Letters

I am disappointed that in your most recent editorial in regard to the Shinnecock Nation [“Shinnecock Go All-In,” Editorial, February 25], you state that the neighbors and residents who were opposed to a casino the last time it was proposed “exploded in dissent,” and that many of us engaged in “hateful rhetoric.”

As someone who was very concerned the last time that it was proposed, that certainly is not my recollection. It seems that when your Editorial Board feels one way about any issue, those of us who may have differed, or currently disagree, are then so labeled, which is certainly not helpful in a small community. If one looks at the editorials and articles over the past few years, this is more and more the case — which is surprising, as The Press used to welcome diversity of thought and ideas.

In regard to the many recent developments involving the nation, it is still not clear what the environmental or traffic or economic impact will be with a “medical marijuana dispensary,” which it has been made clear could be converted or operated as a recreational marijuana store, which may not be in the best interests of our town or our village, and certainly not the children in our community, native and otherwise.

The two 61-foot billboards, which now welcome us all to this beautiful area, which the newspaper is now calling a “billboard monument,” should also be subject to a discussion and environmental disclosure, without one being called out for saying so.

And now we are back to a casino proposal. Why would our only paper of record run an editorial supporting this, stating, somewhat strangely, that we “go all-in,” without any facts in terms of the effects that it will have on traffic, sewage, crime, air quality, etc.? Would village and town ambulances and fire and police have to answer calls as a result of the casino’s presence, and who would then pay for those services? If the casino were to generate hundreds or even thousands of new bus and car trips (what are the projections?), how will emergency vehicles pass through two small canal bridges, especially with the new hospital just a mile or so away?

Good people, including, I assume, many members of the nation, would disagree with your views that a dispensary and a (tax-free, presumably) gas station (and billboards) and a casino will have an “end result [that] is the betterment of our neighbors.”

And it will be very difficult for us all to have “a true, respectful conversation about the future,” with your editorial, which did not cite any impact studies or community input, as a start.

Walter Deane

Southampton Village