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% [?]

By Karl Grossman

 “Suffolk’s Declaration of Independence,” was the heading of a statement issued by the Suffolk County Legislature last week after it passed a home rule message backing bills in the state legislature that would set up a commission to study secession of Nassau and Suffolk from the state and their formation into a new State of Long Island.

The rhetoric at the meeting at which the home rule message was debated included Legislator Dan Losquadro of Shoreham, leader of the panel’s GOP minority, with a history degree from Stony Brook University, citing Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” He went on: “I think we are at the point of revolt. I think we’ve gone past it…I think we need to stand up and take whatever action is necessary to throw off those shackles and not be beholden to the tyrants in Albany.”
 “We’re being exploited. We’re being raped,” said Cameron Alden of Islip.

Behind what was happening was the imposition by the state of a bail-out package for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that includes a payroll tax of 34 cents per each $100 in salaries for businesses, non-profit organizations and school districts in a 12-county area that includes Suffolk.

Some might say the talk was an extreme overreaction. But consider what the state will be doing. Although initially, county officials calculated that Suffolk provides more than $250 million a year to the MTA, including through a quarter-cent in sales tax for every dollar spent here, further analysis done last week by Bill Faulk, aide to Legislator Edward Romaine, working with the county legislature’s Budget Review Office, showed quite more is involved—that the actual figure is $393 million. This includes monies going to the MTA from the sales tax ($97.5 million last year), an even bigger chunk from the mortgage recording tax ($125 million), from the petroleum business tax ($92 million), a general business surcharge ($47 million) and a surcharge on telephone use ($8 million).

The new taxes and fees which will be going to the MTA from Suffolk were estimated at $127.2 million a year with $98.5 million from the payroll tax, $26.5 million from a steeper vehicle registration fee and $2.1 million from in a higher drivers license fee. That comes to $520.3 million to the MTA from Suffolk—or $347 a year for each man, woman and child in Suffolk.

As William Lindsay, a Holbrook Democrat, presiding officer of the legislature and author of the home rule message, said in last week’s statement: “This MTA payroll tax has pushed me over the edge. New York State cannot continue to bleed Suffolk and Nassau counties dry to bankroll programs that do not benefit Long Island residents in any way, shape or form. If we need to declare our independence to be taken seriously in Albany, then so be it.”

There was opposition to the home rule message, which passed 12-to-6.

Legislator Brian Beedenbender of Centereach said “New York State clearly hasn’t given us a fair share” but urged consideration of the “gravity” of what was being proposed. Making Long Island a state “would change everything—from the make-up of the House of Representatives to the number of people in the U.S. Senate to what the U.S. flag looks like.”

Mr. Romaine of Center Moriches stressed, meanwhile, “that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And Presiding Officer Lindsay wants to squeak.”

Not too incidentally, the bills in the State Legislature to set up a commission to study the feasibility of creating a State of Long Island—and having a referendum on the issue held in Suffolk and Nassau next year—are sponsored by two officials not known for histrionics: State Senator Kenneth LaValle of Port Jefferson and State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. of Sag Harbor.

Legislator Thomas Barraga of West Islip, a former New York State assemblyman, said in last week’s debate: “I understand the frustration of this body” and the measure “may make you feel good but it will go absolutely nowhere.” But, as Suffolk Comptroller Joseph Sawicki of Southold, also a former assemblyman and long a Long Island statehood proponent, told the county legislators: “It’s time to make a stand and send a message to Albany. I’ll be the first to admit this is a long shot but, if nothing else, it focuses on how Albany mistreats Long Island.”

Popularity: 7% [?]

Last week, Carol Ann Duffy was chosen as the first female poet laureate of the United Kingdom, and next week, Tammy Nuzzo-Morgan is likely to become the first female poet laureate of Suffolk County. The county post, established in 2003, derives from the centuries-old British position held by such figures as Alfred Tennyson and William Wordsworth.

Mrs. Nuzzo-Morgan, of Southampton, is founder and director of the North Sea Poetry Scene which offers poetry readings and publishes poetry. She is widely published. And she also holds down a job that some might consider unusual for an active poet: she is an accountant and certified tax consultant.

“I don’t see it as a conflict. I’m trying to utilize both sides of my brain,” she said with a laugh last week. 

Mrs. Nuzzo-Morgan is also a student in the Stony Brook Southampton Masters of Fine Arts Program in Writing and Literature. She teaches poetry through BOCES in schools in Suffolk and at the county jail. After receiving a degree from the Stony Brook Southampton graduate program, she intends to expand her teaching of poetry.

The Suffolk County Legislature is likely to vote on Mrs. Nuzzo-Morgan’s two-year appointment at a meeting Tuesday in Hauppauge. She was chosen by a new panel comprised of former Suffolk poet laureates. It was set up after complaints about the former process of picking a poet laureate, especially from Shelter Islander Dr. Daniel Thomas Moran, who became county poet laureate in 2005. He was outraged by how his successor was selected and, disgusted with Suffolk County legislative politics, didn’t participate on the new panel.

Nevertheless, Brendan Stanton, an aide to Suffolk Legislator Wayne Horsley of Lindenhurst, who has overseen the poet laureate selection process, the selection of Mrs. Nuzzo-Morgan “went very smoothly.”

Mrs. Nuzzo-Morgan is thrilled with the prospects of becoming the Suffolk poet laureate. She says, “I want to make my tenure an act of service.” She would like to stress Suffolk’s rich history of poetry. This is the county where Walt Whitman was born (in West Hills) and where he worked for years including founding and being editor of the Long Islander, a still-published weekly newspaper in Huntington. Jupiter Hammon, a slave who was born and lived on Lloyd’s Neck in Huntington, is credited with being the first black American poet.

A major project of Mrs. Nuzzo-Morgan has been collecting writings, audio recordings and videos of poets here with the dream of someday creating a Long Island Poetry Archive.

“I have over 1,000 books and audio and video in storage,” she notes. She envisions making this collection its base. The North Sea Poetry Scene has launched a capital campaign drive and has been writing grant proposals to set up such “an arts/archival” center “hopefully” within Southampton. 

Mrs. Nuzzo-Morgan, originally from Patchogue, is married to contractor Joseph Morgan, a Southampton native—indeed, they live in what had been his grandmother’s house on Woods Lane. They have two children, Vincent and Elizajo. A third, then 17-year-old son Michael, was tragically killed 13 years ago, mowed down by a car while walking across a street in Southampton near their home.

She graduated as an accounting and business administration major from Southampton College and received her Masters of Business Administration in banking/finance and management from Long Island University.

Books that Mrs. Nuzzo-Morgan has authored include One Woman’s Voice; For Michael; The Bitter, The Sweet; Let Me Tell You Something; Fleeting; and Would You Hug A Porcupine? Her poetry has been published in journals including Blue Sand Magazine, Proteus Anthology, Gertrude Magazine, Dream International, Writing to Heal, the Agulia Expression, The Write Way, The Rio Grande Press, Long Island Quarterly, Performing Poets Association Literary Review and Dream Long Island.

Although the poet laureate tradition began in the United Kingdom, there is a United States poet laureate and many states have poet laureates including New York. George Wallace of Huntington was Suffolk’s first poet laureate. He commented upon his appointment that “in a sense, artists—poets in particular, but artists more generally—might be seen as the Fifth Estate, providing a kind of psychic, spiritual reportage.”

Popularity: 8% [?]

A clutch of Suffolk County legislators is opposing efforts to acquire land to preserve open space and safeguard the underground water table and to save farmland

—matters on which nearly all officeholders in Suffolk have agreed upon for decades. But citing the economic downturn, this grouping—oblivious to tourism and farming as mainstays of the Suffolk economy and dependent on a green environment—says Suffolk must call a halt to these preservation initiatives.

The view of a group of four and sometimes five members of the Suffolk Legislature—out of 18—prompted Legislator Edward Romaine to give an impassioned speech at the legislative meeting last week after, again, there was resistance to preservation measures.

 “I take a longer view,” said Mr. Romaine. The preservation efforts of Suffolk through the years have stopped the “suburban sprawl that has enveloped so much of our county.” Because of these initiatives “not every inch of the county has been developed” and “we saved our farmland.” There have been crises in the past, he noted, citing among them gas shortages and long lines at gas stations in the 1970s. But the county has consistently remained on a course of conservation. County government must not now “walk away from that,” said Mr. Romaine of Center Moriches.  As officials, he said, their prime responsibility is what “we will leave” for future generations.

A series of bills had just come up to preserve land and safeguard water on the East End and in Brookhaven Town, that part of Suffolk that has not been overtaken by  sprawl. As he has done at every legislative meeting for months, Legislator Cameron Alden, before each bill was to be voted upon, went on about tough economic times and how the county can no longer afford such expenditures. .

Mr. Alden of Islip and Thomas Barraga of West Islip are the most outspoken advocates of stopping preservation. They’re usually joined by Ricardo Montano of Central Islip and DuWayne Gregory of Amityville. About half the time, they’re also joined by William Lindsay, presiding officer of the legislature.

The tone is sometimes sarcastic. For instance, last week when the vote on one of the measures—to preserve seven acres in Sagaponack—was called, Mr. Lindsay quipped: “There’s a community, Sagaponack, really being paved out.”

Thanks to the efforts of community residents, environmentalists and enlightened officeholders, Sagaponack has not been paved over. It’s still the beautiful “Kansas with a sea breeze” that Truman Capote described when he lived there, an exquisite tapestry of farms and homes abutting the ocean.

Once I lived a few miles from Mr. Lindsay’s home in Holbrook. The area was beautiful and green back then in the 1960s. Then, suddenly, the bulldozers came and, in rapid order developments and shopping centers came to dominate the landscape. In the wake of this kind of thing, Suffolk officials—led by visionary County Executive John V. N. Klein, creator of a county farmland preservation program which has become a national model—began taking actions to not let this happen to everywhere in Suffolk.

Messrs. Alden, Barraga and company would end these efforts. If they succeed, destroyed would be what is central to Suffolk’s economy: a tourism industry that brings in $4.8 billion a year, along with farming that keeps Suffolk County the top agricultural county in the New York State in the value of its produce. The sprawled-over areas on Long Island no longer attract tourists and neither will what’s left—if it doesn’t stay green.

Moreover, the money used for preservation comes from funds set up by referenda—approved overwhelmingly time after time by county voters—which are not allowed to be used for any other purpose. Also, the amount spent annually represents “less than one percent of annual county expenditures,” notes Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society.

Interestingly, his organization has polled Suffolk residents in recent months and most say that despite the economic situation they still “strongly want” preservation, he said. The claims of Messrs. Alden, Barraga and the others “don’t ring true to the public.” People on Long Island also understand, said Mr. Amper, that taxes skyrocket with development because services and infrastructure must be provided for the growth. He  added that “now is the perfect time for preservation” with prices low and “more willing sellers than ever.”

Legislator Jay Schneiderman is concerned, meanwhile, that the preservation opponents “are getting more votes now. It’s getting closer and closer.”

 “Our economy,” says Mr. Schneiderman of Montauk, “is interconnected with our environment. If we are going to see strong growth economically, it’s precisely because we’ve preserved the natural beauty of the area.” 

Popularity: 8% [?]

A former Suffolk County legislator was among five suspects arrested Wednesday on grand larceny charges by fraudulently obtaining more than $50 million dollars in mortgages on dozens of homes in Southampton Town, including several a few miles from Sag Harbor in and around Noyac and Water Mill. 

In a second scheme, an East Islip man and a Farmingville suspect are charged with attempted mortgage fraud for filing bogus paperwork to attain mortgages for homes in Deer Park, Amityville, Jamaica, Queens and Brooklyn.

District Attorney Thomas Spota said the alleged frauds employed the use of straw purchasers to victimize lenders by filing false loan applications that claimed the homebuyers were employed by various corporations owned or controlled by the scheme’s participants. Another scheme, alleged to have been used to secure money, District Attorney Spota said, involved “mortgage stacking”; the creation of bogus title reports that concealed outstanding mortgages on properties and showed the homes to be owned “free and clear” and unencumbered by existing liens.  

Arraigned Wednesday in Southampton Justice Court on three counts of first degree grand larceny and first degree scheme to defraud are former Suffolk County Legislator George O. Guldi of 44 Brushy Neck Lane Westhampton Beach and Ethan E. Ellner, 54 Sagamore Drive Plainview. 

Guldi, 55, an attorney who served two terms in the county legislature, and Ellner, 49, an attorney and operator of Suburban Abstract, a title company in Stony Brook, allegedly defrauded lending institutions of millions of dollars by using forged documents, false employment and income information on applications, straw buyers, false powers of attorney, deed flipping, and mortgage stacking, said the district attorney in a press release Wednesday.

Codefendants Donald C. MacPherson, 65, and Carrie Coakley of New York and Dustin J. Dente of Roslyn pled not guilty at their arraignments today in Southampton Justice Court.  MacPherson is charged with two counts of first degree grand larceny and one charge of first degree scheme to defraud.  Macpherson’s wife, Carrie Coakley is charged with first degree scheme to defraud.  Dente, 37, an attorney, is charged with two counts of first degree grand larceny. 

 “The damage these defendants single-handedly caused to our local economy is simply appalling,” Spota said.  The district attorney said the defendants engaged in “a seven-year mortgage fraud spree” involving dozens of several east end homes, including a house at 1106 North Sea Road in Southampton, and two Water Mill homes at 982 Noyac Path and 2027 Deerfield Road. 

 

The alleged scheme to defraud involved three basic forms of fraud:

Use of “straw buyers”:

Evidence gathered during the course of the investigation, said Spota, found the defendants used straw buyers (or as they called them “investors”) with fictitious employment and income information for use on mortgage applications to make the mortgage applicants appear far wealthier and thusly, a much lower risk for lenders.

Specifically straw buyers in the scheme charged Wednesday were falsely listed as having incomes as high as $45,000 per month as employees of companies the defendants owned.

One of these companies was Arena Studios, Inc. located at 407 Broome Street in Manhattan; a business that at one time provided dominatrix services. This club was also used by the defendants to successfully solicit straw buyers.

Another source of straw buyers for the scheme to defraud was Maximum Restraint Films and McPherson’s publication, The Soho Journal, said the district attorney, who added publication also promoted Hamptons rental properties fraudulently purchased and used as summer rentals by the defendants.  Another MacPherson firm, the Hamptons Consulting Group, he said, was used as the employer for a straw buyer to falsely report an annual salary of $325,000 per year on a mortgage application.

 

Fraud by Mortgage Stacking and Title Washing:

Mortgage stacking involves the acquisition of a second and in some cases a third mortgage on a house through the use of a bogus title report that falsely reports to the lending institution that no first mortgage exists on the property.

A 2004 mortgage disappeared from the title history of 982 Noyac Path, Water Mill facilitating a fraud in which the name and credit of a person was used to purchase and obtain a first and second mortgage on the property totaling approximately $1.7million dollars, said the district attorney.

The mortgage applicant, on paper, was fraudulently portrayed to have been employed at the SoHo Journal for 10 years as the Director of Sales earning $36,000 a month. In truth, the applicant was not an employee of the publication and had no knowledge that their name and credit was being used to purchase and mortgage a house in the Hamptons, the district attorney said. In 2007, the house went into foreclosure.

While in foreclosure, a straw buyer purportedly employed by Maximum Restraint Films with a monthly income of $45,000 was used in January 2008 to purchase and mortgage the Noyac Path property for another $2 million. The Noyac Path title report was again altered to falsely report to the lender that the first and second mortgage, totaling $1.5 million (and pending in foreclosure), had been satisfied, the release said.

 The mortgage stacking fraud and a straw buyer were also used by some of the defendants to illicitly obtain a loan for a house at 1106 North Sea Road, Water Mill. The investigation established the title report falsely cleared an original $1.25 million dollar mortgage after a new $1.8 million dollar mortgage was obtained.  The evidence found the proceeds of the new mortgage flowed into the accounts of defendants Ellner, Guldi and Dente, claimed the release.

A home at 2027 Deerfield Road in Water Mill, originally titled to Walter Guldi, the father of defendant George Guldi, with an outstanding mortgage of approximately $1.5 million dollars went into foreclosure in 2005. George Guldi acted as the attorney representing the estate in the foreclosure action.  In May 2008, the defendants are alleged to have washed the title of 2027 Deerfield Path of the original mortgage to receive a new $1.8 million dollar mortgage obtained in the name of a straw purchaser.  Proceeds of the stacked mortgage flowed into accounts controlled by Defendants Ellner, Guldi and Dente, the release said.

All three houses are or have been in foreclosure.

 

“We found the defendants repeatedly ignored the obligation to pay off existing mortgages and instead funneled the money into their personal accounts to finance their businesses and lifestyles,” District Attorney Spota noted. 

Arrested by Mortgage Fraud Unit detective investigators Wednesday for alleged mortgage fraud involving homes in western Suffolk and New York City are Ellner, Gary Small, 41, 9 Greentree Avenue in Farmingville and Victor Jinete, 34, of 35 Starlight Drive in East Islip.

Ellner, Small and Jinete pleaded not guilty in first district court in Central Islip today on four charges of Attempted Mortgage Fraud second degree.  Jinete also pleaded not guilty to one count of first degree scheme to defraud. The alleged schemes involve the use of straw buyers and title washing resulting in fraudulent mortgages being issued by duped lenders for properties at 64 Duke Street, Deer Park, 130-25 Inwood Street, Jamaica, 891 Glenmore Avenue, Brooklyn NY and 40 Darerka Street, Amityville.

 

Popularity: 14% [?]

Although it is not the first time Suffolk County has passed a law before the rest of the nation, we commend the county legislators who recently voted to ban the sale of bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups made for infants.

We live in a county with some of the highest cancer rates in the country. It makes sense that we should consider abandoning products that contain cancer-causing toxins and we should be supportive of our government who did just that.

We’d like recognize our county legislator, Jay Schneiderman, who co-sponsored a bill allowing only for the sale of BPA-free bottles for infants. The chemical BPA has been found in many different name brand items made for children and some of the country’s biggest retailers sell them. The dangers of BPA exposure is much higher for children, so this law prohibits the sale of products containing BPA for children under three.

We understand the industry is suggesting small levels of this toxin aren’t harmful. But who’s to know what a small dosage is? We also doubt the plastics and chemical industries are putting a lot of effort into finding studies that show their products are unsafe.

The dangers posed by prolonged use of products containing BPA for children can include complications like an altered immune system, hyperactivity, reproductive health problems, an increased risk of cancer, obesity and diabetes.

Why are manufacturers using something that is potentially hazardous if there are alternatives? It may be that many of these products are coming from overseas, where quality standards are less stringent. Or it may be that they’re coming from companies who are under pressure to make money. Think of the stories that have been in the news in recent months about the salmonella outbreak caused by peanuts in this country and those Chinese made toys and food products that were tainted.

It seems like there’s precious little we can control in our lives these days. If we can take a few worrisome products off the shelves and eliminate at least one unhealthy substance from coming into daily contact with our children, then that’s something. There are enough things to worry about in this world. The safety of sippy cups and baby bottles shouldn’t be one of them.

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

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% [?]

By Karl Grossman

What has come through to me clearly in decades of writing about the environment and energy—including several books—is that virtually all polluting products and processes are unnecessary, that there are safe alternatives available.

A case in point: trans fats—an artificial ingredient found in cooking oils and in some baked goods, salad dressings and margarine.

Last week, the Suffolk Legislature voted overwhelmingly for a bill to ban restaurants and other food establishments in the county from selling food containing trans fats. In doing so, Suffolk joined New York City, neighboring Nassau County, the State of California and other jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, in the face of challenges, industry has begun backing away from trans fats. Even McDonald’s has stopped using trans fats—and, reportedly, there haven’t been any complaints from customers.

In a full-page ad in the New York Times last month, the Cargill company explained how it has developed a way “to create French fries with zero grams trans fat per serving.” It said “extensive canola seed research” and “new processing technologies…resulted in a cooking oil that performed well for fries, chicken and fish” and “consumer tests proved our approach was successful in providing the same great taste.”

The thing—the terrible thing—about trans fats is that, as Suffolk Health Commissioner Humayun J. Chaudhry told the county legislature, they “raise the bad cholesterol” and “lower the good cholesterol” in a person substantially increasing chances of a heart attack. “Studies estimate that having as few as 40 calories of transfats a day can boost the risk of a heart attack by 23 percent,” said Dr. Chadhry.

Dr. Dariush Mazaffarian, a Harvard School of Public Health professor, in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that at least six percent of deaths from heart attacks in the U.S. could be attributed to trans fats. A half-million people die each year in the U.S. from heart attacks—it’s the nation’s leading cause of death. Based on the Harvard professor’s research, we’re talking about trans fats being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

Leading the fight nationally against trans fats has been the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest. In 1993, it first called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to require that trans fat content be listed on food labels. It took until 2006 for the FDA to move on that. Meanwhile, the center has fought—including through litigation—to have the use of the killer chemical stopped.

Michael F. Jacobson, the center’s executive director, told Suffolk lawmakers: “Getting trans fats out of restaurants could prevent thousands of heart attacks and deaths…These illnesses and deaths are unnecessary, and many in Suffolk County could be prevented by the resolution being considered today.”

The author of the Suffolk bill, Legislator Lou D’Amaro of Huntington Station, stressed that “scientific studies have clearly established a direct link between coronary heart disease, diabetes, and trans fats, so banning this dangerous food additive fulfills the government’s obligation to do all it can to protect public health.”

His bill declares that trans fats increase “the risk of many serious health problems including coronary disease” and these “health problems result not only in sickness and death of loved ones, but also heavily burden the health care system, and impose substantial costs on taxpayers.”

Under the measure, the Suffolk health commissioner and Board of Health would “promulgate binding regulations phasing in a ban of the use of trans fats by all restaurants, and other food establishments, that prepare and/or serve food in Suffolk County, and that provide sufficient penalties and monetary fines for the use of trans fats…to deter their use.”

The direction to impose “sufficient penalties” is especially welcome. Lax enforcement—in the tradition of the FDA—doesn’t work.

Dr. David Katz, professor of public health at the Yale University School of Medicine, describes trans fats as “poison…really bad stuff…It’s got to go.”

The bill was signed into law by County Executive Steve Levy on Friday. Soon this poison, totally unnecessary except to profit its manufacturers, will no longer be sickening people in Suffolk County.

 

Popularity: 14% [?]

William Lindsay, presiding officer of the Suffolk County Legislature, is making a push to overturn provisions of two public referenda aimed at preserving open space and farmland, creating parks and promoting affordable housing in Suffolk.

Environmentalists are rightfully outraged. “The public voted to preserve land and encourage affordable housing and the Suffolk Legislature is thinking about changing that without a public vote,” complains Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society. “That’s not just illegal and immoral—it’s downright un-American….It’s a violation of public trust.”

County Executive Steve Levy is also critical of the move saying the will of the people was made clear in referendum and should not be “circumvented” by a legislative act.

A bill Mr. Lindsay has introduced would refocus the programs created by the referenda to “spur smart growth, community development and job creation.” A retired electrical workers union official, Mr. Lindsay has with the economic downturn made economic development a top priority.

His bill would permit developers to buy the “development rights” created when land was preserved—credits representing an opportunity to build above the level proscribed by zoning—and use the rights to do “almost anything” they want in developing property, says Mr. Amper. The Suffolk Legislature “would be bailing out the very real estate industry that has caused our economic woes and slapping voters and taxpayers in the face at the same time.”

Mr. Amper has been joined in opposition to the Lindsay bill by a wide variety of environmentalists, civic leaders and public officials. Joining in a letter of protest to members of the Suffolk Legislature on the Lindsay bill include: Robert DeLuca, president of the Group for the East End; Sid Bail, president of the Wading River Civic Organization; Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment; Peconic BayKeeper Kevin McAllister; MaryAnn Johnston, president of Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organization; Kevin McDonald, director of public lands for The Nature Conservancy; Al Algieri, president of East Quogue Civic Association; Mary Jean Green, president of the Hampton Bays Civic Association; Andrea Spilka, president of the Southampton Town Civic Coalition; Karen Blumer, president of the Open Space Preservation Trust; Lisa Ott, president of the North Shore Land Alliance; and Julie Penny, Co-Chair South Fork Groundwater Task Force. And also: Southampton Town Supervisor Linda Kabot; Brookhaven Town Conservative Party Chairman Richard Johannesen; and State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. of Sag Harbor.

Their letter charges that Mr. Linday’s plan violates the legal principle that “laws created by public referendum may only be modified by subsequent referendum.”

The referenda involved are one in 2004 establishing the Suffolk County Save Open Space, Farmland Preservation and Hamlet Parks Fund, and, in 2007, an extension of the county’s Drinking Water Protection Program.

 “As it currently stands,” says the letter, “the programs generate money for the protection of open space, preservation of farmland and the creation of parks for local communities. The acts further state that the development rights of the land preserved could then be transferred exclusively for the construction of workforce housing.”

The Lindsay bill states that the “development rights” provided by the county’s Save Open Space and new Drinking Water Protection programs to go to “workforce housing” has so far not “been utilized to create housing.” So, it allows that they be “used to further other worthy policy goals including smart growth in downtown areas, community development and job creation.”

These “development rights” have not been utilized for affordable housing, says Mr. Amper, because “developers don’t build affordable housing because they make more money building unaffordable housing.”

Mr. Lindsay, a Democrat, comments to us that “This has nothing to do with developers. I’m trying to get revenue out of the programs. We’re spending millions of dollars on land preservation. This will actually help it.”

Also opposed to the Lindsay bill is the legislature’s Republican minority leader, Dan Losquadro, who says “it is completely wrong for public officials to even think of subverting the public’s will.” 

Popularity: 13% [?]