Here’s some background for those of you who don’t follow the “planning” game as it’s played in the Town of Southampton, NY. PDDs, are usually proposed by developers who want to use a parcel, or parcels, of land in a way that does not conform to the current zoning of those parcels. Rather than ask the Town to change the zoning outright, which would be a difficult process, with little chance of success, the developer can propose that the Town create an “overlay district”  or PDD, that would not change, but rather overlay the existing zoning. A PDD applies only to the parcels in question, and, theoretically at least, does not create a precedent that might lead other land owners in the area to also demand a rezoning of their properties. In return for granting the PDD, the Town is supposed to receive some “community benefits or amenities” from the developer, perhaps some parkland, open space or the inclusion of some affordable housing on the site. Granted, this is a simplistic explanation, but I think it covers the most important ground.

The 12.4-acre site of the Tuckahoe project consists of 4.4 acres currently zoned for residential development, and an eight-acre parcel zoned for highway business. Neither of these zoning classifications allow for the type of mixed-use development being proposed. Consequently, the developer has asked the Town Board to consider creating a MUPDD, (Mixed-Use Planned Development District) in which such a development would be permitted.

The developer's preliminary plan for the Tuckahoe Main Street PDD

That’s the background. Now back to our story.

Not too long ago I was fortunate enough to attend a training session at the Project for Public Spaces in New York City. I owe my good fortune to the community group Save Sag Harbor for sponsoring my attendance there. The staff at PPS specialize in something they call placemaking, which is basically the art and science of creating livable places where people enjoy being. As Main Streets are very important places in communities, we spent a good deal of time in our training learning what makes a good Main Street work as an integral part of a thriving community.  Of course this varies from town to town, but it always starts with a sense of place. The Main Street of a town or village has to reflect the history, values and aspirations of the community it serves.

When confronted with an unsuccessful place, say a dying Main Street in an aging town fighting against a proliferation of strip malls and suburban sprawl, the staff at PPS always starts by asking the community to identify what it is that is important, meaningful and useful in their town. They ask, “what works? What doesn’t? What’s worth preserving? What needs to be changed? What’s missing?” Only the people who live in a place can answer these question. Planners, no matter how skilled, cannot. Armed with this information, PPS can then make suggestions as to how to supplement and modify the working parts, integrating everything into a seamless whole that then has a chance of becoming a successful “place.”

Given the importance of the Main Street to any community, I could not help but apply some of my training in analyzing the “Tuckahoe Main Street” PDD. Three things were immediately obvious. First, this is not a Main Street in any traditional sense of the word. Second, the entire plan was conceived by the developer’s planning team without significant community input. Third, this was not a livable place where people would enjoy spending time. How could it be when the dominant feature was a 474-space parking lot?

I could go on for many paragraphs criticizing particulars of the design, but there is no point. The entire plan is ill conceived and should not go forward. But, I do not blame the developers for this. They are just doing what developers do. No, I fault our Town government for creating the tool that makes the kind of thinking behind Tuckahoe Main Street possible: the PDD.

Read the language in the section of the Town Code dealing with PDDs, and you would think this legislation is so pure and beneficial that only good could possibly come of it. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case. The reason why PDDs don’t work is simple: they don’t start with the community. Rather, they are a tool used by developers to be able to build what they want by simply making a small sacrifice in terms of providing some “community benefit or amenity.” The benefit extracted by the Town is supposed to ameliorate the damage to the community caused by the creation of the PDD, but rarely turns out to be more than a bandaid slapped on a gaping wound.

PDD’s don’t work because they ignore the basic tenets of good placemaking. To reiterate: first, find out what the community values, needs and aspires to, then preserve what is good in the community. Next, find ways to incentivize the development of any missing and needed features. And finally tie it all together with good planning to create a unified, livable, workable community, where people will want to be. The way PDDs work now, is to start with some “concept” put together by a developer that may or may not have any relation to anything the community actually needs. Then this “concept” is massaged into something that passes as “beneficial” in some way or another, and foisted on the community, often exacerbating existing problems. This is “planning” stood on its head. It starts with the result, and then tries to twist it to fit the need.

That’s what’s happening in Tuckahoe right now, and it’s a sham and a crime. The people of Tuckahoe deserve a say in whether their “Main Street” serves them or the needs of some developers and out-of-town merchants. This PDD should be denied. Then the entire PDD process should be revised to make it more responsive to the needs of the communities in which future PDDs are proposed.

What do you think? Leave a comment below telling me why I’m wrong or right, or how my ideas on this subject can be improved.

A little background may be in order. Highway Business is one of, if not the most, permissive of zoning categories. Virtually anything is allowed, car dealerships, lumber yards, car washes, warehouses, and more — basically the same mix of businesses that you currently find along County Road 39 in Southampton. It’s not pretty. The Hamlet Office category is quite a bit more restrictive, allowing a much smaller mix of low-traffic types of businesses, such as, well, offices. Private residences are also allowed. In fact, the character of an area zoned as Hamlet Office is, by design, primarily residential. Hamlet Office-zoned locales are meant to serve as transitional zones between the surrounding residential areas and the commercial hamlet centers. On the other hand, the character of an area zoned Highway Business is unapologetically strip mall. So, under current zoning, the area along the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike just outside the Village could end up populated with high-traffic, high-intensity businesses of the most unattractive variety. Again, think County Road 39.

As previously stated, in the study the Southampton Planning Department recommended that given the nature of the area, changing views of the community as to the types of development found acceptable in residential areas, as well as environmental concerns related to the proximity of Long Pond Greenbelt, Ligonee Creek and related wetlands, the zoning be changed, and that the preferred alternative should be Hamlet Office.

Now, you may have noticed that there are already a few businesses along this part of the Turnpike. What would happen to them if the zoning were to change? Nothing. They would be, of right, grand-fathered as pre-existing non-conforming businesses, and would be allowed to continue as such basically forever.

Yet, at least one of these business owners is not happy with the proposed change. Robert Reid, of Reid Brothers Inc., has voiced his opposition to the change, stating that it will limit his ability to further develop his property in some, as yet unspecified, way. He is, of course, correct in that if he should desire, say to develop his property in a way that would substantively change the nature of the business conducted there, it would not be allowed. Not long ago, Mr. Reid did propose such a change, but withdrew his plan when it was determined that the potential environmental impact was of a significant enough nature to require a full environmental impact study (EIS).

With that background in mind, let’s look again at the Village Trustees’ lack of support for Southampton’s Draft Gateway Study, which was undertaken at the Mayor’s request to protect the visual and enviromental integrity of one of the main entrances to  Sag Harbor Village. The only opposition to the study’s recommendations has come from two of the businesses in the study area (which, you will recall is outside the of the Village’s borders). Should that matter to the Village Trustees? Well, maybe…

Maybe it would if one of the business owners had offered his property as a staging area for the trucks and work crews at the recently approved Bulova Watchase condominium project. It would especially matter if that property owner was the developer’s only remaining option for a staging area, after having been refused access to other areas they had proposed for this purpose. Still, the business owner will be paid by the Bulova developers for the use of his property, so why should the Village be concerned about voicing approval for the Gateway Study even if the property owner in question, Mr. Reid, doesn’t care for it? I suspect the answer has something to do with the EIS that Reid never undertook for a project that looked quite similar to the use his property will be put to by the Bulova contractors. Reid’s previous proposal called for a “contractor’s” garage and storage area, that would allow contractors from out of the area to store their trucks, equipment and supplies at a local “depot,” which could then be used as a staging area for their work crews each morning as they arrived here from the companies’ home offices further west. That propsed use was deemed possibly too intensive for the location, and so an EIS was required before the project could continue. This time around, no study is required since no construction is involved, even though the propsed use is very similar to Reid’s original plan.

However, this use of the property, which is unrelated to the Reid’s current business there, flies in the face of the conclusions of the Gateway Study, which, if adopted, would prohibit such a change in use for a pre-existing, non-conforming business. It also, creates the potential for the type of serious environmental impact that led the Town’s Planning Board to previously require the EIS.

Still, you may ask, why should the Village Trustees let this interfere with their endorsement of a change that would be of great benefit to the Village while costing them nothing? Well you may ask, and I hope you do. One factor which may be relevant is that prior to the Bulova project’s approval, much pressure was exerted on the Village government by the business community and others on behalf of the Bulova devleopers. At times, these folks made it seem that the entire future of the Village depended on the Bulova project being approved. As we all know, the project was ultimately approved, but perhaps that feeling of desparation persists. If so, it could be clouding the vision of our elected representatives to the point where they feel they must protect the interests of the developers, whatever the cost in other areas. Maybe, maybe not. It’s a question worth asking, though.

A very obvious example of how the important issues we face often intersect is the seeming conflict that exists between open space preservation and the creation of more affordable housing. In a nutshell, that conflict can be stated as every acre of open space that is preserved is an acre of land no longer available as a possible site for affordable housing. One might also say the inverse is true as well: more affordable housing equals less open space. Of course, it’s not that simple. Nothing ever is. The real conflict is not between open space and affordable housing; it’s really between high-end housing and open space. Rarely is affordable housing proposed in an area that is also desirable for preservation. Has anyone heard of a plan to put affordable housing in the farm fields of Sagaponack? Not likely. But those fields are definitely vulnerable to subdivision into lots suitable for a new crop of McMansions. When affordable housing is proposed, which as we all know is not very often, it is almost always in areas that are already well developed, and so not in conflict with open space preservation.

So, all is well, or so it would seem; but this happy little scenario gets turned on its head when viewed from the perspective of the aforementioned “well developed” area. Take for instance, Sag Harbor Village, which is almost at the complete build-out stage. In the Village, open space is at a premium, and many of those who live in the Village would certainly like to see as much as possible of what’s left preserved. So when, as recently happened, the owner of one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels proposes a mixed use development — one that will include both offices and housing — all of it affordable — we are faced with quite a conundrum. Adding to the complication is the fact that the parcel abuts the northern end of the Long Pond Greenbelt, and that it may be part of the migratory range of the endangered Tiger Salamander. So, do we encourage the Town to offer to purchase this property with money from the Community Preservation Fund, or do we encourage the developer to go ahead with his plans to create some desperately needed affordable housing for the community’s police, firefighters, teachers and others in the endangered species known as the middle class?

In my mind that’s a tough call. But, so far, we’ve only examined the intersection of open space preservation and affordable housing. If you thought it was going to be that simple, think again. What about that other major East End headache, traffic? As you undoubtedly already know — unless you never drive in the morning, mid-day, or afternoon — commuting workers are one of, if not the most, significant factor contributing to the congestion on our roads. Why do so many area employees commute to work here? Because, they can’t afford to live here due to a lack of affordable housing. So, it stands to reason that one way to reduce traffic would be to make more affordable housing available in the Sag Hampton area. And, where should this affordable housing be? Well, if we really want to reduce traffic, the housing should be as close as possible to businesses and other major public resources like schools, stores, and professional offices. Ideally this new housing stock would be built within walking or biking distance of the aforementioned community resources, i.e., in hamlet centers like Sag Harbor. All perfectly sensible, unless your priority is to preserve the tiny bit of open space that remains in the Village.

However, if you take a slightly broader perspective, it makes perfect sense to encourage hamlet centers such as Sag Harbor, East and Southampton Villages, and downtown Bridgehampton, among others, to accept both additional housing and businesses, because doing so reduces suburban and commercial sprawl and takes the development pressure off the more pristine outlying areas. This makes sense from a public transportation perspective too, as the more people that live and work in an area, the easier it is to serve those people with public transit. A public bus in Northwest doesn’t make a lot of sense; there just aren’t enough people and businesses there to make it worthwhile. But a bus that serves the Villages of East Hampton, Sag Harbor and Southampton, as well as the hamlets of Wainscott, Bridgehampton and Water Mill (especially if each of those hamlet centers also has some new affordable housing within walking or biking distance of downtown) makes a lot of sense. Buses such as these would not only ease congestion on our roads, but also reduce stresses on the environment such as motor vehicle-created air pollution. And, as we focus more  development in the hamlet centers we reduce the pressure to develop farm fields and wooded areas throughout the East End.

The scenario I’ve just been describing is sometimes known as smart growth. It’s a highly-regarded strategy among planning professionals, but not always so popular among our local politicians. To be fair to the politicians, there are valid reasons for this lack of popularity, including the additional stress on our schools, sewage treatment plants, and other public services that come along with increased density. Unhappily, there’s always a trade-off. Housing affects open space. Open space affects transportation. Transportation affects the environment. Or, looked at another way, housing affects transportation. Transportation affects open space and the environment. Take your pick, or come up with your own formula. The combinations are endless…but not insoluble. The key is to start somewhere. We may not be able to say which of our concerns is the “most” important, but we can acknowledge that it is important to get started working wherever possible.  As we proceed we must pay attention to the collateral impact that any action we take will have in other equally important areas.

So, in the end, I told the candidate that affordable housing was “my issue.” It’s what I care about the most right now. I chose it because it is the most neglected of the major issues confronting Sag Hampton. I also told her I was concerned about the impact any development would have on open space preservation and the character of the Village, as well as being very concerned about threats to the environment. So, while I did pick one issue,  in so doing, I actually picked them all.

As readers of this blog know, I have often taken positions against mindless development in the Sag Hampton area…but not against all development, and in this case I had some doubts about the wisdom of opposing the possible changes at the Mobil station.

For one thing, the existing gas station is an eye-sore. If the proposal for a convenience store were to include an appropriate renovation of the existing building, and cleanup and landscaping of the property, it would, I think, be an improvement over current conditions. In addition, access in and out of the existing gas-station is an uncontrolled nightmare for all traffic on that road, including not only those entering and leaving the station, but also through-traffic, bicyclists and pedestrians. Again, if the addition of the convenience store were to include a well-designed traffic-access plan for the entire site, it would be a major improvement to both convenience and safety.

Further, the writer of the call-to-arms e-mail posited that traffic on Rt. 114 is increasing, and that the increased traffic poses serious problems both for the historic homes along the road, and the residents of those homes. This may well be true; however, it does not follow that a convenience store added to an existing high-traffic business on that road will substantially contribute to a further increase in traffic. Probable users of a convenience store at that location would be people who are either already on the road going somewhere else, or customers of the gas station. I do not believe that a gas-station convenience store on Rt. 114 would become a “destination” like the centrally-located 7-11 in the village.

Now, all that said, I’m not saying that I’m in favor of a convenience store at Harbor Heights. What I am saying is that citizens who are concerned about the future of our area — as we all should be — need to carefully weigh the merits of each development proposal before deciding whether to speak out against it.  Sometimes there are subtle benefits to a community in a proposal that may at first seem like a bad idea. An example from a few years ago perfectly illustrates how hard it can be to spot benefits that lie just below the surface.

Not long ago, a bike path was proposed that would run between Bridgehampton and East Hampton. Unfortunately, for a short distance this path would have cut across the southern end of the Long Pond Greenbelt. Now mind you, this is a bike path we’re talking about, not a road. No motor vehicles allowed. But, one or two influential folks who like to ride their horses in the area the bike path would cross, felt that the Greenbelt, while a fine place to travel on horseback, would be despoiled by bicycle traffic. You may agree, or you may think that bikes crossing a small section of the Greenbelt on a controlled path would be a worthwhile trade-off to help jump start a much needed alternative method of transportation, that might even get a few carbon-belching cars off our overburdened roads. Ultimately, however, the folks opposed to the bike path carried the day, and so while we preserved a small piece of our natural habitat, we lost the possibility of achieving something that might have resulted in a greater good for the entire area.

Both proposals — the convenience store and the bike path — illustrate how as we exhaust the possibilities for development on Long Island’s east end, the choices we have to make become increasingly difficult, and fraught with the possibility of missteps. What to oppose and what to promote becomes a more and more difficult decision every day. (Bulova, anyone?) As concerned stewards of this land we (temporarily) occupy, we have a responsibility to be aware of the myriad needs of the many communities with which we share this space — each with differing and often conflicting needs and requirements. Finding a balanced approach to development by keeping our eyes and our minds open to all possibilities is key to ensuring that Sag Hampton remains a livable, sustainable, enjoyable place to call home.

I know that a phrase like “all that it stands for” is a bit pretentious when talking about a commercial enterprise; but the Sag Harbor Cinema does a darn good job of representing the iconoclastic nature of our village in an easily identifiable way. It is after all an art house theater that plays lesser-known, usually small-budget, quirky, independent movies. Doesn’t that sound a lot like Sag Harbor itself? OK, well we’re not really lesser-known anymore, and we’re losing our small budget cachet, but we’re still arty, quirky and independent; in a nice example of symmetry, the Sag Harbor Cinema is one of the features of our village that keeps us that way.

It’s old, and slightly seedy, with a musty smell and seats that fall somewhat short of comfortable, but so what? Where else can you find so many stimulating and entertaining foreign and independent films week in and week out? East Hampton? I think not. Southampton? Don’t make me laugh. Westhampton? Where? OK, so maybe you don’t go to foreign or independent films that often, but isn’t it nice to know that you can see one locally now and again if it should come to your attention? Unfortunately, I suspect that most of us (myself  included) don’t go to this type of film all that often, which probably means that the owner of the Sag Harbor Cinema isn’t exactly raking in the dough. It also means that it will probably be tough to find someone who wants to buy the theater to keep it going as it is.

On the other hand, the alternatives are pretty unsatisfactory. While the facade of the building may, or may not, be protected if it is designated as an historic landmark — it’s not clear that it is — anything could happen on the inside of the building. Perhaps it will be split up into several small retail spaces, or one large one. With retail rents being what they are, the probable inhabitants of such spaces will most likely be limited to high-end designer boutiques. Not exactly the small-scale, mom and pop businesses for which our village is known and loved. Whatever it ends up becoming, it will be a far cry from the integral part of the village it is today.

Now we come to the part of the post where a more ingenious thinker would lay out a strategy for preserving the theater in some way that would be more acceptable then turning it into boutiques. If only that writer were penning this article! Unfortunately, all we’ve got here is me, and I haven’t a clue as to what can be done. Here’s the best I can come up with: Let’s all start going to the movies more often here in Sag Harbor. Perhaps, if we do so consistently, we can make the Sag Harbor Cinema a more economically viable business that may attract a buyer interested in maintaining this local institution just as it is (perhaps with more comfortable seats). Got any better ideas? Think the Library should buy it? Add your thoughts to the comments section below. Otherwise, I’ll see you at the movies.

As I write this, it’s late, so I’m going to give you the shorthand version of that conversation. The Commuter Connection is similar to the light-rail/feeder bus network proposed by Five Towns Rural Transit (5TRT) as a mass-transit system for our area. 5TRT is an outgrowth of the East End Transportation Council (EETC – dontcha just love acronyms?). EETC commissioned the SEEDS  (Sustainable East End Development Strategies) Study. Boiled down to one important bullet point, SEEDS stated that  you cannot separate regional transportation problems from regional land-use issues (zoning). Get it? No? OK, I’ll elaborate a bit.

In order for mass transit to be successful, you need to have relatively large groups of people who are all moving between the same places — say, from where they live to where they work. That puts the mass in mass transit. If you don’t have these concentrations of people all in one place, than the trains/buses don’t get used, ’cause you can’t lay track to, or put a bus stop at everyone’s front door. Unfortunately, for decades zoning policies in our area have encouraged us to build houses on large plots of land spread around on every buildable acre. At the same time, we’ve encouraged businesses to locate all along our highways and byways, between the hamlets. In general, this type of development is known as suburban sprawl. From a transportation perspective, there’s no there there.

But, the SEEDS study tells us that in order to get people to use mass transit — thus keeping their cars off our over-burdened highways — mass transit has to be convenient. Otherwise, people won’t use it. Duh! So, SEEDS says in order to fix the transportation problem, you need to first address the zoning problem by encouraging a mild increase in hamlet center density,  (through a variety of strategies) while upzoning the areas farthest away from the hamlet centers, so that fewer homes are built in outlying areas. SEEDS also suggests putting an end to strip mall development along our highways, while encouraging “infill” and redevelopment in existing business centers. (Please remember, this is a very simplified explanation of the SEEDS recommendations.) The idea is to make it possible for more people to live and work closer to transportation hubs, so that it’s actually convenient to use mass transit.

That got us talking about Sag Harbor, and more particularly about Bulova, because if you think about our transportation issues, and the solution suggested by SEEDS, then you realize that the place where we should be encouraging more of our workforce to live is in the Village center. But, the Bulova developers are saying we should put our workforce housing somewhere else — not in their development — which just happens to be the largest parcel left anywhere near our hamlet center that’s available for (re)development.  Its location and size makes Bulova the ideal place for workforce housing. Yet knowing all the facts, Village government is sitting on their hands and letting the Bulova developers’ need for financial gain trump both the community’s need for affordable workforce housing and a potential solution to our regional transportation issues. A million+ bucks in a “workforce housing fund” sounds nice, but is beside the point since the donors are dictating that the one place where it actually makes sense to put workforce housing is off limits. This opportunity to address two important regional issues at once won’t come around again.
———————————————————
Currently listening to: Boom Town by Greg Brown.

Many say that Sag Harbor has entered a period of unprecedented change that may irredeemably alter its character forever. Others, with perhaps a more long-range view, understand that there has never been a quintessential Sag Harbor. This village is not frozen in time. It evolves to meet the needs of its inhabitants. Looking back, or ahead, we may not recognize those inhabitants, but it was, and will be their village, not ours. Ours is the Village that we have today: historic, funky, upscale, charming, nautical, artistic, resorty and small-town. It’s the culmination of all that came before, and the root from which the Sag Harbor of tomorrow is sprouting even as we watch.

To help us reflect upon these changes and consider how the village will continue to evolve and adapt, a few members of the 300th anniversary organizing committee, led by Benito Vila, have put together a workshop which will be held on Saturday, October 13th at the Methodist Church on Madison Street, to celebrate the character and legacy of Sag Harbor. This workshop, which looks to be a lot of fun, will begin with a presentation and discussion led by experienced preservationists and local artists, after which everyone will head out into the streets to “catalogue” in photos, sketches, or what have you, various aspects of the village’s public and private spaces. Once the cataloging has concluded, the collected materials will become the basis for one or more collaborative projects. One such project might be an online “wiki” where digital photos and digitized sketches are stored, tagged as to content, and commented on by participants, and later by others who view the wiki. The John Jermain Memorial Library has offered the use of its computers to facilitate the creation of the wiki, or other online project, and will make the results available to the public through its website. Other projects may also be developed based on ideas brought forward by participants.

Everyone is invited to participate. At the very least we hope to enjoy an afternoon with friends and neighbors celebrating together the place we live. At best we will create a time capsule of sorts, recording images of the village, documenting what is currently here, and identifying the qualities we hope to retain and encourage for the future. Given the proposed commercial development of existing properties and parcels throughout the village, there will be much to compare and contrast. The effect of those initiatives will be an important consideration as we observe Sag Harbor continuing to make history.
———————————————————–
Currently listening to: Our Little Town by Greg Brown.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The problem I see can best be stated as a question. Would Sag Harbor actually be “saved” if chain stores were outlawed here? And, that question leads me to another: what would a saved Sag Harbor be like? Let’s start with the easy stuff. Clearly, there would not be a CVS here. With CVS out of the picture, Sing City, the liquor store and 7 Eleven would be able to stay. Did I say 7 Eleven? That’s odd. 7 Eleven is definitely a chain, and a few short years ago nobody wanted them here either. I thought I was starting with the easy stuff, but I’m already running into difficulty. Fortunately for Sag Harbor, 7 Eleven’s original franchisee, the Young family, was determined to prove that 7 Eleven could be a good, if not perfect, neighbor. They obviously succeeded, since no one talks about keeping out 7 Eleven anymore. Quite the opposite. We want them to stay. Times change, as does our perception of a “saved” Sag Harbor.

I know it sounds like I’m revving up to defend CVS, Starbucks and their ilk. Trust me, I’m not. I just want to point out that one has to think carefully about the issues facing our little village. Nothing is ever quite as straightforward as it seems. Another example of this is historic preservation. Everyone’s for that. Right? A saved Sag Harbor would certainly retain its place in the National Register of Historic Places. Well, yes, but I have a couple of quibbles with Sag Harbor’s Architectural Review Board. It seems they are, to put it mildly, resistant to alternative power generation devices, such as solar panels and wind turbines. I find this attitude quaint, which I guess is appropriate for people whose mission is to preserve the past. However, I pose this question to the ARB: how quaint will Sag Harbor be when the entire historic district is under water? It’s pretty clear that the world’s best hope for preventing the polar ice caps from melting is for many people to take many small steps to conserve energy and reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately for the historic purity of our village, that includes people who live in historic homes. Which is worse, solar panels or homes under water? In my version of a saved Sag Harbor, there are solar panels on many roofs.

Now for my other quibble with the ARB. In spite of the fact that I’m in favor of allowing solar panels and/or modest wind turbines to appear on the roofs of historic homes in our village, I really am strongly in favor of historic preservation; so much so, in fact, that I question whether the ARB and the other agencies that regulate the look of our Village are too. As I walk down our lovely streets, I find my sensibilities assaulted by what appear to be charming historic homes with huge inflated cancers growing on them. What the heck is up with 168 Main Street? Is Ira Rennert moving to Sag Harbor? What about the house across the Street from 168 Main where a small cottage was expanded to three or four times its original size, all of which expansion is clearly visible from the street?  How can one say the historic look of that house has been preserved? Clearly the codes governing the expansion of historic homes are not adequate in the face of today’s “bigger is better” home owners. In my version of a saved Sag Harbor, this trend will not only be stopped, but reversed.

Unfortunately, the questions only get harder. What to do about traffic? Sag Harbor is a delightfully walkable community; or it would be if there were fewer cars on the roads. Have you ever tried to cross at the intersection of Jermain and Madison on foot? Clearly, until we get people out of their cars, Sag Harbor will continue to suffer from ever increasing traffic woes. An integrated network of light rail, buses, and…gasp!…passenger ferries would go a long way toward enabling people to come to Sag Harbor while leaving their cars at home. Can we truly say that Sag Harbor is saved if we don’t address the traffic problems?

Another tough one: affordable housing. I’ve always believed that what sets Sag Harbor apart from the surrounding communities, and made it the best place to live in the Hamptons is its heterogeneous mix of social, economic and ethnic populations. Not only was there a healthy mix of different types and classes of people, but also, these groups were not divided. Everyone lived side by side in the same neighborhoods. As in a classroom where students of differing abilities are mixed together, everyone benefits. In a village, it’s the year-round, working families that provide the necessary infrastructure, and a good deal of the character of the place. They, in turn benefit from the culture and economic opportunity provided by the second-home owners. Cultures mix and something new and better emerges. Homogeneity — in this case represented by a community of only the wealthy — results in inbreeding and an ultimately sterile environment, lacking in all the charm that attracted people here in the first place. Unfortunately, the “free” market in real estate has killed any hope of retaining the mixed economic neighborhoods of Sag Harbor past. Artificial life-support in the form of mandated affordable housing units is the only hope of preserving some remnant of this tradition. To really save it though, the affordable units must be integrated into all new housing developments, not segregated in affordable-only sub-divisions. In a saved Sag Harbor, there are affordable units in the Bulova condo renovation too.

Speaking of condos, I would say that without a doubt the monstrous and obtrusive condo development proposed by Michael Maiden for Ferry Road near Long Wharf has no place in a saved Sag Harbor. This property clearly must be acquired and preserved by local government for use as a public space. If allowed to go through, the impact of those condos on the character and livability of Sag Harbor’s downtown will be overwhelming, maybe even a tipping point beyond which “Saving Sag Harbor” becomes an empty rallying cry.

There are, of course, other issues that need to be addressed before Sag Harbor can be considered saved: bike lanes and sidewalks, the library, open space preservation (yes, even in Sag Harbor) and more — too many to address in one sitting at the keyboard. None of this is simple; all of it is interrelated. Saving Sag Harbor requires action on many fronts by an informed and concerned populous. It is not now, and never will be a one-issue campaign.

————————————————————-
Currently listening to: Who Will Save Your Soul? by Jewel

Powered by ScribeFire.

Oh, yes…the Town of Southampton has approved a study, to be conducted by its planning department, of the gateway to Sag Harbor along the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike. This has been a little slow getting off the ground, but in the interim, local hero Priscilla Ciccariello has spearheaded an effort by a group she calls “the coalition” to prepare a comprehensive document detailing the reasons the study needs to be done, what specifically needs to be studied, the areas of concern for the surrounding community, the hoped-for outcomes of the study, and the reasoning behind those hopes. It’s an amazing document — a testament to the wisdom that exists outside of official channels. It represents countless hours of work by volunteers whose only interest is the welfare of their community.

Priscilla has presented her pre-study study to the Town Board, the Town Planning Department, and the Village Board of Trustees among others. If ever there was validation for the concept of government officials seeking and heeding community input, this document is it. Lets hope our government officials have the good sense to build upon the foundation that has been provided for them.

Everyone in Sag Hampton owes a debt of gratitude to Priscilla Cicariello and everyone else who worked on this document.

————————————————
Currently listening to: Migrations by The Duhks