Letters

Michael Daly [“Housing Paralysis,” Letters, March 14] questions how “morally, ethically and legally” the public could oppose Concern for Independent Living and Ralph Fasano’s supportive housing development, Liberty Gardens, and declares (as Jay Schneiderman before him repeatedly did) that Fasano has already spent $2 million on it. This does not include any purchase of the land, as far as the record shows. No doubt that is contingent on approval of the development.

Mr. Daly’s criteria of morality, ethics and legality are extremely relevant and crucial to this contested development proposal, especially concerning the “spent” $2 million, which is, after all, the public’s money. And in light of his just being given yet another $3 million in federal funds for another development in Brentwood.

Mr. Daly, when not doffing his YIMBY hat or his preacher’s halo, is a Realtor who also sits on the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals. And while Mr. Fasano refers sometimes to his nonprofit enterprise as his “company,” his lucrative salary and operation are funded by the New York State Office of Mental Health, which is funded by the state. Keep digging and you reach the bedrock, which is taxpayer money.

If $2 million spent or squandered by a developer or a speculator meant, ipso facto, that they should be given the go-ahead during Schneiderman’s ill-spent time in office — and if controversial Liberty Gardens is so necessary, logical, humane and unopposed by the majority (according to Fasano and Daly) — why is Fasano spending taxpayer dollars on a marketing/consulting firm (that now employs Bridget Fleming) to fight the taxpayer?

And why is it so predictable that former politicos sit down to cushy lobbying jobs when they are off the public payroll? Even Mr. Schneiderman, should he continue to be passed over for political office, and should his creative life not prove as rewarding as he imagined, has indicated that he might consider one.

Leaving aside morality and ethics, as they are so little in play here, and eschewing legality — which, as Fassano assured Schneiderman publicly at the “special meeting” called and conducted by the two of them, should any legal challenge come to pass, “the state will back me” — what remains is accountability.

A good place to start is by looking into an audit of this $2 million, which the state should be petitioned to consider and the town never questioned. Surely, we as taxpayers deserve that token of respect.

Frances Genovese

Southampton