Letters

Sag Harbor School District has added Proposition 2 to the school budget vote on May 16. This would allow $9.3 million for the district to acquire sites on Marsden Street.

The wording of this proposition reads that these funds are only for acquisition of those sites. However, the public words of the School Board and superintendent say their priority is to build a full-size high school sports field and parking lot.

I find this confusing. This letter is my best effort at understanding voter options and where they might lead. I would welcome any corrections or amplification.

1. District residents who want a full-size athletic field — and don’t care how much it will cost to build, responsibly drain and maintain, or how long it would last — should vote yes to Proposition 2. Note: Now that the Southampton Town Community Preservation Fund is no longer an option, this field would belong only to the school, with no public use allowed. No rules apply to protect village neighborhoods. Artificial turf surfacing could be used. No costs for the field’s construction or maintenance have yet been presented.

2. Residents who want to see the sites belong to the school — but do not wish to permit this or any future School Board to use those sites for whatever (and however) they want — should vote no to Proposition 2. If a “no” vote prevails, voters should press for a second vote, with funds for a third-party feasibility study added. That study would investigate costs (budgetary and environmental) of constructing and maintaining a regulation field on a former kettle hole. Such a study would not prevent the purchase of sites for that or other purposes. But it could ensure that what happens there is within reason and supports our schools.

3. Those who think the sites should be preserved or enhanced in natural form for stormwater absorption and for woodland study and play by public and students should vote no. Those voters then would need to exert maximum pressure on the village and/or Southampton Town to preserve with the CPF and find an environmental group to implement maintenance. The district has shown no interest. It is unclear at this time, given the apparent disarray of the CPF and indifference from the village, whether this would be successful.

4. Those who think it’s fine for a developer to build houses on those lots should just vote no. They can then live with the consequences. Or they could try to influence village boards to protect schoolkids from additional traffic, and the village from environmental damage and future floods. Based on recent construction permitted by the village near the school, it is unclear if such constraints would be implemented.

Carol Williams

Sag Harbor