THE AMERICAN DREAM
Oh, how easy it is to believe that if the rich just paid their "fair share" how perfect our world would be. That has been the world's lottery game since the emergence of community life. It is the fault of the rich that we find ourselves unable to "be all that we can be." Notwithstanding the reality that most sane people aspire to be "wealthy" and thereby join this group that, according to the left, everyone hates.
If we were to tax the rich more, the question arises as to exactly what purpose shall this money be put to use? I have heard no promise that this money shall be used exclusively for the reduction of our debt and even if I did I would not believe "them" because "they" have lied to me so often I have no reason to believe "them."
This extra money from the rich could be used to provide every American with a living wage whether he/she works or does not work. That is one goal of those who protest at Wall Street. We should pay every lowlife a living wage so that the rest of us can be thankful for those who contribute nothing. Honestly, there is no place in America for such absurd thinking!
Excuse me, fair reader, but every veteran who fought and every veteran who died and every family who suffered the loss of a loved one protecting and preserving America did so that each of us could continue to aspire to the American dream. Those who do not understand the American dream should leave America, thereby leaving this miserable nation to those of us who still believe in it.
Dear Mr. Murphy,
Your November 10 editorial in which you suggest Linda Kabot would have won had she been on the ballot is intriguing. Ms. Kabot's campaign was based on a powerful but challengeable sound bite, i.e., her ideas for financial reform were usurped by Ms. Throne-Holst. However Ms. Kabot didn't address current issues. For example, she didn't question why the Town spent $1 million to build a questionable recharge basin in East Quogue, which goes to my argument that Republicans haven't developed a narrative to defeat Democrats, so back to my argument.
To start, I'd like to establish a standard that no candidate running for Town Board embraced: the first priority of a Town should be to protect the investment and quality of life of property owners. In my opinion, heavy-handed enforcement tactics and SLAPP lawsuits are counter-productive because these lawsuits typically arise from incompatible zoning that's correctable.
In an article published on November 11, 2010 entitled "Resurrecting a Village By Buying Up Main Street," The New York Times described the ways in which a New York City detective-turned-developer has made himself quite wealthy by adhering to a zoning standard based on the community good. Given that everyone complains about developers, this detective has been described by civic leaders as a welcome addition to the community.
On the other hand in an article published March 10, 2011 entitled "The Supersizer Architect of Brooklyn," The Times described a developer who circumvented the constraints of zoning in questionable ways. As a result of complaints, New York State, in 2007, passed a law that allows tough sanctions against anyone who files misleading zoning submissions.
Therefore, going forward I'll try to explain why development in Southampton conforms more to the "Supersizer-Architect than to the "Detective-Turned-Developer" model.