They’re back!            

Memorial Day weekend arrived, the starting date for the return of many noisy helicopters ferrying people to and from the Hamptons. This was no Long Island counterpart to the swallows of Capistrano. The choppers with their raucous noise came back.

The economy is in a downturn but that apparently isn’t discouraging some folks from shelling out several hundred dollars to go by chopper to and from the Hamptons.

And their flight paths continue to be over many peoples’ heads.

Suffolk County Legislator Edward Romaine has filed a new bill to deal with the helicopter racket and last week asked residents to turn out for a meeting of the Suffolk Legislature on June 23 in Riverhead to give their viewpoints on the chopper noise and help his resolution get passed.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives last week passed a measure authored by Congressman Tim Bishop instructing the Federal Aviation Administration to study helicopter flights over Long Island. “Those of us who live in Suffolk County are tired of the roar of helicopters disrupting the serenity of our island,” said Mr. Bishop.

The problem is that the U.S. Senate rejected the same measure last year.

“Why aren’t these helicopters flying the ocean route?” demands Mr. Romaine.

The three main destinations for the Hamptons helicopters are all not far from the ocean, he notes. The choppers could fly from Manhattan and then over the ocean, well off Long Island’s south shore, and make turns “at different vectors” into these airfields.

The Southampton Village helipad “is right off the ocean,” he points out, and Suffolk County’s Francis Gabreski and the East Hampton Airport are just a few miles away.

But instead, this Memorial Day weekend—as has been the situation—the choppers were largely routed over northern Long Island and then, over eastern Suffolk, to make turns south to these airfields.

Mr. Romaine’s new bill declares: “Low flying helicopters have become a public nuisance in Suffolk County.” It notes, accurately, that the FAA “has failed to regulate the operation” of these Hamptons helicopters. It says that “the operation of helicopters at low altitudes is presumed to be a hazard to persons and property on the surface and constitutes careless and reckless operation.”

That’s the key to his measure: that choppers flying low—as do the Hamptons helicopters—constitutes “careless and reckless operation,” which Suffolk County government is entitled to stop.

Penalties for violation of the proposed county law would be a fine of “up to $1,000 and/or one year in prison per offense.”

A representative of the FAA and advocates of the Hamptons choppers in fighting an earlier Romaine bill on helicopter noise last year insisted that Suffolk County and other local and state governments were pre-empted from regulating aircraft operations by the federal government. However, in preparation for the new battle, Mr. Romaine and his staff have come up with court cases determining that this is not true. The Appellate Division of Superior Court of California, in one case involving low-flying aircraft, dismissed the claim of pre-emption finding: “The state has the right to impose criminal sanctions for the unlawful operation of aircraft above its land and waters.”

Mr. Romaine says it’s important that people come to the public hearing portion of the legislative meeting, to begin at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, June 23, and “speak out on the issue.” That’s the best way, he said, to “grab the attention” of legislators and get the new chopper bill approved. The meeting will be held at Suffolk County Community College’s Culinary Arts and Hospitality Center at 20 East Main Street, Riverhead,

Mr. Bishop, meanwhile, said he believes an FAA study “is a necessary step toward the goal of reducing helicopter noise of Long Island. I believe it will offer a roadmap for pilots who want to fly over Long Island in a way that is respectful of our communities.”

But if the Bishop measure is to again be blocked in the Senate, and considering that the FAA sees its main mission as encouraging air travel, local Suffolk County action appears vital in taking on the bane of Hamptons helicopter noise.

 

Popularity: 6% [?]

We attended last week’s immigration forum at the senior center in Hampton Bays, and although U.S. Congressman Tim Bishop, who spoke at the event, is justified in saying the status quo for the treatment of undocumented immigrants living on the East End is unacceptable, we feel the “status quo” for how these immigration forums are structured also needs to change.

Local politicians keep reiterating the importance of engaging in a dialogue between those who are pro-immigrant and those against, but perhaps at this point, simply talking isn’t enough to bridge the gap between these two divergent parties. Perhaps touting dialogue as the panacea for this complicated and sticky issue is only adding emotional fuel to the fire.

We find that there are inherent problems with forums in which the first hour is devoted to presentations from the panel of politicians and experts, and then the floor is turned over for public comment and questions in the second hour.

To begin with, too often people use this platform as an opportunity to stand on their soapboxes and spout arguments and “facts” about the topic which are often misleading or just wrong. The temptation to expound a polarizing idea was fueled at last Friday’s forum by the presence of a large and captivated crowd. The arguments took on a theatrical quality and the words contained barely cloaked racism.

Often the word “illegal” was said with the same venom some people use when uttering a racial pejorative.

Not very constructive, as we see it.

However, people’s questions regarding the issues cannot be continually met with vague responses from panelists. Politicians need to start addressing these comments and questions with actual ideas that might be used to enact local, state or even federal policies and programs to ameliorate the issue, instead of waxing poetic.

Instead of engaging simply in dialogue (that often devolves into one sided rants), perhaps its time these forums had people from all sides of the community come forward with ideas that might solve some of the criticisms aimed at immigrants in general and undocumented workers in particular. We are not the first community to deal with this issue — maybe it’s time to look to other parts of the country to see how they’ve handled controversy related to the immigration issue. And instead of keeping people in their seats, why not give the audience a specific topic to tackle and set-up tables where residents can discuss and debate the details in a face to face setting with a moderator?

This is an issue that should continue to be depoliticized and looked at through a practical lens. Even if deporting all the undocumented workers in the country was a possibility, which is unlikely, it is a solution that would take several years if not decades to achieve and the problems between undocumented immigrants and longtime residents is occurring right now.

So while we are grateful to our local politicians for their interest and attention to this issue, we ask that they try to find alternative ways of presenting forums that actually results in some headway being made on immigration.

We understand this is an uphill battle and that, despite any positives that come from these forums, there will always be those whose minds will not be changed under any circumstances.

So let’s use these immigration platforms as a way to focus on the concrete and leave the rhetoric at the door. Remember, sometimes, it takes years — and generations — to change minds. There’s no two hour forum in the world that is likely to alter that reality.

 

 

 

Popularity: 8% [?]

By Marianna Levine

 

Earlier this month, an email went out to all Ross School families announcing an increase in tuition of approximately 25 percent, a sum that shocked some parents and has many questioning their commitment — or their ability — to send their kids to the private school. However the letter also assured parents that the school was committed to retaining as many students as possible.

The March 4 email said tuition for the 2009-2010 academic year for the lower school would be $26,000, and increase from about $20,100, Middle School would be $28,500, up from 22,500, and the Upper School will be $30,000, up from $25,000.

Michele Claeys, Ross’s Head of School, explained, “For years we’ve charged a tuition lower than the value of the education we provide, and it has always been a part of the Board of Trustees’ strategic plan to increase tuition annually.” She added, “ because of the current economy we put the flexible tuition assistance plan (FTAP) in place to help our families.”

The new plan is meant to reflect sudden losses of income that many families may have recently incurred. Laura Bauer of Sag Harbor, a Ross class representative explains, “FTAP is different from a regular financial aid form, which takes note of all your assets. The flexible tuition plan looks more at sudden changes in income – liquid assets.”

In order for a family to join the flexible tuition program they must submit their financial information online to Tuition Aid Data Services (TADS) and they  recommend a tuition amount based on that information.

Linley Whelan of Sag Harbor, the parent of a current high school junior, whose three other children graduated from Ross said, “The letter was a complete shock, and I was quite angry. It said we were having a meeting about this the next night. It didn’t give anyone time to think about it.” Several families concurred, saying they were blind-sided by the size of the tuition increase, and in some cases felt betrayed that the school didn’t prepare them for it.

“I understand the school is in a very tough spot, but I wish they talked to the parents about it first,” Whelan continued, noting that the educated and accomplished Ross school parents are an under-utilized resource.

However, most families, despite their initial shock are very committed to the school. Franz von Walderdorff, who has one child at the Ross Upper School and one at Pierson High School commented, “The tuition increase is difficult for parents but understandable for the school. When compared with the schools in the city it is still more reasonable. Those who can afford it will have to help those that can’t.”

Another parent, Susy Kramer, with a child in middle school added, “They do have a unique curriculum, and it is making a difference in my child’s education. I understand they have to close their budget gap.”

Bauer, who moved to the East End specifically for the school, explained, “it’s a developmental stage for the school. I understand it has to happen for the school to be sustainable and independent. It’s just tough timing.”

Other parents don’t feel like they have another viable option for their kids, either because their children are happy at the school or because they are not satisfied with their public school.

“Fifty percent of the decisions we are making now are emotional. You think about your child’s social circle which is so important to them, and that may justify the expense,” stated a parent, who didn’t want to be named since they are still deciding were to place their child.

“If you have a student going into their senior year, its really a tough time to move them to a different school,” Whelan notes, and adds, “The kids are the collateral damage from all this, and people are worried about the repercussions for their children.”

In order to insure every family understands the new flexible tuition program the school has held several meetings and workshops over the past two weeks. Also the administration has made themselves available to meet with families individually according to Claeys. Additionally, the Board of Trustees will hold a meeting with families on March 20 in response to requests for further information on the tuition increase and the school’s financial sustainability.

 “They say they are very committed to having every family currently enrolled stay,” Bauer said. It was her opinion that as many as 65 percent of families currently in the school would qualify for aid under the flexible tuition plan.

Laurie Gordon, who has children in the second and fifth grades, explained “We’ve been at Ross for six years and we’ve never applied for financial aid before. It is my understanding (the administration) will work with us.” 

The school has encouraged everyone to fill out these financial forms. Yet some parents demure at having to do this, not wanting to expose their financial situation, and stating they live in a small community and feel uncertain about who will see this information. However the school has hired a new agency, Tuition Aid Data Services (TADS), to evaluate all applications. The March 4 email stresses that the financial process will be “highly confidential.”

In the end the Ross School Community seems to rally around the school and its programs. Claeys notes the teachers have agreed to a pay freeze, and also mentions this year’s annual appeal has already surpassed all others, even though it is only March.

Whelan reflects, “I’m less angry now. I’m still not over-joyed but I want to make sure the school survives and thrives.”

It remains to be seen how the school will be affected once parents know the exact amount of their tuition assistance.

 

Popularity: 6% [?]

The Southampton Town Councilperson on forming a coalition to address immigration on the East End, confronting conflicting ideals and what the coalition cannot do.

 

When the coalition first began – what were some of the immediate goals you hoped for concerning immigration?

Our goals were to try to get people from all parts of the community together and start talking about how we can start the immigration dialogue in our community. There are issues around it that are good and bad and indifferent. We began with the feeling that this is the elephant on the couch and no one wants to come out and take the politics out and address this issue. I think in the past it hasn’t been very easy for anyone to deal with it. Clergy and non-profits deal with it and it is very easy to say it’s a federal problem.  You could keep passing the buck – but nothing else will be done about it if we don’t come forward and talk about it now. 

 

Who are the key players involved in the coalition?

Tim [Bishop} and Fred [Thiele]. The clergy reached out to them. They invited elected officials and had a couple meetings which were held at the college to get the conversation going. Between the three of us, we represented three levels of government and are able to represent the different roles we play. The thought was that unless we all get together it’s easy to keep passing the buck. This way we take the political football out of here too. There is no particular agency or level of government but we are trying to take the bull by the horns and send the signal that we were willing to work together on this and be able to take the politics out of it.

 

Are there other organizations or coalitions that have formed in this country that deal with this issue or other issues that are similar?

Yes, I believe there are several. We haven’t modeled ourselves after anyone in particular, there are several organizations that have successful outcomes, but every community is different and the goals are different. We are hoping to get as much information as possible and craft solutions for our community. I’m sure our solutions will be unique to us.

 

Is the town looking to set new policies regarding immigration?

That is hard to say. I was asked at Friday’s forum what can I do as a town representative? It’s a good question. There are things we can do and things we can’t do. There are things we are restricted from doing. It’s important to understand what we can do on a local level.  I believe that I can have an open door, there are people with issues around this issue and I can deal with those on an individual basis. I can work with the things I have on hand, I can get code enforcement. We are concerned about the well being of families and I can go to the clergy group and ask them to help. We can start talking about the partnerships, but more than anything else we can start this conversation and look at it from all levels and see what we can do about this.

What that is going to lead to? It’s too soon to say. But we have to do something – nothing has been done so far and no one wanted to touch this issue. But we do know what we can’t do or don’t want to do.

 

And what are some of the things you can’t do or don’t want to do?

We can’t deport people. We don’t have the power to crack down on people who employ undocumented workers. We cannot strip them of their rights as humans. But on both sides of this issue, we can foster a healthy dialogue.

We want to bring all of this together. We want all the facts and figures brought to the table so we are all working from the same set of facts. We want to know how this is affecting neighborhoods, hospitals and schools.

 We can’t change the federal mandates. If this is an issue in our school then how do we work with the schools to somehow ease that? Or how can we help people understand?

The president of the hospital said those that work in the hospital are federally mandated to fix what comes in their doors; they are precluded from asking any issues of visa or residency. The bigger issue for them is uninsured patients. There could be someone as American as apple pie or a visitor to the U.S. who is on vacation but their bigger issue is uninsured Americans. And how do we wrap our heads around that?

 

Do you find that there is any structure or anything that needs to be tweaked concerning the issue of immigration?

Right now there are no laws or direction. There is no doubt that we need comprehensive immigration reform, and laws and a road map for going forward – and that is important to point out. One thing that both Barack Obama and John McCain agreed on was an immigration policy. But we need to know how that is going to come down the pike for us. Until we get that – it will be hard for us. Right now our laws don’t affect any of this so it’s more about finding practical solutions and our realities in the community.

 

How do you find a middle ground with so many conflicting ideals concerning immigration?

Allowing and welcoming the dialogue and making everyone feel they are welcoming the dialogue and that’s okay, but in the end we need to start talking and looking at the facts and figures and the problems. We need to look at what is or isn’t working and what is affecting the community and the quality of life and economics.

I hope the outcome is that there is a dialogue and people feel they are welcome to that dialogue and then we hope we can come to some consensus collectively. I think we want healthy dialogue; we want to recognize the many sides to this issue.

We don’t want what happened in Patchogue to happen here – we don’t want the quality of life to be adversely impacted. But we also want to know that businesses are being supported and laws are being respected, the solutions we hope will form themselves.

One thing we do know is there are confusion and a lot of anger and a strong sense that nothing is being done and that is not okay.

 

Overall, how do you think Friday night’s immigration forum went?

There was some anger. But the way I look at it, I could’ve gone home and put on my slippers.

But there were 150 people there – and what that speaks to this issue that is so important to so many people. It is incumbent on us not to get into our slippers on Friday night and bring people together, and the chips will fall where they are going to fall. We recognize what a big issue this is. And we are being proactive to work around it.

 

 

Popularity: 7% [?]

By Hope Harris

What is wrong with this country?! With us? What led us to believe that each one of us could have anything he or she wanted? What made us believe each of us could own a 40,000 square foot house, or a $40,000 car or write a great book or be a great artist? Our culture makes every one of us famous for a day and tells us we can own and be anything we want. And for the past ten years, we’ve been borrowing money and thinking we never had to repay it!

And look what happened!

But the irony is that unlike people in the rest of the country, we turn out to be luckier than most. While the financial meltdown has affected everyone to some extent, Manhattan and The Hamptons have not been hit hardest. Granted not many houses are selling or renting, but conversely, very few owners are in foreclosure or have declared bankruptcy. There are no long lines for food stamps or jobs. Some people did get “Madoffed,” but they’re not entirely wiped out. Sure, some second-home owners would like to sell their houses, but not if it means taking a tremendous loss. Owners would like to rent, but if they don’t get close to what they’re asking, they’ll use their second homes themselves.

In truth, what’s happened here is that, unlike others, we’re in Park. Not Neutral. Not Reverse. Park. We can turn off the (real estate) engine, park the car and do something else until the market shows renewed signs of health. It might be two years, it might be longer, but very few people in our unique and (still) moneyed area, will go under. This is not Ft. Myers or Phoenix or Detroit.

So, if we can hold on; all of us—brokers, teachers, police, first and second home owners, retailers (not Ralph Lauren and Tiffanys—we know they’ll make it through), restaurateurs, pharmacists, car dealers — we’ll be OK, and might, in the interim, learn to live differently. On less.

We can sit down, take a deep breath, and think. We can stop running and think. About what we’ve always wanted and wanted to do; about helping people less fortunate; about spending less and enjoying more. We can stop shopping. We can clean out our closets and give the clothes we never wear to people who can use them. We can eat at home. Volunteer this new time we have. Turn down the heat. Read more books. And for God’s sake, we should turn off the television and the media which is working overtime to scare us to death. Daily. Hourly. Weekly. Monthly. Maybe for years to come.

We can try to learn to live without “things.” “Things” is what got us into this mess in the first place: every new gadget, cars and houses and things to put in our houses; trips and clothes and fancy restaurants, and big parties, and bigger cars and then bigger houses and before we knew it, we were all in over our heads. The mortgage companies gave mortgages to people who couldn’t afford the monthly payments and credit cards gave us unlimited funds. Didn’t we learn anything from the Tech Bubble? How long can everyone have everything he or she wants?

So let’s just leave the car in Park, get out, look around, take a walk. Re-think who we are and what we truly need to be happy. Let’s all hope the answer isn’t money because—for a while anyway—there isn’t going to be a lot.

Popularity: 8% [?]

The East End Legislator based in Sag Harbor on banning the sale of plastic baby products with the chemical bisphenal A [BPA]. Schneiderman, the dangers of the chemical and what the community can expect next on the county level.

 

We  learned last week a bill was passed banning the sale of any plastic product for babies containing high levels of BPA- why do you feel this was an important change for the legislature to mandate?

 It is important in general because it is our job as lawmakers to protect the public – to protect public health. There is a growing body of research showing that this chemical is harmful – particularly to infants. And there are many alternatives. It’s not necessary to have bisphenal A, although the industry may think it is, there are plenty of alternatives and stores are already marketing BPA-free bottles.

I think the public has moved in the direction against this risk factor. I think we did the right thing by saying that you are not going to sell these bottles – baby bottles and sippy cups – that contain BPA.

 

What happens when the bottle is heated and what dangers are posed to infants because of this?

What happens when you heat these bottles up? It [BPA} is released into the milk in the bottle and it can affect brain development and it can cause tumors. There is enough research out there, but the industry will beg to differ. All the impartial studies that I’ve seen all say that the risk is too great to continue to allow this chemical to be used. BPA mimics estrogen and gets into the hormone system of infants and causes developmental problems. 

 

How are officials planning to get these items off the shelves of national retail chains in Suffolk County and how is the county going to implement that?

 Well, that certainly is an interesting question – because what happens to the inventory that they have? And I’m not sure how that is going to be addressed. I suppose they could move it into other stores in other counties - though I think this prohibition ought to be expanded statewide as well as nationwide. So I think it is only a matter of time, but I think the FDA is moving fairly slow.

 

Do you know of any other countries or places in the world that have also banned this?

 Canada. They did it not through legislative action, but as regulatory action - through their equivalent to the FDA. I think that will eventually happen here too.

 

Do you know of any national retailers that already stopped selling plastics with BPA?

I think a lot of them now, some of the Walmarts, King Kullen, some of the bigger stores. You will see bottles that say BPA-free. The educated public is looking for them. That’s what challenges [retailers]. The consumer is going to demand BPA-free bottles.

 

For a consumer looking at a product that doesn’t have a label indicating a BPA-free plastic – how can a customer know that there is BPA in the product?

I don’t think there are any requirements to list it. You’ll know in a few months when this law takes effect that you can buy that bottle in Suffolk County it’s BPA-free – because that is the only way that you will be able to tell.

 

What about those plastics bottles that have numbers listed on the bottom inside recycling symbols?

Yes, good point, I know plastic bottles with the number seven contain BPA – you can tell by the number. I remember that number seven has BPA, but if you went online you can find out. Those large Poland Spring water bottles that go into water coolers – those have BPA. It is more of a risk if the bottle is heated up or left in the sun – those chemicals can leach out. The problem is larger for infants because they are still developing. This law only affects infant bottles.

 

So what is the next step?

Well we already had the public hearing so now the county executive has to sign it. Then I have to look and see when the effective date is.

But I do think there may be litigation. I wouldn’t be surprised if the industry decided to sue over this.

 

Are there any other laws you are working on that look out for the safety of adults and children?

I probably will resubmit the pesticide law.

I may change it slightly, but the basic idea would be to prevent pesticides containing certain toxins being used for aesthetic purposes. So, for the pure purpose of a green law, you wouldn’t be able to put toxins on it or reproductive toxins or suspected carcinogens. I don’t know if this bill will ever get passed, people love their green lawns. But it is about time we look out for our children’s health before our green lawns. I’m not giving up and I may tighten it up a bit but that is the main purpose of the bill – that you cannot put toxins in the environment. It would be different if you were killing rats or something but if you are doing it just for aesthetics, that is not a good enough reason to introduce toxins into the environment in a county where the cancer rate is higher than the national average. And until we figure out what is going on – we should be doing everything we can to prevent unnecessary exposure to toxins. 

 

 

Popularity: 8% [?]

By Karl Grossman

There ought to be a law is the wishful expression. And when it comes to zone pricing of gasoline, finally there is a law in New York State. And it works.

Amazingly, after years and years of gas prices on the East End being substantially higher than in western Suffolk County, in recent weeks they’ve not been far apart—in fact, now sometimes they’re even lower in the east.

The reason for the higher prices on the East End: zone pricing, a marketing practice of the oil industry under which gas stations in various geographic areas charge different wholesale prices. The aim: to sock it to ostensibly richer areas.

But after a decade, a bill finally made it through the New York State Legislature—long lobbied against by the oil industry—which prohibits zone pricing. It was signed into law by Governor David Paterson in November.

Long championed by State Assemblyman Fred Thiele, Jr. of Sag Harbor, the measure carries a hefty penalty: $10,000 for each violation.

Even the fabulously wealthy oil industry would have to be concerned with what it would end up paying for repeated violations of the statute.

Right after it was enacted, Mr. Thiele wrote to oil companies informing them of the law and advising they had better comply with it. He noted that “as a state representative of the South Fork of Long Island, for years my constituents have been subject to these prices which financially constrain working families and individuals, seniors, and those on fixed income.”

Since the law’s passage, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s investigators have been out in the field checking for compliance, Mr. Thiele was saying from Albany last week.

And lo and behold, last week gas was as low as $1.99 a gallon at some stations on the East End—a few pennies less than the average price to the west. Mainly, it was several pennies higher.

“The differential has definitely narrowed,” commented Mr. Thiele. He says “between the new law and the attorney general’s office” being on the case, change has occurred.

Meanwhile, “we still plan to firm this up further,” Mr. Thiele said, with additions to the law to cover company-owned gas stations.

It’s amazing what a law—and enforcement of it—can mean. (Not infrequently laws are enacted but enforcement is nonexistent or lax and there is no change.)

Indeed, last year Suffolk Executive Steve Levy, who as a county legislator, state assemblyman and county executive has been super-active in introducing laws to deal with societal problems, held a “There Oughta Be a Law” initiative.

County residents were asked to recommend ideas. There were 180 submissions. The idea of Willard Christy of East Islip for a law that would require that unused prescription medicines be disposed of in a safe manner won the contest. His prize: his idea became a Suffolk law.

Mr. Christy, at an awards ceremony, explained how he came up with his suggestion: “You can open any major newspaper and read about drugs contaminating our waters on a regular basis…Our aquifer is less than 100 feet below the surface; that’s very close to the surface and our septic tanks. These drugs and chemicals can easily seep in and contaminate our drinking water.”

His idea led to a law, introduced by Legislator Steve Stern and overwhelmingly passed, that has established a “pharmaceutical disposal program.” Work is now underway to set up disposal sites throughout the county for old medicines.

“It was great to get a firsthand glimpse into many of the issues that are on the minds of residents in Suffolk,” said Mr. Levy who signed the measure in September.

Many of the other suggestions would also “make excellent laws but unfortunately need to be enacted at the federal, state or local town level,” he added. He said Mr. Christy’s idea “is just the type of forward-thinking I was looking for in creating the ‘There Oughta Be a Law’ program.” Mr. Levy plans to repeat the contest this year.

Now some would say: enough of government regulation. But when it comes to zone pricing of gas, the disposal of potent drugs, and many, many other issues, there sure need to be laws.

Popularity: 12% [?]

By Richard Gambino

“Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!” a love-struck Romeo exclaims when he first sees Juliet at a dance. And several things are making this winter burn brighter on the East End. One, a man named Harry Carlson is continuing his wonderful Shakespeare Saturday mornings, as he has done for some years. We watch, from recordings this long-time Shakespeare scholar and teacher has collected over a life-time and put on DVDs, different productions, scene compared to same scene, of Shakespeare’s plays, and briefly discuss them. In recent weeks, we’ve  watched some productions of Romeo and Juliet, with an emphasis on  the deservingly celebrated, very moving 1968 production directed by Franco Zeffirelli. As a bonus, we watched an astonishingly poignant dance version of the play, choreographed to Prokofiev’s music by Kenneth MacMillan, and performed at the Teatro alla Scala in Italy.

All this is presented via the  technologically up-to-date, digitally-projected large-screen system, and superb sound system at the Amagansett Public Library. More, this unique and priceless on-going gift is free of charge. It’s all for the love of the best plays ever written — one need only show up from 10:30 to 12:30 every other Saturday morning. (For information about dates, call the Amagansett Library at 267-3810.)

Now, regarding the kind of  instant great attraction Romeo feels for  Juliet, which she in turn feels for him, a recently published book tells of a study which tested men and women. (Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes? By Jena Pincott. Personally, I wouldn’t get any closer to this question than I would to a cobra.) Individuals (heterosexuals) were shown pictures of the faces of people of the opposite sex. Unknown to the subjects, large numbers of people had previously studied these same pictures and judged half of the faces as “hot,”  and the other half as “not.” (It seems we’ve come a long way since Shakespeare’s eloquence.) The faces were flashed before the subjects for only thirteen milliseconds (13/1000 of a second). Some complained that they could not really see the faces so quickly run before them. Yet despite that, the subjects scored the faces as being either attractive  or not attractive the same as had the people who had rated them before —  these previous  individuals having studied the faces for a much longer time. The author concludes, with a reductionism typical of our time, that parts of the human brain — the nucleus accumbens, orbitofrontal cortrex and the amygdala — tell us instantly whom we are attracted to, and whom not.

But looks are not enough. Women, at least, are more cautious about blindly going with their initial attraction. This is explained by the fact that in a given year, a man can father a lot of babies by a lot of women, but a woman may carry only one pregnancy to term, so she is a lot more selective in her sex life. When I read this, I could not help but thinking, “Before the pill.” These kinds of explanations were labeled as “just so” explanations, i.e., a bit too neat, by none less than one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of our time, the late Stephen Jay Gould. Another example: There is a brain expert on TV, an M.D., who tells us that the best aphrodisiac a man can use is to put some baby powder behind his ears. He claims the powder’s scent turns a woman’s  thoughts towards (freshly-diapered) babies, and ….  Just so. But I tried it on my wife, and she just asked if I had a skin rash.

There’s more. As anyone can guess, some pick-up lines used by men work better than others. It is said that this shows that women are indeed thinking beyond a short sexual pleasure. (With some men, women complain, all too short.) “Hey babe, I’m like Fred Flintstone — I can make your bed rock!” This is not a line likely to get a man far. Compare it to Romeo’s first words to Juliet, at the dance. Taking her hand, he says, “If I profane with my unworthiest hand/ This holy shrine, the gentle fine [punishment] is this/ My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand/ To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss.” (I expect that after men read this article, this Saturday night many a man in Sag Harbor’s bars will be seen and heard trying Romeo’s approach on a woman.)

Whatever we may think of the idea that women’s judgment is more selective than that of men in affaires d’amour  – in my opinion,  after having watched both for a long time, the judgment of both genders is … shall we say, less than sterling — Juliet is a bit more cautious about trusting her attraction than all-speed-ahead Romeo. So she later says to him, “Dost thou love me? I know thou wilt say ‘Aye;’/ And I will take thy word. Yet if thou swear’st,/ Thou  mayst prove false. At lovers’ perjuries,/ They say Jove laughs.”  But not much later, she says to him one of the most famous declarations of love ever written, “My bounty is as boundless as the sea,/ My love as deep; the more I give to thee, /The more I have, for both are infinite.” Imagine hearing this from someone with whom you are in love. And this from a young woman who, we are told early in the play, is still two weeks short of her fourteenth birthday. A kid.

So I went to a performance of Romeo and Juliet at the Bay Street Theatre on January 29 with much on my mind. Speaking of Juliet being a kid — and also of Romeo, whom most Shakespeare fanatics, like me, guess is about sixteen years old  – the performance at Bay Street was by … well, kids. The kids in the Hayground School were the performers, costume designers and set designers — all the kids in the school, from pre-K  through eighth grade. They had had a four week in-depth immersion in the play with a group from Massachusetts called  Shakespeare & Company. My first impressions were, one, the theatre was filled by the audience, and two, I smiled when I saw a set built to look like a wall in Verona had graffitied on it, “Tyblalt is a cankerblosoom.” It perfectly fits that character’s poisonous personality, filled with hatred and malice. The kids were true to the play, some saying some very difficult lines with precision, and most with feeling. In their acting, they presented the play’s tragic essence earnestly. Indeed, at the afternoon performance, one of the girls playing Juliet, a six-year old, on cue drank a narcotic causing her to collapse into a comatose, death-like state. She did this so convincingly that it brought forth a quite audible gasp from the audience.

Bravo to all those who, all for love, are teaching our winter to burn bright!

RICHARD GAMBINO believes that never has a tale of woe brought more joy to the East End than this of Juliet and her Romeo.

Popularity: 10% [?]

by Karl Grossman

It’s February and we’re still deep in winter—but in just a month spring will arrive and with it the birds of spring will return…and also the noisy helicopters ferrying people to and from the Hamptons that have so disrupted life on eastern Long Island in recent years.

But Suffolk County Legislator Edward Romaine and his staff have been busy in preparation of the chopper invasion and last week introduced new legislation to quell the helicopter racket.

At the Suffolk Legislature’s last meeting of 2008, Mr. Romaine’s last measure seeking to dim the helicopter din was narrowly defeated. There was a near-tie on his bill to establish a minimum cruising altitude of 2,500 feet for helicopters flying in Suffolk. Eight legislators voted yes, nine no and there was one abstention.

After that bill lost, Mr. Romaine vowed to his fellow lawmakers that “this is not going to go away.” He would be back with new legislation with the new year, and “I’ll bring the people.”  Large numbers of people affected by the noise can be expected in coming months to be at legislative meetings urging legislators to vote for Mr. Romaine’s new bill.

His new measure is different from his previous legislation in that it doesn’t set a minimum altitude requirement. Helicopter operators and a representative of the FAA maintained that the federal government pre-empted localities from establishing minimum altitude requirements for aircraft.

So this time although there’s no set minimum altitude—offsetting this claim—Mr. Romaine’s bill focuses on flying in a “careless and reckless manner.” And it defines this as “failing to take all actions reasonably necessary for safe operation or operating at an altitude that creates a hazard or undue hardship for persons and property on the surface.”

This certainly hits the problem on the head because the roaring choppers certainly have created an “undue hardship” for people on the ground.

Mr. Romaine and his aide Bill Faulk have spent considerable time digging into federal and state court decisions and have found that prohibiting flying in a “careless and reckless manner” is within the powers of localities.

The bill sets forth the situation: “Low flying helicopters have become a public nuisance in Suffolk County,” it begins. “The Federal Aviation Administration has failed to regulate the operation of helicopters,” it notes—accurately. “The operation of helicopters at low altitudes is presumed to be a hazard to persons and property on the surface and constitutes careless and reckless operation.” Further, “other municipalities, including the City of New York, have established regulations for helicopter operations within their jurisdictions. Therefore,” it concludes, “the purpose of this law is to ensure safe operations of helicopters passing through the air boundaries of Suffolk County and to preserve and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Suffolk County.”

Penalties for violation of the proposed county law would be a fine of “up to $1,000 and/or one year in prison per offense.” The prospect of jail surely would impact on the chopper operators.

Mr. Romaine’s strategy also involves using a Suffolk County stand to get action on the federal level. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Tim Bishop have tried to negotiate with the helicopter operators—but there was no relief. Mr. Romaine sees county action as being “an irritant” to spur federal movement.

The FAA—with a mission to promote air travel, apparently even noisy chopper traffic—has, meanwhile, been nowhere on the issue.

That, says Legislator John Kennedy, Jr., an attorney, is a key opening for local legislation. When the supposed regulatory body “hasn’t fully occupied the field, there may be a role for statute of a lesser level of government,” he notes. “I think it’s Swiss cheese. I think there is a place for us that actually helps to protect our constituents.”

Legislator Dan Losquadro speaks of “the only time we’ve seen any effort” on the federal level being when the county has moved to “put something on the books that would call these practices into question. And absent of that, there has been…some press conferences…I fully support us doing something to give ourselves a measure of local control.”

The Hamptons helicopter business has marred warm weather months on eastern Long Island in a cacophony of intense noise—which must be quelled.

Popularity: 16% [?]

The local representative on preventing foreclosures, failures of the bailout and how Obama’s stimulus may help the East End

by Marianna Levine

This past Thursday, President elect Barack Obama gave a speech about the economy and in it he outlined his economic stimulus package. Could you tell me what aspects of it you agree with and how specifically it will be implemented here on the East End of Long Island?

I am in general agreement with the President’s outline. I think a lot of specifics need to be filled in but I believe that infrastructure spending provides us with the greatest bang for our buck in terms economic stimulus. So I think that is an imperative. Not only is it an imperative in terms of jump starting the economy it also gets us improvements that we need with highways, bridges, tunnels, airports and seaports.

 

Specifically for the east end of Long Island?

This is were the stimulus is a little difficult to explain. Both the President-elect and Speaker of House have made it clear there will be no earmarks in the stimulus package. That is to say there will be no congressional directive spending. Therefore the way the money is going to flow is that the money is going to go from the federal government to the states and the states are going to make the allocations. So this is not something the members of congress are going to be able to control. The judgments about what projects are getting the funding are going to be made by the government and the various state agencies like the department of transportation, or the state’s department of health and education.

 

If you were the one giving that speech, what would you state as your vision for economic stability and growth in the coming year for your constituency?

We have to do two things. We have to create jobs and put people back to work and that is what the economic stimulus package is all about. And the other thing is we have to keep people in their homes. Currently there are over 7,000 families a day being foreclosed out of their homes. The collapse of the housing market is at the root of the economic difficulties that we are now having and we are not going to climb our way out until we fix the housing market.

And we have to make much, much more effective use of the so-called TARP funds. They have also been called the “bail out”. TARP stands for Troubled Asset Recovery Program, and that’s the Wall Street bail out that the Congress passed back in October. We passed up to 700 billion. The first 350 has been spent by the current Secretary of the Treasury in a way that in my view has not facilitated economic recovery and absolutely has not facilitated keeping people in their homes. The President-elect has made it clear to the Congress that he now wishes us to release the second 350 billion, and I will only support that if it has a significant foreclosure mitigation built into it. I voted for the first TARP money thinking that was how it was going to be used. That’s exactly what the Congressional intent was for the money but that is not how the current Treasury Department used it.

 

What do you think can realistically be done to implement some of your wishes for our area in the next year or two?

If we pass the stimulus package and it is properly constructed then a significant portion of the money will go to infrastructure investment, and a significant portion will go to helping those in the greatest need — for unemployment compensation and food stamps and so on. I think that would be an effective stimulus package. If we can modify existing mortgages to make it easier for people to make their monthly payments, that’s what the second half of the TARP money will be about, then I think we will be successful in reducing the number of families who are currently being foreclosed from their homes.

 

Could you tell me briefly how government money from any sort of stimulus package gets distributed, and who decides the amounts and where the money goes?

The money is going to flow from the fed government to the state and there are existing formulas that govern that. For example, there will be money in the stimulus package we believe at the present time anyway for schools and there’s a formula about which federal money flows to the states to assist with K-12 education. By the way, all of this is very fluid. All of this could change or any bit of this could change. But the way it currently stands, existing formulas that govern federal moneys going to the states will be used to distribute the money.

 

Do you have any new thoughts on current bail out packages, and would you re-consider your vote on the banking bail out considering how many industries and institutions are now looking for a helping hand?

When I cast that vote back in October I absolutely was convinced it was the right vote. I am both very very angry and disappointed with how the Treasury Department took the authorization that Congress gave it. Congress made it very clear that the money was to be used back in October in a particular way and the Treasury Department didn’t use those funds in that way. And so, had I known the funds would be used in the way Sec. Paulson wound up using them, I would have voted no. But I continue to believe that the way Congress outlined the use of those fund was the right way to do it. Hopefully that is the way we’ll do it now when we release the second half of those funds.

 

What do you perceive to be the major political or economic concerns in the coming year that people haven’t considered yet? In other words, is there anything you know that we don’t yet?

The Economy. The over riding concern is the economy: the massive loss of jobs, massive reduction of consumer spending, and a huge loss of economic confidence on the part of everyone. Those are the three things we have to attack and attack as aggressively as possible. The government has to be the spender of last resort in order to stimulate demand. And we have to restore confidence to our financial markets and our credit markets. I believe we are on the right path. Let me lay it out for you, 70% of our economy is based on consumer spending so when people are spending less it has a ripple down effect through out the economy. If people aren’t going out to eat, then restaurants have to lay off people. Generally, reduced levels of economic activity are already being felt by some people every single day. Those who haven’t been affected yet, they ultimately will be. People are spending less and that has a dramatic effect on the economy.

 

During this past election cycle more people became involved in the actual political process than ever before, and now people may be wondering how they can continue to be involved in their local and national government. How do you think people can continue their involvement? In particular what do you think people can do to help the economy right now on a personal and local level so that they feel like they are making a difference and creating positive change?

Not to sound like George Bush, but people need to spend money. They need to be responsible about it because one of the ways we got into this mess is by people spending money they didn’t have by borrowing against their home equity or using up their credit cards and that’s part of the economic downturn now. People are finding themselves over extended. I think people need to be responsible but I say the principle thing that needs to happen is that the government needs to become the principle spender. I think if the government spends then others will follow suit.

Putting the economy aside for a second it’s a very encouraging development that so many people have gotten involved in the political process I hope they remain involved. We have a participatory democracy and it only really works if people participate. One of the great things about the Obama candidacy was the extent to which he energized people and brought people into the political process that previously hadn’t been.

 

Speaking of positive change, what do you think is going well here on Long Island, and what do you think will continue to go well?

Well, we have a very good quality of life here. We have remained very good at protecting our environment and open spaces. Our schools remain first-rate schools. Our communities are great communities in which to raise one’s family. We have very good economic stability here. Housing prices have dropped but not as dramatically as elsewhere in the country, and unemployment is up but not anywhere near as sharply as elsewhere in the country.

 

How will you be spending Inauguration Day?

I’ll go to inauguration itself with my family, and I will be doing a series of press interviews. I’ll be hosting a reception with Steve Israel from the neighboring congressional district for people coming down from Suffolk County.

 

Did you have a large number of requests for Inaugural tickets? How were they dispersed and do you know if anyone from Sag Harbor is going?

Fred Thiele is coming with his kids. We had several thousand requests for tickets. We put a few tickets aside for other elected officials such as Fred, but for the most part we released the tickets to the public and had a lottery. It was the only fair way to do it.

 

 

Popularity: 11% [?]