May 8, 2012 2:57 PM
A diverse cross section of East Hampton Town residents turned out at Town Hall last Thursday to criticize a new law that would regulate outdoor entertainment at town businesses.
The Town Board heard from 19 people—ranging from business owners to musicians to environmental advocates—who all opposed the proposed legislation.
If enacted, the law would require any business that wants to host entertainment to obtain an entertainment permit. The permit would place restrictions on the number of people allowed to congregate outdoors—a number that would be determined by the town police chief, currently Ed Ecker Jr., but could be no greater than one person per 7 square feet. Outdoor entertainment would also be restricted from noon to 10 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and noon to 11 p.m., on Fridays and Saturdays.
“I represent 300... more
The Town Board heard from 19 people—ranging from business owners to musicians to environmental advocates—who all opposed the proposed legislation.
If enacted, the law would require any business that wants to host entertainment to obtain an entertainment permit. The permit would place restrictions on the number of people allowed to congregate outdoors—a number that would be determined by the town police chief, currently Ed Ecker Jr., but could be no greater than one person per 7 square feet. Outdoor entertainment would also be restricted from noon to 10 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and noon to 11 p.m., on Fridays and Saturdays.
“I represent 300... more
"The inescapable conclusion is that the town attorney, along with the owners' attorney, encouraged an illegal action by the building inspector. The building inspector may not have known it was illegal, but the attorneys must have known, or else they are not competent to represent the town"
It is an "inescapable conclusion" - not opinion according to Cohen. The attorney's "must have known" or else "they are not competent" according to Cohen. Where ...more is this an opinion or conjecture? No where. These are matter of fact statements that can and will be easily proved false. So the letter is untruthful and is not presented as opinion, thus it is indefensible.