the obvious, and getting the I/A septic systems up and running at each site as soon as possible, connecting it to his housing agenda left the plan overly complex and costly before the requests for proposals even went out.

By the time you read this the Board will have heard from an engineer. What I said here months ago: There is a simpler, and arguably better way. In truth we should already be two years in on cleaner water in the Center. Instead it’s now been conflated with community housing and “high density” development, and it all kind of smells worse than it should.

That is on Mr. Siller, and those who unquestioningly travel in his wake.

It’s not too late. The systems could all be put in and set up for future tie-in to a higher level of purification should it prove necessary, all at a fraction of the cost and without screwing my neighbors needlessly in the process.

As for the housing, well, after decades of discussion, the community is in a position to remove a major obstacle; funding. If they choose not to, that is a rather substantive statement, I should think. Will Mr. Siller hear it? He’d have to listen.

PAUL SHEPHERD, Former Shelter Island Town councilman