Featured Letters: A response to Galley Ho coverage

06/12/2014 6:00 AM |
Plans to move and expand the Galley Ho restaurant were the subject of a public hearing Monday.(Credit: Barbaraellen Koch, file)

Plans to move and expand the Galley Ho restaurant were the subject of a public hearing Monday.(Credit: Barbaraellen Koch, file)

Last week’s coverage and editorial on the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund’s plan to relocate and renovate the Galley Ho restaurant received a large dose of feedback. Here are a sample of two letters to the editor written in response.

To the editor:

We, the undersigned, are the community members who paid for the full page advertisement in your paper last week voicing our concern about the proposed Galley Ho restaurant project and urging our neighbors to attend the Planning Board meeting. We asked Diane Harkoff to submit it on our behalf because she has an established account with Times/Review Newsgroup. The advertisement was not paid for by Legends Restaurant, contrary to your editorial statements.

Vicky Germaise
Howard Thompson
George Cork Maul
Ted Victoria
Kim and Dan Petrie
Aida Hartung

To the editor:

You were correct in last week’s editorial with many of your points, but you were wrong about the restaurant’s motivation. It would be very selfish of them to mind this plan merely because there’s a restaurant attached to it. We (Summer Girl), too, don’t support it, even though it would be a financial win for us. We are taking your advice and dropping the rhetoric and sticking to reality.

The reality is that this is more about protecting the Peconics, preserving our simpler way of life in our tiny hamlet, and about the needless development of our scenic waterfront and what FEMA has named “an area of special flood hazard.” This project was started by a concerned community for the community and the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund has accomplished their original mission — the property has been preserved for the future.

Kim and Dan Petrie
owners, Summer Girl boutique

Comments

comments