WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
east hampton indoor tennis, lessons, club, training
27east.com

Story - News

Nov 1, 2017 11:35 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

Dr. Gobler Includes Fertigation In Updated Environmental Report On 'The Hills'

Chris Gobler
Nov 3, 2017 9:22 AM

Dr. Christopher Gobler this week revised his environmental assessment of a proposed luxury golf resort in East Quogue to include an experimental technique where nitrogen-rich groundwater is recycled for irrigation purposes.

The move lowered his estimate of the amount of nitrogen expected to be generated by the complex—though his modifications do not appear to have swayed the two Southampton Town Board members who oppose the project.

“Nothing that I’ve seen to date is a game-changer from my previous stance,” Town Councilwoman Julie Lofstad of Hampton Bays said when reached on Tuesday, the same day Dr. Gobler’s updated report was released by the town. “I’m weighing all the factors, and my biggest concern is the impact on our aquifer.”

She, along with fellow Democrat and Town Councilman John Bouvier, have already stated that they would not support the project’s findings statement—the last step before a formal vote on the actual Hills application, a planned development district, occurs next month.

“It doesn’t really change my mind that much,” said Mr. Bouvier, noting that nitrogen-removal rates achieved through the technique, called fertigation, rely on too many variables to be conclusive.

Fertigation was pitched by the developer, Discovery Land Company of Arizona, as a way to reduce the amount of nitrogen that its proposed 118-unit luxury golf resort, The Hills at Southampton, would introduce into the groundwater—as well as removing existing nitrogen already in the groundwater at the site as the result of previous uses, including farming.

Dr. Gobler, a marine science professor at Stony Brook Southampton, said he did not include the process—which is now expected to remove another 281 pounds of nitrogen from the soil annually, lowering the development’s projected nitrogen output to 2,041 pounds—in his original assessment because there was not enough evidence to support the developer’s nitrogen removal estimates.

On Tuesday, Dr. Gobler said he decided to revisit his original assessment after reviewing a report showed fertigation techniques have been successful at Suffolk County’s Indian Island Golf Course in Riverhead.

He also noted that he decided to revisit his findings at the request of Southampton Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman. In a letter dated October 11, Mr. Schneiderman made the following request of Dr. Gobler: “Using your most conservative assumptions, can you please calculate a minimum reduction, if any, that would likely result from this proposed irrigation methodology?”

Dr. Gobler, who lives in East Quogue and who previously agreed to review the project on the town’s behalf pro bono, on Tuesday defended his decision to update his report. “I wouldn’t have done it if I didn’t think it was a scientifically sound estimate,” he said.+

The updated and projected 2,041-pound figure comes in lower than the at least 2,484 pounds of nitrogen that’s expected to be generated by a traditional subdivision, which Discovery can build as of right on the nearly 600 acres it owns in East Quogue. Before Dr. Gobler updated his report, the PDD was projected to produce more than 2,300 pounds of nitrogen.

In his updated report, Dr. Gobler alludes to the fact that it is difficult to place a precise figure on the amount of nitrogen that could be removed through fertigation. He wrote: “While the precise level of nitrogen remains an unknown, it seems highly likely that any nitrogen … that is applied to a turf will be absorbed at a significant rate.”

Discovery needs the support of four of five Town Board members, known as a supermajority, for its PDD application—which also calls for a private 18-hole golf course—to earn final approval.

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

So Dr.Gobler, are you still not for or against the PDD as previously stated? Jay is pulling a fast one by trying to get Gobler to say yes to the Hills. I suspect the good Dr. still has no opinion or he would have said so.
By Taz (488), East Quogue on Nov 1, 17 12:09 PM
Why would the Town Board base their decision on something as boring as scientific evidence anyway?
By aging hipster (166), Southampton on Nov 1, 17 1:03 PM
It's scientific speculation,not evidence.If wrong,there goes our water and bays.Therin lies the rub. We will still live here and DLC will take whatever $ they make and leave.
By Taz (488), East Quogue on Nov 1, 17 1:08 PM
1 member liked this comment
"Too many variables" to fertigation, says John Bouvier, an engineer, and he's right. Stand fast, John Bouvier and Julie Lofstad. Mr. Bouvier's not on the ballot this time, but Arizona's Discovery Land is trying to hijack this election, any way they can -- money, lies, intimidation, the whole horror show.

Don't let it happen. If you want to decide your own fate and you want to kill The Hills (and you should), then vote for Tommy John Schiavoni and Julie Lofstad on November 7.
By Turkey Bridge (1868), Quiogue on Nov 1, 17 1:43 PM
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, as usual let no opportunity for partisan agitprop go unfulfilled.

I watched the North Sea candidates debate on Channel 22 last evening and was not overly impressed by anything I saw -- other than Tommy John Schiavoni had on a suit jacket and necktie. (From his campaign photos, I thought he was a garage mechanic, rather than a teacher!)

Julie Lofstad's entire presentation was punctuated by a maddening series of "Ums" and very little substance. She shouldn't have a ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1798), Northampton on Nov 1, 17 2:05 PM
3 members liked this comment
...the fact of the matter is that Tommy John Schiavoni has better credentials, in terms of education and government/civic experience and volunteerism than all three of the republican candidates combined.
By William Rodney (507), southampton on Nov 1, 17 2:25 PM


...the fact of the matter is that Tommy John Schiavoni has better credentials, in terms of education and government/civic experience and volunteerism than all three of the republican candidates combined.
By William Rodney (507), southampton on Nov 1, 17 3:46 PM
And what, old boy, is the true character of a lawyer -- a highly competent and experienced lawyer, let's say -- who disgraces his profession by making a "mistake" that strains all credulity, i.e., failing to effect the routine notice required for a public hearing and thereby fortuitously causing that hearing to be delayed until after a crucial local election is held? And what if this delay is of inestimable benefit to that lawyer's client? What is the "true character" of that attorney, in your ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1868), Quiogue on Nov 2, 17 7:21 PM
The Honorable Jay Schneiderman lost my vote with his reply to a direct question on this matter at the Hampton Bays Civic Association meeting. He "ran out of time" before he could reply yes or no. Ms. LOFSTAD was wonderful, passionate and positive in her conviction that preserving our environment and our community is the right thing to do. I'm voting for Julie LOFSTAD and anyone who supports her. That includes Mr. Schiavoni and write in candidate Fred Havemeyer.
By dfree (548), hampton bays on Nov 1, 17 3:41 PM
1 member liked this comment
Write in Fred Havemeyer....
By knitter (1482), Southampton on Nov 1, 17 4:38 PM
1 member liked this comment
Today, Suffolk County Planning recommended the approval of The Hills application, a reversal of thier 2013 disapproval. The Southampton Town Planning Department in their Finding Statement recommended the approval of The Hills. And now Dr. Gobler, according to this article, has concluded that The Hills PDD will have a lower impact than the "as of right" development. Proverb - The wise man can change his mind, the stubborn one, never. - Immanuel Kant
By loxman (20), Remsenburg on Nov 1, 17 5:44 PM
2 members liked this comment
Fertigation is a new and improved way to reduce nitrogen from runoff. Fair enough. Also new and improved are the nitrogen reduction septic systems that would need to be installed in any stand alone housing alternative to the Hills.

Now lets compare these two new and improved alternatives so we are talking about apples to apples comparisons.

By kjmraven (19), East Quogue on Nov 1, 17 6:04 PM
1 member liked this comment
this is not about nitrogen its about xenophobia
By Erin 27 E (1091), hampton bays on Nov 1, 17 7:26 PM
Jay tipped us off at the Hampton Bays Civic Association meeting. The OBI East redevelopment will be stopped in January because they had to begin substantial development within 3 years and did not so the zoning variance will lapse. Similarly, the Town could vote this zoning variance down, and then get the lawsuits to do the ditry work of stopping the "as of right" development. Eventually, the CPF will buy this acreage and the environment will be spared any nitrogen poisoning.
By dfree (548), hampton bays on Nov 1, 17 9:43 PM
1 member liked this comment
He said that three years was never realistic to begin with. How do you figure that means this property will end up being bought by CPF. And while you are guessing, both sides of the canal or just one shall be purchased with CPF and what exactly will CPF do with the buildings?

By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 2, 17 1:00 PM
And the community will be spared the social and economic benefit of having a thriving Resort Waterfront Business zone, recognized as essential to the well-being of the area in the master plan.

The Town would then be doubling down on continuing its policy of taking such properties off the tax rolls resulting in a further decline of Hampton Bays. The only viable option is to return the properties to RWB status, encouraging the owners to recreate that which it has enabled to be destroyed.
By VOS (1116), WHB on Nov 2, 17 3:08 PM
1 member liked this comment
It's absolutely amazing how Hills opponents placed so much emphasis on Gobler's analysis - until he concluded that The Hills, as a result of massive mitigation measures, would contribute less nitrogen than a subdivision. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Dr. Gobler, thank you for sticking to science and not sensationalism.
By getalife (58), Southampton on Nov 1, 17 10:59 PM
I haven't been paying strict attention to the entire thing and I thought I was mistaken that Dr. Gobler was being touted as the person to listen to on the science of this project. So when presented with the facts people still want to believe their own facts.
By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 2, 17 12:17 PM
2 members liked this comment
Please read Dr. Goblers report. He does not conclude that the Hills will contribute less nitrogen than a subdivision. He concludes it might. If all the mitigation works perfectly and actually happens. Which he makes clear in the report is unlikely. If. If. If.
By CleanWater (118), East Quogue on Nov 2, 17 12:56 PM
1 member liked this comment
What happens without the Hills? Is that a definate?
By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 2, 17 1:21 PM
Just who are you CleanWater? I am Larry Oxman, I speak up at public hearings and don't hide behind masks and false names. You are very outspoken and opinionated, why are you hiding?
By loxman (20), Remsenburg on Nov 2, 17 5:08 PM
If only we could build more 18 hole golf courses with thousands of condos bathrooms dumping nitrogen and phosphorus into our water -- then we'll be much better off. And don't forget that we need to practice putting out fires at these developments, please don't spare the fire retardant foam!
By dfree (548), hampton bays on Nov 2, 17 9:20 AM
Please read Dr. Goblers report. He does not conclude that the Hills will contribute less nitrogen than a subdivision. He concludes it might. If all the mitigation works perfectly and actually happens. Which he makes clear in the report is unlikely. If. If. If.
By CleanWater (118), East Quogue on Nov 2, 17 9:22 AM
Just who are you CleanWater? I am Larry Oxman, I speak up at public hearings and don't hide behind masks and false names. You are very outspoken and opinionated, why are you hiding?
By loxman (20), Remsenburg on Nov 2, 17 5:13 PM
this project should not be built, period. We need to preserve land
By kuali (30), southampton on Nov 2, 17 11:18 AM
1 member liked this comment
The land was for sale. Then was the time to preserve it. It is unrealistic to think that once millions have been spent on land that the owner is just going to say here - preserve this.

By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 2, 17 12:23 PM
1 member liked this comment
RE-ELECT COUNCILWOMAN JULIE LOFSTAD

ELECT TOMMY JOHN SCHIAVONI

WRITE-IN FRED HAVEMEYER FOR TOWN SUPERVISOR

ON THE BALLOT, GO TO THE BOTTOM OF COLUMN !0

IN THE SPACE, WRITE FRED HAVEMEYER

VOTE ON NOVEMBER 7

YOUR VOTE COUNTS !
By HamptonClassic (69), Southampton on Nov 2, 17 11:53 AM
1 member liked this comment
Dr.Gobler hasnot changed his stance of neither approving nor disapprovingTheHillsPDD. DLC (and Ms. Bernocco of the Press) should stop misrepresenting his statements.
By Taz (488), East Quogue on Nov 2, 17 11:56 AM
Sadly, both Discovery and the Town have made this a comparison between the PDD and the as of right. State Law requires the consideration of alternatives and requires mitigation for negative environmental impacts.. The comparisons seem to have been tipped to favor the PDD. With all levels of government focused on water quality - why is a golf course above our aquifer, adjacent to our already impaired Shinnecock bay a good idea? Let's not forget the cost of lost commercial fishing and tourism ...more
By Yes we can (16), Eastport on Nov 2, 17 12:16 PM
2 members liked this comment

Just returned home, last night, from a week long business trip and received this interesting e-mail, which I want to share with everyone.

On Thursday night, October 26, I attended the Candidates debate at Rogers Library in the Village of Southampton. It was clear, from the questions submitted by the public, that the one topic on the voter's minds, from the first debate and now the last, was "The Hills PDD."

First up were the two Candidates for Town Supervisor. Jay Schneiderman ...more
By SpeedRacer (114), Southampton on Nov 2, 17 1:54 PM
1 member liked this comment
I don't mind when people don't agree with my stance on issues, but I am bothered when people purposely misrepresent what I have said in a debate. First and foremost, I am not and have not ever been an employee of a golf course developer. I was employed by Mount Snow LTD in West Dover, VT. Part of our resort holdings included a golf course and as part of our management team that dealt with budgets, I came to understand both construction and maintenance of courses. In particular, I became close friends ...more
By roverton (45), Westhampton on Nov 2, 17 6:07 PM
1 member liked this comment
ROVERTON ... As the Great Warner Wolf would say ... "Let's go to the video tapes". That was the take away from these debates and your stuck with it!

WRITE IN ... ON THE BOTTOM OF COLUMN 10 (Supervisor)

FRED HAVEMEYER for TOWN SUPERVISOR

IT IS THAT EASY!
By SpeedRacer (114), Southampton on Nov 3, 17 10:53 AM
What Dr. Gobler said in his own words – NO SPIN – just CAPS

“This has NEVER been done anywhere in the United States. NOWHERE has anyone used GROUNDWATER to fertilize. They've done it for WASTEWATER water, but not for CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER, so we DON’T have anything to go on, but I think it's a great idea.”

“The total calculation of nitrogen impacts and mitigation for this project are COMPLICATED by the CHALLENGE of ATTEMPTING to quantify several ...more
By CleanWater (118), East Quogue on Nov 2, 17 2:46 PM
Hello CleanWater, No Spin? Why didn't you choose to capitalize Dr. Golber statement as follows???

“This has never been done anywhere in the United States. nowhere has anyone used groundwater to fertilize. They've done it for waste water, but not for contaminated ground water, so we don't have anything to go on, BUT I THINK IT IS A GREAT IDEA."

BTW Dr. Golber did write the following (but this doesn't support your negative bias) - "Fertigation is a novel and innovative approach ...more
By loxman (20), Remsenburg on Nov 2, 17 4:08 PM
3 members liked this comment
Fertigation would be an experiment. There are NO proven facts, just assumptions. Not by anyone, including Dr. Gobler. Which is why he DOES NOT give his opinion on the Hills PDD either way. It may be a great idea, but that's the problem, it;s just an idea.
By Taz (488), East Quogue on Nov 2, 17 5:28 PM
You are 100% incorrect and parroting an ignorant sound bite.

Dr Gobler's analysis without phytoremediation still shows that the PDD is better than the AOR. Add the phytoremediation and the bay restoration efforts are icing on the cake.

Go ahead. Ask Dr Gobler. He's easy to contact.
By Mark Hissey (170), East Quogue on Nov 2, 17 11:28 PM
Dr. Gobler's analysis without a deducting the nitrogen that might someday be created by an unbuilt, unapproved subdivision on a separate piece of land and the deduction of the nitrogen from the transfer of 35 Pine Barrens credits that Dr. Gobler was "directed" to include although he clearly states in his report cannot be done under current law would CLEARLY and OVERWHELMINGLY demonstrate that the As of Right is the better choice.
By CleanWater (118), East Quogue on Nov 3, 17 2:21 PM
Supervisor Jay Schneiderman
September 26, 2017

Replying to a question about limiting nitrogen at the Hills:

"And to the degree that the Town enforces the code, I HOPE that the Town, in the future does the right thing."

Well that certainly clinches it for me. Let's bet the ranch on the supervisor's hope in future Town Boards.
.

By CleanWater (118), East Quogue on Nov 2, 17 6:04 PM
1 member liked this comment
Perhaps a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson (world famous astrophysicist) is appropriate here...

"THE GOOD THING ABOUT SCIENCE IS THAT IT'S TRUE WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IN IT."

The Hills is the lesser of two evils if this piece is going to be developed, which it is, one way or another. Let's go with something that we will have SOME measure of control over. As of right development is far more riskier and "THE SCIENCE" everyone was waiting for proves that out. I have the utmost respect ...more
By hannahroses (2), East Quogue on Nov 2, 17 7:17 PM
1 member liked this comment
And that in a nutshell, is why community members end up supporting PDDs. Nothing is perfect, but nine times out of ten, a PDD is still better than not having any control which is what you get with as of right building.
By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 2, 17 9:07 PM
But that's the problem with this process. The Town can and does have a level of control over the alternative.
By Yes we can (16), Eastport on Nov 2, 17 10:44 PM
1 member liked this comment
The alternative being as of right? They have limited control over as of right.
By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 3, 17 8:33 PM
So why has the PDD law been eliminated? The Town can put restrictions on new builds, FYI. 9 out of 10 still leaves us with ONE big disaster - called the HILLS!
By Taz (488), East Quogue on Nov 5, 17 12:03 PM
I'm sorry, I don't actually understand what you are saying here. 9 out of 10 what?

Please explain these restrictions on new builds.

There are plenty of people who think the PDD law should not have been eliminated and only time will tell if it was the right move.
By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 5, 17 10:25 PM
DUMP GREGOR
DUMP SCHNEIDERMAN
DUMP GLINKA
DRAIN OUR SWAMP
CLEAN OUR ENVIORNMENT
By pw herman (1134), southampton on Nov 2, 17 7:27 PM
You are so original PW - I'm sure everyone is sure to listen to your advice.
By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 5, 17 10:11 PM
To those of you who question what is being proposed, I would suggest that you do your homework.

The "fertigation" that has colloquially been described is actually phytoremediation. It is in place to try to mitigate and ongoing and perpetual problem which already exists. Not something that will happen in the future. The farm fields to the north-west of the property will forever create a problem to the south-east of the property. Unless, the contaminated plume is intercepted and treated.

For ...more
By Mark Hissey (170), East Quogue on Nov 2, 17 11:20 PM
4 members liked this comment
Sounds like you actually know what you speak of, Mr. Hissey. I commend you on your attempt at educating the naysayers.

“Fertigation” makes perfect sense.
By Draggerman (822), Southampton on Nov 5, 17 6:03 PM
1 member liked this comment
... golf course maintenance workers are not qualified to intercept and treat the contaminated plume. It is a public health/ safety issue that must me remedied by governmental agencies.
By William Rodney (507), southampton on Nov 3, 17 5:06 AM
1 member liked this comment
Wow, another the government will save us post.
By dnice (2340), Hampton Bays on Nov 3, 17 8:53 PM
And how could that possibly happen exactly?
By Mark Hissey (170), East Quogue on Nov 3, 17 9:59 PM
Very big words. Almost distracts from the fact that injecting massive additional amounts of fertilizer into our drinking water is a terrible idea.
By dfree (548), hampton bays on Nov 3, 17 6:48 AM
"injecting massive amounts of fertilizer into our groundwater"?

Massive -- no. Look to the plan. Look to the past 15 years of documented results from The Bridge and Sebonack.

Injecting -- no. Why would fertilizer be injected into drinking water? Fertilizer is used in limited amounts onto turf grass where it is used by the plant.

I'm sorry, but your comments truly make no scientific sense at all.

It's not such a complicated word by the way. Google it or split ...more
By Mark Hissey (170), East Quogue on Nov 3, 17 9:55 PM
The as of right development is sounding better and better. I'd much prefer to have additional full time residents moving to East Quogue that will truly help to grow our town and community.

The PDD gives us a bunch of part-timers and the uncertainty golf course treatment.

EQ is a small town that is going to grow one way or the other, it seems like a better growth strategy if we have more full time residents.
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (568), southampton on Nov 3, 17 9:48 AM
KILL " THE HILLS PDD"-- A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR

ENVIRONMENT !

SAY "NAY" TO JAY AND RAY !

ON NOVEMBER 7 VOTE! VOTE !

RE-ELECT JULIE LOFSTAD ELECT TOMMY JOHN SCHIAVONI

WRITE- IN FRED HAVEMEYER FOR TOWN SUPERVISOR

ON THE BALLOT.. GO TO THE BOTTOM OF COLUMN 10 (Supervisor)

WRITE -IN FRED HAVEMEYER



By HamptonClassic (69), Southampton on Nov 3, 17 11:18 AM
2 members liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Taz (488), East Quogue on Nov 3, 17 11:39 AM
Golf course will be fertilized.Gobler states:“While the precise level of nitrogen remains an unknown, it seems highly likely that any nitrogen … that is applied to a turf will be absorbed at a significant rate.” No golf course=no fertitilzation=no need to guess about how much nitrogen will be absorbed and how much will pass into our aquifer.
By Taz (488), East Quogue on Nov 3, 17 11:39 AM
Except that what you write is not true.

No golf course equals houses, all over the acreage in question. Houses that will be landscaped, landscapes that will be fertilized and treated with chemicals by non-professionals, often with the mindset that if a little fertilizer or treatment is good for the lawn and plantings a lot of those chemicals is better. There will be no monitoring, no regulation, no control.

Those houses will all have conventional septic systems, not a state ...more
By VOS (1116), WHB on Nov 3, 17 5:37 PM
1 member liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By CleanWater (118), East Quogue on Nov 3, 17 2:22 PM
I don't understand why the Board would vote against the Hills project. From all that I have read and heard, it is the best alternative and the developers have gone above and beyond in addressing community concerns. All I'm hearing from the opposition to the project is noise at this point and I don't see them proposing any realistc or viable alternatives. We need to carefully balance the need for environmental protection with sustainable development, and this project seems to do that.
By Patti Schaefer (11), Westhampton Beach on Nov 4, 17 11:50 AM
2 members liked this comment
You are a voice of reason Ms. Schaefer.

I sincerely hope that calmer minds embrace your view.
By Mark Hissey (170), East Quogue on Nov 5, 17 1:00 AM
There are alternatives that provide more protection for the community but with less impact on our aquifer or the watershed. Unfortunately, the Town has chosen NOT to allow them to be fairly considered. At the moment, whether you are for or against the project you need to consider the process and sadly, right now it's broken!!!
By Yes we can (16), Eastport on Nov 5, 17 1:18 PM
Which alternatives provide more protection?
By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 5, 17 10:13 PM
The problem with the proposal is the golf course. An alternative without the private golf course would be the best. Think about what it takes to construct and maintain a golf course. Is it worth the risk???
By Yes we can (16), Eastport on Nov 6, 17 10:42 AM
I thought you were referring to environmental alternatives, not alternatives plans by the land owners.

Thanks for explaining.
By bb (803), Hampton Bays on Nov 6, 17 7:16 PM
The process is not broken, its execution is. The master plan for the area calls for two golf courses in the area; constructing one will not be a harm to the environment and may have substantial benefits to it as well as the societal and economic benefits identified in the PDD documents.

Your assertion that this golf course presents risks to our groundwater or aquifer is not supported by anything in the FEIS and is denied in the Findings Statement created for the Town by experts hired ...more
By VOS (1116), WHB on Nov 6, 17 7:48 PM
2 members liked this comment
Hadn't checked my emails in the last few days, and was happy to receive the following message; also asked to share with others ...

On Thursday night, October 26, I attended the Candidates debate at Rogers Library in the Village of Southampton. It was clear, from the questions submitted by the public, that the one topic on the voter's minds, from the first debate and now the last, was "The Hills PDD."

First up were the two Candidates for Town Supervisor. Jay Schneiderman finally ...more
By HamptonClassic (69), Southampton on Nov 4, 17 9:10 PM
2 members liked this comment
TOMORROW TUESDAY NOVEMBER 7 IS ELECTION DAY.

THIS ELECTION WILL SET THE COURSE FOR OUR TOWN"S FUTURE GENERATIONS.

DON'T LET BIG LAND DEVELOPERS BUY YOUR VOTE.

WRITE IN FRED HAVEMEYER FOR TOWN SUPERVISOR

ON THE BALOT, AT THE BOTTOM OF COLUMN 10 (Supervisor) YOU CAN WRITE IN FRED HAVEMEYER. IT'S THAT EASY.

RE-ELECT COUNCILWOMAN JULIE LOFSTAD

ELECT TOMMY JOHN SCHIAVONI

YOUR CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN WILL THANK YOU
By SpeedRacer (114), Southampton on Nov 6, 17 11:05 AM
Or if you feel that this well designed state of the art world class resort golf course will be good for the community, then get out and vote the opposite!
By Erin 27 E (1091), hampton bays on Nov 6, 17 11:17 AM
Newsday's interactive map indicates East Quogue residents overwhelmingly voted for council members that support the Hills. The locals have spoken.
By A Great American (51), East Quogue on Nov 9, 17 2:41 PM
1 member liked this comment
Support of the hills (or lack of support) is not the only reason to vote for a candidate. Just b/c residents voted for candidates who happen to support the hills does not show that all of these people are in favor of the hills.
By adlkjd923ilifmac.aladfksdurwp (568), southampton on Nov 10, 17 9:03 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Yes we can (16), Eastport on Nov 10, 17 1:06 PM