Letters

Thank you for your recent publication of the Q&A with Lance Gumbs, which delivered critical information and transparency to your readers around the development plans for Westwoods [“Q&A: Lance Gumbs Says Agreement With State for Highway Access Would Benefit Everyone,” 27east.com, November 22].

As you know better than anyone, “A free and independent press is the core institution connecting publics to the information they need to advocate for themselves, make informed decisions, and hold governmental officials accountable.” I am writing to ask for your help to do just that.

There is a significant lack of transparency and accountability, from the government to the taxpayers, surrounding the Westwoods development, governance and applicable regulations. While the development thrives in ambiguity, residents are left unable to properly advocate for themselves without needed information.

Status of land ownership: A debate about whether Westwoods is owned in fee simple or is aboriginal land has been ongoing for years. If it is owned in fee simple then entirely different zoning law and environmental oversight would apply to the development. Residents are not able to properly advocate for their needs or propose amenable solutions when there is a total lack of clarity around the status of the landownership at Westwoods, and seemingly no urgency to resolve it.

Stop-work order: There is a stop-work order by the Town of Southampton currently being ignored by the developers. Where is the town’s responsibility to enforce its own laws? How can the town be empowered to govern when its own jurisdictions and authority remain in question?

Permitting: The Shinnecock are operating under a Permit by Rule Notification of Coverage, which is germane to the land in question being aboriginal. It allows the permit holder to self-regulate. If the land is held in fee simple, permit by rule notification does not apply. When will clarity be rendered?

Future plans: Future development plans for Westwoods to host a resort and conference center would have far-reaching implications to quality-of-life issues for residents not only in Hampton Bays but on the entire East End. Resource constraints, environmental concerns, and infrastructure for housing and traffic are already critical issues that would be significantly exacerbated by the development plans.

I implore your publication to report on the Westwoods development from all perspectives, and further explore the legal and environmental issues and ambiguity that persist with no resolution, so that our residents can indeed advocate for themselves. Our residents are unable to have voice or representation until the government acts swiftly to clarify land status and the subsequent implications of that ruling.

Kristen Colonna

Hampton Bays