Letters to the Editor: Ideas for the village laundromat
Greenport
Ideas for the village laundromat
First, actively hire and retain three attendants who will be paid $25 or more an hour. Second, open on time with an attendant available all day. Third, have a technician visit twice a week to assess that 51% or more of the washers and dryers are properly working. Fourth, upgrade to new washers and dryers when machines find their demise. Fifth, refund customers their money for machines when their quarters do not register or get stuck in the coin slot. Bonus idea: Televise nature programs/scenery rather than other choices, such as the news, shock shows and nonsensical drama — and obtain a new television as well.
Jonathan Buck
East Marion
We need nuclear
Your “Our View” column last week reflects a dangerously shortsighted perspective on energy policy. You appear to define alternative energy solely as solar and wind — two of the most unreliable sources of consistent, scalable energy, even when paired with battery energy storage systems (BESS). These technologies cannot yet meet the demands of a modern grid, especially under stress.
You cite Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima as reasons to avoid nuclear power. Yet these three events occurred in 1979, 1986, and 2011 — over a span of more than 60 years. That track record, given the scale of global nuclear energy use, suggests that nuclear power is remarkably safe — particularly compared to the environmental and human costs of other energy sources.
We need to prioritize the use of cleaner-burning natural gas and other dependable sources while we expand our capacity for next-generation nuclear energy. In New York, this includes reconsidering the closure of safe, efficient plants like Indian Point on the Hudson. At the same time, we should be investing heavily in R&D to develop the next breakthrough in energy generation.
The need is urgent. The rapid rise of AI and the explosion of data center power demands are sending electricity consumption into uncharted territory. If this is the best plan you can offer — a reliance on intermittent renewables with insufficient backup — then we are setting ourselves up for blackouts, not progress.
John Malley
Cutchogue
Mixed messages on housing
The term “affordable housing” is subjective. Each town’s definition and the definition of residents within the town may differ as much as apples and oranges.
The town and the state are in conflict. State law seems to mandate an increase of “permanently affordable housing” and directs the local government to comply by creating that housing for low to moderate income individuals.
Southold residents passed a tax on real estate transactions to purchase development rights to maintain the character of the town (more rural then suburban). Now the Town Board is proposing subsides in order to develop “affordable housing” irrespective of residents’ desire to maintain the character of the town for ourselves and posterity.
When government interferes with capitalism even for noble causes the intended results are hardly ever achieved and often unintended consequences occur. The state’s insistence that the “private market” has not created enough housing is laughable. It is state and local government regulatory legislation that handcuffs that development. Sometimes for good cause but often not.
The question that state and local government must address first is to find a definitive definition of “permanently affordable housing” acceptable to the population. Barring that it has no business in this arena except for political purposes.
Then, if you do get an acceptable definition, the government must find builders who can build housing at a large enough cost reduction to lower the current pricing trends and equally cost effective property to build upon. Good luck with that.
Only less demand for housing will impact prices. Only less spending by government will decrease the inflationary trend in housing cost. When government spends money that it takes from each of us, corruption and inefficiency have always been the result.
Bob Bittner
Aquebogue
Last chance to comment on Town Square
At the July 22 Town Board meeting, I was shocked to learn that Riverhead’s new Town Square project was awarded to developer J. Petrocelli without public bidding or consideration of other proposals. How is this acceptable?
The board defends its decision by citing Petrocelli’s past work: the aquarium, the Hyatt Hotel and the Preston House. But this isn’t just about a track record. It’s about fairness, transparency and whether this plan truly benefits our community.
The new proposal includes a five-story building with 12 condominiums — each with only one designated parking spot. Based on a “condo-hotel” model used in cities like Miami, it may entice tourists, but is it right for Riverhead’s long-term needs?
A café is also planned for Main Street, open to hotel guests and the public. But will it be affordable for everyday residents or designed to attract visitors?
Many locals voiced frustration at the meeting. There’s rising concern that our needs are being sidelined for private interests and short-term gains. Earlier plans envisioned walkable streets, local shops and artist lofts. Why aren’t we revisiting those?
Financial transparency is another red flag. As resident Angela DeVito pointed out, a new Petrocelli LLC was quietly formed in May. Under the deal, Petrocelli maintains the space for only 10 years — after which the burden may shift to taxpayers. One resident even quipped that he’d like a tax abatement too, like the one reportedly granted to Petrocelli.
Just look at Southold and Greenport — thriving communities with rich history, no towering buildings and resident-focused planning. Riverhead deserves the same thoughtful approach.
The Town Board is accepting public comments only until Friday, Aug. 1. If you care about building height, parking, affordability or preserving Riverhead’s character, now is the time to speak up.
Email your thoughts to [email protected] Your letter will be officially recorded.
Let’s fight for a Riverhead that puts its people first — not just developers.
Gina Ristau
Riverhead
Put community front and center
I recently attended the public hearing regarding Petrocelli Development’s qualifications. The team of experts representing Petrocelli clearly demonstrated that they are well-qualified to undertake the Town Square project. Their proposal thoughtfully includes several measures aimed at mitigating the risks they are assuming.
While I am encouraged by the professionalism and preparedness of the developer, I sincerely hope that our elected officials have applied the same level of diligence to ensure that Riverhead and its residents are equally protected. Selling public land to a profit-driven enterprise is a significant decision, and it’s essential that the interests of the community remain front and center as this project moves forward.
Barbara O’Gorman
Laurel
Notes on NPR
Nothing amuses me more than the recent displays of hyperbole from liberals responding to legislation that has passed in Washington. Most recently, cries — including some that “people will die” — have been heard in response to news that federal taxpayer funding for National Public Radio has been rescinded. Claims that the rescission will result in the end of public radio have also been made.
For years, NPR has claimed that only 1% of its funding comes from government sources. Assuming that’s true, can anyone think of any entity receiving government funding that operates so efficiently that a funding loss of one cent out of a hundred would be fatal?
Liberals claim that local NPR affiliates would leave the air, resulting in a gap in radio coverage in the event of an emergency, but ask yourself: Is anyone in their right mind going to turn to NPR in the event Peconic Bay was to overflow its banks or if Millstone was to melt down? Even if they were to look to NPR, its coverage is so duplicative as to clog the airwaves on parts of the radio dial. NPR could eliminate several stations and still have plenty of coverage — especially in these parts.
Using a hand-held, battery-operated radio with an internal antenna indoors at my North Fork location, I receive NPR broadcasts on 88.3FM (which absurdly calls itself “Long Island’s only NPR station”), 88.7FM, 89.9FM, 90.5FM, 91.1FM, 91.3FM, 1260AM and 1340AM — sometimes simultaneously. Not only is our area over-blanketed by NPR, one would think that the woke folks at NPR headquarters would be a little more concerned about their carbon footprint; each of the transmitters that keep these redundant signals on the air consumes many thousands of watts, most 24 hours a day.
I, for one, do not oppose the existence of NPR. I just don’t want to pay for it — especially at the ridiculous level at which it’s available here.
David Levy
Riverhead
Public vs. private interests
During the Town Board hearing on July 22, twice as many Riverhead residents spoke out against Mr. Petrocelli’s third hotel in the Riverhead Town Square [as in favor]. Eleven opposed it; four had questions; and five supported it.
Supervisor Hubbard ignored requests to hold the record open for 30 days to provide sufficient time tor people to read, evaluate and comment on critical planning and financial documents that were not released until the hearing.
To be part of the qualified and eligible hearing record, comments and questions must be submitted by no later than 3 p.m. Friday, Aug. 1, to [email protected]
For me, the bottom line is whether publicly owned land can and should be sold to build for private profit a five-story condominium and hotel building that will overshadow the Town Square, The Suffolk theater and the East End Arts Council — plus destroy the Craft’D tavern. The hotel will also directly grab a 14 foot wide strip of land from the Town Square and a 10 foot wide strip from the arts council.
In all the grass roots outreach for the pattern book and the comprehensive plan, there is no record of discussion about much less support for a hotel in the Town Square. This is another behind-the-scenes inside deal that will permanently shape downtown Riverhead.
There were no questions or criticism raised publicly by board members at the hearing about a major Republican Party donor. Time to remember when we vote in November.
John McAuliff
Fishers Island
Zoning and the comprehensive plan
Some in our community are painting the zoning code update as a hurried initiative by a regulation-hungry, Democratic-majority Town Board. They are seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the process, insisting it lacks a community-driven foundation of core principles. But that is not the case. That very foundation was adopted back in 2020: it is called the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan.
The zoning update process started in 2016 but was paused so the Comprehensive Plan could be created first to encapsulate the community’s long-term vision and goals for future development. The Comprehensive Plan was drafted under the leadership of Supervisor Scott Russell with extensive public input and unanimously adopted in 2020 by the five Republican/one Democrat Town Board. As reported by The Suffolk Times in 2020: “The comprehensive plan aims to guide development in the municipality and provide a rationale for the town’s zoning and land use regulations.”
The public zoning workshops topics — housing affordability, natural resources conservation, community character, farms and economic development — are not inappropriate, as some have suggested, but are actually townwide goals outlined in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan that have guided the town planners, consultants and the public throughout the zoning update process. Revisiting these goals during the workshops provided residents with a highly relevant framework for evaluating the draft zoning code and identifying areas for improvement.
The thoughtful future anticipated in this zoning code update should not fall victim to political maneuvering. In reality, the draft zoning code is the product of a bipartisan effort and nearly a decade of thoughtful and extensive public engagement. And it is not done yet! Let’s roll up our sleeves and focus on getting the details right and ignore those who are swinging the wrecking balls. Working together, we are building something important and valuable for our collective future.
Kate Stevens
Ms. Stevens, a member of the Fishers Island zoning committee, is a Democratic candidate for the Fishers Island seat on the Southold Town Board and F.I. Town Justice.
Greenport
Coping and catharsis
Re: ‘Last call: Obituaries can help us cope ”(July 24). Just this week, I had the honor of writing an obituary for my husband, William Eisenreich.
I had never written an obituary before. Bill and I had no children, and no relatives east of Wisconsin. We had moved out to Long Island 37 years ago for his company transfer, and elected to stay on the North Fork in our retirement, since we liked it that much.
I was shaking and silently crying when I started, but someone told me, “Just start it, and the words will flow.”
So I did. And by the end, I was smiling through my tears. It was very cathartic for me. And I am so proud of my Bill and the way he celebrated our marriage and conducted his life.
Chris Eisenreich
Calverton
LaLota flips Big Bird the bird
Who in CD1 voted for Nick LaLota to defund our only public radio station WLIW-FM? Was LaLota tired of hearing local news, upcoming events and weather alerts, jazz or perhaps Gene Casey’s wonderful radio show on Saturday afternoons?
And who among us wanted LaLota to defund our cherished public TV station WLIW Channel 21? Too much of that radical “Sesame Street” show? Or perhaps he was tired of Ken Burns documentaries?
But because Trump hates NPR and PBS, that’s exactly what our congressman did? LaLota was one of only three deciding votes last week to defund public radio and public television.
LaLota’s vote was brought to you by the letters “C” for cowardly and “S” for spineless!
Jerry Silverstein
Southold
Questions we must ask
It’s come to the community’s attention that the proposed rezoning plan prepared by ZoneCo appears to have overlooked the needs of our business community entirely. Was there ever a meaningful effort to engage local business owners in the process? How can we justify blanket 50% reductions in commercial uses without asking how this will affect jobs, families and the long-term sustainability of our towns?
Who advised ZoneCo on these decisions — and were they truly representative of the community’s diverse voices? Or was this plan crafted with only one segment of our population in mind?
In a struggling economy, shouldn’t we be investing in commerce and thoughtful planning rather than hindering it? At what point do we, as taxpayers, say enough is enough and demand accountability for how our tax dollars are spent?
This is more than a zoning issue — it’s about the future of our towns. If poor planning decisions continue unchecked, are we prepared to deal with the fallout? Or is it time to insist on better governance, more transparency and leaders who consider all of us before acting?
This rezoning process has been a complete waste of both our residents’ and business owners’ time as well as all of our tax dollars.
Vincent Guastamacchia
Hampton Bays
Bad form
Dr. Peter Sultan’s obituary (“Remembering Peter Sultan,” July 24) is not an appropriate forum to plug Peconic Bay Medical Center’s advances in technology.
Margaret Massa
Riverhead
Not so fast…
A recent letter from John Leppard (“A suggestion,” July 24) suggested that “we all should … support our president even if he is not someone’s choice.” I disagree.
The president swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. President Trump has used the Office of the President to enrich himself violating the emoluments clause in Article 1. The president signed executive orders to strip citizenship from individuals born in the United States, which violates the 14th Amendment. Another executive order has led to persons being taken into custody and deported without due process, again violating the 14th Amendment.
These are merely the laws of the land. The president has also taken numerous actions to promote fossil fuels and turn back the promotion of sustainable energy sources. This will exacerbate the climate catastrophe. That’s merely a law of nature.
David Jaffe
