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.

On its website, the Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott claim that an incorporated village of Wainscott “could set and enforce lower speed limits in Wainscott (which certain towns are not able to do, but villages can) and improve dangerous vehicular traffic conditions.” Indeed, Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1643 provides that an incorporated village “may by local law, ordinance, order, rule, or regulation establish maximum speed limits at which vehicles may proceed within such city or village”.

But Section 1643 includes at least three important caveats on this particular village power: First, the section does not apply to “state highways maintained by the state.” In other words, speeds on Route 27 and Route 114 would not be impacted by incorporation. Second, with regard to local streets, the section states: “No such speed limit shall be established at less than 30 miles per hour.” In other words, speeds on local roads would remain pretty much as they are now, even after incorporation. Third, although the section permits a limit of 25 m.p.h. to be established “on or along designated highways,” Opinion 98-23 of the state controller advises that “a village has no authority under section 1643 to impose a village-wide maximum speed limit of 25 m.p.h. The village must justify each linear portion of a highway designated as a 25 m.p.h. zone on a case-by-case basis. Each linear designation must be separately and independently justified as a special case.” In other words, an incorporated village of Wainscott may not have the final word on reducing local speed limits from 30 m.p.h. down to 25 m.p.h.

More troubling, however, is the assertion that an incorporated village of Wainscott could “enforce lower speed limits.”

Supporters of incorporation claim that the additional cost of incorporation to Wainscott taxpayers would be no more than $300,000. They base this on the belief that essential services, such as policing – which includes enforcement of traffic laws – could be subcontracted to neighboring municipalities (presumably the Town of East Hampton) and that the increased costs for these services would be offset by a reduction in town taxes.

However, if an incorporated village of Wainscott subcontracts policing powers to the town, the town can be expected to continue to set policing priorities over the entire range of penal laws and traffic laws, including when and where to enforce speeding laws. Supporters of incorporation may be mistaken in relying upon the town to aggressively enforce the 25 m.p.h. speed limit, which they seem to promise.

If supporters of incorporation want to be certain that a lower speed limit will be enforced, they should recommend that an incorporated village of Wainscott establish its own police force and determine its own policing priorities. Village Law Section 8-800 does provide that a “village may, by resolution, establish a police department in such village and appoint a chief of police and such personnel as may be needed, and fix their compensation.”

In most of Suffolk County, the cost of compensation for a single police officer approaches $200,000 annually, including salary, pension, health, and other benefits. Multiply that figure by the five officers who it would be necessary to hire in order to have just one single police officer on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and an incorporated village of Wainscott would incur a cost of close to $1 million annually.

Of course, that one police officer would require a chief of police, a headquarters, a patrol car, and communication equipment, in order to provide police coverage to an entire incorporated village of Wainscott, which measures some 7.3 square miles between the Atlantic Ocean and the incorporated Village of Sag Harbor.

And maybe, at some point, that single police officer might also have the time to enforce a promised 25 m.p.h. speed limit of dubious legal certainty.

Very truly yours,

Samuel Kramer