As a new subscriber to The Press, I was astonished to read your editorial on who should lead East Hampton Town as supervisor and Town Council [“We Mark Our Ballot: East Hampton Town,” Editorial, October 28].
With all the critical issues you describe — the future of the airport, the high cost of living, overdevelopment, affordable housing, no promised senior center for eight years — your reasons for your choice of leaders for the town are asinine.
As a 32-year resident of East Hampton, it was evident to me that you don’t read the Letters to the Editor in other newspapers to see what the people are really writing about as far as our current leadership, and that is truly disappointing. You don’t seem to even communicate with your prime reporter, Michael Wright. Do you even read what he writes about? If you did you would find that you were totally off base in your editorial. I hope the voters show how wrong and ill-informed you were.
At this point, I’m in the process of deciding whether your newspaper deserves my subscription, as it’s a free newspaper in East Hampton.
To describe the opposition candidate as “contrarian for contrarian’s sake” is a dereliction of your paper’s editorial responsibility to the voters of East Hampton. It was a disgrace to journalism, both vague and not as informative as an editorial should be. Michael Wright could have written a better, knowledgeable editorial if you had asked him.
For the record, the line in the editorial was not aimed at a challenger: “When it comes to the town supervisor seat, only a contrarian for contrarian’s sake would oppose the reelection of Peter Van Scoyoc” — Ed.
One fine body…