Letters

The Canal BESS case gets curiouser and curiouser.

The residents have turned out in force. They have come armed with the fruits of their diligent research into lithium batteries and battery energy storage systems installations, into town codes and procedures, into local traffic and noise decibels. They provided maps showing the error of the town’s seeming acceptance of the area as isolated and industrial, when it not only is zoned residential but is surrounded by hundreds of homes.

And then, unexpectedly to them, they are thrust into the world of politics, condescension, double-talk and intrigue. It has been disillusioning to them as citizens taking a stand against the rigamarole of the Town Hall structure. And yet throughout they have forged ahead in their belief that this project is a very big mistake, and this observation has been reinforced by all the lessons they have learned from their investigation, including lessons from experts in the field.

And finally, in their innocence, they think logic, reason and factual evidence will prevail. At the same time, the town supervisor assures them that he is listening.

Soon, they go to a Town Board meeting and hear members of the town’s own Sustainability Committee, who have been prepped by a town consultant paid to rebut their arguments, refer to them as people unable to understand. People who get their information from social media and Wikipedia.

Then, at a subsequent special Town Board meeting, they hear Town Planning and Development Administrator Janice Scherer and Town Council member John Bouvier muse that a lithium battery demonstration might help them understand, or a reduction in their electric bill might change their minds.

Then, in the time-worn political tradition of putting people off, the supervisor announces either the formation of an “independent” committee or to hire a paid third party “independent” expert to review the case.

And, finally, it is discovered that the co-chair of the Sustainability Committee, which apparently is completely wedded to the approval of the Canal BESS application, is also on the Planning Board, charged with impartially reviewing the case.

It’s hard to keep faith in a system so full of controversial behavior and questionable ethics. And yet the good citizens of Hampton Bays continue to prove the point that this project is wrong, all wrong, on a variety of levels. They acknowledge the need for alternative energy sources at every turn, but as one of them said at a Town Hall meeting, “A bad plan for a good reason is still a bad plan.”

Pity others are not as reasonable or honorable. It is a sad lesson for some to learn.

Marion Boden

Hampton Bays