Letters

Reminiscent of Shinnecock Hills Golf Club wanting to close Tuckahoe Lane, supposedly to “protect the caddies,” the reasons given for why Pond Lane supposedly needed to be closed were pretextual, fueling the perception (quoting “Blazing Saddles”) of “land snatching.”

We were told closure was needed to allow for installation of the algae harvesters, but that was never true. They are being installed. They said closure was needed to stop housing development, but John Paulson confirmed to The Press that he is motivated by altruism, not profitable land speculation [“Paulson Told Southampton Village Board He Was Pulling Out of Park Proposal in November, But Says He’s ‘Flexible’ When It Comes to Future Plans,” 27east.com, January 10]. And the claim that runoff from the only nonfertilized parcel on the lake is the problem always rang hollow — and, even if true, it could be remedied by moving the lane 40 feet uphill, and installing a bioswale, not closing it.

As a result, even though almost everyone loved the idea of an expanded park and a cleaned-up lake, the disingenuous arguments for closing Pond Lane have left this project a smoldering train wreck. Now, The Press is filled with articles, letters and editorials looking to affix blame. This finger-pointing is not productive, but we can still learn our lessons and get it right with more transparency, community involvement and candor as to the motives at play.

While The Press correctly recognizes the issue, editorially, it wrongly diminished it, effectively arguing “what’s the big deal” if Pond Lane is closed [“Who’s To Blame?” Editorial, January 11]. It is a big deal — a drive along Pond Lane is one of the few places villagers can even see water, and that route also allows some escape from the trade parade.

But, more viscerally, people feel that something would be taken from them for the benefit of a few, with little or nothing in return for the rest of the village.

People welcome Peter Marino’s contribution of landscaping, but devoting the whole park to a garden, with no restored wetlands or other uses, does little for the lake, year-round villagers or downtown businesses. Instead, community and commerce-supporting elements could and should be considered.

For example, the hillside could easily be molded into a small outdoor community amphitheater facing a stage where Pond Land sits. How lovely would a lakeside skating rink be with the village holiday tree aglow? The Parrish could erect a sculpture garden. How many more brunches and dinners would village restaurants sell and how much more holiday shopping would happen with such offseason draws? And in summertime, the same would be true of a Pyrrhus Concer boathouse and visitors’ center, where rowboats and paddle boats could be rented for lazy summer outings.

Offer people even some of those attractions along with a relocated, limited-hours, one-way Pond Lane, and I suspect the reaction might be vastly different.

James Sandnes

Southampton Village