Sep 18, 2012 6:45 PM
Suffolk County says it intends to sue East Hampton Town for removing “large quantities of valuable topsoil” from farmland on Route 114 in East Hampton to which the county owns the development rights. The town was trying to relieve flooding in Hansom Hills, a residential neighborhood directly across the street, by putting in a drainage basin at the farm.
“The unlawful excavation and removal of topsoil rendered the land in question unusable for farming and substantially diminished the value of the land, which was paid for by Suffolk County taxpayers,” said Suffolk County Executive Steven Bellone in a press release issued late Tuesday afternoon.
“There are much cheaper and more environmentally sound ways to resolve the flooding issue than by hauling away for sale some of the finest agricultural soil in the... more
“The unlawful excavation and removal of topsoil rendered the land in question unusable for farming and substantially diminished the value of the land, which was paid for by Suffolk County taxpayers,” said Suffolk County Executive Steven Bellone in a press release issued late Tuesday afternoon.
“There are much cheaper and more environmentally sound ways to resolve the flooding issue than by hauling away for sale some of the finest agricultural soil in the... more
EH taxpayers will be the ones to pay for the Supervisor's lack of discretion.
The County's claim is that the soils are protected under the Development Rights purchase program along with various farming ...more laws. Whatever happens on that property must be approved by the County because they are an interested (involved) party. The Town didn't bother to look into this and now have to deal with the fallout.
A ten year problem was engineered to be corrected. Ironically the sump would ...more actually preserve farm soils because right now they get washed across 114 (creating a driving danger) and end up in Hansom Hills. A sump that is maintained would actually collect those soils and allow them to be returned to where they came -- the farm fields. For the County Planning Director to say there are better ways to fix it, then I say why hasn't the County done it? Since the County is claiming some ownership or control over all that Long Lane property, then all those residents who are being flooded and overrun with COUNTY SOILS should sue the County for all the damage they have suffered for the last ten years that the County has neglected to address. Now that the County Planning Director has admitted there were things the County could have done and did not I think the County and the elected County officials may be getting such a suit thrown their way.
The fact that Wilkinson and Quigley did SOMETHING should be applauded and certainly not sued for - unbelievable.
County is 100% correct on this one - the Town simply didn't do their homework.
Wasn't that actually the case with the vast majority of it?
No farms, no food stupid.
I also know something about the law and I believe the owner of what is causing the problem is liable. To say the sate is responsible because they own the road is like saying your neighbor to your right has a cesspool that is over flowing and the waste is running through your back yard into the yard of the neighbor on your left. Who is liable for the damage to your neighbor to your left? You, because the waste is crossing your yard into his and you aren't stopping it? Or your neighbor to your right who refuses to fix the problem causing the damage? Pretty obvious -- also a law school question.
The County now says they have the say on the land causing the problem, but has chosen to file a notice of claim against the town. That is actually good for the town because there will be some preliminary discovery where the town will be able to question the county on how long they have been aware of the problem and why they did not fix it. They can ask for any internal memos about who in the county knew about the problem and how they decided to respond. I can see the residents who have had property destroyed suing the county if they find out the county knew of the problem and knowingly and willingly refused to fix it. At least the town attempted to give East Hampton residents some relief from a problem no one else was obviously willing to tackle.
County isn't responsible for the runoff because they don't OWN the land. They're only an interested (involved) agency because they bought the underlying development rights, but they aren't the property owner.
Also, it's not akin to your cesspool example. The farm has been there probably longer than the road - it's the State's responsibility to make sure the road can handle the runoff from the farm. If ...more the property owner of the farm did a subdivision or similar development, then they would have to address the drainage issue, but it's a pre-existing use and a pre-existing problem. The Town shouldn't have touched it - let alone gave a contract where the bidder could SELL the soils
Your point also does not make sense because you say the County is not responsible because they do not OWN the land. Yet the person who OWNS the land granted permission for the sump. But, based on your argument the owner also does not have the right to fix the problem because you say the Town should not have touched it, even though the OWNER granted permission. So who is responsible? You say the State is because it is not controlling a severe flooding problem that it has nothing to do with. You are saying the State should do something to prevent the water from crossing the highway and flooding those properties on the other side - exactly the point of my cesspool example. You are saying the State should build a dam and stop the water. Should they raise the road so after the water runs towards the road, it hits the elevation and runs back onto the farm fields thus flooding the crops or washing away freshly seeded fields?
OK Nature tell me who is really responsible, and who has the authority to approve the fix for the problem, and what is the fix.
1. The State is responsible because it's their road which is the conduit for the flooding. It may seem silly or counter-intuitive, but it's not the property owners responsibility it's the states. Trust me, I'm very familiar with these types of situations.
2. The County does NOT own the farmland. Yea, the "property owner" gave them Town permission, but they didn't have ...more the authority to do so. Since the County bought the development rights, they have a say in anything that happens on that property including removal of soils and creation of a drainage basin.
3. I never said the state should build a dam - or even that the drainage basin is a bad idea. But there is a process for securing lands needed to address the situation (drainage easements/acquisitions). The Town didn't bother to do it and it's the state's responsibility.
4. When the State drops the ball - it doesn't mean the Town can do whatever it wants. You need the proper approvals which they didn't bother to get.
It WAS and it's going to CO$T.
I see what you mean. The noble motivation of the error makes the incompetency it indicates irrelevant.
“I” would vote for competent candidates for Supervisor and Councilperson and charge them with fixing the problem without violating anyone's property rights.
It is the county's property rights that were violated. The county owns the development rights to the patch of land from which the Town removed topsoil, substantially devaluing it. It was the failure of Wilkinson and Quigley to take note of this ownership right (as did you) that caused the suit.
Had precisely the same solution been undertaken competently, the Town would have requested permission from the county to dig the drainage basin and would have compensated ...more the county, if required, had permission been granted.
However, it is likely that another solution would have had to be found because, as the Suffolk County planning director, Sarah Lansdale, said, “There are much cheaper and more environmentally sound ways to resolve the flooding issue than by hauling away for sale some of the finest agricultural soil in the State of New York.”
Not being an engineer, I don't know what those solutions are. I vote people into public office in the expectation that they will manage problems like this for me.
Not to worry though, Wilkinson and Quigley need simply fire a few more Town employees to balance the $130K debit their mistake has incurred.
If someone gets fired over this it will not be because it will save the town money because they will need to be replaced and the salaries will still be there. They will be fired because the record ...more will show poor performance or illegal disclosure of privileged information for political reasons. By the way how many people have been "fired" by East Hampton over the last three years? Southampton is firing a bunch(like 20), Brookhaven fired 15 last year and is firing 150 this year, the county has fired about 200 already and more is in the works, Islip is firing like a dozen, etc. I went through all the stories in the Press and the Star for the last three years and found three layoffs in East Hampton. Three laid off in the wake of the $30 million financial debacle created by your last Democrat Supervisor and his all Democrat Town Board. One lay off per $10 million of Democrat mismanagement - it could have been worse, just ask Brookhaven and County workers.