June 3, 2014 Post

June 3, 2014

To The Lost Apostrophe

Thank you for initiating this open forum for those of us who care deeply about the future of our island. You have touched on many of the weaknesses of the Yale study. I would like to add some additional thoughts.

Of concern is that the proposal we are being asked to support and vote for, is a plan that appears not to have been ‘reality tested’. I do not believe that the study authors have initiated any dialog with Southold nor spoken with Louisa, Pierce or the Ferry District who have worked frequently (quite constructively, I believe) with Southold. I believe that the authors have not spoken with any of the communities that switched to the village structure nor to any of the many villages (+/- 40) that found that structure financially untenable and reverted back. Island resident Jeanne Thatcher is the Mayor of a Long Island community and I believe that no one has spoken with her. No one from the study has to spoken with the actual island reverse commuters, business owners or families who have educated their children both on and off the island. Why not? Why are we being asked to support, financially and with our votes, a scheme that has little foundation in the actual fabric of Fishers Island life?

A principal concern of the proposed village structure is who would be eligible to run for Mayor and the four volunteer advisory positions? My understanding is that this would be the same population (island voter plus property owner or full-time resident) as the pool of people who are now eligible to be on the Waste Management and Ferry Commissions. What difference will the village structure make if we end up with the same population of decision makers? I understand that the proposal includes the idea of hiring a “Village Manager” who will somehow have the combined experience and wisdom of all the Southold professional resources we now have access to. However the Manager’s priorities will be dictated by the Mayor and four advisors who will be elected from our very limited population. The Ferry Commission can’t get five qualified people to fill the slots now. What difference will the proposed village structure make in the quality of decision making that we so badly need?

There are infrastructure issues on the island that are victims of long-term deferred maintenance or benign neglect – the water system and the ferry operation are but two. At some point these and more will require strong leadership, significant professional planning and community investment. Rather than addressing these fundamental and complicated issues, over the past couple of years, the efforts of the ICB have been fully focused on an ivory tower exercise with Yale rather than doing the hard work within the community and with Southold to prepare the island for the future.

The school is making great strides as apparently is Chris Finan with enhancing island internet capabilities. The Lighthouse Works is flourishing, as is the new Community Center restaurant. Good things are happening on our island. Yes, there certainly are ‘opportunities’ as well. We require a strong and community-unifying leader in an ICB or FICA structure who can address these issues within the context of our existing reality. It seems highly reckless to put our faith, money and votes in an ivory tower exercise believing that this will somehow make present and future challenges any easier or less costly.

PS: Will someone please compile a list of the island organizations that contribute to reimbursing the costs of the Yale study? It will be disappointing to learn that some of our donations will go to Yale rather than to the island community for which they were intended.