| Recommend |
| Comment |
| Email this article |
| Print this article |
| Get news alerts |
| RSS Feeds |
 Share
|
Digg
Mixx
Linked In
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Age: 41
Hometown: Quogue
Education: bachelor of science from Hobart & William Smith Colleges
Occupation: Supervisor, Town of Southampton (Since January 2008)
Party affiliation: Republican
Political experience: Councilwoman, Town of Southampton (January 2002-December 2007); Executive Assistant to Supervisor Vince Cannuscio (February 1996-December 2001)
Do you support the proposal that the town begin charging nightclubs and taverns that are deemed “trouble spots” for the extra police coverage they require to maintain law and order? Why?
While this concept may sound attractive so as to push the burden onto the property owner or tenant with respect to costly supplemental police services, I think it is disingenuous to say it is a viable proposal or legal at this point in time. The town can regulate places of public assembly, including nightclubs through licensing laws, occupancy checks, and zoning. Property taxes can be levied at a higher rate for commercial businesses, and ought be if the intensity of government services is greater for particular business uses. The truth is that many of these local businesses have increased their private security staff on-site and off-site and are actively working with the Police Department on other ways to ensure public safety. In fact, often the private security staff is actually retired police officers or off-duty police officers, which is the same situation for many special events and tent parties.
Do you think the town should pursue privatizing the recycling centers? Why?
It is something that should be explored, first and foremost. The Town of Southampton has been operating with a $3 million deficit in its waste management fund, as of year-end 2008. Since there is no more landfilling allowed on Long Island, and only about 15 percent of town residents use the transfer stations to recycle and dispose of household waste, the “green bag” program simply doesn’t produce enough money to cover the cost of trucking waste to states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio where it can be disposed of properly. Every alternative option should be open to discussion. And should the town decide to privatize, it would only affect transfer stations in Hampton Bays and Westhampton. North Sea and Sag Harbor would continue to operate as they currently do with municipal staff and the like due to the greater volumes handled at these sites and more recent taxpayer investment in infrastructure improvements to the tune of $3.5 million at North Sea alone.
Do you think the town should pursue privatizing the town animal shelter or contracting with a company to operate it? Why?
Yes. The animal shelter costs the town approximately $1 million per year to operate and the bulk of that pays for services and staffing the town is not mandated to provide. The town can work in partnership with the private sector or a not-for-profit foundation to continue to keep the shelter open but at a much lower cost to the taxpayer. Our primary concern is that the animals are cared for. Since a viable private organization has already submitted its proposal and the town is actively in negotiation, this matter should not be controversial, but unfortunately it has become a political football. The town is offering to cover utilities and insurance as the “landlord” and all other costs would be borne by the “tenant” and the town’s Animal Control staffing would be relocated to the shelter to oversee the private entity, ensure policy compliance and provide training and guidance concerning any dogs that are classified as “dangerous” pursuant to state law.
Do you think the PILOT program can be fixed in a way that benefits the town and the districts in need of relief? How?
Yes. All of the problems stem from the poorly drafted state legislation that created the PILOT program in the first place and subsequent bills which amended it, in particular with respect to the state-mandated allocation formula to be based on proportionate tax levies within the special districts rather than proportionate tax loss from preservation lands within the special districts. To fix them we need the cooperation of our state assemblyman, which has not been forthcoming in the way it was originally promised and filed earlier this year. Above all, we need to ensure that the original purpose of the community preservation program isn’t further subverted. It was designed to prevent taxpayers from having to bear the burden of a shrinking tax base caused by preservation lands being taken off the rolls. In 2002, this voter-approved PILOT program was exclusively linked to the Central Pine Barrens area and to make good on promises made by the state back in 1990s but now using CPF monies. It was never meant to compensate school districts for lost tax revenues from development that never happened or to be a subsidy to allow for such districts to increase their budgets for more spending.
more
Add a comment
Total comments by fcmcmann: 137
Total comments by ridiculous: 103
Total comments by fcmcmann: 137
Total comments by JimmyKBond: 111
Total comments by Noah Way: 200
Total comments by Soundview: 27
Apologia:
In a “Viewpoint” published in this edition of The Press, Southampton Town Supervisor Linda Kabot starts off with an apology regarding recent discussions about the town’s capital budget: “As supervisor, I publicly apologize for the confusion, controversy and blame game.”
But there ... more is little doubt that it is The Press that owes Ms. Kabot an apology, as she has hinted for the past week or so. And so, allow this to serve as our official apology to the supervisor.
When, in the news pages, we reported that the town had a $19 million discrepancy between what the town’s computer system said was the capital budget balance and the actual cash on hand, we thought we were merely reporting a fact that the supervisor herself had brought up, in passing, at a meeting in January. In her “Viewpoint,” she maintains that the difference is $250,000, “not the alarmist $19 million conveyed to the Town Board.”
Clearly, in this scenario, Ms. Kabot could not be the “alarmist” person who delivered this information. So, despite clear visual and aural evidence to the contrary, someone closely resembling Ms. Kabot must have made those remarks to the Town Board. We apologize for the confusion and formally call for an investigation to identify the alarmist imposter.
Likewise, Ms. Kabot was sadly on target when she pointed out that working the $19 million discrepancy into headlines that week was part of a strategy to use such “sensational headlines” to sell copies of The Press. Guilty—although, alas, it was a gambit that failed to pay off, as our circulation numbers were essentially level. In retrospect, we certainly should have characterized the discrepancy using the more responsible phrase offered last week by then-Deputy Supervisor Richard Blowes: “significant millions.” Because, after all, if you don’t know how much is in the budget, you can’t very well put a specific number on the amount of the discrepancy, right? Apologies for that.
But the apology to Ms. Kabot is a much broader one. It was unfair to suggest that the town supervisor should be able to answer basic questions about essential budgetary issues. In January 2008, the new supervisor took office and, in her own words, began working toward her pledged goal “to restore public trust in local government and stop the ‘Enron accounting’ that was going on.” It has been only 13 months—far too soon to expect answers detailing, say, exactly how much money the town has to spend on capital projects in 2009 and beyond. Perhaps by the end of her first term?
After all, Mr. Blowes’s Business Management Department and Comptroller Steve Brautigam’s staff comprise only about $1 million in salaries and benefits. Getting a grip on the capital budget mess—an issue, Ms. Kabot says, that existed when she first took office—is a hard job. How quickly can a team that size be expected to tackle it? In a week? A month? Six months? A year? Let’s be realistic.
And it’s not like the town’s director of audit and control (a position added this year at a cost of $116,000) or any of Ms. Kabot’s office staff (all told, adding up to more than $450,000 in salary and benefits) could pitch in with a calculator.
We apologize, too, for using the terms “missing” and “unaccounted for” in referring to the discrepancy in the capital budget funds. Those were completely irresponsible choices—in our rush to sensationalize, we took the unforgiveable step of characterizing as “unaccounted for” funds that had once shown up in computer records, but now seem to, well, not be in the bank. No idea where our heads were on that one.
Finally, we have to fall on our sword for even hinting at who’s to blame, as Ms. Kabot, by lamenting the “blame game” that has been played, has suggested we did. The supervisor could not be more clear about the situation and what has caused it. There is no problem. Or there is a problem, and it’s simply being sensationalized by alarmists. Or there is a problem, but it’s the fault of the previous administration (which has been out of office for 13 months, but who’s counting?). Or the problem is far overblown, despite the fact that it has plagued Town Hall for more than a year. Or the current administration is investigating issues that clearly can be traced back several years—and since Ms. Kabot was a member of the Town Board during that time, examining and voting on each of them, who better to lead the investigation? How much more clarity could anyone ask for? We apologize to Ms. Kabot for suggesting that simple questions about the budget shouldn’t take more than a week, let alone a year, to answer, and that the town’s elected CFO is the one who should answer them. That’s reckless and unfair. We should be patient, and wait quietly while town officials strive to identify exactly how much taxpayer money they have—or don’t have—to play with. Get back to us on this one—when you have time. No pressure.
Total comments by Tim Tanuka: 38
Total comments by hamptons2009: 7
Total comments by peoplefirst: 289
ATH is wishy-washy just like they said and so his her 13 point plan.
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
Total comments by Tim Tanuka: 38
As expected when you have no real comment because you lack any knowledge on the real facts you make comments like this.
The 13 point plan may as well been blank just like your democrat candidate.
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
Total comments by Tim Tanuka: 38
I can't understand why the SH Press endorsement has so many of you Dem's so upset. Get over it already. Ms. Kabot was the right choice.
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
Were these 27 cops retired, (on $100K annual pensions), the forty-four Town employees currently ... more scheduled to be fired could be retained, the Town Animal Shelter could be fully funded, and we would still have $1.1M in hand.
Linda Kabot is the only candidate who deserves your vote. All the other contenders have remained mute about this egregious giveaway. Leave the other spaces blank or write in, "highhatsize", to let them know what you think about thier cowardice.
Total comments by highhatsize: 303
Total comments by Tim Tanuka: 38
It was you that did not understand why the press endorsed LK. The SH press endorsed LK for many reasons, this is also just a fact. I also do realize that some find facts objectionable.
Total comments by golfbuddy: 180
Total comments by Tim Tanuka: 38
Total comments by Tim Tanuka: 38
Total comments by EQMama: 7
Add a comment