Letters

In response to the letter written by George Lynch, “A Gratuitous Swipe” [Letters, April 25], where Mr. Lynch accuses me of being irrational, misleading, and calling my points “unsupported allegations,” I feel compelled to defend my positions.

In my letter, “What Are We Doing?” [Letters, April 18], I note that the school impact study conducted by Nelson Pope Voorhis during the application phase of the workforce housing complex at Speonk Commons determined that Speonk-Remsenburg School would see an increase of four children. The actual school impact was three times greater. I also noted that the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) underfunded the school by over a half million dollars.

I pointed out that there were no follow-up studies conducted comparing the estimated impacts during the application phase to the actual impacts after construction, meaning there was no data collected that substantiated the preconstruction school impact study, traffic study, occupation claims, or if we housed a single first responder. These are not “unsupported allegations” — they are matters of fact.

So, we built a middle-income apartment complex, and that’s a very good thing, but there are issues that need to be addressed if we want to do things better. We can no longer ignore the underfunded PILOTs and continue to take preconstruction studies as gospel without validation.

George wants you to think that I’m irrational. That’s fine. What George doesn’t know is that I have been lobbying for PILOT reform for years. I speak with elected officials. I speak with developers. I work for solutions that are fair for everyone, without the fog of ideology or party politics. Analysis and strategic planning shouldn’t be kicked to the curb for affordable housing or anything else. Is that irrational, or pragmatic?

Mr. Lynch claims that I made a “gratuitous swipe” at a town councilman (name purposely omitted). I disagree. The councilman is sponsoring a change to the accessory apartment legislation, where a two-story secondary dwelling of up to 1,000 square feet can be erected on a half-acre parcel. This dwelling can then be used as an affordable housing unit.

This is a major change to the original legislation that essentially creates a subdivision of land and doubles the density on a residential parcel. I see this as an unfair violation of zoning, which can significantly impact the privacy and enjoyment of property to neighboring homeowners. This is not a swipe — it’s a point of view without malice.

Let’s focus on the line that the editorial staff prints under Mr. Lynch’s name: “Lynch is the communications chair for the Southampton Democratic Committee.” George shoehorns his support for a Democratic candidate at the end of his letter, yet claims that I’m the one attempting to mislead.

Craig Catalanotto

Speonk