Letters

Cyndi McNamara, after claiming she was “not opposed” to sand mine amortization, read a lengthy document into the record delineating what she claimed were procedural errors committed by the Southampton Town Board [“Southampton Town Board Adopts Sand Mine Amortization Law,” 27east.com, April 9].

If you were wondering why she went to such lengths, the answer is now clear. Just read the lawsuit recently filed by Sand Land against the town [“Sand Mines Sue Southampton Town Over Amortization Law,” 27east.com, May 7] — and remember her threats to all her fellow board members (on the record) at one of the first of many hearings on amortization that “you’re going to get sued.”

And now, here we are. Her comments were a clear road map to aid and abet the plaintiffs in their frivolous lawsuit, not the first and certainly not the last they will file against the town. Sand Land’s lawsuit cites her, and comments at the public hearing, eight separate times in their complaint.

Clearly, Councilperson McNamara did not write this document herself. As anyone who watched or attended the hearing can attest, she had trouble reading her “prepared” remarks and stumbled often over some of the more legalistic constructions in its wording. In fact, she could not even pronounce “amortization” correctly, repeatedly calling it “amateurization.”

Did she get it directly from John Tintle or his lawyers, or was it “laundered” on its way to her to give her plausible deniability? Whatever the case, she was doing the plaintiff’s bidding at the expense of the town, her constituents and the public. 

McNamara has the right (and maybe she feels she has the duty) to vote against amortization. If she wants to privilege out-of-town industrial and development interests over protecting the environment, she will be accountable to voters. That’s how democracy works.

What she does not have the right to do is undermine the will of the majority and throw sand in the wheels of justice, at great cost to the taxpayers.

We have recently seen some breathtaking numbers in the press for legal fees related to the Shinnecock case [“Sticker Shock at Cost of Lawsuit to Town Over Shinnecock Gas Station Project,” 27east.com, June 4]. It would be interesting to total up how many taxpayer dollars have been wasted defending against Tintle’s nonstop bullying lawsuits over more than a decade, most of which have already been lost or dismissed on summary judgment (yet he continues to appeal and now has filed two new suits).

McNamara should be thinking twice about where her responsibilities as an elected official lie. This self-described budget hawk doesn’t seem to consider the town’s costs and legal bills to figure in the math.

Joseph Phair

Bridgehampton