Letters

Why is it? That we, the people of Southampton Town, are willing to lose the sights and sounds that brought most of us to these little hamlets in the first place? Or, perhaps, are we wantonly giving those sights and sounds away?

Why is it? There is no limit or control over people who wish to express themselves by constructing, sometimes upon the smallest of properties, obscenely and dauntingly large homes that resemble factories in many cases. Giving up architectural honesty for ostentation is a bad trade-off.

There is something distasteful about the pretentious display of wealth to attract attention. Changing the character of our beautiful villages, disregarding the architectural, historic atmosphere of a place, is ignoring all that has come before, all that has given our special area its distinctive qualities.

Why is it? That people who came here because they loved what was here created homes, were financially literate and knowingly planned for the future by not constructing monstrous homes, using monstrous amounts of energy and utilities, homes needing constant care by others.

The villagers who respected their neighbors and tried to use sound judgment are now being told by the powers that be that their property taxes have increased and inflated to the point that, after all their careful planning, they can no longer live here. We are told the price of land has escalated to the degree where it does not matter that a modest home built 30 years ago for retirees and other people who thought ahead has any meaning. No matter that those who have come here in more recent years have been able to drive, to unprecedented and inflated highs, property costs, thereby condemning those who came before to a future of devastating taxes.

Why is it? That so far our fears, our outrage, our complete wonderment at obviously beautiful and modest homes (some not so modest) are being torn down and destroyed before our very eyes? Case in point, Harvest and Paul’s lanes in Bridgehampton. Are these happenings never reviewed, addressed or even taken under consideration? Are the long-term residents of our jewel-like hamlets going to be unfairly penalized, monetarily and visually, for the rest of our lives?

Why is it? That we cannot begin the process of correcting or modifying the above set of circumstances? Why cannot the homes that are under a certain square footage and built before the current extreme building boom, perhaps a quarter of a century ago, be grandfathered into a more reasonable set of circumstances?

Let those who build homes with an excess of a predetermined square footage pay the price for their choice instead of shifting it to others who have chosen otherwise.

Amy M. Palmer

Bridgehampton