Letters

The legal challenge filed against the village and targeting the recently passed affordable housing provisions in the office and village business districts [“Sag Harbor Mayor Cancels Public Forum in Wake of Article 78 Filing,” 27east.com, October 26] is regrettable and troubling for the Sag Harbor community. This deserves our collective attention.

They are legally within their rights to appeal to New York courts over these amendments. It is also within their rights to appeal a decision by a village agency of the Rose and Bridge streets proposal — and yet they filed this lawsuit in advance of any decision by a village agency. Instead, they choose to stand outside and sour the local public forum and a process that would allow them to shape that which they purport to care about, the well-being of the village.

The group responsible for the action presents itself as the protectors of the essential character of Sag Harbor for today and tomorrow. Their challenge is neither advocacy nor a part of normal public deliberations. The Article 78 filing carries an unmistakable, disruptive message to us all: The group, their understanding and judgment exceed those of everyone else.

That their notion of what is right, appropriate and honest deserves to pierce the normal deliberations and choices of an entire community.

That their actions are superior to the deliberative, open process that is local government, the decision-making that we know and accept.

That their understanding of community vision and goals exceeds that of the elected officials and appointed boards and their capacity to serve the interests of the village.

That their awareness of the environmental challenges associated with area flooding should preempt the consideration and formulation of potential solutions — solutions that may provide infrastructure lessons and improvements no property owner in this village can solve on their own.

That their concern for contaminated soil is so important that their challenge threatens to perpetuate the risk and harm that could otherwise be addressed.

That their self-assured certainty for what is dear should be placed ahead of village planning and zoning laws and the people selected to evaluate the Rose and Bridge streets proposal.

That the legislative process in which they participated and supported at its passage was corrupt. That those involved are corrupt. That any subsequent process that purports to determine appropriateness or impact of proposals under this legislation cannot be trusted. That this action will create a ghetto.

It is a most regrettable state of affairs. It is my hope that this community, its people and its public servants will do their utmost to deliberate, improve upon and challenge a consequential and, yes, flawed, proposal for the Rose and Bridge streets area of this village.

Rob Calvert

Sag Harbor