Those who organized Save Beach Lane and its successor, Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott, proposed village incorporation for one reason, and one reason only, to defeat the plan to land Orsted’s offshore wind cable at the end of Beach Lane. The incorporation gambit was conceived to oust the Town of East Hampton’s jurisdiction over the planned cable route, with the expectation that the village would be able to veto that route.

C.P.W.’s sales pitch to those not particularly concerned with the cable landing site has been that incorporation will deliver effective local control over anything and everything that might be troubling them, from speeders and reckless drivers to the loss of farmland, from the development of the sand and gravel pit to noise at the airport, from water contamination to the threat of affordable housing, to the school population.

C.P.W. has pledged that the additional layer of government will cost taxpayers little. Their imagined Potemkin village will be immune to controversy or challenge and thus easily managed by a set of unidentified, part-time volunteers. Apparently, it’s not even going to be necessary to budget for lawyers to defend the village’s decisions.

Since the July launch of the incorporation campaign, we have posed a number of basic questions to try to understand if there is really anything behind the facade of C.P.W.’s promises. Among the questions are: Who would actually lead the new village? Where do the proponents actually stand on the key issues other than Orsted’s cable? How much would a village taking on the “right” side of all issues and providing all of the promised services actually cost?

In response, we were told that more detailed budgeting was in process. We were told that our questions about who would be running the village were premature. We asked who was funding C.P.W., believing it would tell us something about who was likely to end up running the new village and where they might stand on non-cable issues. We were told that it was none of our business and that the anonymity of C.P.W.’s financiers was necessary to protect them from harassment and threats.

In short, our questions have not been answered. We are left to conclude that C.P.W. can’t answer them, or that it is simply stonewalling, or perhaps that it does not consider the questions important because the only issue that matters to them is the Beach Lane landing of the Orsted cable.

All this was put in stark relief by last week’s announcement of an agreement in principle between Orsted and the town and town trustees. Finalization of that agreement would seem to eliminate the proponents’ animating reason for incorporation. Their hoped-for silver bullet would seem to be a dud.

If, notwithstanding this change in circumstances, C.P.W. still intends to push toward a vote on incorporation, it’s time for it to present a realistic budget and to answer our questions. In the absence of having the information we have requested, how can any of us be confident that the new village will represent and serve all of Wainscott, not just those on Beach Lane who started all of this? Can we have any confidence in their being the ones to decide what to do about the airport, the sand and gravel pit, or other development far from the bucolic precincts of Main Street? And can we possibly believe the assurances that taxes will not increase by amounts that will cause hardship to many of Wainscott’s residents?

Sincerely,

JOHN HALL