home goods, Southampton
27east.com

149 Comments by Mark Hissey

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  >>  

East Quogue Luxury Golf Course Developer Answers Questions

Please look at the facts of the project. You could not be more incorrect." Sep 7, 15 12:52 AM

East Quogue School Superintendent Acknowledges Benefits From Hills Development

Just a few clarifications.

1. You may think our deed restrictions are delusional but I can assure you they aren't. Our corporation has successfully executed them on numerous occasions.
2. The project has ten condominiums. The remaining 108 are individual homes.
3. The plan addresses impacts on drinking water and on the Bay. In great detail and reviewed by scientists who are experts in their fields. These will be peer reviewed by scientists hired by the Town.
4. The as-of-right plan will be pursued should the PDD be rejected. Many efforts were made in the past to acquire the land for preservation and they failed. The PDD plan is by far the best option of the two options available and the science will unequivocally prove that. " Sep 24, 15 10:13 AM

Demolition is being completed and pile testing is well underway. " Sep 24, 15 10:15 AM

118.

The project also preserves 400+ acres of land. " Sep 24, 15 10:17 AM

As required by the process determined by the TOS, this will all be in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The scoping sessions happen to help determine what the public as well as the Town would like to see analyzed in the DEIS. " Sep 24, 15 10:19 AM

That is what the meetings are for. To create transparency. In addition, Discovery Land Company has disclosed on numerous occasions, in public forums, that there were ongoing negotiations with the school on what we could do to help the school. These forums have been advertised extensively including the series of voluntary public information sessions held over the past few weeks. There will be more to come and I would actively encourage you to attend one or more to get the true facts of the project. " Sep 24, 15 10:26 AM

It isn't unfortunately. The best option for removing nitrogen from the bay and for protecting drinking water will be the PDD. The purpose of the DEIS will be to prove these facts among many others. You may not want to believe that, but it is the truth. The purchase of the property with the CPF just is not going to happen. That option was exhausted long ago.

As for your opinion on the sales of houses, thank you. But we respectfully disagree." Sep 24, 15 8:17 PM

A few more clarifications.

1. The meetings are to clarify the facts of the project. Facts that have been ignored and distorted by many.
2. You seem to have made up your mind about golf courses and the environment. I'm afraid that you have that wrong too. Scientific opinion is the complete opposite of what you are stating. You may not want to believe that but I would encourage you to pay close attention to the facts that are proposed by the project and which will be peer reviewed by scientists who are true experts in their field. They make decisions not on suspicion or conjecture, but by scientific fact.
3. There is no catering hall." Sep 24, 15 8:24 PM

Environmentalists Demand Repeal Of PDD Law In Southampton Town

I'll give you some clarification Turkey Bridge. There will absolutely be an as-of-right development on this property if the PDD isn't approved. I'm not sure if your position is pure speculation or that you are getting bad information from somebody.

What isn't a choice is preservation or PDD approval. Many seem to think that is the case. It isn't. Calling a bluff is a very dangerous game and one which will not result in preservation. Rather, this PDD will result in benefits for the water quality alone that will be unprecedented.

Please, look at the science and not the speculation.

Please come to one of the information sessions that are being held. You will be able to understand more about the plan rather than speculate as to what it is." Oct 10, 15 12:51 PM

We'll have to disagree on that Mr. Rodney. People want to live in East Quogue. It's a lovely place. Why wouldn't they?" Oct 10, 15 12:55 PM

I'm pretty astonished at Mr. Thiele's position to be honest. He may change his tune when he actually gets the facts about the project. Right now, he doesn't have them. Nobody does." Oct 10, 15 12:57 PM

One more clarification TB. Discovery owns the land. Galaxie's assumption is correct. We will not walk clean, and we won't." Oct 10, 15 1:00 PM

Just out of curiosity, which of the PDD's that have been approved have been disasters and why? I'm genuinely curious." Oct 10, 15 1:03 PM

When you file a PDD, a draft environmental impact statement is filed and paid for by the applicant. Not just speculation and hyperbole, but science based studies. Those studies are then reviewed by experts hired by the Town to peer review. Given that they work for the Town, they not only have to be impartial, but they have to be mind the interests of the Town and the laws that are in place for the process. " Oct 10, 15 1:16 PM

591 acres. 5 acre zoning. 118 units. Clustering is required. The land north of the highway IS unbuildable but the rights get transferred. That is one of the reasons for clustering. " Oct 10, 15 1:24 PM

NTiger. My assertion is this. The PDD is absolutely the best thing for water quality of all three options. For the following reasons:
1. The use of nitrogen laden water on the golf course will prevent thousands of pounds of nitrogen entering the bay.
2. The $1million+ of subsidy money to upgrade septic systems in East Quogue is unprecedented and will begin a movement to reduce off site and current nitrogen issues being caused by septic systems.
3. There will be a huge effort to seed shellfish in the bay -- the kidneys of the bay,

An as-of-right development will generate none of this. This project can be a turning point in how to intelligently and scientifically address the problems which exist in our communities." Oct 10, 15 10:42 PM

The process will answer all of the questions that are required to be answered. Everything will follow to the letter of the law,

Golf courses are good for the ground water, among other reasons, when the vegetation is used to use up the nitrogen.

As for golf courses being good for groundwater, that isn't a blanket statement. There are some courses that don't do things right and there are others that do things incredibly well. Thus course will be absolutely state of the art.

Will the PDD be more profitable? Of course it will. And that results in far more benefits to the community.

Ultimately, the scientific proof is all that we should look at. Reputable and honest scientists will look at the facts and will decide what is true and what isn't.

Any why is another private golf course needed? Because there is a demand for one. Purely and simply. I do know that they are assessed at a certain rate. That rate is mandated by the state of New York. Not by some nefarious organization. What is your point with that? What have you challenged the state with on that?

But regardless, the property taxes will be assessed at a certain rate. Not some random process. More taxes will be generated by the PDD? That will equal more benefits for the Town.

" Oct 11, 15 2:46 AM

One last point. Are you seriously saying that scientific proof is not the ultimate arbiter of what is the truth? If the answer is yes from you, then there is little point in having any sort of dialogue with you. The people why deny the reality of scientific proof are lumped together with the cadre of global warming deniers." Oct 11, 15 2:53 AM

Three comments.

1. This isn't poker. I'm being honest with you. You are speculating. I am not. If that doesn't resonate with you then you must think I am a liar.
2. This isn't my first project in the Hamptons. I've been here for a very long time. And I care deeply about the environment. Being a board member for the GFEE and a committee member for Mr Amper tends to support that fact.
3. Education isn't fattening. Just don't eat or drink. That part is optional.



" Oct 11, 15 10:50 AM

I flatly deny that there are side deals made. We are 100% committed to the project because we believe of all the possibilities available, the PDD is the best plan for the property.

It absolutely stands to reason that an as-of-right development will not be as profitable. That is why the PDD allows for so many public benefits. But it will be profitable nevertheless. I'm not particularly worried about it succeeding if we get to that option. What would bother me would be the lost opportunity to make a huge difference in addressing what is universally considered to be the greatest problem in the area - water quality.

Given the dialogue on where you live, you may well become eligible for a sizable subsidy for an upgraded septic system on your property. This would be a direct benefit as a result of the PDD due to the $1million+ contribution which is part of the project. Not everybody is as diligent as you in preventing nitrogen run off into the bay (including some of the most vocal opponents of this project). Nevertheless, your system can be improved regardless of how new it is. The denitrification systems about to be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health will make a massive difference to the bay. The subsidies that this project will bring should encourage people to upgrade.

" Oct 11, 15 7:23 PM

It will be detailed in the DEIS. What I can tell you now is that that every clearing regulation, both Town and Pine Barrens, will be met. The DEIS will outline every scenario required by the Town. This isn't a small document." Oct 11, 15 8:49 PM

Feel free to follow the process. The scope has been established and the DEIS will address all of it.

As I'm sure you well know you will have every right to form your own opinion of it as will everyone else in the Town of Southampton." Oct 11, 15 9:10 PM

I'll correcting inaccurate comments from now on. Best to let the process take its course and have it deliberately and clearly answer every issue that has been incorporated in the scope.

TB, feel free to get first in line for a septic system upgrade subsidy. You clearly, genuinely care. " Oct 11, 15 9:32 PM

Southampton Town Deems The Hills Environmental Impact Study Incomplete For The Second Time

Fiddler Crab.

There is a difference between a conversation and a soliloquy. What you are describing is the latter. I have had no such conversation with Mr. Algieri. I could run through multiple inaccuracies in his latest missive to the Press, but to what end?

Need I point out that this application clearly describes, that there are 118 residences as part of the application? Every fact is disclosed unlike what Mr. Algieri alleges, unless a complete failure to read the application is the culprit. That not all of the residences have five bedrooms? $50,000 annual fees is accurate? Where is that figure anywhere other than in a fertile and inaccurate mind? Did Mr. Algieri or his acolytes stop to think that that the employees of the proposed project could possibly be already residing in the community and would be delighted at the opportunity of procuring a much needed job and therefore placing no additional burden on the school system? Has Mr. Algieri stopped to think about the overall net benefit to the much burdened school system?

I would be happy to debate Mr. Algieri any place, any where in response to his accusations. My contact information has been put on the record on many occasions. I'm not hard to find. My contention, and of hundreds of others in the community, is that this project is a positive for East Quogue. I would welcome any assertions to the contrary from Mr. Algieri to prove otherwise.
" Jun 21, 16 12:54 AM

BF. Feel free to look at the DEIS which has an expansive water quality section. It addresses each of your concerns in detail. That section, as with all the others, has been produced by experts in their field. In turn, each of those sections are reviewed for accuracy by independent experts selected by the Town. Furthermore, your use of hyperbole doesn't equal facts. Repeated use of words like "massive" and "mega" simply don't compare to the facts.

You might ask next whether the assertions in the DEIS happen in reality. Well they do. As are proved by the 10+ years of water monitoring which has been conducted by the Town through Cornell University and Legette Brashears & Graham. Go to the Town Clerk and foil the records and see how your fears are unfounded.

One last thing. GFEE and the Pine Barrens Society have had very comfortable relations with both projects such is their level of comfort with them. All if this is fully on the record. I have intimate knowledge of all of this by the way given that I was a long-term fundraising committee member for the PBS and a board member of the GFEE. " Jun 21, 16 11:28 AM

Turkey Bridge. I think it is only fair that I spare you from spreading this canard that I have seen you mention on a few occasions.

This is not a game of poker. There will not be preservation of this property. It will be developed, regardless of what you think or how you speculate that these land deals are in place. Property rights which are exercised in a legal and moral manner is an inalienable right and that is exactly what I intend to implement.

There is a simple formula in place here. An as-of-right development or the proposed development. My track record on water protection will stand up against anybody and I have an absolute commitment to improving the water quality in the Weesuck Creek vicinity by focusing on science and not hyperbole and hysteria." Jun 21, 16 11:08 PM

And for the record, no balls were dropped on purpose. This is called the evolution of a very important document. One which the Town and their consultants are examining in detail. And I welcome it.

Do you really have such disrespect for the residents of this town that you think they would be so petty as to be swayed in their opinion by a free beverage and appetizers? Being civil isn't a negative. And for the record, many of the opponents of this project have partaken in this hospitality on a number of occasions and they are welcome to that also. " Jun 22, 16 6:14 AM

East Quogue Civic Association Meeting To Discuss 'The Hills' Turns To Screaming Match

They are total properties. Those acreages include wetlands, woodland, restored areas, ponds, and any infrastructure. Golf courses are built on no more than 100 acres of land. Any more than that would make it completely unplayable and financially prohibitive to maintain.

The comparison here would be with 590+ acres, the majority of which is preserved in its entirety. " Jun 22, 16 6:27 AM

Southampton Town Deems The Hills Environmental Impact Study Incomplete For The Second Time

Yes. I'm very familiar with Mr. Amper and what he has to say and he is very familiar with me, with what I believe in, and what I have accomplished in my career. That is why he asked me to be on his fundraising committees for a decade.

You will need to ask him why he feels this way. The project in in the compatible growth area of the Pine Barrens; an agreement made two decades ago with full oversight from Mr. Amper. You may want to ask him what has changed since then. Regardless, his comment is utter nonsense and exaggeration. There isn't even close to "near universal opposition" to the project. That statement is completely non-factual, not to mention, arrogant. He also also appears to have become a fan of the word "mega" which has little basis for actual use in his project. His liberal use of the words "killing" and "kill" are a little more disturbing in today's world." Jun 22, 16 6:45 PM

Sag2Harbor.
Thank you very much for your polite and considered response. One thing I have been eager to achieve is constructive and respectful dialogue.

Things have indeed changed in two decades. One particular item is golf course maintenance and the results thereof, coupled with stringent water quality monitoring. We are fortunate that all golf courses built in the 21st century in Southampton have embraced this mindset, as will the Hills. As I have said repeatedly, please examine water quality results which are on file with the Town.

We do have five acre zoning to protect the water supply. The Hills has five acre zoning. What is asked for in addition to the zoning is the golf course. A golf course which will replicate the protocols and results of Sebonack and The Bridge. Those results are superb; it's on the record. In allowing a golf course to be built, concrete steps wil be put in place to address the current problems created by farmland runoff and high density housing in the water with antiquated septic systems. It's in the proposal. If what I am saying isn't factual, then I welcome a debate on it.

Your punch bowl analogy is an excellent one. But I would politely suggest that you look at who is causing that problem already and what is being done about it.

I sincerely hope we can keep up this civil discourse and I'd be happy to meet you in person. " Jun 24, 16 2:18 PM

It's unfortunate that you continue to use the word 'killed". It's totally inappropriate in public discourse. I'd respectfully ask that you refrain from using words like that.

As for the project being "the worst", well once again I respectfully disagree. There has not been a project presented with such diligent and creative effort to address water quality issues. I would welcome a discussion with you to these issues rather than the current oppositional discourse.

There is no avoidance of review happening by the way; there is Southampton Town exercising their right to conduct their review as they see fit. As for "complete", well I would call it being thorough. I fail to see the down side of being as diligent and accurate as possible. Do you really see that as a negative?" Jun 24, 16 11:01 PM

Discovery Land Insists That 'The Hills' Won't Add Any Children To Local Schools

I'd be really interested in your theory of how the drinking water gets poisoned. Do you have a scientist who has formulted something on it? Have you checked with Suffolk County Water Authority as to their opinion on the project? You may want to do that.

You might also want to foil the water quality results of The Bridge and Sebonack. That will give you a clear indication of what to expect from any golf course built in Southampton from 2002 and beyond. This canard that golf courses devastate the environment is absolute nonsense. That may have been the actuality in other parts of the country and from decades ago. But it's not true in Southampton and not in 2016." Jun 30, 16 4:28 PM

What an absolutely slanderous and completely unfounded comment. Is this how you create your points? No facts whatsoever to back your assertions? It Dr Martin Petrovuc of Cornell University corrupt? Tom Cabareri of the Cape Cod Commission also? Is AKRF IN Westchester County a part of this conspiracy? The lab in Indiana where the samples are sent get flown out to play golf and the payoff is complete?

Your comments are absolutely shameful. It's easy to spread these lies when you are hiding behind a nickname isn't it?" Jul 1, 16 8:11 PM

I really hope you were being facetious..." Jul 1, 16 9:58 PM

The increase of the units was as the result of confidential negotiations with landowners who were selling their land. They had their demands also. That's the nature of development.

The acreage as part of the process increased to close to 600 acres and that's why the yield increased to 118 units.

It makes the project better because there is an additional 90 acres preserved forever and contiguous to other preserved areas. The Kracke property acquisition was a response to the requirement to not make Spinney Road residents have to have an entrance at the end of their road. Again, that's how development works. The Town's long term plans suggest it, and we complied with it.

It's easy to micro-analyze individual components of the project (bird boxes for example) while ignoring others like an unprecedented commitment to cleaning up the nitrogen problem in Shinnecock Bay, among many other things. Acquiring larger pieces of land and freezing them forever makes the project better still and completely in line with the intent of the original Pine Barrens Law. That is why all of the development is in the Compatible Growth Area." Jul 3, 16 1:15 AM

Correct. Please read it and if you disagree with any of it, then present your argument based on science and the law, and not on emotion.

" Jul 3, 16 1:27 AM

I'm fully aware of who you are sir. I'd be delighted to meet with you in person and to be accompanied or not by one of our mutual friends and acquaintances.

I've come on here to refute the scurrilous and bizarre accusations and rumors that seem to miraculously become a fact in the public arena. If there is a substantial point to be debated, you can certainly make your case in the public arena as the process allows.

You've previously declined invitations to attend presentations that I have made. I find that puzzling. Do you have every fact and argument at your fingertips? What if you are wrong in your current beliefs through a lack of curiosity?

I have requested to attend counter presentations to The Hills project in the past. I have been rebuffed. I have allowed, and in fact encouraged, opponents of the project to attend my presentations. Many have, and though eager to criticize my hospitality have hypocritically helped themselves to the food and drink on offer. As you may have well noted, at the meeting of June 11th at the school, a public statement was made that representatives or supporters of The Hills project were "not welcome". Moreover, supporters of the project, were accused of being paid to attend. Knowing your (and my) politics as I think I do, I'm astonished at this rigging of the system and limitation of free speech coupled with the hysterical commentary not based on any science or rule of law.

So sir, please, present your arguments in public. I encourage them. In the meantime I repeat that I would be eager to meet you in person to discuss the entirety of this project. I sincerely hope that you don't refuse. The emissaries are there, make the most of them.

" Jul 5, 16 7:51 PM

Cow Neck? What on earth are you talking about?" Jul 5, 16 7:54 PM

Let me be 100% clear on things. Kathleen Sullivan-Sealey was required to issue a full apology for her behavior and a full retraction was issued from the University of Miami. That is a fact. Both were issued publicly. You can plumb the depths of your speculations, but ask yourself why this was the case. It's not because she was in the right is it?

In answer to your first question, let me help you. $1million in septic system upgrades to the areas that need it the most which contribute to the horrible nitrogen situation in Western Shinnecock Bay; close to $500k in shellfish seeding, eelgrass restoration and scientific research into future help for the bay; fundraisers providing replenishment for these funds in perpetuity for an average of $150k+ per annum. In addition, the project fully complies with the 5-acre residential zoning put in place to fully protect the water quality in the project site. That, by the way, is with standard septic systems. But this project commits to upgraded septic systems, so the load is even less. Actually, those funds would be far better spent by transferring them to the areas that contribute most to the problems in the bay; many properties of which which are ironically owned by our biggest critics.

Judging by your comments, I'd guess that you are actually, or an acolyte of, Carolyn Zenk. I can't believe that your clearing arguments have any other source." Jul 6, 16 9:03 PM

It's not even remotely the biggest in America. Look at the breakdown and compare it to any similar clubhouse in America or the Hamptons.

Compare the parking. Compare the residences. Don't double count. " Jul 6, 16 9:06 PM

I could have sworn that you had been invited. So I took a look at your old posts and lo and behold there was one on October 11th, 2015 which read "Thanks, but I can't make it to one of your informational sessions. I'm on a diet." In looking up your posts I saw one from three months before commenting "if it is conducted properly, the PDD will be declined" and that if it wasn't "those responsible will pay at the polls". At that point the PDD had not even been filed, so you were already against something that you had no facts about. Sadly, you're not alone in that odd approach and that attitude has morphed into an industry of disinformation which isn't serving the community one iota.

One other interesting tidbit that I noticed while reading your posting history was a comment you made vilifying Christine Scalera about insuffient funds for septic system upgrades yet commending our mutual friend Bridget Fleming for asking for $1million in funds for the same. This project not only provides for what Bridget requested, but provides for even more in perpetuity. This project exactly addresses the point you were making.

So, I'm not going to acquiesce to your request to debate on here. You clearly have no intention whatsoever of being open minded about this project so a public debate here is meaningless. Present your side in the public hearings where it will serve some purpose, but please bring your science with you. You seem to sincerely care about the nitrogen problem in the bays; open your mind and consider the fact that this project has numerous measures in place to do just that. No emotional or unspecific rhetoric, please. Just bring facts with you to refute the arguments made through this project.

You have also repeatedly stated your belief that this is a game of poker with side deals galore and that the property will never be developed as-of-right. I'll repeat this hopefully for the final time. The property will not be condemned. There is no willing seller. The property will be developed legally and responsibly either through the as-of-right or through a PDD. We own the land. Please stop trying to convince people otherwise.

One last thing before I permanently sign off. I haven't boasted about what a great and forthright guy I am. I've tried to be civil and to provide facts. Such a snarky and bitter comment further confirms that debate with you is pointless. But I will make it a point to confront you the next time I see you in person and maybe we can talk respectfully with each other rather than with you hiding behind a keyboard.

" Jul 8, 16 1:15 PM

I could have sworn that you had been invited. So I took a look at your old posts and lo and behold there was one on October 11th, 2015 which read "Thanks, but I can't make it to one of your informational sessions. I'm on a diet." In looking up your posts I saw one from three months before commenting "if it is conducted properly, the PDD will be declined" and that if it wasn't "those responsible will pay at the polls". At that point the PDD had not even been filed, so you were already against something that you had no facts about. Sadly, you're not alone in that odd approach and that attitude has morphed into an industry of disinformation which isn't serving the community one iota.

One other interesting tidbit that I noticed while reading your posting history was a comment you made vilifying Christine Scalera about insuffient funds for septic system upgrades yet commending our mutual friend Bridget Fleming for asking for $1million in funds for the same. This project not only provides for what Bridget requested, but provides for even more in perpetuity. This project exactly addresses the point you were making.

So, I'm not going to acquiesce to your request to debate on here. You clearly have no intention whatsoever of being open minded about this project so a public debate here is meaningless. Present your side in the public hearings where it will serve some purpose, but please bring your science with you. You seem to sincerely care about the nitrogen problem in the bays; open your mind and consider the fact that this project has numerous measures in place to do just that. No emotional or unspecific rhetoric, please. Just bring facts with you to refute the arguments made through this project.

You have also repeatedly stated your belief that this is a game of poker with side deals galore and that the property will never be developed as-of-right. I'll repeat this hopefully for the final time. The property will not be condemned. There is no willing seller. The property will be developed legally and responsibly either through the as-of-right or through a PDD. We own the land. Please stop trying to convince people otherwise.

One last thing before I permanently sign off. I haven't boasted about what a great and forthright guy I am. I've tried to be civil and to provide facts. Such a snarky and bitter comment further confirms that debate with you is pointless. But I will make it a point to confront you the next time I see you in person and maybe we can talk respectfully with each other rather than with you hiding behind a keyboard.

" Jul 8, 16 1:15 PM

Second Hearing On 'Hills' Application Gets Rowdy

Taz. I am breaking my self imposed silence to address you directly and your consistent mistruths. There were hundreds of people at that hearing who witnessed Algieri with that stick. Not the rough cut staff that the elderly lady had, but a bamboo cane that Algieri himself wielded. You either weren't there or you are lying to cover for him. He was heartily jeering supporters of the project. He and his cronies were waiving their signs regardless of the content of the support comments. A mother speaking honestly about her seriously ill son -- jeers. A woman going on an unsubstantiated racist rant against the project -- roars of support.

The icing on the cake was Algieri's outrageous behavior towards a true lady of the community. She was sobbing in the hallway as a result of his repulsive bullying. He is fortunate that she hasn't pressed formal charges against him. YOU clearly witnessed none of this. You've made your peace with bullies, racists and science deniers. And by your comments in this thread, you've clearly got a blatant disregard for the truth.

Feel free to confront me in public on any of this. I would be delighted to expose your rants for the rubbish that it is. " Dec 7, 16 12:54 PM

No. I'm right here. And I'm furious st the way Maria Daddino was treated. You can feel free to contact me too. That fact that you find humor in such repulsive behavior says everything about you. Why don't you and Taz expose yourselves? Why the secrecy? Go ahead. Then address the next hearing. Defend your positions. " Dec 7, 16 12:59 PM

That's correct Bill. That was me. Not only was it out of order but it was defacing school property. I would have removed a "Yes Hills" one too. " Dec 7, 16 4:49 PM

You love to twist the truth Mr. Bridge. Of the 30 or 40 opponents, more than half were repeat speakers. You might want to look at the facts of that. Its easy enough to follow. The count wasn't even close to 50/50, never mind counting the repeat speakers who were opponents. Sportsmom seems to be keeping a keener eye on things than you. Your misguided insult directed towards her are pretty typical.

As a champion of the Democratic Party (I'm proud to say that I am a rabid Democrat myself) I am stunned you you think that the pains of a young family with serious concerns are reduced to a cheap stunt. Their lives are real and they see this project as one that can provide them and similar families with some relief. Your lack of empathy is shocking. There are people in the community who have real concerns; ones which you are clearly blind to.

You clearly haven't bothered to look at the proposal at all, hence your erroneous comments about school children and revenue. You haven't bothered to openly look at the science or the economics because your comments prove it.

Incredibly, you continue to trot out your belief that DLC is playing some elaborate poker game and will sell this land cheaply. You are astonishingly wrong on this and I sincerely hope that the people who you are selling this blarney to calls you out on this regardless of the outcome. You cannot be more wrong. I tried to politely advise you of this long ago, and you snarkily dismissed it. You continue to peddle your fantastic theory and you are doing your friends a huge disservice.

This project is an as-of-right versus a PDD proposal. It's that simple. " Dec 7, 16 10:34 PM

I'll take protecting the honor of Ms Daddino any day of the week. The gross behavior of you and your side repulse me. You've illustrated it here perfectly. Give the stalking, prowling, bullying Al Algieri a pass while disparaging a person of the dignity of Maria Daddino.

I suspect that you know me and I know you. Maybe not. But I'd love to know who you are so we can be honest with each other because I sincerely want nothing to do with you if so." Dec 7, 16 10:39 PM

Hills Opponents Offer Alternative Plan For East Quogue Property

Your arrogance is stunning. Your contempt and disrespect for these parents is repulsive. You are insinuating that these parents aren't intelligent enough to make the right decisions for their families.

Shame on you." Dec 7, 16 10:46 PM

Discovery Land Establishes Presence On East Quogue's Main Street

If I didn't know better, I would swear you are channeling Ebenezer Scrooge.

Make sure you tell Mike in Prime Meats what you think of his food. I'm sure he'll be concerned about your review of it.

And hey, Merry Christmas." Dec 22, 16 10:52 PM

Factually incorrect. Read the DEIS. " Dec 22, 16 10:55 PM

Dr. Gobler Says Luxury Golf Course Resort Would Leave Larger Nitrogen Footprint Than Subdivision

Interesting observations. If the three public hearings so far are anything to go by, your analysis is utter nonsense. Just another lie propagated for your own ends. I challenge you to to look at the tapes of the hearings rather than spouting this fiction.

Here, I'll save you some time.

Meeting 1: 23 for, 39 against, 2 tough to say
Meeting 2: 51 for (6 repeats), 36 against (19 repeats), 5 tough to say
Meeting 3: 40 for (13 repeats), 26 against (18 repeats), 0 tough to say
Totals: 95 individuals for versus 64 against

A long way from your claim of being three to one against. In fact, I make that three to two for the project. Just based on speakers of course.

The letters to the editor are similar. Take the time to look through every letter. The same people, time after time, writing the same thing. I've done it so I can confidently say that. A cadre of 60-70, including out-of-towners like Richard Amper and Bob DeLuca. Of course, there are out-of-towners on both sides but not in any kids of the numbers touted in opposition, or in the professions that you claim.

Foil the letters to the Town while you are at it. Pay particular attention to the close to 1500 letters of support for the project for the project. 99%+ are in the Town of Southampton. No repeats either. cards in opposition? Far less. And lots more out of towners (ones from as far afield as Illinois actually) and all based on a letter filled with inaccuracies, exaggerations and hysterics.

So go ahead and do the analysis. List the names if you like. Because I have. Then I expect you to stand corrected." Jan 13, 17 1:40 AM

Are you suggesting that these people have no integrity? They spoke up because they believe in this project and they have done their homework on it. In fact, take a look at the East Hampton residents that you refer to. The only one that I think I have witnessed is Lisa Liguori, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Look at the tapes. It's public. Then ask them for yourself as to why they think this project is a good one." Jan 13, 17 1:50 AM

The comparison in apples to apples that you refer to would be 168 acres. That's an absolute fact and it includes all of the homes on the property.

But golf courses are not measured like that. They are measured by the sum total of tees, greens, fairways, roughs and bunkers. With that being the case, most courses are pretty similar in size. Out of play areas are not maintained. And they promote wildlife. It's a documented fact. Foil the Audubon reports at the town and see for yourself.

Unless the Town requires a subdivision of the property and dedication of that property to the Town, The Hills will be paying property tax on 592 acres. That will include all of the preserved areas, just like the ones on the golf courses you have referenced." Jan 13, 17 1:56 AM

They aren't experimental. Fertigation is a well documented practice. A rudimentary Google search of that will show you immediately.

Thankfully, Dr. Gobler is amenable to sitting around a table and discussing this project on scientific merit and not on hyperbole and rumor. That will happen shortly and I expect it to be extremely productive." Jan 13, 17 2:00 AM

Your premise is flawed. You seem to think that a bunch of out-of-towners have come in and spoken as advocates. That is factually untrue. There are out-of-owners on both sides but not in the proportions that you describe. As I have said previously, look at the tapes of the hearings. You cannot create your own version of reality.

There is huge support for this project despite what what you might claim. It may be a convenient and libelous claim on your part, and a Trump-like distortion of the truth, to suggest that supporters are being paid. But the truth is that the citizens of East Quogue and every surrounding hamlet are in favor of this project because they have weighed up the pros and cons and come to the determination that it is a good one for the community. You may use your hysterical and non-scientific rhetoric to scare them, but they aren't buying it.

Why are they coming out on a winter night? Maybe it is because that they have taken the time to honestly analyze what has been proposed and realize that the opposition is self-serving and destructive. " Jan 16, 17 1:32 AM

Out of play areas are different from roughs. Roughs are playable. Out of play areas are not.

I've mentioned this previously, but I suspect it is falling on deaf ears, or you are just willfully ignoring it. Sebonack Golf Club has been legally required to file Audubon Reports with the town. Annually. The proliferation of wildlife is there on the record. Because you don't understand that wildlife thrives in a ecologically well thought out environment does not mean that you can create an alternate reality.

Sebonack Golf Club has become a magnet for wildlife. Despite the uneducated and ignorant claims of the likes of Carolyn Zenk in the approval process, that golf course has become an absolute sanctuary for wildlife.

And the acreages are not only accurate, but consistent. Just like The Hills will be." Jan 16, 17 1:41 AM

I'd actually like to ask people who know a little bit about ecology and environmental restoration. People like Dr. Stephen Handel; possibly the most esteemed environmental restoration expert in the world and also Audubon International who monitor things up there. It was not a sanctuary. It was a monoculture that was in a death spiral. It is now an ecologically diverse environment that is now a major stopping off point for migratory birds.

And let's put your puerile comments to bed once and for all. You must have overheard me at some point mentioning that a great golf course could have been built on Cow Neck. There are infinite locations where that is true. So what. But Cow Neck isn't owned by me. It is owned by Louis Bacon. It also has a permanent conservation easement on it. So your question, is completely pointless.
" Jan 19, 17 11:46 PM

Sebonack is 240 acres including out-of-play, restored, native and wetland areas.

The Hills is 592 acres as an equivalent.

I'm pretty confident that I've got a better grasp on the facts on both pieces of land and the regulations therein than anyone.

Feel free to pepper me with questions of course." Jan 19, 17 11:53 PM

The houses will be bigger and the pieces of land that they lie on will be much bigger. There is no difference in the acreage. It will be either golf course or lawns." Jan 20, 17 9:15 PM

My God, You really know it all don't you?

This is no bluff. I've said it on numerous occasions too. And you will keep bleating on about it and you will be proved wrong. And you'll shrug your shoulders and move on to your next piece of titillation and the people who actually believe you will wonder what the hell happened.

You have absolutely no clue about DLC's client base, demand or history. None whatsoever. I just hope that people refuse to believe your uninformed, arrogant statements. You are doing them a huge disservice." Jan 20, 17 11:10 PM

Final Public Hearing On Environmental Study Focusing On 'The Hills' Scheduled For February 7

And do you have one scintilla of evidence to support your comment about paying people? No, of course you don't. Because it's another outright lie that you can throw out while you cowardly hide behind your nickname.

150-70 cumulative individual speakers at the hearings in support of The Hills. Six and eight new speakers opposing the project at the last two hearings. Yes, it's absolutely overwhelming support. In fact, it was a 10:1 majority of new speakers last night. And that is a lowball reflection of the public support for this project.

So stop your unsubstantiated lies please." Feb 9, 17 1:02 AM

Dr. Gobler Says Luxury Golf Course Resort Would Leave Larger Nitrogen Footprint Than Subdivision

Wait away. " Feb 9, 17 1:05 AM

It's not a claim. It's a fact. Look it up. I know Bob DeLuca and Dick Amper extremely well. I've fundraised extensively for both. And I've been extremely disappointed and disillusioned at how both have refused to engage in any meaningful discussions about the cause that they both claim to care most about. The water crisis is something that all parties need to discuss in in a collaborative manner and find real world, scientific solutions to it.

Paid to speak? How about attaching yourself to a cause to raise funds for your organization while offering little in the way of meaningful dialogue to cure the problem.

By the way, your questions are moot. Of course each of us are paid. When has anybody said anything otherwise. Just as Dick Amper and Bob DeLuca are paid. The difference is committing to science based alternatives as opposed to shabby, fundraising hysteria. Voorhis and Grosser are well respected scientists whose scientific credentials totally outstrip DeLuca and Amper. Compare them if you like." Feb 9, 17 1:18 AM

Do you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about? Cn you describe the mechanism for procuring any sort of Championship and the financial gain from it? Why hasn't National Golf Links of America attempted to cash-in on this supposed windfall?" Feb 9, 17 1:22 AM

Final Public Hearing On Environmental Study Focusing On 'The Hills' Scheduled For February 7

Official transcripts and tapes of each of the hearings. Go through them and see for yourself." Feb 9, 17 5:05 PM

I'll expect to see you submit it to the Town Board. Or is your anonymity too precious to you for that?" Feb 9, 17 5:08 PM

McAllister Offers Opinion On Hills Proposal, Says PDD Plan Would Have Less Impact On Environment

I'm not one to hide behind a name. I never have and I never will. So, apology accepted even though I'm a little puzzled by your use of the word "accuse". Not a very elegant or accurate term in my opinion.

I have absolutely no idea who Lion is, but this person clearly knows what he or she is talking about. The questions being asked are relevant, to the point, and unanswered by you or anyone else.

But that is fairly typical of the interactions here. You have deftly avoided listing the scientific community who is disagreeing with the technical points of the project. It's just one, scurrilous, unfounded accusation and assumption after another from you. Not a lot different from the gotcha revelation from Ron Kass that fell flat on its face.

My guess is that should Dr Gobler concur with the science presented, you will turn on him also.

" Feb 19, 17 9:19 PM

One other thing Mr Lynch. Is everyone else on this thread or on 27East cowards? Or do they get a pass for some reason with the exception of Lion?

Let's all reveal our identities eh? I'll go first.

Done. Next?" Feb 19, 17 9:22 PM

I'll respond.

On that topic of bias and credibility, what would you think if an opponent of the project was found to have been receiving compensation either directly or as a pass through from someone with a financial interest in stopping The Hills? Another golf club for example.

Another question. What if Dr Gobler had made a simple and totally unintended error that reversed his opinion? Does his credibility diminish or is he still the same brilliant marine biologist that we know he is?

One more. What if a study conducted by a prominent opponent actually supports and doesn't refute the scientific claims supporting The Hills? Does that report get dismissed as rubbish?

The fertigation process isn't new at all. It's been undertaken many, many times. And your claim that it is an experiment, which is embraced by a few others, will be categorically proved to be wrong. I hope you've put your experiment comment in for the record so it can be refuted in the FEIS. This process is designed to remediate an problem that is going to be present forever. There is no other method for mitigating what is in the plume that is contaminating the bay. So the process at best makes a bad situation better. At the worst, it doesn't make things worse.

So then the question becomes if the actual development makes things worse. Well documented test results over an extended period of time unequivocally supports the claim that the golf course does not add to the problem, despite the uninformed hysterics of the likes of Clean Water (whose lexicon and logic seems remarkably familiar).

So finally there is the issue of residences. At five acre zoning that is not an issue with regular septic systems. That produces 2mg of nitrogen at a full year residency rate. With an advanced waste water treatment facility laid on top, the affect on the environment is less than any other 592 acres in the community. " Feb 21, 17 10:06 PM

Dr. Chris Gobler Shares Opinion, Concerns Over 'The Hills' Proposal

Actually the fertigation/nitrogen mitigation isn't a deal killer. It is something that has has a big upside and no downside. There is plenty of empirical evidence that this is a sound method for removing nitrogen from the environment.

Fertigation has actually been going on for a very long time in the East End alone and nitrogen and other toxin mitigation through running through vegetation is a very tried and trusted process that isn't even remotely experimental.

Nails? No I don't think so. That's just a pejorative for for a poster on this website." Apr 18, 17 12:06 AM

I'll jump in for VOS.

What it does mean is that someone with a lifetime of work in a specific field is to be deferred to when you have a rudimentary knowledge of that same subject. It is professional courtesy and accuracy.

Dr Martin Petrovic is possibly the world's expert in turf science and leaching. He is THE expert in this field just as Dr Gobler is in marine science. Dr Petrovic disagrees completely with Dr Gobler's assumptions.
it isn't a matter of who paid for what; it is absolutely like who is the expert and who isn't.

So pay attention to developments please. I think you will be in for a surprise. You may react negatively to it, but if you rely on science, it will be best for you in the long run." Apr 18, 17 12:17 AM

Those statements aren't contradictory. I am compelled to answer submissions in in this process. That includes Dr Gobler's comments in his submission. Ultimately, the TOS experts will decide on who has gotten the science correct.

Dr Gobler has made some excellent comments and suggestions in this process and we've accommodated some. He's also made some errors and all will be addressed and corrected on both sides at the end of the process.

By the way, Dr Petrovic works for you, not me. His expertise in his field is tough to argue with." Apr 19, 17 1:31 AM

No. I won't be doing that. I'll be developing this land as I have told you on many occasions. There's a reason why the Pine Barrens Law determined the area to be designated and a Compatible Growth Area. It's because it is compatible for growth as opposed to the Core Preservation Area which isn't." Apr 19, 17 1:36 AM

You've gotten the answer for the delay from Mr O'Reilly.

Now I have a "cat-got-your-tongue" question for you. What's your name?" Apr 27, 17 10:44 PM

I've answered it numerous times and you know it. Both on this forum and at public hearings that I know you have attended.

There is something very strange about you trying to make this point time and time again when you know my position precisely.

" Apr 27, 17 10:47 PM

Scary names in your opinion? Ever taken the time to actually find out the toxicity or velocity of any of these compounds?

What is your science background exactly? Is it in the same ballpark as Dr Petrovic? He is an eminent and world renowned turf science expert who has devoted his life to studying these compounds and their effects.

I will hazard a guess that you have an extremely limited knowledge of science given your comment about proximity to the school. Still peddling that absurd drift issue which defies the laws of physics?" Apr 27, 17 10:59 PM

My God, You really know it all don't you?

This is no bluff. I've said it on numerous occasions too. And you will keep bleating on about it and you will be proved wrong. And you'll shrug your shoulders and move on to your next piece of titillation and the people who actually believe you will wonder what the hell happened.

You have absolutely no clue about DLC's client base, demand or history. None whatsoever. I just hope that people refuse to believe your uninformed, arrogant statements. You are doing them a huge disservice.
" Apr 28, 17 7:00 PM

That previous post is in reply to a post of yours in which you claim, as you repeatedly have in public, in letters and on this website, that I will not just build 118 homes without a golf course and that I'll just walk away.

You can search for the rest. It's easy. Search for the stories abut the project and you will see you peddling your incorrect theory and me correcting you.

There is no coyness about it. I've answered this ad nauseum and you have either deliberately ignored my responses or there is some medical issue at hand with you. I certainly hope it isn't the latter.

So for one final time:

Your claim that I will walk away if the PDD isn't approved is 100% incorrect.
I will build 118 homes on that site as-of-right if the PDD is not approved.
They will be bigger homes on larger pieces of land because I will not have to account for a golf course.
That scenario will be very profitable for Discovery Land Company.
That scenario will not be nearly as good for the Town of Southampton and it will be partially as a result of you pedaling this nonsense about you knowing better when in fact you don't have the foggiest idea about how we do business.

Clear enough for you?" Apr 28, 17 7:11 PM

Well I hope you have the decency to apologize to the people you have fooled when you are proved wrong in one way or another. Don't say you weren't clearly told.

And I take exception to being categorized as a liar. But given your profound arrogance, it's hardly surprising that you are indecent enough to say something like that." Apr 28, 17 10:12 PM

Thank you for the clarification that you think I am a liar. Good to know." Apr 29, 17 1:58 PM

Wishful thinking Bill. Wishful thinking." Apr 29, 17 3:46 PM

Five acre zoning is the most restrictive in our area. That is what this property is subject to. It is a relatively new enactment so to make it even more restrictive after recent up zoning would be a non-starter. It is also scientifically unsupportable. 592 acres gives a yield of 118. The five acre zoning was imposed to produce 2mg of nitrogen with regular septic systems. Far below any federal, state or local limits.

DLC has committed to a STP in the PDD which will make the impact even lower than the 2mg previously stated.

In the as-of-right however, we would rely on upgraded septic systems if required to. That requirement is not in place yet and is far from certain. Regardless, the cost of $25k per system isn't impactful at all in the big picture for the cost of the homes.

" Apr 30, 17 2:43 PM

Ouch! The zingers keep on coming." Apr 30, 17 2:44 PM

You've hit on a very important fact that the likes of TB, Taz and William Rodney completely disregard.

The TOS has an incredibly detailed and proficient protocol for monitoring newly constructed golf clubs. One which is a national leader. Yet this fact isn't sufficiently publicized or used as an example for management elsewhere. The results of testing are there for all to see; it is just that opponents elect to ignore these facts for there own misguided agendas.

Here's an interesting anecdote in hypocrisy. The President of CLEAN, Ron Kass has some very dubious ties to Hampton Hills Golf Club. They are on the public record. Cheap membership as a "consultant". That is a club that lies in the core of the Pine Barrens and not in the Compatible Growth area. What is even more astonishing is the fact that Mr Kass, self-proclaimed champion of clean water, has a pretty efficient program of turf maintenance on his own property. One which has been happening for many years. It may well be one which causes no harm to the environment, but nevertheless is one which he claims is disastrous for the East Quogue community and to the water resources here. " May 1, 17 1:21 AM

Your opinion of me has made discourse with you pointless. No answer or logic can avoid that. " May 3, 17 4:43 PM

And a predictable response from you. You clarified exactly what you meant. You came in with a second post hours later to do so. Maybe you forgot about that like you forgot about the clarification that I provided you to your "When? Where?" post.

Frankly, your opinion doesn't matter one iota to me. Your arguments are both ignorant and devoid of logic. There's little point in any discussion with you as a result when you couple that with the fact that you think I lie.

As for my job, what on earth makes you think that my job is to answer you? You really do have an astonishing level of self importance. This project will not get approved or denied on this forum. It gets decided by a well established town process and not by having to convince you. That is clearly a pointless exercise anyway." May 4, 17 1:26 PM

4/29 at 7:39am followed by your second thought on labeling me at 11:41am." May 4, 17 6:45 PM

It is that voter in particular Taz. There's not too many places to go what I make a statement and I'm countered with an accusation of bluffing.

And as I said, I don't take too kindly to being labeled as a liar." May 4, 17 6:50 PM

These consultants aren't supposed to bring anything new to the table other than a peer review.

Have you had a chance to take a look at Dr. Gobler's model? You should. It's in the Town Clerk's office. There are some addendums to it too. " May 4, 17 6:56 PM

Southampton Supervisor Reverses Course, Seeks To Throw Out PDD Law Without Replacing It

Nobody is procrastinating. An FEIS can only be prepared when the specific questions have all been submitted to the applicant by the Town to answer. You need to familiarize yourself with the process. The process dictates that you get it right and complete and then it gets voted on. The 45 day limit is to protect the applicant and not the Town so that the Town doesn't endlessly procrastinate.

You seem to be speculating wildly that this is some elaborate strategy to stall. You have no evidence whatsoever of that because there isn't any. What is evident is that you are unfamiliar with the SEQRA or due process." May 18, 17 9:54 PM

You might want to look into an actual scientific argument for your claims about a golf course. If you do it right, you'll see that your statement is absolutely without merit. Here's a tip. FOIL the monitoring results on Golf at the Bridge and Sebonack. You'll see that the results are nothing like what you fear. Moreover, before you tout your predictable statements about the consultants being on a payroll, please note that the company undertaking it is Legette, Brashears & Graham. The very same company that the Group For the East End entrusted with an opinion. An opinion but the way, that supports the science on The Hills.

And let's put the "irreplaceable underground aquifer" statement in the spotlight. Can you verify the limits of this aquifer? Once you have done that, you may be asking yourself how on earth any changes in the whole of Long Island can happen. Are you ready to battle everything blindly or are you ready to embrace science and reality? " May 18, 17 10:05 PM

'Hills' Opponents Protest Outside Of Southampton Town Hall Monday

You really need to examine the pertinent sections in the DEIS and then to read any subsequent comments in the FEIS by Dr. Martin Petrovic who is possibly the the world's foremost expert in Turf Science and Agronomy. The specific info you ask for is all there.

So, your speculation about deflections and lack of proper answers are utter nonsense. " May 18, 17 10:14 PM

Southampton Supervisor Reverses Course, Seeks To Throw Out PDD Law Without Replacing It

The same Carolyn Zenk who is the underling to Mr Ron Kass. The same Ron Kass who gets a golf membership at Hampton Hills at a nominal cost for what reason exactly? The same Ron Kass who cries wolf about maintenance of turf grass poisoning the aquifer while keeping his own lawn in astonishingly pristine condition?

Ms. Zenk is hardly a bastion of integrity or professionalism. She has used the words "fraud", "dupe" and other slanders when not knowing the meaning of those words and based on her ignorant and amateurish analyses. This was the women who haughtily referred to the non-existent "Anderson's Rules of Order" at a hearing." May 19, 17 12:04 AM

'The Hills' Developer Selects Wastewater Treatment System

I can assure you, 110%, that this will not happen." May 24, 17 2:17 PM

This post has been reported. Kevin McAllister is not on the payroll of Discovery Land Company. That is a slanderous and absolutely unsubstantiated claim by you. Tom Lembo is a licensed professional with the firm of Nelson, Pope and Voorhis.

I won't address your other baseless speculation in this post because as you've made abundantly clear, you think I am a liar. But I will call out your lies and defamations." May 24, 17 2:22 PM

Can you please describe your theory on how this exposure is supposed to happen? It seems to defy the laws of physics. The protocol is thoroughly described in the ITHM. It's very thorough.
" May 24, 17 2:26 PM

No. That won't happen. The scenario that you are describing is tantamount to extortion, not that the land will be sold anyway.

Please understand something clearly. This land is has been zoned under the most strict provisions in Long Island. Five acre zoning. 28% of this land will be preserved in its entirety. The clean drinking water you describe in an absolute priority for this project and this project does not jeopardize that at all. The aquifer that supplies us all is under practically the whole of Long Island. You do understand that right? This project has been demonized as a result of the ignorance of a few who have no knowledge of hydrology, geohydrology, the nature of Long Island aquifers, and water quality standards." May 24, 17 2:36 PM

Actually, in the public hearings alone there was better than 2:1 residents in favor of the project and against it. Roughly 155:70. And before you might claim otherwise, the names are all recorded. They are with few exceptions residents of Southampton Town. Close to 2000 people have signed on to support letters for the project -- every one being from the Town.

In fact, there are not hundreds who have come out. There are individuals who have opposed at the public hearings on multiple occasions. The rally on the steps of Town Hall held on May 15th produced fewer than 20 people.

And do you really think that Richard Amper and Bob DeLuca act as unpaid advocates? They don't at all. Their business is raising money at the cost of jeopardizing the community. It's how they get paid. How do I know? Well look it up. My record is there for anyone to see.

The arrogance is in distorting the truth for an unsubstantiated and unverified pre-conclusion and assuming that singular issues are the only ones that count." May 25, 17 11:50 PM

Please, be specific on why the golf course is such a danger. Go into details. And be precise. How do you justify the excellent long-established testing records of The Bridge and Sebonack? The records are for all to see. They are easy to request.

Please. Do it. And explain how those records support the threat that you refer to." May 25, 17 11:56 PM

And how exactly would proof be established that The Hills is the party responsible? The aquifer does not just lie underneath the property but rather extends throughout Long Island and therefore subject to all development in Long Island. The Hills project has absolute state-of-the-art water monitoring protocol which will produce ample evidence that it is not the source of contamination of the groundwater. Can you say the same for the over fertilized and vegetation bare farm fields or any other developments in the vicinity?

What do you have to say about SCWA's opinion of this project?" May 29, 17 8:47 PM

What is captured and removed is the nitrogen from the plume of water which currently exists. Emphasis -- CURRENTLY EXISTS. This protocol has absolutely no downside whatsoever. It is an effort to improve a situation that has been there for a long time and has contributed to the dire situation in the bay.

Please, take the time to do some homework on this. You are making statements that clearly show that you haven't taken the time to educate yourself on the project. This concept has been explained in detail at public hearings as is part of the record. " May 30, 17 9:51 PM

And this statement is from fantasyland. Nobody is talking about carting off water.

YOU are the one making false statements. This statement alone makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This is a scenario that you have created in your own mind and has not been proposed or even talked about. And your knowledge of agronomy and hydrology is completely non-existent. And I'm not going to let you get a pass on writing this rubbish." May 30, 17 9:56 PM

Lion. I love that you you are so well informed about the project and have done such a great job in refuting some of the inaccurate arguments being made on here. But respectfully, I would ask that you to refrain from any personal attacks on people. Facts are one thing and emotion is another. Science and rationale are on the side of The Hills and that is enough. I have no right whatsoever to demand anything from you of course, but rest assured that The Hills is on the right side of history.

For the record, Lion has chosen to remain anonymous. That is his/her choice. What I can promise, for those of you who choose to believe me, is that I have no idea of who Lion is and to the best of my knowledge is not an employee of Discovery Land Company. " Jun 1, 17 11:43 AM

Thanks Lion. You've been incredibly honorable despite the flak that you, I and others have received for merely sticking your head out for what it right. I've hoped that the discourse could be civil and rational, but it is clear that many opponents of The Hills are neither. A case in point is this post of 3:35 which flatly ignores a point you have brought up on many occasions and have clearly answered. There is no rationale or logic from people like that. The answer is as clear as day and yet they refuse to accept it with no proof to the contrary. I can only assume that there is a profound lack of reading comprehension or pathological dishonesty at work." Jun 1, 17 3:55 PM

Creating your own narrative and facts again? You placing the word "no" repeatedly in capitals does not eliminate what is on the record for anyone to see.

The town has not come together. You are part of a loud, persistent, non science base minority. The majority have spoken and they aren't with you. A prime example of that fact was the 20 or so people who showed up at Town Hall to harass and malign Jay Schneiderman. I'd compare that to the 150+ speakers who supported the project in the four public hearings versus the 70 who showed up to speak against." Jun 2, 17 9:44 AM

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  >>