Letters

The recent determination by the Southampton Historical Museum (as reported on the front page of the November 21 issue of The Southampton Press [“Eviction Notice Sparks a Split Between Venerable Museum and Shellfish Group,” 27east.com, November 20]) that two current uses of portions of the museum’s Conscience Point property conflict with the museum’s proposed plans to restore the area is, I feel, short-sighted, incompatible with an important focus of historical awareness, and lacking in a nuanced consideration of the site itself.

Short-sighted because removal of the two existing uses (the oyster hatchery and the town boat ramp) would reduce visitation and therefore decrease awareness of the site.

Incompatible with an important historical focus because without the ongoing activity of shellfish harvesting, a vital part of our farming traditions would be unrepresented and perhaps lost.

Lacking in a nuanced consideration of the site because the two uses are at some considerable distance from the path to the point and the vegetation surrounding it, and, of course, more natural shielding could be added.

I am saddened that the Southampton Historical Museum’s decision was apparently arrived at without much negotiation and, apparently, without consideration that access for baymen increases local employment, that the presence of a viable oyster population is dramatically cleansing the waters of North Sea Harbor, and that these activities are providing educational opportunities, historical awareness and pride in our heritage.

I urge the concerned parties to come to a compromise benefiting their interests, in a timely and amicable fashion.

Steven Peiffer

Southampton