Who’s the Bad Guy?

I attended a meeting recently where a group of concerned citizens was discussing whether to advocate for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the area around the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike from its intersection with Scuttlehole Road to the traffic signal at Jermain Avenue. They are concerned that there are several development projects underway in this area, and possibly several more waiting in the wings. Those in favor of this idea argued that while the Town and Village governments have rules and procedures in place to regulate individual development projects, no one was looking at the whole picture. And so, while the impact of each project on the environment and the character of the area might be mitigated by these regulations, the overall impact of the combined projects  might still have an adverse effect on the area. Only one member of the group disagreed with this position, and he simply voted against it but did not explain his reasons for doing so.

There were, however, dissenting voices; those of the land owners, two of whom attended the meeting. While not members of the group, they were permitted, if not encouraged to speak at the meeting. Unfortunately for them, neither was a particularly eloquent or effective speaker; and so, while they get points for showing up, their  comments did not appear to have much of an effect on the others at the meeting. Essentially, each landowner made one point. The first landowner said, his was a good plan. It improves, he said, on what’s there now, and if he was not allowed to develop the property the way he wants, he may sell it to someone who will do something worse. The second landowner simply said. We’ve spent a lot of money and we just want to do what we want to do. Since it’s not illegal, we should be allowed  to do it. Unsurprisingly, no one present found these points very compelling.

Personally, I found their arguments so lame, that I feel compelled to mention a few things here that I think they should have said. I will qualify my support by letting it be known that I am definitely in favor of a GEIS; but, I have qualms. First, I’m guessing that neither of these property owners sees themselves as a bad person. Both are undertaking projects that are known to have support in the greater Sag Harbor community. If they are permitted to proceed, they will provide services to the community that will be welcomed by many. They will most likely upgrade the appearance of both the structures and the landscaping that are now in place. Jobs may be created. And, in the end, the owners of these properties are just people, trying to get on with their lives as best they can — not that different from you and me.

Secondly, one must take into account the financial risk they are taking. Starting a business, or expanding and existing one is expensive. Just getting the plans on paper costs a lot of money, and things just get more expensive from there. Delays and changes are costly. Increased costs eat up crucial capital and increase the possibility of failure. Today’s dream of a successful business could end up as tomorrow’s appearance in bankruptcy court. While it seems unlikely that anyone from the developers’ families will go hungry, no one likes to see his dreams come crashing down due to circumstances beyond his control.

So, I have qualms. From the landowners point of view, we, the citizens who are impeding the progress of their efforts to create a viable business are the bad guys. Nevertheless, the community and the environment must be protected, and so I still favor a GEIS; though I probably differ from some in what I expect to be the outcome of the GEIS. One possible outcome would be a change of zoning from the current highway business designation to something more restrictive. This is where I think the landowners neglected to mention their strongest argument. I believe a change of zoning at this point would be a perversion of justice as we know and practice it in this country. Property owners do have rights, and while those rights may be abridged by the needs of the community at large, they may not be annulled. The locations in question have been used for commercial purposes for as long as anyone can remember. Some argue that better uses for the property could be found. No doubt they could. But this will not, and should not happen, unless the owners of the property wish it so. A change of zoning that prohibited commercial uses of the properties in question would, in my opinion, be unconstitutional. So, if the owners want to run businesses at those locations — and they do — the rest of us better get used to the idea.

Why then, have a GEIS? As I see it, the reason for a GEIS is to restore balance. Developers tend to think big. “How much development can I cram on this parcel?” and “What is the maximum return I can get from the money I invest here?” are both natural questions for developers to ask. As it turns out, both these developers are thinking big…too big. The impact of these projects as proposed on the delicate environment of nearby Ligone Creek and the Long Pond Greenbelt must be mitigated. Too, the impact on the character of the area on the Sag Harbor Turnpike that comprises the southern gateway to Sag Harbor Village will be irrevocably altered. The balance between commercial development, residential development and undeveloped woodland along the Turnpike is approaching a tipping point. Without careful management we could soon be looking at another mess like County Road 39.

So, a GEIS is necessary to establish the appropriate parameters for development in the area. With a GEIS in place, the Town and the community can negotiate with property owners all along the Turnpike and arrive at a level of development that will protect the community while still allowing property owners to realize a reasonable return on their investments.

I’m going to stop here, because I’ve concluded my thoughts on the rights of property owners vis a vis the rights of the community. There is more to say, however, about the proposed GEIS. I will come back to that issue in a later post.