Our Village

Village Election 2016

Leave a comment

By:  Progress for Westhampton Beach

We urge you to vote on Friday, June 17th.  Polls are open from 12:00 noon until 9:00 p.m.  As you know, there are two seats for trustee up for election, and the mayor’s seat is also on the ballot.

We have two incumbent trustees, Ralph Urban and Charlie Palmer, seeking re-election, and Steven Frano is on the ballot as a challenger. The mayor does not have a challenger on the ballot.

As you know, write-in candidacies in our village elections remain a possibility.  In 1995 Tom Pescod mounted a write-in campaign that came very close to clinching a seat on the dais.

Make sure your vote is counted when its time to count the votes.

image_voting

Our Village

June 2, 2016 continued…

Leave a comment

By:  Progress for Westhampton Beach

Congratulations to Chief Trevor Gonce as he moves from a Provisional Chief for the period pending his civil service test results to Chief of Police now that the March examination results are out.  A new contract remains to be negotiated.   Chief Gonce has proven his dedication to the village throughout his career.

Congratulations to Ashley E. Czelatka appointed to the position of full time Police Officer effective June 3, 2016.  Ms. Czelatka is highly regarded by her now fellow Police Officers having served the village as a Traffic Control Officer and a part time police officer.  The village now has its first full time female officer ever.  She enjoys the confidence of all.

PP_logo

The Board of Trustees authorized the renewal of the Pontoon Paddlers Inc. Kayak and Paddle Board Agreement for the 2016-2018 summer seasons.   This renewal conforms with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 103.  It was met with one nay vote from Trustee Brian Tymann and passed 3-1.

Janeen and Shari of Pontoon Paddler report they have earned a strong repeat clientele.  This summer they are partnering with Sportime to offer paddle board yoga, and will also introduce two eight-person stand-up paddle boards to add some team competition to the mix of outdoor activities they offer.

The trustees authorized, by a vote of 3-1, a 30-day trial period for the Hampton Jitney to establish two bus stops, one for eastbound drop off, and one for westbound pick up on Mill Road.  If at the end of the thirty-day period permission is granted for them to stay, the Hampton Jitney will pay to the Village an annual remittance of $1,000.00 and support by Hampton Jitney of one event of the Village’s choosing by the on-board distribution of materials or other suitable manner.   The westbound stop will be located just to the east of Sushi 1,  and the eastbound stop in front of the East End Hospice.   Trustee Charlie Palmer voted against the resolution on the ground that he felt parking would be problematic.

There is no less than a combined six hundred feet of curbside parking on the north and south side of Mill Road between Maple Avenue and Lilac Road and another eighty feet of curbside parking on the south side of Mill Road between Maple and the entrance to the Buoy cooperative apartments.  A standard parking space for parallel parking is 20 feet.  That leaves room for on street parking for up to 30 cars.  No doubt there will be speculation about whether Hampton Coffee and the Bun & Burger will see an uptick in business from both departures and arrivals of travelers to their front doors.

During the public comment period one resident of the Buoy cooperative apartments spoke in opposition as she was concerned that some Jitney patrons might park their vehicles illegally at the apartments for overnight or longer sojourns into the city.  Chief Gonce advised that the cooperative board can inform the police of such trespasses and authorize towing if necessary.

It was later smartly observed that the Buoy unit owners will no doubt advertise units for rent with the advantage of being located near a Jintney stop.   “Walk to all… + the Jitney.” 

Elyse Richman of Shock for Kids requested a permit for Outdoor Sales and Displays from the Board of Trustees for the placement of three child size mannequins on the North East corner of the property at 99 Main Street, after a public hearing with no opposition it was unanimously approved.  Good Luck for a fruitful summer season.

The public comment period was kicked off with Jack O’Dwyer who spoke discursively about the settlement of the federal law suits, religious boundaries, the state of the law, his desire to have his expertise utilized on such matters, and his concerns about radio frequencies emitted by WiFi at village hall and the library.  He came equipped with an  acoustimeter for measuring radiation.

After the resident from the Buoy spoke to the Jitney issue, Dean Speir made some inquiries and observations.  At the meeting his few remarks were temperate and reasonable, his later blogging was closer to a self-defeating screed.  See here.

The owner of the Hampton Jitney thanked the Trustees for the opportunity to bring its service directly into the village on a trial basis and advised that he has been speaking with Rechler Equity Partners about re-establishing a stop at Gabreski if service in the village does not work out satisfactorily.

eruv, Trustee Meeting

June 2, 2016

Leave a comment

By:  Progress for Westhampton Beach

The settlement approved by the Board of Trustees tonight specifically did not recognize or endorse a religion or religious boundary.

Robert G. Sugarman,1)a member of the New York State bar since 1963, but he eschews the suffix “Esq.” in his correspondence. attorney for the East End Eruv Association, wanted the Village Trustees to create a religious boundary by issuing a proclamation.  In a letter to the Village Board of Trustees dated  October 19, 2008, he said:

"REFUSING TO GRANT A PETITION TO ISSUE THE PROCLAMATION WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE FREE EXERCISE AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HAMPTON SYNAGOGUE." Robert G. Sugarman

This was completely wrong.   In essence he was saying “You, Board of Trustees, must say this, you must proclaim this, if you don’t you are violating our civil rights.”  The government you elected has the right to say, or not to say, what it wants.  See Who Said That?

In that same letter Mr. Sugarman offered:

“[I]in order for an eruv to be valid. First, there must be a  proclamation delineating and “renting” the area for use as an eruv from a public official whose jurisdiction includes the area in which the eruv is to be constructed….  Second, the physical construction of the eruv must comply with the requirements of Jewish law. If either of these requirements is not met, the eruv would not be valid.”

The Board of Trustees did not issue the proclamation and three years later in January of 2011 the federal law suit was started.

The Board of Trustees had a proper understanding that it had no business issuing a proclamation or “renting” the entirety of village property to any religious sect.

JPOE 2)Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach, a/k/a  Jewish People Opposed to the Eruv understood this too and sought to intervene in the federal case.  Judge Leonard Wexler denied that request and said the Village of Westhampton Beach would adequately represent JPOE’s interests.3)a novel concept that you can not defend your own constitutional interests, but must rely upon the government as your surrogate.  JPOE appealed the denial to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did not direct the village to issue a proclamation or to lease property to the Plaintiffs.  In the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals the court only considered the nature of the pole attachments that LIPA was going to permit on its utility poles.   It was represented to that court that the only things to be attached to the utility poles are:

“nearly invisible wires and staves that do not contain any overtly religious features to distinguish them to the casual observer as any different from strips of material that might be attached to utility poles for secular purposes.”

The 2nd Circuit held that something you can not find does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

This brings us to the final resolution of the federal litigation.

The settlement agreement that has already been signed by the East End Eruv Association and that has now been approved by the board of trustees does not use any religious terminology.  This avoids confusion.

This settlement agreement specifically states there is no recognition or endorsement of any religion or religious boundary by the Village of Westhampton Beach.  See settlement agreement at paragraph 14.4)this is the signed agreement filed in the federal district court available to the public through Pacer.  The highlighting added at paragraph 14 is not in the original filed with the court.

Of course, there is no regulating what anyone wishes to think or wants to believe.  That has never been the business of government, at least not in the United States.

The Board of Trustees has fulfilled its duty to make certain that it has not favored any religious sect over another.   Case closed.

More on this evening’s meeting to follow…

 

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ a member of the New York State bar since 1963, but he eschews the suffix “Esq.” in his correspondence.
2. ↑ Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach, a/k/a  Jewish People Opposed to the Eruv
3. ↑ a novel concept that you can not defend your own constitutional interests, but must rely upon the government as your surrogate.
4. ↑ this is the signed agreement filed in the federal district court available to the public through Pacer.  The highlighting added at paragraph 14 is not in the original filed with the court.