Letters

In Rob Calvert’s recent letter [“Fair Process,” Letters, December 15], he calls himself “an unabashed affordable workforce housing advocate.” I don’t doubt that, having worked with Calvert for a more equal and just society.

So I wonder what makes Calvert believe that I, one of the petitioners in the Article 78 filing, am suddenly a different person from the one who has worked for equality and justice all my life?

Because I am challenging a highly problematic law, Local Law 12, that enables a huge shopping/housing complex in the most environmentally troubled part of Sag Harbor? Or that could open the door to other massive buildings in both the office and business districts?

Calvert claims the passage of the law included public hearings for “those willing to participate.” I understand Calvert helped draft the affordable housing laws. But those not involved in that drafting were given little notice of the content or time to comment on the new laws.

In June, when the laws were rushed through, few people in this village, including this writer, had any idea what was in Local Law 12. I only knew about the more straightforward and laudatory Local Law 13, which is not being challenged, allowing for the rental of accessory dwellings in the residential district.

I did not know that the new law would allow for three-story buildings, merging lots, creating huge retail spaces, and lifting parking requirements for any mixed-use retail/affordable housing development in the center of the village, changes that could fundamentally transform Sag Harbor.

I did not know that the village’s own consultants deemed the law a Type 1 Action, of the highest environmental concern, which normally leads to an environmental impact statement, and the Village Board bypassed any serious consideration of such an in-depth review.

Perhaps Calvert and others who worked on the law did know these things. In which case, why did they not feel it imperative to inform the people of this village that dramatic code changes were being considered? Why did they not insist that the Village Board follow the state-mandated environmental review of an area with manifold environmental and infrastructure problems?

Public review of a law that could transform the entire 25 acres of the office and business districts necessarily takes time. A robust public debate on the implications of that law also takes time. Given that the effects of the law will be felt for decades to come, doesn’t the village deserve that time?

The Article 78 petition simply seeks to annul an improperly passed law and return to the long accepted process for reviewing highly consequential code changes. Calvert claims the petition is “cynical.” I believe it is about democracy, transparency and good governance.

Kathryn Levy

Sag Harbor