Shelter Island Reporter Letters to the Editor: Aug. 4, 2025
JUST START
To the Editor:
RE: The column, “Last call.” Just this week, I had the honor of writing an obituary for my husband, William Eisenreich.
I had never written an obituary before. Bill and I had no children, and no relatives east of Wisconsin. We had moved out to Long Island 37 years ago for his company transfer, and elected to stay on the North Fork in our retirement, since we liked it that much.
I was shaking and silently crying when I started, but someone told me, “Just start it, and the words will flow.”
So I did. And by the end, I was smiling through my tears. It was cathartic for me. And I am so proud of my Bill and the way he celebrated our marriage and conducted his life.
CHRIS EISENREICH , Greenport
LAWYER BILLS
To the Editor:
The Town Board is abolishing the Office of Town Attorney. The official reason? “More flexibility with hiring.” But is it really that simple? Or are we about to witness a critical position become even less attractive, now stripped of Civil Service protections?
Shelter Island’s Town Attorney is the lowest paid town attorney on the East End. Unsurprisingly, there’s no line of eager candidates. It’s been over six months since Gordon Gooding, as advertised, “initiated the search for a new Town Attorney,” and yet, no viable contender has materialized.
In 2025, the Town budgeted $155,600 for the position. With health insurance, the actual cost to the Town is $196,013.60 annually — or $94.24/hour. The previous attorney, who received a stipend instead, would cost the Town less — $172,694.80/year or $83.03/hour. Compare that to our interim attorney — $325/hour. He works fewer hours (just shy of 12 hours per week) and appears unable to meet the Town’s legal demands. You can see at Work Sessions the Town Board, department heads, and the public alike waiting on months-old legal follow-up. A separate attorney had to be hired just for the Zoning Board.
In six months, the Town has already spent $175,158.02 on legal services. Remove labor counsel and outside litigation, and you’re left with $120,814.50 in Town legal expenses for just six months. All while the position that should cost $155,600/ year remains unfilled.
Abolishing the office of the Town Attorney not only destabilizes the role, but raises bigger questions: How can you possibly budget for that? Also, how much taxpayer money went into settling the Kiely matter? That should be included with the six-months total. Where are the “concerned citizens” who flooded the Town with FOILs for legal invoices in previous years?
GERRY SILLER, Former supervisor, Town of Shelter Island
NO FAVORITISM
To the Editor:
I would like to respond to incomplete information found on Facebook and in a recent letter to the editor.
At its July 8 work session, the Town Board unanimously passed a resolution authorizing the supervisor to grant, after further discussion with interested parties, the application by the Fireworks Committee for an exemption to the noise ordinance for its July 11 benefit at Salt. The resolution deferred to “the judgment of the Supervisor” as to what would “best advance the Town, the applicant, and interested residents.”
Subsequently, the Supervisor reported to the Board that she had reached out to interested parties and compromised on a 10:30 p.m. end time for the noise exemption.
Putting aside how many generations a resident’s Island roots have to span before he or she can be considered a “local” (mine spans four generations), in voting for the unanimous resolution, I considered the impact on everyone. So did, I am confident, fellow Board members (regardless of the depth of their Island roots) in voting for the resolution. I am confident that the supervisor did so as well, when she made the final decision.
In addition, the Board’s decision to hold a Louis’ beach concessionaire to the terms of its license with the Town was in no way an attack on local business. I support local business, as do my fellow board members. Individual Islanders and Island businesses, new and old, should be held equally to the requirements of their contracts and of the Town Code regulations.
That’s only fair. Favoritism should no longer carry the day.
ALBERT DICKSON, Councilman, Town of Shelter Island
NO TO PRO-HOUSING
To the Editor:
A longtime resident of Shelter Island, I am deeply concerned by the prospect of our Town adopting the New York State Pro-Housing Communities pledge. While addressing the statewide housing crisis is understandable, this initiative if passed, would alter our beloved community irreversibly, while aimed at addressing housing needs.
This resolution encourages density through multi-family housing and expanded development. Our peaceful low-density environment which defines Shelter Island’s charm, would be irrevocably transformed. It poses a direct threat to the character and precious resources of our Island — critically, our limited potable water table and aquifer.
It would raise taxes, and attract individuals primarily seeking cheap living, not those deeply invested in the community’s values. Housing could also be available to those who may not even work on Shelter Island.
Crucially, approving this resolution means ceding control over our local zoning and housing development to the State government. The pledge effectively transfers decision-making power over zoning and housing to the State who may not understand Shelter Island’s specific needs. The resolution refutes the idea that new housing would exclusively serve essential workers, highlighting the pledge’s broad scope for “fair housing” including supportive and accessible housing, allowing non-local workers to occupy it.
Nowhere is this resolution advocating for our rural environment and small community of 3,000 people. I urge our local officials to vote “No.” Let us preserve the peaceful, unique world that is Shelter Island, rather than sacrificing it to a one-size fits all NY State solution that is ill-suited for our beloved island.
KAREN & SCOTT KIAER, Shelter Island
FAQ
To the Editor:
I want to address some FAQ about the Pro-Housing resolution.
First, it will not cede any zoning decisions to the State. Shelter Island’s zoning code is ours to create and enforce. The opinion of our town attorney is that this will in no way affect home rule. Most concerns I’ve heard can be resolved by understanding this. The Pro-Housing resolution is aspirational and promises that we will consider our housing issues in any zoning changes considered and work to address them.
Second, this does not affect or raise taxes in any way. It’s the opposite. The resolution allows us to access State funding that we need to address our housing issues. This way, we don’t have to raise local taxes.
Third, folks get worried when they see the words “multi-family.” I’d encourage everyone to remember that zoning remains in Town control, so for our community, this means ADUs, which have been a popular solution for us. Our environmental protections remain in place. None of that will be changed. I encourage anyone curious to read the actual resolution on the town website.
If we are serious about preserving our island and not becoming a gated community, then we must address our affordable housing crisis that threatens our residents. We must prioritize keeping our young people and families here. We must also ensure there are accessible and supportive solutions for our seniors. This Pro-Housing resolution is the place to start.
Elizabeth Hanley, Chair, Community Housing Board
SUPPORTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
To the Editor:
In the past, Little School teachers brought three-year-olds to Shelter Island School for the second half of the day. That ended with the budget cuts. Now, our plan is to provide a full-day nursery school with a partnership between the Little School and the Community Center — with scholarships available to make it accessible to all families.
This is a one-time, one-year fundraising effort while we work with the school board to restore a public Pre-K3 option.
We need your help to make this happen.
Pre-K3 makes a real difference: it supports working families; helps young learners get a strong start; assists with early identification of developmental needs; and gives non-English-speaking children an early opportunity to learn English. Studies show early education leads to better outcomes for kids in school and life.
Every donation helps. You can give by check, made out to The Shelter Island Early Childhood Learning Center, PO BOX 1095 11965; Venmo @shelterislandeclc; or through our GoFundMe.gofundme.com/f/save-our-beloved-shelter-island-preschool
Thank you for supporting Shelter Island’s children and families.
AMANDA BARTILUCCI, LIZ EKLUND, OLIVIA RYAN, KATE DAVIDSON, LIZ HANLEY, ALI BEVILACQUA, ALA HAKIM
Shelter Island
CODGER CRITIQUE
To the Editor:
Predictably, Codger in his July 24 column, takes a swipe at the president. A tired rant from his bully pulpit where he castigates law enforcement and spews the inciteful words “kidnapping” and “concentration camps.”
Mentioning The Church in Sag Harbor to lend credence to his whining is inappropriate. The Church, an art center founded by two wonderful, generous artists, is a mecca for non-political culture. It is self-serving to mention Eric Fishel, a co-founder, to bolster his rantings and offensive to this member.
Codger mis-characterizes lawful arrests as “kidnapping,” and prisons for illegal criminal detainees as “concentration camps.” This, offered by a spokesperson of the Left who refuses to acknowledge that the laws of this land are finally being enforced. Mr. Lipsyte writes that the nation’s government has “booby-trapped” the road with chaos. I suggest he reflect upon the chaos that ensues with violent rioting when the laws of our nation are enforced.
Chaos is also the vitriolic language that flows with “f” bombs from the mouths of Democratic leaders when speaking about our president and this administration. Codger might devote a column on how the Left plans to improve our country. That would be novel and refreshing. The Left’s raison d’etre is to condemn Trump.
We’ve seen positive results from this administration. Among many things it has improved the quality of our life by bolstering the economy, focusing on nutrition and ending the fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, ensuring that these programs and benefits continue for us in the future.
At last, this country has a leader who dedicates himself to achieving world peace. Perhaps a Nobel Prize? Something to write about.
KATHRYN A. CUNNINGHAM, Shelter Island
A VISION
To the Editor:
The rich get richer; the poor get poorer. Is there any saying that has had a greater record of longevity and legitimacy than that one? Some things don’t change.
Epstein? Didn’t happen. Diddy? Will be pardoned, if even convicted in the first place. Both were gatekeepers for the wealthy and powerful shadow people, the real string pullers.
Even if Maxwell “testifies” it will be half baked, pre-redacted and useless material designed for one purpose, which is to get her out of jail, and that will require a pardon. Enter Trump …
Some time ago, I had what you could call an epiphany about this as I pondered the reality of more and more money in the hands of fewer and fewer. You might say I had a vision. The way I saw it, either the many would use the democracy to wrest a lot of wealth from the few, or the few would use wealth to wrest a lot of democracy from the many. Well, here we are.
There were logistical issues, of course. A Trojan Horse populist would be needed to convince the many that he was representing them by appearing to champion their favorite issues. Then Congress would have to be “persuaded” to go along with it all through the threat of being “primaried,” or whatever. After all, the Trojan Horse was a gift, and could do no wrong, right?
Extra time was necessary to engineer the structural changes to the system so as to effectively prevent any annoying reversion to real democracy and its attendant backlash.
Now tales of deceit are spun as Trump dances with glee, secure in the knowledge that he is in control of the narrative … for now.
PAUL SHEPHERD, Former Councilman, Town of Shelter Island
