Source: The Independent

September 11, 2013

Important Tradition

Dear Rick,

It was my good fortune to be elected an East Hampton Town Trustee in 1988, in my first political campaign for public office. I could not have asked for a better introduction to government service. The East Hampton Town Board of Trustees was the first form of government in East Hampton starting in 1686. Today, centuries later, the Trustees manage the common lands owned by the residents, including Trustee roads, waterways, harbor bottomlands, ponds, creeks and our beaches.

Coming from a Springs family that fished local waters, I was raised with a great respect for the environment around me. When I became a Trustee, the importance of preserving and providing public access to our lands and waterways for all users became even clearer. It is important that over the years, our natural resources have been protected for the enjoyment of, and use by, East Hampton residents, their families and visitors.

It is vital to our community that we continue this important tradition of public access to open spaces and waterways, for all user groups, especially in these times of ever-increasing population growth.

It cannot be argued that because of vigilant care by our Trustees over these many years, our beaches are rated top in the world. We, the current residents of East Hampton, have benefitted greatly from the wisdom of those who came before us and worked to preserve these priceless spaces. The right to access our lands and waterways has been enjoyed by the public for generations.

I can say without hesitation that I am committed to continue to protect our rights to access and to the intelligent, careful use of our precious natural resources.

Recently at the Duck Creek Association candidates’ event, on August 24, Democrat Town Board candidate, Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, spoke of revisiting the issue of beach parking permit fees. The Democrats now deny having raised the idea of using this new “fee” as a non-property tax method of producing more revenue for the Town. I will never be in favor of once again initiating such a new, hidden tax on East Hampton residents.

It was done during the last Democratic administration to a huge backlash from the residents; only to be rescinded as one of the first acts of the Wilkinson administration in January 2010. When I stated my opposition, after Ms. Burke-Gonzalez made her statement, not one of the Democratic candidates responded that Ms. Burke-Gonzalez was not referring to a “resident” beach parking permit or that they would never consider it as a possibility.

If you have questions contact me at: As a candidate for Town Councilman, I look forward to the opportunity to serve you as a member of the East Hampton Town Board. This can only happen with your vote for me on November 5.


Candidate for East Hampton Town Board

Marching Orders

Letter to the Editor,

Why would supervisor candidate, Larry Cantwell make an announcement which can only be viewed as a slap in the face to the second largest voting group in Town; while also claiming that he will be a supervisor for all the people?

On August 27 he made it known, prior to the 9/10/13, Republican write-in primary, that if he wins, he will decline the nomination.

What sense does it make for a candidate to crow about the endorsement of a party of 37 registered voters (Working Families Party) and decline the potential offer of support from 4,073 registered East Hampton Republicans? Do the math. That is 110 Republican voters for every 1 WFP voter!

Why wouldn’t Mr. Cantwell, who fashions himself a unifier, want the backing of all political parties? The flimsy reasoning (excuses?) offered by him in answer to the question, makes no sense and insults the intelligence of the electorate. He wrings his hands over the fact that he would be the only supervisor candidate, if endorsed by all parties.

Mr. Cantwell and his running mates are always free to argue their positions on all issues and to debate the other candidates on the Republican, Independence and Conservative lines. The bully pulpit has been his since he emerged on the scene and he has had no trouble making good use of it. It is a political red herring for him to say that it would weaken the support for his fellow Democrat Board candidates and his campaigning on their behalf. The fallacy of his statement is highlighted by the fact that since his endorsement by the Independence Party, which he gladly accepted, he has been running with Republican, Independence and Conservative endorsed candidates, including Fred Overton and Dominick Stanzione on the Independence line and, without skipping a beat, supporting only his fellow Democrat Board candidates.

His promises of unity and inclusiveness ring hollow and are an affront to intelligent thought.

His handlers -- the Democratic elite -- appear afraid to let him accept the Republican nomination. A nomination which I know first-hand, despite inaccurate reports in news media, results from a grass roots attempt by the citizens of East Hampton who happen to be Republicans – to place him at the top of their ticket.

Does Cantwell’s announcement reveal the Democratic party’s true intention to conduct business as usual -- party politics -- allowing no deviation by its candidates (elected officials?) Candidate Cantwell’s acquiescence to his handlers’ marching orders is disappointing. Why would he refuse Republican voters’ call for unity, while saying he wants to represent them in Town Hall -- but only when elected on the three other party tickets whose endorsements he has accepted?

We peek behind the curtain, only to find the Wizard of Oz and the emptiness of Cantwell’s words. When I started this process in July, my goal was unity. It appears that people over politics will remain a pipe dream for the near future. Pity!


Take No Responsibility

Dear Independent Editor,

Your postscript below Mr. Della Femina’s column is to write him directly. Though he is one of the publishers of your publication, you apparently take no responsibility for his use of language. Referring to President Obama, using terms like “shucking and jiving” in response to the president’s remarks on Syria, is a stereotypical Jim Crow description that should not be used in a public newspaper. 

He attributed a Communist Manifesto credo to the president last year in a column, and wrote me a letter explaining that he assumed that everyone knew that it was not a direct quote, and regretted if it was misunderstood. I take him at his word.

Mr. Della Femina is well respected as a wordsmith in creative advertising, so it is no accident when he uses defamatory terms. I enjoy reading his political criticism, but his use of racially inflammatory language is not appropriate, and should not be printed. 


Who’s Raving Now?

Dear Rick,

Wow! It sure seems to me that when someone can’t make a valid point you accuse someone of ranting? I guess maybe this might throw off some lesser intellects into believing the author of a letter in last week’s issue. I tend to believe the author has another agenda, because he sure missed the point of what we should come to expect of any public servant, especially an elected official.

I found Mr. Della Femina’s full-page ad about Eliot Spitzer to be dead on accurate! Please forgive me, Mr. Jablonsky but it is you who are ranting! How do you manage to overlook the records of people who are running for public office?

I find it amazing that two people who have basically been revealed as “perverts” are running for office in New York City. One is very appropriately named Mr. “Weiner.” And he seems hell bent on displaying “it” for all the young ladies to see.

Spitzer, who Mr. Jablonsky seems to find little fault with, cannot be trusted to be alone with a young lady! I strongly suspect Mr. Jablonsky has his financial concerns confused with his moral values!

Raving, Mr. Jablonsky? Mr Della Femina was so right! We don’t need perverts, or sickos in control of our government. If you don’t see it that way perhaps it is you who are ranting and raving.