Letters

I was disappointed, even sad, after reading your editorial “Change the Subject” [February 29].

I read papers and encourage others to do the same in the belief that they will become better informed on current events. I believe that newspapers generally are the best source of factual news. And I believe that editorials are an excellent source of opinions that reflect reliable, professional beliefs.

Editors have a responsibility to their readers to present editorial opinions fairly and to do the work that results in well-informed, well-reasoned conclusions. Readers, in turn, rely on newspapers to consider matters in greater depth, consider more interdependencies, evaluate more specific details, and be aware of more potential consequences. To do less would be to abrogate that responsibility and therefore diminish the newspaper’s primary and important role and duty.

Your categorization of the residents of Hampton Bays who are opposed to the proposed location of the Canal BESS as simply following a “NIMBY” philosophy is inaccurate, illogical and not worthy of publication by a responsible editor.

There is no disagreement that the transition to green energy is a desirable goal. But that does not mean that responsible, safe ways to progress toward that goal should be short-circuited by a dangerous site selection.

There are many alternatives available that are safer and more appropriate. The resistance you categorize as “just trying to kick the can down the road” is not a delaying tactic. It has opened a discussion that should result in improved public safety, improved environmental protection, and lessen the potential for isolation of the areas east of the canal. The editorial’s mean-spirited categorization is unworthy of publication.

There have been numerous fires in BESS facilities, far too many for safely siting these new facilities close to residential areas. Inherent in new technology are unknown risks that cannot be predicted, and might cause absolute havoc. To take the position stated in the editorial — “Other more high-profile incidents are more worrisome, but the technology will get safer, and communities can take precautions in the meantime” — is illogical and irresponsible. To prepare by “hoping” the technology will become safer while taking unspecified and undefined precautions is a tactic that is not likely to achieve good results, and it certainly doesn’t measure up to a recommendation one should expect from a responsible, professional journalist. This recommendation is itself the “head in the sand approach” the editorial accuses the local residents of using.

I truly don’t understand how, as a responsible journalist, you would align with a philosophy that seeks to simply plunge ahead with a bad plan when there are obvious and dangerous risks to residents of the area. In my opinion, this editorial is deeply flawed, illogical and mean-spirited.

Ed Gillespie

Hampton Bays