Larry Cantwell and Tom Knobel
East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell and his challenger, Tom Knobel, at Tuesday’s debate.

“Young families are leaving by the thousands,” she said. “Seniors are being forced to leave as well. This community is a prisoner of a 16-week economy. I am here to change that. Our environment is our economy and we have to sustain it.”

Mr. Van Scoyoc, who runs a residential building company and leads fishing charters, said he knows what it means to work several jobs to make ends meet in East Hampton.

He added that, when his wife began teaching at East Hampton High School 25 years ago, 95 percent of the teachers lived in East Hampton or Southampton. Now, he said, 90 percent of them live up island because they can’t afford to live here.

East Hampton Town Board candidates Margaret Turner, Peter Van Scoyoc and Sylvia Overby at Tuesday's debate.
East Hampton Town Board candidates Margaret Turner, Peter Van Scoyoc and Sylvia Overby at Tuesday’s debate.

“Our middle class is being pressed here as well,” he said. “It’s not just the working poor. I think we’ve worked very constructively these past two years. None of these issues are easy to solve. The only way to move forward is constructively working together.”

Ms. Overby said she’d worked hard the past four years on surface and groundwater preservation, renewable energy, coastal resiliency and affordable housing.

On extending the CPF and using it for water quality, Ms. Turner said she supports the extension, but would like to see water quality funds in a separate pool of money. Mr. Van Scoyoc said he believes water protection “is the most critical issue facing the town” and he supports both the extension and a plan to deal with the town’s water issues.

Ms. Overby said she’s not in favor of increasing the exempt portion of the purchase price, because she believes it will simply put more money in the pockets of people looking to buy second homes. She added that she’s not in favor of ideas she’s heard to use CPF money for code enforcement.

Moderator David Rattray, the editor and publisher of The East Hampton Star, asked if there are really 750 people waiting to receive federal Section 8 rental subsidies in East Hampton.

“I suspect it’s even larger,” said Mr. Van Scoyoc. “We’ve seen housing values increase exponentially and high occupancy summer rentals have taken a lot of housing off the market.”

“I couldn’t afford to buy my house in today’s market,” said Ms. Overby, who added that the town is looking to create 12 manor houses for affordable housing.

“The town is actively seeking other properties,” she said.

Ms. Turner asked why a proposed 40-unit project in Amagansett had been stymied for so long.

She added that there are more than 1,000 names on the town’s waiting list for affordable housing.

“It’s really quite extensive,” she said.

Moderator Glorian Berk of the League of Women Voters asked the candidates what East Hampton is doing about its pledge to produce all its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Ms. Overby said the town’s goal had hinged on PSEG-Long Island agreeing to buy the power from the proposed Deepwater One offshore wind park, which was turned down last December.

She said the town did receive approval from PSEG-Long Island for solar projects half the size they’d planned on the town’s Accabonac and Bull Path brush dumps, and has been awarded a $100,000 grant to study creating a “microgrid” with battery storage for renewable enegry at the Town Hall building complex.

Ms. Turner said there is a lot of funding available for public outreach and education about renewable resources, and that companies and homeowners can also help the town produce more energy from renewable sources.

Mr. Van Scoyoc said the town had deliberately set a lofty goal for energy independence.

“Our future depends on us being resilient and renewable,” he said.

On that note, Mr. Rattray asked the candidates about their coastal strategies in light of ongoing erosion and sea level rise.

Ms. Turner echoed Mr. Knobel’s suggestion that the town reevaluate its Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, and said she hopes to help with the town’s new Coastal Assessment Resiliency Plan.

“I’m glad to hear Margaret supports our CARP,” said Mr. Van Scoyoc, who helped the town receive grant funding for the plan. He added that recent state guidance on sea level rise shows it will be much more dramatic than had been thought just a few years ago.

“Resiliency planning is critical,” he said. “The Army Corps project in Montauk is a Band Aid. We need to look at how we can adapt to the changing environment we live in without catastrophic failure, loss of life and taxpayer property.”

Ms. Overby said the town can keep people from building houses too close to the water by having a very strong Zoning Board of Appeals.

“People are certainly allowed to come in and ask for variances, but you need to have people on the ZBA that are strong and understand what they’re doing,” she said. “If you have a strong town board, you will have a strong ZBA.”

Ms. Overby added that the town will present its Climate Action Plan next week.

“Peter already talked about the scary numbers,” she said. “This is something that this town board has been dealing with head-on.”

On helicopter noise at the East Hampton Airport, Mr. Van Scoyoc and Ms. Overby said the current town board had made great progress, but there is still work to do.

“I think we’ve accomplished more than any town board in 20 years when it comes to airport noise,” he said. “We made a very careful road map for regaining control of our airport. We’ve accomplished that in a way that’s been upheld by the courts.”

Mr. Van Scoyoc said the curfews imposed this summer have had “very modest success as far as actually accomplishing relief,” but he believes the town “has made great strides in being able to sustain greater restrictions over time.”

He added that litigation over the airport restrictions is being paid for out of the airport budget, which comes from user fees, and not from taxpayers.

Ms. Overby said the statistics show there haven’t been fewer flights to the airport, but the curfews did allow people to get a better night’s sleep.

“The important thing we’ve accomplished is we have local control of the airport for the first time,” she said. “We were allowed to determine what a noisy aircraft was for our town. Helicopters can come in if they’re not the noisy type. Aircraft companies have options and choices to make. They need to make them.”

Ms. Turner said she hopes the airport will be self-sustaining as legal fees pile up.

“I do not want the airport to be a burden to the taxpayers,” she said. “I would like to see it be financially self-sustaining.”

Ms. Turner said she’d wait to make a decision on whether the town should take FAA funding until after the full court decision on the town’s restrictions proposed earlier this year.

Election day is November 3.

The League of Women Voters of the Hamptons head over to Southampton next week to sponsor a debate for Southampton Town Board and Supervisor candidates at the Rogers Memorial Library on Thursday, Oct. 22 at 6 p.m.

Page:  1  2


Beth Young
Beth Young is an award-winning local journalist who has been covering the East End since the 1990s. She began her career at the Sag Harbor Express and, after receiving her Masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, has reported for the Southampton Press, the East Hampton Press and the Times/Review Media Group. She founded the East End Beacon website in 2013, and a print edition in 2017. Beth was born and raised on the North Fork. In her spare time, she tinkers with bicycles, tries not to drown in the Peconic Bay and hopes to grow the perfect tomato. You can send her a message at

8 thoughts on “East Hampton Candidates Portray Town Stressed to Max

  1. Mr. Knoble is making a false statement when he says the town is trying to shut the airport down and that the helicopter and aviation industry are unable to communicate with the current board members. It is the town’s right as proprietor to implement rules and regulations. Given the fact that the town has decided not to renew with the FAA on four grant assurances, the board members have elected to implement reasonable and helpful regulations. The curfew provides for aviation enthusiasts to fly from 7am through 11pm, most of the waking hours of the day which means there has been no significant relief for residents below the noisy aircraft. This all boils down to money. Big money. Investors from out of town who want to run our communities over at our expense. The 50,000 dollar campaign contribution by a member of Hellfire has been acknowledged by Mr. Knoble and the GOP candidates. What they fail to understand is our communities are being used for profit and in the long run we will lose our peace and quiet and our real estate, one of the most coveted areas in the world, will lose its appeal to buyers and renters. When that happens, our economy will most assuredly suffer. It is time to face the raw facts: If we permit outside aviation interests to abuse our local airport we will be faced with severe consequences and our east end communities will pay the price for decades to come. Our local airport is a gem. It should remain a safe airport and thus far the current town board has already implemented and installed measures to up-date the weather system, tarmac repair, tree trimming, and new fencing. None of us want to hear the loud rumbling of Gulf Airstreams, guttural chopping of helicopters, growling seaplanes, piercing turbo engines, over our homes. The problem is felt all over the east end. It is time we put the brakes on the noise pollution with includes damage being done to the environment. AvGas, a fuel used by jets, is a known human carcinogen. Instead of cashing out and letting the beauty of the east end disappear because of avarice and short sightedness, let’s vote for the candidates who believe our wonderful local airport should remain open and safe for local aviation enthusiasts and not big out of state aviation profiteers! Re-elect Sylvia Overby, Peter Van Scoyoc, and Larry Cantwell. If you’re unsure about the outcome of our airport, take a moment to look up Barnstable/Hyannis Municipal Airport. Or Caldwell Airport where I learned to fly. Once upon a time they too served local aviation enthusiasts. Do we want Jet Blue here? Take back our airport and maintain the beauty of the east end. Silence is golden. No amount of money can buy it back once it’s gone. No amount of money can buy the east end’s beauty back if we let it go to destruction now.

    1. The number of falsehoods and inaccuracies in your statement is typical of your Quiet Skies group. The runway that is in such desperate need of repair that it cannot be used has NOT been paved, only a taxiway that used to be a runway until it was closed due to the efforts of Quiet Skies’ founder was paved – the runway continues to be dangerous and the town refuses to repair it. The trees that have grown into the gliide slope have NOT been cut and continue to threaten the lives of pilots and passengers. The old broken weather system gas NOT been replaced and is virtually non-functional, requiring pilots to depend on systems in Connecticut and further up Long Island and placing pilots and passengers at risk. The fencing to keep deer and turkey off the runway so planes don’t crash into them when taking off and landing has NOT been installed. You and your Quiet Skies group have adamantly and publicly opposed all of them and instead have published the deaths of local and regional pilots on your Facebook page with macabre schadenfruede. Instead of performing this critical safety maintenance at the airport, Cantwell and the current town board have emptied the airports funds to use for their attorneys fees and have sat on their hands for 2 years doing nothing. They claim they now would need to issue a bond to perform the repairs. Your poppycock about JetBlue is ridiculous. Not only has no one (not one single person) ever proposed such a concept, JetBlue could never physically land here – the runway is too short, the terminal is too small, the facilities can’t support such an operation, we don’t have a tower for 9 months, and no one wants them. By the way, jets don’t use AvGas, they use JetA. Only small piston planes use AvGas. You would know this if you were really a pilot as you claim – but you’re not and you have never been. That’s just another one of your Brian Williams fantasies. You hate everything aviation, which you proved when you publicly complained about the local Coast Guard helicopters, harassed the local CG station commanders, and demanded that the CG stop flying over the East End – the same CG that protects and saves our local fishermen, sailors, and boaters.

      1. As in the honored tradition of aviation enthusiasts who tell people bothered by noise : Just move if you don’t like the airport…

      2. Both Tubby and EHLocal are so badly misinformed about the East Hampton Airport it is hard to know where to begin. When the 1989 Airport Master Plan was adopted, with the approval of local pilots, there were two secondary runways, 4-22 and 16-34. All professional wind analyses conducted, going back to 1980, show the same thing, that 16-34 in combination with the main runway provides better wind coverage than 4-22. Not only is the coverage higher, but 16-34 meets the FAA’s minimum standard of 95% coverage in all seasons and 4-22 does not. As the airport does not require three runways, and this is no longer standard practice under FAA standards, the 1989 Airport Master Plan, again with the concurrence of the local pilots, provided that 4-22 would be closed at the end of its useful life. That was then estimated to be in 5 years, 1994. In fact, 4-22 remained open an additional 10 years when it finally became unsafe and was closed according to plan.

      3. As to other safety matters, the Airport Planning Committee, Noise sub-committee that I chaired, as its first order of business, identified critical safety issues to be addressed with the highest priority. There were five: new taxiway lighting, taxiway repaving, a new or upgraded Automated Weather Station, removing tree obstacles that had grown into the instrument approaches, and completely the deer fence. We also recommended the hiring of new engineers to assist with planning. The taxiway lighting is done. The taxiway repaving is done. The AWOS is being installed. The engineers are in discussion with the FAA to determine just which trees must be cut as there are not hard and fast rules and this is a matter for the FAA to decide as it relates to safety. The Airport Management Advisory Committee, on which I sit, has asked its aviation members to recommend the route for new deer fencing. That is moving forward.

        There is no plot to close the airport. That is a blatant falsehood that has been deployed by aviation interests for years as a means of resisting any noise controls. As for attorneys’ fees, those are the result of multiple lawsuits brought by aviation interests to prevent the noise restrictions adopted by the Town Board, the democratically elected representatives of the people of East Hampton, from taking effect. The legal defense is paid for by airport user fees. Airport funds are more than adequate for that purpose, so much so that based airport continue to pay nothing, zero, for use of the airport. If airport users want to waste their own money attempting to bully the town, lawsuits that they are going to lose, there is no reason why anyone else should sympathize. If they don’t want to waste their own money on lawsuits, they can simply withdraw them and honor the will of the people of East Hampton as regards the airport that belongs to them, all of them.

        As for moving due to airport noise, those who want to live near an airport are welcome to move to Queens, as close as possible to LGA or JFK. There is no reason for them to remain in East Hampton and be frustrated because our town is democratically governed. Government exists to make rules for the common good.

  2. EH LOCAL: Unlike me, you hide behind your real identity. My statements are true and yours are filled with anger and animosity. I oppose the egregious noise pollution over my and my neighbors homes on the South and North Forks and Shelter Island. As for your statement that I “harassed” anyone is also patently false and perhaps you once held the position of ‘noise abatement director” at the airport wherein I called to let you know there was a Coast Guard plane so low over our home our entire household shook and we were terrified. Your response? “If I didn’t see it, it doesn’t exist.” Or, “All you people demonize the pilots.” Who are “all you people”? You mean the people who have helicopters and seaplanes and jets flying constantly over our homes so that we can’t hear ourselves talk and our children and pets run away screaming or barking in fear? Are you referring to the people who chose to live here because it is/was so peaceful? Why is it that basic human rights are not considered?

    As far as the veracity of my statement regarding being a pilot, I am the daughter of a United States Air Force Colonel who served in both WWII and the Korean War as a pilot. Not only did I learn to fly with my father but I took flying lessons. After the war, my father purchased two planes to and flew for enjoyment on the weekends, often letting me fly to my summer camp in Maine with him. My two brothers are pilots as well. All I can tell from your heated response to my comment is that you are just an angry and rude person who likes to belittle behind a fake identity.
    Furthermore, you show absolutely no regard for your fellow neighbors of the east end.

    It is known that AVGas is a human carcinogen. As long as you can plunder the environment with contaminants and harass residents of the east end, you don’t care what damage or disconcerting noise pollution you and your fellow aviation groups from out of state desire. It is selfish and rude of you to think everyone should have their lives and homes ruined because you don’t give a damn. You and your friends want big government to take over so you can see the airport expanded.

    I speak from experience when I remind the people of Caldwell and Barnstable/Hyannis Municipal Airports having expanded just as East Hampton Airport may if we take FAA funding. You know this to be the truth but choose to deny it to gain public alliance.

    The Federal Aviation Administration is in the business of aircraft travel and is not interested in noise abatement or helping communities who have serious issues with noise pollution. If we take FAA funding we are locked into decades of their rules and regulations and we surrender our rights as proprietor of the airport. As proprietor we are permitted to implement rules and regulations that you and your friends, (Friends of East Hampton Airport: aviation lobbyists from Washington D.C. and outside state aviation corporate interests) don’t want because it will curtail the ability for them to profit and expand their businesses which will mean expansion at the airport.

    Jemille Charlton publicly called for additional buildings to accommodate the thriving and growing business. This is called “expansion.” In increments we stand to lose our small airport and in its place a larger, more commercial airport will take its place. We who support Quiet Skies Coalition and our communities who have a right to peace and quiet, do NOT want to see this happen. If you are an aviation enthusiast why not enjoy flying and let others on the ground below, enjoy peace and quiet. I think you’re hiding behind that nice image of wanting to fly your plane for fun when in reality it’s profit you all want and thats why there is so much riding on this issue this campaign season.

    The present East Hampton Town government has worked in a professional and eager manner to address all the issues facing our locally owned airport. It continues to do so. I ask my neighbors and friends to re-elect the party members who have been diligent and truthful about their efforts to listen and work for, a more peaceful east end that we can enjoy for decades to come.

  3. Errata in my comments:

    “based aircraft” not “based airport” pay nothing.

    “completing” the deer fence, not “completely” the deer fence

  4. I am the founder of East Hampton Helicopter Noise Coalition and Co-Founder of Quiet Skies Coalition. EH Local is promoting a false statement. I or my co-founder had no, nor presently have direct involvement nor influence in making decisions at the East Hampton Airport let alone the paving of any runways. It’s just blatantly false. I was appointed to serve on two airport advisory committees that had equal representation from the pilots. In fact I am a pilot.

    EH Local and Tubby Tom are cowards hiding behind screen names. I love the airport and no, I’m not going to move, sorry, this is America. I was here before dirty, noisy helicopters began bombarding our community. I simply hate helicopter noise like hating the sound of fingernails on a blackboard. I want to return the airport to what it once was, without helicopters. I will do everything to the best of my ability to assure the airport remains in local control, not highjacked by New Jersey Carpetbaggers who want to to turn East Hampton into toxic waste dumps like New Jersey. All locals are concerned about this, therefore don’t also highjack the name “Local”.

    The fear mongering is already old hat. Stop it already. There has been a deer fence around the airport for about 20 years. Before the deer fence, airport manager, Pat Ryan used to ride a golf cart to chase the deer away from the runways, my golden retriever used to ride shotgun with Pat. When landing my Piper Warrior in the evening, I had to make a low pass down runway 10-28 to scare the deer away, circle around and then safely land. Safety is in the hands of the pilot. When the deer fence was installed it corralled 40-50 deer inside the fence, Every evening they would come out of the woods and feed on the grass next to the runways, now that was a dangerous situation. The Town hired sharp shooters to kill all the deer inside the fence. That solved the problem then and will solve the problem today, not another stupid fence.

    The issue about paving runways is simply a dispute over which runway to abandon. One group wants to keep 4-22, another group wants to keep 16-34. Until that dispute is solved, no paving will be done. This is not some devious anti-safety issue. Selfishly, I’m with the pilots on this issue, airplanes taking off on 16-34 come directly over my house but honestly, airplane noise isn’t bothersome to me. I could live at an airpark, sitting on my front porch, watching airplanes land and takeoff all day long.

    This Town Board has done more to maintain and improve the airport in less than two years than the last two administrations, combined, did in eight years. Stop being childish morons suing the Town to maintain the airport. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. That money should be used for more improvements not attorney fees. It’s idiotic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please prove you're human: