a Letter to the Editor of the East Hampton Star

Dear David:

I write this in my private capacity, and not as a representative of the town or the town planning board, which I chair. My letter of last week, as transmitted to The Star, quoted the words of Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1643 (“No such speed limit . . . shall be established at less than 30 miles per hour”). When prepared for publication, the word “thirty” was changed to the numeric “30” but, due to a typographic error, the number appeared in the newspaper as “39.” Although I am sure that nobody could have seriously thought that the statute specified a 39 miles per hour maximum speed, thank you for acknowledging the error, and correcting it quickly in your online edition.

It is fair to observe that the animating force and primary goal of the Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott is to prevent a proposed electrical cable from landing at Beach Lane. The number-one reason for incorporating Wainscott, as listed on their website, is to: “Exercise all available power to influence the decision on whether Orsted can land its high-power electric cables in Wainscott when other less-impactful alternatives have now been identified and remain available.” Elsewhere, 100 percent of “Our Key Points” on the website relates to the proposed Beach Lane cable.

Other goals, such as “better control our local and school taxes” and “set and enforce lower speed limits in Wainscott” and “protect our unique agricultural heritage, better advocate for our local farmers, and preserve the unique, bucolic characteristics through more responsive zoning” are not attainable on the promised budget of under $300,000, assuming an incorporated Village of Wainscott could be certain to have influence or jurisdiction over these areas. These are, at best, window dressing for the paramount objective, which is to prevent the electrical cable from traveling under Beach Lane.

Now, let’s just assume that in the coming months, Wainscott is incorporated as a village, and let’s further assume that — somehow — an incorporated Village of Wainscott prevails in the myriad administrative processes and the certain-to-follow litigation, and the proposed cable landing at Beach Lane is thwarted. The question which proponents of incorporation must be prepared to answer is: Then what?

That answer must be (with apologies to Dick the Butcher): “First — Pay all the lawyers.” Certainly, proponents of incorporation are not naive enough to believe that Orsted, or any other company with the financial wherewithal to undertake a project as massive as that which is proposed, is going to simply fold up its windmills and sail away from the Beach Lane landing, merely because a new governmental entity has entered the fray.

The reality is that the only way in which an incorporated Village of Wainscott — or any other opponent of any aspect of Orsted’s proposal — can have any hope to prevent Orsted from going forward is to lawyer up and be prepared to fight. This is a fight that will take place in boardrooms and administrative agencies and, most likely, ultimately, in court — and probably more than one court. It is a fight that is likely to take years, and it is a fight with no certain outcome.

Now, to be clear: I am not saying this is a good fight or a bad fight or a fight worth having or a fight to be avoided. But an incorporated Village of Wainscott, and all of its residents, from Beach Lane all the way up to its boundary with the incorporated Village of Sag Harbor, will be required to bear the costs of that fight.

Yet, the proponents of incorporation make absolutely no mention, and avoid any conversation, about these legal expenses, which in the course of just one year will surely exceed the $300,000 annual cost, which they have claimed it will take to operate an entire incorporated Village of Wainscott.

Very truly yours,

Samuel Kramer
Wainscott, NY