What's The Hurry?

There’s a line between “getting things done” and needless haste, and it sometimes can be very difficult to identify, and usually only much, much later. East Hampton Village Mayor Jerry Larsen should keep that in mind and understand that calls for caution and careful contemplation are not the same as demanding that the wheels of government grind to a halt; perhaps, though, they should spin a little less vigorously.

The issue is a series of major zoning code changes enacted by the Village Board on August 20, at the mayor’s behest. Introduced only weeks earlier, a package of eight amendments got a cursory public hearing at the meeting — followed by votes enacting seven of them (the eighth was dropped).

One of the votes was 3-2, with the mayor’s majority deployed, and the other votes proceeded despite pleas for a little more deliberation than the speedy process offered. That’s especially true because the new zoning rules have the potential for significant impact: One reverses course on a law restricting the size of houses on large lots, and another would give lots bigger than 1.5 acres the chance to add a second residence, such as a cottage or garage apartment.

It’s important to point out that the response wasn’t “stop,” it was “slow down.” Many of those saying it were in favor of the changes. But the plea was simply, “What’s the hurry?”

The mayor’s response was classic. “You know how I work,” Mr. Larsen said. “I’m not in favor of putting things off. I like to move quickly. I like to get things done. And everything we have done in the last eight months has been positive for this village.”

He gets points for confidence, and certainly his administration has been willing to move more swiftly than previous occupants of Village Hall, which is a pretty low bar, frankly. But it hints at the potential for overconfidence, bordering on imperiousness. Eight months is a little early to be declaring decisive victories on every front.

More important, the messaging is problematic. Trustees Arthur Graham and Rose Brown, in the minority, both voiced concern about the pace of approval, but Mr. Graham put it best: “I think when we hold a public hearing and people engage with us, for us to vote later in the same meeting — I don’t think that’s appropriate.”

It’s the key takeaway. These were measures that barely saw the light of day before they were whisked past the public, then quickly approved. The message: Public input was merely a formality. If you don’t take time to consider feedback, it’s just noise. That’s disrespectful to the public you are charged with serving.

Meanwhile, when even one of your own zoning officials — who, as a homeowner, had sued over the very law being repealed, and thus is an enthusiastic supporter of the proposal — suggests that the village take a bit more care to “do no harm” in revising a code that is in dire need of it, it pays to listen.

These zoning changes may bring nothing but relief to the town’s ongoing housing crisis, and benefits for homeowners. But would it have been so disastrous to consider the alternative just a little bit longer? Unless they are flawless — legislation rarely is — this is one time where the line between moving quickly and haste seems easy to spot. It’s flashing red.