R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Published in The East Hampton Star, October 16, 2017

Dear David:

Sixty dollars ($60) a month for thirty years: that adds up to $21,600!

That’s what it will cost those of us who have houses with traditional septic systems (such as septic tanks or cesspools) if the East Hampton GOP candidates for Town Board get to enact their septic upgrade plan! Mr. Giardina, one of the GOP candidates and the architect of the GOP plan, finally fessed up to the cost homeowners would bear on Thursday night.

You would think this would be optional, right? Wrong; using a provision of the Town code that calls for septic inspections every three years, Mr. Giardina proposes to establish a “Septic Squad” responsible for identifying every offending septic system, which would then be enrolled in a mandatory upgrade program. If a homeowner can’t pony up the money, too bad: the Town can do the upgrade at your expense or your Certificate of Occupancy would be invalidated – which means you couldn’t sell your home unless the upgrade is done.

Heavy handed? You bet!

What’s even worse is that his plan demonstrates his lack of experience. In his Thursday remarks, Mr. Giardina promised that the money for your upgrade would come from the State’s $2.5 billion Clean Water Infrastructure Act, and he chided the Town Board for looking a gift horse in the mouth. But it is Mr. Giardina who has not done his homework. The CWIA allocates only $75 million statewide for residential septic upgrades (and any one loan is capped at $10,000). It’s a pipedream to think East Hampton would get more than a tiny fraction of that.

Similarly wrongheaded, his original plan (on the EH GOP website) proposes that homeowners would be eligible for low cost loans from either the New York State Environmental Facilities’ Corporation or the US EPA Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund. However, it appears that private residential septic projects are not eligible for funding under either of these programs: funding is reserved for municipal programs.   So, either Mr. Giardina doesn’t know what he is talking about or he is just trying to deceive us voters. He proudly touts that he was with the EPA for 30 years, so you make the call. Even if he were right, the full cost of an upgrade would be foisted on homeowners. Either way, the GOP’s naïveté or its disregard for homeowners’ finances is a disqualifier.

Our Town Board has already instituted a revolutionary septic upgrade program using the portion of CPF funds approved last November for improving water quality to fund homeowners’ upgrades. Their approach promises much more money for the project than the GOP’s plan.

Now for the best news — unlike the GOP plan, the anticipated cost to eligible residential homeowners for the upgrade will be: Nothing, subject to a $16,000 cap.

Peter Van Scoyoc and Kathee Burke-Gonzalez have thus demonstrated a true concern for both the environment and the economics of Town homeowners. Mr. Bragman also has voiced his support for the Town’s plan. Not only does this mean they deserve your vote, but it will not cost you $21,600.

Sincerely,

Bruce Colbath

Published in The East Hampton Star

Dear David:

No beach for Montauk!

That would be the eventual result if Paul Giardina is elected to the Town Board and gets to implement his plan to “save” Montauk and its beaches.

Ignoring the almost universal opinion of ocean geologists and Mr. Giardina accused the Town Board making a mistake in trying to solve the Montauk erosion problem. According to Mr. Giardina, a nuclear engineer, the right plan to save Montauk’s beaches would be to erect a hard barrier covered with sand – a seawall. The virtually unanimous opinion of ocean geologists is the exact opposite. Their conclusion is that armoring a beach to fix the shoreline as Mr. Giardina suggests will result in the narrowing and eventual loss of the adjoining beach. This means that if Mr. Giardina gets to build his wall, Montauk will lose its beach.

On the other hand the Democratic candidates were in sync with the prevailing science. During the October 2 debate, where Mr. Giardina related his plan, Mr. Bragman gave a more enlightened view. Consistent with the existing science, he rejected the idea of armoring the beach, noting that it would likely result in eventual beach loss.   Instead, he recommended sand replenishment and land conservation.

His running mate, incumbent candidate Kathee Burke-Gonzalez also favored protective measures consistent with the experts’ conclusions to protect Montauk’s beaches and its businesses. She has supported the temporary permeable reinforcement of the beaches, which does not have the destructive potential inherent in the GOP’s plan.   Her long-term plan to protect Montauk’s beaches and the downtown area favors sand replenishment and the possible acquisition of land with the potential goal of rebuilding the protective dune structure lost in coastal construction done decades ago.

So, while “Save Our Beaches” might be a campaign slogan of the GOP slate, its ideas would accomplish the opposite. As Mr. Bragman said during the debate, the Town Democrats have long been recognized as more concerned with preserving our environment, and the October 2 debate underscored the point. They deserve your vote this November.

Sincerely,

Bruce Colbath

Published in The East Hampton Star, October 23, 2017

Dear David:

So, after months of campaigning, we are at the eve of the election. The important question is: What have we learned?

Let’s start with the GOP Town Board candidates. For Supervisor, Manny Vilar is the candidate. Other than the mantra of thirty years in law enforcement, he has offered little to justify electing him to the lead governance position in our Town. Despite professing to have “plans” to deal with every issue he has been asked about, he offers nothing to commend his candidacy.

Mr. Giardina is an equally suspicious enigma. He repeatedly touts his thirty or more years at the EPA, but it is unclear if he learned anything there. He has offered a proposal to preserve Montauk’s beaches – build a seawall – that would achieve the exact opposite result: those beaches would be forever lost. A real boon to tourism, right?   His only other proposal of note – an alternative to the Town Board’s septic system upgrade — is not only as wrong-headed, but it belies his self-proclaimed experience in the regulatory process. His plan would impose significant costs on homeowners, but he deceptively promises that monetary relief (in the form of homeowner loans) would come from state funds, not CPF monies voters have dedicated to improving water quality. The problem is that one statewide source (the $2.5 billion state fund) would offer miniscule benefits to East Hampton; his other source (the State revolving fund) is a non-starter – under it, private remediation efforts are ineligible for funding. If I can figure this out, it’s hard to believe a 30-year veteran of the EPA is so clueless.

Mr. Larsen strikes me as nothing more than an empty suit. His candidacy hits the skids with the lawsuit involving an alleged conflict of interest involving his security company.   Substantively, he offers nothing to justify support.

Now, the Democratic slate. Peter Van Scoyoc rightfully received the endorsement from the East Hampton Star. Mr. Van Scoyoc can trace his ties to East Hampton back to the 1600’s. While not in and of itself a qualifier, he has studiously fought for every interest we in the Town hold dear. Peter has supported efforts to rein in the abuses our beaches and Montauk saw during the Wilkinson years. He is an outspoken protector of our natural environment, including the Town’s revolutionary septic upgrade plan, which provides grants to eligible homeowners to cover the bulk of the cost. The Town budget is in the best shape it has been in years. He supports reasonable restrictions on East Hampton airport traffic. He deserves your vote.

Kathee Burke-Gonzalez is the social conscience of our Town Government. As a mother, she has worked to raise awareness on a variety of social issues affecting our community, and especially our kids. She has increased mental health services and spearheaded efforts to educate our students on sexual abuse as they prepare to leave for college. She has worked to aid the less fortunate by, for example, helping to provide a grant to Meals on Wheels to help feed the poor and elderly. And, importantly, she has led the fight for reasonable airport restrictions that would enhance the quality of life here. She deserves your vote.

Jeff Bragman is the newcomer on the Democratic slate. As a lawyer myself, I have followed Mr. Bragman’s career on and off as his cases and issues have hit the press. He has fought for environmental protections his entire career, most recently derailing the ill-conceived shopping center that threatened Kellis Pond. To his credit, he has pursued causes, often controversial, but always on behalf of community interests, something that make us in the legal profession proud. Unlike Mr. Giardina – a pretender, Mr. Bragman has earned the mantle of an environmental leader in our community. I look forward to having his perspective and environmental leadership on the Town Board.

The choice for Town Board, in my view, is between neophytes offering nothing but ill-founded ideas and proven leaders who have worked to better the future of our Town, and their running mate who has fought, and will continue to fight, for interests that would enhance our Town.

Peter Van Scoyoc, Kathee Burke-Gonzalez and Jeff Bragman have earned your trust and deserve your vote.

Sincerely,

Bruce Colbath

By J. Gavron and A.Turner

This Special Report investigates Brookhaven Town Clerk, Donna Lent, who’s running for re-election on Nov. 7th. Get the facts on Lent before you vote.

Missed a Background Check? Part 1

Did you know….

• Rather than follow the rules, Donna Lent violated a court order (twice!)
• Donna Lent narrowly escaped being held in contempt by NYS Supreme Court

READ THE FULL REPORT

As Brookhaven Town Clerk, one of Donna Lent’s current projects is to “recodify” the Town Code, the set of rules by which the town’s 486,040 residents[1] must abide, according to The South Shore Press.[2] This project will ensure that the Town Code is up-to-date and accurate, and clearly explains what Brookhaven residents can and cannot do.

For some people, however, understanding the rules—and even being admonished for breaking them— is no guarantee they’ll follow them in the future. A good case in point is Brookhaven Town Clerk Donna Lent.

Here’s what Background Check uncovered:

As Secretary of the Suffolk County Working Families Party, Donna Lent directly violated a court order and narrowly escaped being held in contempt by a NYS Supreme Court Justice.

Self-interest v. public interest . . . . .    In 2003, Donna Lent and Charles Pohonka III—Secretary and President of the Suffolk County Working Families Party, respectively—were nominating candidates from other parties whose positions were not aligned with those of the WFP. According to the state party’s Executive Director, they were more interested in “making patronage deals” than in promoting the party’s mission to increase the minimum wage and improve healthcare.[3]

As a result, the state party adopted a new rule designed to prevent Lent and Pohonka from adding candidates to its line. This rule gave the state—not the county—the exclusive power to allow candidates from other parties to run on the Working Families Party line (a practice known as issuing a Wilson-Pakula certificate).

Lent won’t take ‘no’ for an answer . . . . . In 2006 Lent and Pohanka challenged the validity of this new rule, but the Appellate Division sided with the state party and upheld it.[4] Despite that ruling, in 2007 Lent and Pohanka again issued a Wilson-Pakula certificate and placed Republican Daniel P. Losquadro on the WFP line. The state party sought to enforce its rule and prevailed in court: NYS Supreme Court Justice McKenzie nullified the certificate, holding that it violated the state party rule and ordered the Executive Committee of the county party—of which Lent was a member—to cease issuing certificates of authorization. That decision was described as follows:

“The order of Judge McKenzie clearly states the County Committee is not       empowered to issue the Certificates… for candidates [who are not  members of the WFP], and that the State rules control….The order further enjoins the County Committee and the Executive Committee of the [SCWFP] from filing any further Certificates …so long as the State Rules remain in effect….”[5]

Repeat offender . . . . . Less than a month after the court’s ruling against them, Lent and Pohonka again disobeyed the rule prohibiting them from issuing certificates of authorization. They nominated two Republican candidates to the WFP line: Daniel LoSquadro for the Suffolk County Legislature and Edward D. Burke, Sr. for Southampton Town Justice. The state party was forced to defend itself yet again.

According to the court, there was no doubt that Lent and Pohanka had once again violated the state party’s rules. But, more significantly, this time they had defied a court order that specifically directed the county party and its Executive Committee—of which Lent was a member—not to issue any further certificates.

Here’s what the court said:

“Clearly respondents Pohanka and Lent . . . . . have issued certificates of substitution and authorization in violation of the Rules of the Working Families Party of [NYS] . . . and, more importantly, in direct violation of the order dated September 5, 2007 issued by the Hon. Carol McKenzie, Justice of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County which specifically enjoined the County Committee and the Executive Committee of the Suffolk County Working Families Party from issuing any further certificates of authorizations.[6]

The New York State Working Families Party sought to have Lent and others held in contempt for issuing the certificates, an offense that could have led to penalties such as fines or imprisonment. Lent narrowly escaped the charge only because the court had not named her individually in its injunction—it had only named the Executive Committee of which she was a member.[7]

Endgame. . . . . Soon after Lent’s close encounter with a contempt charge, she left the Working Families Party and joined the Independence Party. Why? Perhaps leaving the party suited her better than following its rules.

These are our sources:

[1] U.S. Census Bureau

[2] Race for the Brookhaven Town Clerk Heats Up, by Barbara LaMonica, The South Shore Press, May 17, 2017

[3] Politics and Power, 2003 Endorsement Haunts Lent, by Rick Brand, Newsday, Oct. 18, 2004

[4] Matter of Pohanka v. Working Families Party of N.Y. State, 30 A.D.3d 625 (2^nd Dept. 2006), lv denied, 7 N.Y.3d 706 (2006)

[5] Matter of Pohanka v. Working Families Party of N.Y. State, 17 Misc. 3d 1119(A) (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co.) (Oct. 23, 2007), explaining Matter of Pohanka v. Working Families Party of N.Y. State, Order dated Sept. 5, 2007 (Sup. Ct. Suff. Co.) (Hon. Carol McKenzie), aff’d, 43 A.D3d 835 (2d Dept (Sept. 10, 2007), aff’d 10 N.Y.3d 620 (2008)

[6] Matter of Pohanka v. Working Families Party of NYS, 17 Misc. 3d 1119(A) (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co.) (Oct. 23, 2007), modified, 44 A.D.3d 1050 (2007)

[7] Ibid.