Letters

The full-page ad by East Coast Mines and Materials in the November 21 edition of The Press strikes a new low. Those who collaborated on this vile attack are far beneath contempt.

Briefly, the ad claims cooperation between the supervisor and a landowner who allegedly contributed to her campaign in the 2023 election, to close sand mines owned and operated by East Coast, so as to increase the value of surface property developed by the alleged donor.

This fabrication completely ignores New York State law, which recognizes that sand mines are a mortal threat to Long Island’s precious sole-source aquifer, because their drilling far below the groundwater level irreparably contaminates that water.

The patent necessity of shutting down these mining operations was recognized by the State Legislature in 1991. The legislature then granted home rule authority on Long Island to regulate the mines. Only one sand mine in Southampton Town — an East Coast property — still has a permit to operate.

There are thus compelling reasons to close these sand mines, without any motive of favoritism to anyone. Still, East Coast claims that the sand is necessary to the local construction business, and the community’s economy would be damaged by the mines’ closure.

This is laughable. I don’t deny that construction would be impacted without a ready local sand supply, but, really, how much more construction do we need in Southampton? While attainable housing must be provided somehow, we surely have a surfeit of luxury homes. Indeed, if we keep on building them, they won’t be luxury properties anymore, because a crowd of McMansions, cheek by jowl in a potato field, won’t appeal to the high-end market.

East Coast is saying, we don’t really need that clean water — let’s just goose the economy by keeping on with all the construction. This is kind of like proposing to solve traffic congestion by just building a four-lane elevated superhighway from Riverhead to Montauk.

In the same vein, one could ask why we need all that Community Preservation Fund land sitting around unused, when it could be developed? Or, why leave all that valuable oceanfront property preserved and untouched in Hampton Bays and East Quogue, when it could be turned into really stunning homes?

All these ideas are completely opposed to what people’s idea of Southampton is. The East Coast proposal is all of that, plus being a serious public health danger.

As to the gross attack on the supervisor and the landowner, I don’t know the law of libel, but I think they should consult someone who does.

George Lynch

Quiogue

Lynch is communications chair for the Southampton Town Democratic Committee — Ed.