Surfrider Responds to Southampton Village Beach Parking Plan
Who Asked?!
I would first like to thank the concerned citizen who reached out to the Surfrider Foundation with her concerns about a new proposal in Southampton Village seeking to implement new restrictions on beach parking & therefore beach access.
Southampton Village is considering repealing & replacing Chapter 86 of the Village Code on permit parking. What this means for the East End Public is that Southampton Village will now require beach parking permits at all village beaches year-round.
These proposed changes also appear to expand the scope of parking areas that require permits, such as Road D, restricting access to one of the few true public beaches left in Southampton.
Along with most other municipalities on the East End, the village currently only requires parking permits from May 15 to Sept. 15. Therefore, parking & beaches are open to those who may not be able to obtain the $600 non-resident parking permits during the “off-season.” An imperfect compromise, but one that guarantees some level of beach access nonetheless.
The village now wants to require these parking permits at all village beaches, year-round, and my question is: who asked?!
East End residents have been clamoring for years for a solution to not being able to visit the beach closest to their house, their favorite surf spot growing up, or sunbathe at some of America’s best beaches—simply because those beaches fall under the jurisdiction of another Town or Village. We should be moving in the direction of East End-wide beach permit parking, not restricting beach parking during the off-season. The public did not ask for this.
These new restrictions would only serve to hurt locals & those who visit and reside here during the off-season, the very same people who keep the few businesses willing and able to stay open during the winter months afloat. Businesses did not ask for this.
Therefore, my question stands: if the public didn’t ask for this, and businesses didn’t ask for this. Then who did?! My theory: nobody did!
The repeal and replace of Chapter 86 is a thinly veiled attempt at a cash grab, executed by scapegoating contractors (see July 14 Southampton Press Article: “Southampton Village Board Discusses Construction, Parking, Term Limits in Public Hearings”) for off-season parking issues; issues that should be handled with the owners of those properties on Meadow Lane, not by restricting parking for us all.
I, and the Surfrider Foundation, urge the public to oppose these changes to Southampton
Village’s Chapter 86:
● In Person: Thursday, August 13th at 6 PM; Southampton Village Hall, 23 Main Street,
Southampton, NY ○ Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89730446459
● Written: Send an email to villageclerk@southamptonvillage.gov registering your opposition
Thank you, and hope to see you there!
Brody Eggert
Eastern Long Island Chapter Manager
The Surfrider Foundation
Editor’s Update, Aug. 14: The Southampton Village Board decided against this proposal after hearing from the public Aug. 13.
Activism and Blind CCs
To the Editor:
On the agenda of the Aug. 4 Riverhead Town board meeting, a letter was sent to the board by Mr. Lee J. Mendelson, a member of the IDA (which he neglected to mention).
The topic of his letter was a recent email he received sent by a well- known, learned member of our community, Mr. John McAuliff. The subject matter was Mr. McAuliff’s use of the blind carbon copy (Bcc) feature, a common practice used in emails.
Mr. Mendelson was so incensed by this he called it underhanded — basically accusing Mr. McAuliff of being surreptitious and sneaky by using bcc and including others in the email chain.
The author chose, for a reason known only to him, to include others in his correspondence. Perhaps they are not directly involved, or it’s just for their information. Whatever the reason, does it have to be subterfuge? Really? Apparently, you don’t know the man.
The fact that this so incensed him leads people to wonder why?
Since Mr. Mendelson is such a proponent of openness and transparency, may I suggest that the IDA allow taxpayers to hear their deliberative process prior to granting tax abatements and pilot programs to developers. Can we participate in the process, which is currently not taxpayer friendly and open? Currently, comments and questions are only allowed at a public hearing because the law requires it. I suspect that we wouldn’t have the opportunity to speak if it wasn’t a law.
How about allowing the public to weigh in on the process that grants these reductions? The taxpayers subsidize the shortfalls that occur because of them. That incenses us.
Claudette Bianco
Baiting Hollow
Town Halls for Congress
To the Editor:
It’s been at least 3 years since our representative in the first congressional district has held an in-person town hall meeting. I guess he has given up on his constituents, because after several telephone town halls, there were no more events.
However, on Aug. 9, over 100 people heard the word “constituent” in an open town hall.
That was in Riverhead, and it was led by the Democratic challenger Chris Gallant. He briefly gave his background, and then he opened the session to us — we, the people. He wanted to hear what we thought so he could represent us. It was lively and refreshing. It was the way a constitutional republic should be.
Who will you vote for?
Joel Reitman
Peconic
Letters to the editor may be emailed to editor@eastendbeacon.com with “LTE” in the subject line, or sent via U.S. Post to P.O. Box 665, New Suffolk, NY 11956. Please include your name, and a telephone number for verification purposes, and don’t submit letters under false names. The Beacon will print all letters that are deemed to not be defamatory, obscene or advertisements, and may edit submissions for clarity and grammar. Due to space considerations we are only able to print one letter per writer per month, and we may shorten lengthy letters in print to fit available space.
