clubhouse, east hampton, indoor, tennis, cornhole, bar, happy hour, bowling, mini golf

Story - News

Feb 12, 2014 2:53 PMPublication: The Southampton Press

Southampton Town Trustees Served With Injunction; Bank Accounts Remain Frozen

Feb 24, 2014 10:23 AM

The 374-year-old Southampton Town Board of Trustees was served with a court injunction last Wednesday, February 12, ordering members to turn over control of their financial accounts to the town comptroller’s office.

The injunction had been looming ever since a State Supreme Court ruling in late January declared that the Trustees are a division of the town government, not an autonomous entity, and may not maintain bank accounts outside the purview of the comptroller’s office. The Trustees maintain nine bank accounts containing close to $1 million, mostly revenue from the sale of sand excavated from Mecox Bay.

Nonetheless, the timing of the injunction seemed to catch the Trustees off guard. The board abruptly canceled its meeting scheduled for last Wednesday afternoon because, as noted by Trustees President Eric Shultz in a terse statement given to those gathered last week, “We can’t conduct any business—they’ve shut us down.”

“Three hundred seventy years,” Trustee Edward Warner muttered with a shake of his head, as board members filed into their offices following the cancellation.

He was referring to how long the Trustees have sat as an elected board, dating back to the founding of pre-colonial Southampton. The Trustees are the oldest elected board in the country.

An attorney for the Trustees, Richard Cahn, filed an appeal of the ruling the following day and has advised the Trustees that the filing of the appellate papers automatically stays the injunction until the appeal is adjudicated. The Trustees have refused to turn over their books or their bank accounts to town control, and they have also refrained from conducting any business in the meantime. The Trustees offices in Town Hall remain open and staffed.

“We’ve decided to not take any financial action at this point until we get some further legal guidance,” Mr. Shultz said. “We are assuming the other side is going to challenge our appeal, and the automatic stay, and we don’t want to keep dispersing checks if we’re going to find out later that was not in our power.”

Indeed, when the attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, Lee Snead, served Southampton Town Attorney Tiffany Scarlato’s office with the injunction order, he also presented legal case law that he said indicates that an appeal would not automatically stay the injunction.

On Friday, the day after the Trustees’ appeal was filed, the Town Board passed a resolution demanding that the Trustees hand over their books, on Ms. Scarlato’s guidance. But the town attorney said later that, because the Trustees are taking the position that the stay is in place, the plaintiffs would have to seek an interpretation from a judge on whether or not they must comply with the injunction while the appeal is reviewed.

The initial lawsuit was brought by a group of residents of the Village of West Hampton Dunes, some of whom have also been embroiled in a seven-year lawsuit brought by the Trustees over the residents’ claim to ownership and development rights of land within the village that the Trustees say belongs to them. The Trustees have painted the suit as an attempt to rob them of the funding necessary to continue the costly legal battle with West Hampton Dunes.

If the injunction is not shelved automatically by the appeal, the Trustees’ position is somewhat up in the air. The decision seems to indicate that if they turn over their checkbooks, the Trustees would technically have to go to the Town Board for permission to spend any of it, including on retainers for an attorney to handle the appeal. Mr. Cahn and another attorney for the Trustees, Joe Lombardo, worked pro bono this week.

“It’s an interesting discussion, what they can and can’t do with this right now,” Ms. Scarlato said.

If the injunction, in the short term, and the ruling, in the long term, were to stand, the implications for the Trustees are equally curious. Town Supervisor Anna Throne-Holst said this week that she did not see why having the comptroller controlling the Trustees’ accounts would be seen as a vastly different situation than what exists now. She added that fears that the Town Board would suddenly hogtie the Trustees and stanch their ability to spend are overblown.

“I appreciate that is their concern but, unlike the rumor and innuendo that is out there, I fully support the role of the Trustees, I support what they are commissioned and mandated to do,” Ms. Throne-Holst said. “We would set the budget for them just like we set the budget for anyone else. If they want to contract with someone, we don’t say you can’t do it.

“Much as our superintendent of highways, or clerk or tax receiver, they retain autonomy over their departments,” she continued. “We administer funds, but that doesn’t mean we interfere with their day-to-day management. Nothing would change.”

Mr. Shultz said those items, along with concerns that the Town Board could try to influence their legal stances—board members, including Ms. Throne-Holst, have said in the past that they would have liked to see the Trustees settle their lawsuit with West Hampton Dunes—there is worry that funds brought in by the Trustees’ lucrative sand sales could be redirected elsewhere in the town.

“At this point, the Town Board has still not indicated to us that money is not going to be removed from Trustees’ accounts without our consent,” Mr. Shultz said. “They haven’t put it in writing that they will not use that money for other things.”

Ms. Throne-Holst said such a scenario is simply not a consideration and is not how any of the town’s other departments and divisions, which have their own accounts, are handled.

The Trustees have already turned to the Town Board for permission to spend money. On the very day the injunction was issued, the Town Board convened a special meeting to approve a resolution allowing the Trustees to spend up to $8,000 to hire excavators to close the Mecox Bay cut ahead of last Thursday’s coastal storm. Mr. Shultz said the board was lucky to be able find a quorum of members to approve the funding, adding that the situation is a prime example of his concerns about being beholden to town control.

“There’s things the Trustees do that have to be done at the spur of the moment, that if we have to rely on the Town Board to have a meeting, it could be too late,” he said. “It’s a very complicated situation. We’re breaking new ground here.”

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By The Royal 'We' (199), Southampton on Feb 12, 14 4:15 PM
And now we will loose our rights to walk along and enjoy the ocean and bay beaches
By SaltyDog (4), Sag Harbor on Feb 12, 14 4:50 PM
This is all that one needs to know and understand:

"Three hundred twenty years,” Trustee Edward Warner, muttered with a shake of his head, referring to how long the Trustees have sat as an elected board, the oldest such in the country."
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 12, 14 5:26 PM
3 members liked this comment
"Batter Up" for the new game of hardball.

Big Money at play IMO.

No coincidence that this injunction was carried out before tonight's joint Trustees meeting of the three East End towns IMO.

Perhaps this suit should be joined with the Southampton Trustees' suit against the DEC, and all removed to federal court?

Hmmmmmmm . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 12, 14 6:03 PM
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 12, 14 6:10 PM
I guess Judge Mayer needs to read the fine print....
By unclemilt (57), southampton on Feb 12, 14 10:15 PM
Holst and Vigilante are thick as thieves. If the town does not immediately give the Trustees permision to use the money however they want and appeal this abortion of justice we'll know the fix is in between the up-island trash and the political money vacuum. Hay SOUTHAMPTON PRESS have you checked Mayer's campaign donations list against the tax rolls of Westhampton Dunes??? Vigilante probably has his boyz take care of that so it can't be traced to him anyway. The lawyer Snead is the same one who ...more
By em (51), sagaponack on Feb 12, 14 11:00 PM
4 members liked this comment
A new low.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 13, 14 1:55 AM
1 member liked this comment
Good town government.
They were elected to do just what they did; question a entity that was using tax payer funds in a way which may have been illegal.
No one is above question, it is something called the democracy.
By DavidEH (5), East Hampton on Feb 13, 14 5:15 AM
The Trustees were elected by the people. Last time one checked, that is democracy in action...
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 13, 14 10:58 AM
1 member liked this comment
I hope they are happy cause I am a baymen and now can't work on the bay because of the shut down. This is crazy. I can't renew my license because no one is in office. How about that? Cant feed my kids and family now? But its cool right because it is democracy.
By islander6615 (133), hampton bays on Feb 16, 14 8:17 AM
2 members liked this comment
Who is going to protect the waterfront? You must not care or work on it. Another selfish person on here.
By islander6615 (133), hampton bays on Feb 22, 14 6:28 AM
1 member liked this comment
Just go fishing.
By Draggerman (955), Southampton on Feb 22, 14 6:30 PM
1 member liked this comment
Dongan Patent...
By Draggerman (955), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 9:42 AM
320 years ago slavery was illegal. Not everything old is good. A little oversight will be good.
By WS (9), Westhampton Beach on Feb 13, 14 10:21 AM
So slavery is = to the longest continually elected officials in the history of our country?

Oversight is one thing - shutting them down and taking away their checkbooks like the Trustees are little children is absurd. The people voted the trustees in, it's not like they're some self-appointed board running around blowing money on sports cars.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 13, 14 10:24 AM
2 members liked this comment
Slavery was not illegal in NYS until 1827.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 13, 14 10:55 AM
2 members liked this comment
Could we please let the general issue of slavery remain OT?

Thank you for not going down the rabbit hole here . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 11:32 AM
The trustees are the only elected officials (including, most especially, the Town Board) whom residents trust to protect our waterfront from avaricious developers and self-entitled property owners. How often have we seen town board members (and others at the town, state and federal level) supinely accept the illegal degradation of the riparian environment by these presumptuous egoists while only the trustees raised the alarm and took legal action.

The town board should announce its support ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Feb 13, 14 11:00 AM
An excellent point -- what will the SH Town Board say about this?

The Trustees will prevail in the long run in my opinion, and retain their historical independence and autonomy. The question is -- do they have deep enough pockets to fight The Big Money from WHD etc.?

The three East End Towns' Trustees should consider joining forces and removing to federal court all actions related to the Dongan Patent (including the recent suit against the NYS DEC -- a state agency, hence the possibility ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 11:30 AM
The Trustees are a body separate from the Town Board and Queen Anna! She has no authority here and this shall be upheld in court. Join SABA (Southampton Association for Beach Access) today, the dues go into a fund to help fund the Trustees' legal fund!!!!
By bigfresh (4666), north sea on Feb 13, 14 11:49 AM
2 members liked this comment
The Supervisor and Town Board should come out publicly and loudly in favor of the Trustees' rights, so as not to create an appearance that they want the Trustees gone. Any silence will be a very pregnant one IMO.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 2:24 PM
2 members liked this comment
I was told recently that Queen ATH was attempting to squash the Trustees, make the town board and the trustees one and the same. Developers would love this. I didn't believe it at the time and filed it under useless information....

By Draggerman (955), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 10:17 AM
Went to Town Hall but it is closed.i WONDER WHY.I shopped on the way and went to see te beach and returned still closed.............why
By Etians rd (543), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 2:16 PM
Because the governor issued a state of emergency??
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 13, 14 2:28 PM
This is disgusting!!!!! The Trustees are the only ones we can trust to preserve our beaches and shoreline!!! Loose this one and we loose our rights to beach access!!
By sandydog21 (195), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 3:02 PM
During campaign season, all candidates for town board agreed on what a crucially important role the Trustees play in Southampton. Was it all for show? Will I now be called cynical and conspiracy minded? The Town Board must come out with a public statement supporting our Trustees. WE must support our Trustees. Get thee to a town board public hearing!
By Earthgirl (52), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 4:46 PM
1 member liked this comment
We should have that village shut down. It only exists because a bunch of uber-wealthy homeowners got the state to put sand back on private property that was underwater. Someone should investigate the currupt DEC lawyer who signed the consent order to maintain the road through the village! Is he related or beholden to the mayor? How about shitting down that illegal police department! This smells of just more currupt New York liberal politicians creating special enclaves for the rich liberals so they ...more
By Charlie42 (5), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 5:00 PM
1 member liked this comment
A real travesty. Definitely Justice Meyer needs a pink slip come next election time. And hopefully the Town Board comes out and does the right thing. Too many unforeseen consequences to contemplate disbanding the Trustees. Long live the Trustees!
By M. O'Connor (147), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 5:28 PM
2 members liked this comment
Yes or no town board whos side are you on
By clammer (23), hampton bays on Feb 13, 14 6:31 PM
Time for some INVESTIGATiVE reporting by the Press. Why has Queen Anna taken an axe to the Trustees? Could it be that some of her back door donors are pulling the strings and are getting what they paid for ??!! This stinks , and the stench comes from the Supervisor " s office.
By bigfresh (4666), north sea on Feb 13, 14 7:11 PM
1 member liked this comment
The trustees have worked hard to protect our waters and this is the thanks they get! Why do the WH Dunes have so much control?
By sf (5), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 7:31 PM
1 member liked this comment
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 13, 14 10:50 PM
3 members liked this comment
This is TERRIBLE! How can our trustees do their important work now???? END THE BAN!!!!!
By Poodle (1), Southampton on Feb 13, 14 11:01 PM
the trustees sold $1,000,000 of sand from the towns beaches and didnt put any of it in the towns coffers (and even charged the town for sand to rebuild town beaches after Sandy) They then hid the money in banks all over town and spent it like drunken frat boys with no oversight by town controller no competitive bidding and refused to account for how $$ was spent. Then refused to use any to pay their operating costs and demanded the town fully fund them, no questions asked.

Forcing ...more
By CaptainSig (716), Dutch Harbor on Feb 14, 14 7:06 AM
Excellent points all.

"Transparency in government" -- hmmmm where have we heard that before?

Have the Trustees sown the seeds of their own downfall?
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 7:11 AM
your all missing the point. in all other towns, the controller has the checkbook, period. once the trustees conform to municipal law, they will be able to conduct their function to preserve our rites to beach access, fishing, etc.... also, the millions of dollars of sand that they sell, which is owned by the town, will go toward the towns budget, to help RUDUCE OUR TAXES, and not for their slush fund
By theview (1), kings Point on Feb 14, 14 7:35 AM
The Trustees may have an independent legal right (pre-dating the USA like the Dongan Patent) to have their own bank accounts, not subject to the SHT Controller.

BUT, they do owe the Freeholders certain fiduciary duties under the Common Law to have more transparency and accountability.

This is shaping up to be an "all-or-nothing" fight over the Dongan Patent.

Gentlepeople -- start your engines -- and open the pocketbooks, as the attorneys are going to make a fortune on ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 8:24 AM
1 member liked this comment
PS -- Join all lawsuits involving the Dongan Patent (incl. the Trustees' suit against the NYS DEC), and remove all actions to federal court, due to overarching federal issues, and the presence of a state agency (DEC) as one vital party.

Another agency lurking in the background is the Army Corps of Engineers. In theory does the Dongan Patent give the TrusteeP juri diction to approve/deny the proposed Fire Island to Montauk Project?

Hmmmmmmmm . . . .

By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 8:29 AM
The so called great Fred Havelmeyer did a lot of things that were wrong. He sold sand to his buddies at way below market prices giving none to the comptroller. He thought it was ok to hire a
full time atty to work on suits against local
townships. Raising beach parking fees to fund a
park named after him was a real winner. Thank
God that man is gone. Now we need Eric Schultz
to hit the road.
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 14, 14 8:25 AM
Well Chief, Mr. Shultz has been kind enough to post the straight scoop here. Perhaps you would be kind enough to address your issues directly to him.
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Feb 14, 14 3:34 PM
1 member liked this comment
You need reading glasses! Who is going to fund the lawsuits to protect the freeholders rights to public access to beaches ? It is clearly evident that any diminishing of the role, rights, jurisdiction of the independently elected board of Trustees will NOT be in the best interest of The Freeholders. If the economic engine of our town is actually our environment and our beaches, any threat to the officials that are placed with the responsibility of protecting it should be extinguished immediately.
By 007 (45), East Quogue on Feb 14, 14 8:40 AM
1 member liked this comment
There have been some allegations of improper use of Trustee funds mentioned in these posts, Let me clear up some of the allegations. The sand in Mecox is owned by the freeholders of the Town. It is a tangible asset. The Town has instituted a policy of chargebacks for goods and services between us and other agencies. We were advised by numerous attorneys that a transfer of this sand without compensation of sorts might set us up for further litigation. I discussed this with the supervisor and ...more
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 14, 14 9:01 AM
This sounds like a pretty aggressive court injunction to me vis a vis characterizing an independent body as an "agency." It effectively requires the Town of Southampton to overstep its legal bounds. What right does the town attorney have to the Trustee's checkbooks? This is a disgrace. More importantly, it creates unnecessary financial exposure for the Town and its taxpayers because the Trustees now have a basis for bringing a lawsuit against the Town. Unfortunately, Peter Mayer is, I believe, ...more
By realdeal (23), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 10:45 AM
3 members liked this comment
Thanks for the clarification Eric. Icecreaman: WE ARE THE FREEHOLDERS, that isall the residents of Southampton Town.
By bigfresh (4666), north sea on Feb 14, 14 12:08 PM
Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonality of the Town of Southampton.
Freeholders are property owners, the Commonality are the non-property owning residents of the Town.

So, one could be a Freeholder, but not a resident... There is a great deal of assumed knowledge of the Trustees, much bellowing Dogan Patent... I suggest those who choose to cite it, read it first. When reading take note of how differently the board of Trustees looks from how it was laid out in the Dongan Patent. ...more
By ICE (1214), Southampton on Feb 15, 14 2:41 PM
The Dongan Patent, as an old historical document, is interesting reading, but the case law in the courts has defined it for present times. As with all Common Law, the Patent is a work in progress, and the current cases might be heading for a penultimate ruling on the Trustees' authority, perhaps in federal court as the Army Corps and NYS DEC have major interests in the legal issues unresolved by decades of case law from the courts.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 15, 14 4:26 PM
The SHT Trustees' site has the following overview of the Dongan Patent. It is we Freeholders who have the rights granted under this Patent; the Trustees simply represent our interests.

The injunction here should be seen, in essence, as being filed against each and every resident of the Town of Southampton, in my personal opinion.

It does not sit well with this long-time resident, and as each day goes by with Supervisor Throne-Holst and the Town Board remaining silent, the discomfort ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 12:49 PM
1 member liked this comment
The SH Town website has various historical documents available as PDF's, including the Trustees' records from 1960-65 comprising 464 pages. Much of the pioneering legal work on the Dongan Patent was done by David H. Gilmartin, Esq.. A Google search for his name in quotes, and Dongan Patent, results in interesting finds.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 1:07 PM
For instance:

By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 1:08 PM
Internet searches for the Dongan Patent and "Stuart Vorpahl" also yield interesting results.

See also:




By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 3:28 PM
WH Dunes is a tiny little village with a Town Beach and seven other public beach access points! Kudos to WH Dunes for protecting beach access. As far as the deep pockets issue goes - the Trustees spent 1,800,000 on their attorney for these cases and lost, WH Dunes spent less than 100,000 and won. I guess the facts, rather than the deep pockets, carried the day.
By WS (9), Westhampton Beach on Feb 14, 14 4:38 PM
1 member liked this comment
This fight has many rounds to go. No one has won it lost, except for the attorneys.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 5:10 PM
Won or lost
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 5:11 PM
how did you arrive at these numbers? Sig said that they have a friend in the comptrollers office and the trustees hide their accounts.
By clammer (23), hampton bays on Feb 14, 14 8:50 PM
Wait.... The Town Board cancelled the litigation insurance? didn't this put the Town at risk? Kinda like not renewing your homes fire insurance. And the judge feels the finances are better controlled by the Town. seems pretty reckless to me
By clammer (23), hampton bays on Feb 14, 14 6:11 PM
1 member liked this comment
only for an earlier year (presumably during one of the budget crises when someone made the judgment that it would be cheaper to be self-insured?).
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 14, 14 6:15 PM
Not really reckless as the Town didn't acquire the lawsuit, the Trustees did. They like to say no to docks, even through the law isn't on there side. They do it, hope the people don't have the will/resources to fight them. Then some choose to and here we are, how is that not reckless and how is the good for the Freeholder(s)?
By ICE (1214), Southampton on Feb 15, 14 2:50 PM
WS- As far as the seven access points that you mentioned are concerned, the agreement with the N.Y.S.D.E.C. and the Army Corps of Engineers as part of the restoration project also required that "pull off spots / parking" be provided at each of these seven locations. They were never installed. So essentially these seven access points only serve to provide beach access for the residents of the Village of West Hampton Dunes who own property on the north side of Dune Road access to the beach. No one ...more
By Ziggyq (8), Quogue on Feb 14, 14 6:14 PM
Actually, when the property owner applied for a pool, upon review by the building dept. it was found that the dock was not in compliance and was larger than any others permitted in the area. The owner chose to fight rather than apply for a conforming structure. The Trustees have been named in the suit as well as the Town attorney and the Bay Constable. Since they are Town employees the Town is involved also. The money contributed by the Trustees amounts to half of the costs so far. It is a ...more
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 15, 14 6:34 PM
"...the only attorney employed by the town that was qualified to argue the case in federal court was laid off."

Whose brilliant "cost saving measure" owns that idea?
Feb 15, 14 8:29 PM appended by Mr. Z
Poorly worded. Brilliant "cost saving measure". Who owns that idea?
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 15, 14 8:29 PM
Since when does the trustees have the right to hire their own atty and start lawsuits against neighboring village? Its bad enough they have the out of control gun carrying constables patroling the bays. Why is it okay to spend my tax dollars against someone who wants a dock permit?
Mr Shultz you are telling me you have an atty that was on staff that has experience arguing civil rights violations in a Federal Court. What civil rightscases did this atty ever defend?
The trustees are out ...more
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 15, 14 10:31 PM
Nice rant, but completely out of line and based in ignorance.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 16, 14 12:08 AM
1 member liked this comment

[ . . . . ignore nonsense button on . . . . ]

By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 16, 14 7:16 AM
1 member liked this comment
I hope they are happy cause I am a baymen and now can't work on the bay because of the shut down. This is crazy. I can't renew my license because no one is in office. How about that? Cant feed my kids and family now? But its cool right because it is democracy.
By islander6615 (133), hampton bays on Feb 16, 14 8:19 AM
It's their fault you didn't get you license renewed before the shut down? I guess that makes sense somehow.
By ICE (1214), Southampton on Feb 16, 14 2:22 PM
okay let me address the starting of lawsuits against neighboring villages. the suit that was commenced against individuals in Westhampton dunes was due to the fact that we contend that they were claiming land that had formed rapidly in front of their bay front properties. One of the owners subdivided the property into another building lot If the sand that covered this former bottom came from the inlet that was blown through the barrier beach it would stand to reason that if the property lines ...more
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 15, 14 11:51 PM
4 members liked this comment
PS after we were audited by the State Comptrollers office last year and all funds were intact I asked the comptroller where we fit in as far as Town Law goes since we are sometimes called a body politic or a cooperation or an administrative unit. Quote by a representative of the comptrollers office reads in part "The good news is the Freeholders are not required to follow Town law 30 1a"
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 16, 14 12:13 AM
To icecreamman I agree and I will speak to the other Trustees about your comment. In the meantime ask me any questions you want. and ask the Town Board how they are going to help
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 16, 14 9:31 AM
Mr Shultz I wasnt talking about the lawsuit with Westhampton Dunes I was speaking about the Southampton Village suit. I think its wrong to stop anyone from trying to save their real property. Especially an oceanfront homeowner who spent 60 million on the purchase of his home. As far as the Westhampton Dunes suit goes I think you know you are dealing with people that have no respect for the environment. The goverment over at the Dunes is a disgrace and they have ruined the beach forever.
The ...more
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 16, 14 10:27 AM
1 member liked this comment
Those folks who buy oceanfront should do their homework in buying homes as well as they look to making their $$$$$. Most people who live on the East End KNOW that the sand comes and goes with the seasons. Our 4 sons driving along the beach have observed the goings on with the dredge. If that is how those folks want to spend their $$ then they must have had it deposited in such away that it would not blow away before summer. I certainly hope they had that much brains.
By summertime (589), summerfield fl on Feb 16, 14 11:24 AM
People who build on roving dunes have no brains.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 17, 14 4:28 AM
Overbroad Z IMO.

Some who build on dunes know the risks full well, and have signed off on the possible losses, while enjoying the benefits in the meantime . . .

Hard to imagine such deep self-insurance, but the broad brush does not serve Z well . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 7:16 AM
I am of the school of thought that one has no business whatsoever building on the dunes. They're in their own sequestered insurance pool now, right?

I find such location of structures arrogant, egotistical, and folly in the face of Mother Nature. Regardless of the acceptance of risk, it is a fool's errand.
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 17, 14 4:15 PM
1 member liked this comment
And the private property rights in existence, what would you suggest we do to implement your vision of a world which is free of arrogance, ego, fools and folly?
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 18, 14 2:48 AM
That's a long road. And we've been traveling in reverse for at least thirty years...
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 19, 14 9:38 AM
1 member liked this comment
The earlier article (link above), regarddng the January 23rd court ruling, says:

"The injunction would not be enacted until it has been filed by the plaintiffs and signed by the judge, a process likely to take two to three weeks.

"In the meantime, members of the Trustees have said they will appeal the ruling.

" “I’m not worried about it at all,” Trustee Eric Shultz said the day the decision was released. “Appeals ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 16, 14 1:56 PM
I agree; what really goes on here? Like I can't guess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By summertime (589), summerfield fl on Feb 16, 14 3:16 PM
The judicial process will go forward, and in the end the Trustees will prevail. Meanwhile -- and it may be a long meanwhile -- those of us who support the Trustees should make our voices heard, here on 27east, at public meetings, and in the press.

The Trustees are just about our only bulwark against a tide of development and private encroachment which is very close to ruining our precious shoreline beyond fixing. That could actually happen before these several cases are finally decided ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1979), Quiogue on Feb 16, 14 5:53 PM
1 member liked this comment
Since this an open forum maybe Eric Shultz can explain what went on at the trustee property at the end of Rose Hill Rd in Watermill.
The trustee property at the end of Rose Hill was alledgedly illegally paved by the home owner who adjoins the property. This homeowner even made a gate that leads onto the trustee property so he could get out of his garage.
My question is why is it ok for your property to be paved with oil embedded asphalt running right into mecox bay? Why is the neighbor ...more
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 16, 14 8:38 PM
Is this property owner involved in any way with the hit-and-run death of Sister Jackie Walsh over a year and one-half ago, such as being the employer of the alleged driver? Or do I have the wrong property owner?
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 6:25 AM
did not know I am only allowed to post twice per day I will post on Monday answers to some of the questions. One thing, the appeal has been filed. It would be nice if the Town Board joined us but we will continue on as usual. To Chief give me a day to check on one of the facts about rose hill road ramp before I address your comments Town hall is closed Monday Eric Shultz
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 17, 14 12:31 AM
You can get a subscription to the Press, and then have unlimited posting privileges. Thank you for participating here, and for standing up for the Dongan Patent and our rights.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 6:27 AM
1 member liked this comment
PS Mr. Schultz, one is curious whether the Trustees, as a board, have approved your participation here, and whether the Trustees' attorney has also?

In view of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule for Admissions against Interest, Prior Inconsistent Sayings, and so forth, is it possible that your posts here may not be entirely helpful, as this complicated and historic litigation plays out? Food for thought anyway . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 7:13 AM
Mr Schultz has served the residents of Southampton Town for a long, long time. I am quite sure he is capable of speaking for himself, and the Trustees as he sees fit.
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Feb 17, 14 1:33 PM
1 member liked this comment
blank -- let's see what his attorney says, that was the gist of question . . . I thanked him for speaking up, did you notice that comment just above? I questioned the wisdom of speaking up, from a legal perspective. See Tuesday article per Turtle comment below.

icecreamman -- I did thank him, and I praised his support of the Dongan Patent (right above). Did you see this above? I also support the Trustees as many comments in many articles will demonstrate.

See Turtle's comment ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 4:46 PM
It's OUR property chiefy, it's held in TRUST for all the residents and freeholders of the commonality of Southampton! Research please, research.
By bigfresh (4666), north sea on Feb 17, 14 1:05 AM
chief1's reference to "trustee property" was an entirely understandable and appropriate shorthand, and did not require such a childish rebuke IMO.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 6:41 AM
Yes PBR it is the same house as the Sister Jackie case. You should really take a ride over there and check out what is going on. Never have I seen such a large house built on such a small lot with a pool literally 30 ft from the bulk head. Not to mention the grass goes right up to the bulkhead. This 14k sq ft mansion is set on .60 acres with a pool and patio sitting on mecox bay with a dock. How was this even possible to pass the trustees? How is private property accessing off of trustee property? ...more
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 17, 14 7:55 AM
1 member liked this comment
Your assumption that the man on the run was the actual driver is misplaced IMO. The SHT PD has never released the results of their investigation (because doing so would have jeopardized its pursuit of him, in theory!).

Neither former Chief Wilson nor Supervisor ATH has come clean on this either, in my personal opinion.

We are entitled to know everything the PD knew, and when they knew it, from day one.

As the Press said in an editorial about a year ago, this bungled investigation, ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 10:04 AM
2 members liked this comment
^^^^ OT???

If Chief wants answers to his questions he should go down to Town Hall and submit FOIL requests to the Building Dept and the Conservation Board and the Environmental Division. The Conservation Board is responsible for allowing construction within 50 feet of a bulkhead - anything further than that is outside of their jurisdiction.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 17, 14 12:40 PM
Depends on one's view of topicality, and how deep the bad roots run in Southampton Town I guess!
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 12:49 PM
PS Nature, Mr. Schultz appeared here by his own choice, and it would seem that chief1's question, directly to the head of the agency in question, was totally ON topic to the general issue of the scope and nature of the Trustees' authority, especially as practiced in the field.

You picked a lousy time to put the Hall Comments OT Monitor suit back on IMO.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 12:54 PM
PBR you can't see the trees through your own forrest apparently. I was referring to your comments which are off-topic. Never miss a chance to interject your unending questioning of the Sister Jackie case. Seems odd that you are so quick to call others out for being "OT" and for going down a rabbit hole - but you see the littlest avenue of opportunity and you race down it to make your points. Why don't you just take out a full page ad in the Press asking ATH/SHPD directly? Seems as though that ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 17, 14 2:07 PM
Yes sir, Mr. Monitor, sir. Sorry to question your sacrosant (imonious) authority and wisdom . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 4:41 PM
If anything PBR I'm just following in your giant (rabbit sized) footprints
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 17, 14 4:48 PM
Different perceptions of on-topic etc.. Agree to disagree. You don't get it and it is not worth the effort to try to make distinctions for your closed mind. Blinders . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 4:55 PM
Thanks for giving me the protocol of what is and isn't allowed on this board. Lol
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 17, 14 4:04 PM
1 member liked this comment
To clarify my comment of...

"Mr. Schultz can answer regarding any easement allowed across their property, but they have NO say in the construction of homes or pools and their respective setbacks."

He can say whatever he wants, but his Board (the Trustees) have no legal say/authority/approval over the construction of structures that aren't docks or bulkheads. So it's not the Trustees decisions you have an issue with, it's the decisions of the Conservation Board and the Bldg Dept
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 17, 14 4:19 PM
1 member liked this comment
According to today's Newsday the Town Board has authorize the town lawyer to issue a demand letter to take control over all of the trustees funds. If this happens you can say goodbye to the status quo. Everything will be for sale. Shame on the Town Board.
By TheTurtle (143), Southampton on Feb 17, 14 4:13 PM
. Sorry for the delay but I had to work on my stuff today. Now I sit down and do my nightly trustee homework. In my posts I have only spoken to historical facts and other issues that I felt needed to be clarified. I will not speak to any direction that the Trustees are going unless I run it by the rest of the board and they okay it for publication. I would not say anything here that I would not say to anyone on the street if they asked me a question. so lets answer one of the questions. ...more
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 17, 14 9:02 PM
1 member liked this comment
Thank you for the update on the personal path you have chosen to comment freely here.

Is there not a big difference, however, between speaking casually with someone on the street, and posting written comments here for all the world to see -- statements which bind (from a legal standpoint) the Trustees, and the Freeholders, to your personal view of the past? [Especially given the pivotal litigation in which the Trustees are (and will be) involved.]

Has Mr. Lombardo signed off ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 18, 14 2:26 AM
"Has Mr. Lombardo signed off ...more on this, or are you relying on yourself as your own attorney in this regard?"

Dude, PBR Eric Shultz is a GROWN man. He can make his own choices - and we don't even KNOW it's really him, do we? He hasn't revealed anything remotely worthy in a lawsuit. If he is having a casual conversation with someone they could be recording him without his knowledge.

Please stop babying grown men
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 18, 14 9:44 AM
I disagree. If Mr. Schultz has embarked on this new voyage without consulting his legal navigator, it would raise questions which would be premature to discuss now.

You are not an attorney, Nature, so you might consider consulting with your own attorney to understand the important LEGAL questions being discussed, for which your training as a planner has not prepared you.

Let's see what Mr. Schultz says before further comment . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 18, 14 10:45 AM
Why do you feel the need to babysit everyone and look out for what they're saying on here? At least he has his name up - more than you or I can say. Let him be a man geez
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 18, 14 10:49 AM
Because the Trustees have a Fiduciary Duty to represent US in a mature manner. Please wait for his reply before launching any more Ad Hominem attacks.

Thank you.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 18, 14 11:33 AM
PS Nature have you spoken with your attorney?
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 18, 14 11:34 AM
Why would I?

As for "ad hominen" attacks, all I said was you are playing babysitter, that's an accurate accusation, not an attack of any kind.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 18, 14 11:38 AM
Mr. Schultz's new comment below did not address whether the Trustee's attorney Mr. Lombardo has signed off on his participation here. Letting the silence speak for itself . . . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 18, 14 8:46 PM
So first you question this man's participation on the board, making sure his mommy and daddy have signed off. Then, when he ignores you, you decide you know the answers to your own questions. Kinda bully behavior, no?
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 19, 14 9:13 AM
Nature, you never really understood the original narrow legal question I had asked about clearance from the attorney, so of course your observations and questions do not really make sense. All the dots are above, try connecting them please. New article update today BTW.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 19, 14 10:34 AM
PS -- Everyone should realize that hundreds of years of precedent are on the table, as is the vitality of the Dongan Patent itself, and some major players will probably end up in this litigation (Army Corps, NYS DEC). It is crucial that the Trustees dot every i and cross all the t's at every little step of the way, with the advice and counsel of their attorneys, including posting here. My question to Mr. Schultz above focusing specifically on the attorney's clearance for him to post here, only that. ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 19, 14 10:41 AM
Both of you are totally off your rockers. Nature is telling me who to ask a question when I am looking for guidance on a dock, bulkhead, and a piece of property possibly owned by the trustees. I didn't ask Nature I asked Mr Shultz.
Any way I have a new opinion of the trustees and i think Mr Shultz works very hard. We can now see the town board is made up of weasels and should have pulled this nonsense during election season. They know the litigation would of jeopardized their reelection ...more
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 18, 14 11:25 AM
1 member liked this comment
You have way oversimplified the legal issues here.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 18, 14 11:35 AM
1 member liked this comment
Nature directed you as to the "responsible party" in regards to the building on Rose Hill Rd.
At the start of this, you wanted Eric Schultz to "hit the road" now you're President of his fan club. Care to share why you held him in such low regard prior to his posting here?
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Feb 19, 14 3:48 AM
1 member liked this comment
It is clear that we are still not getting the word out fast enough about what we do and the reasons for the decisions. some comments were offered that were based on wrong info. No fault to people, its just that they did not know the real facts. I am going to propose to the fellow Trustees that I have a question and answer period at the end of the meetings where citizens can submit by mail, questions for the board. Since the meetings are now televised it would allow people to get answers to ...more
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 18, 14 8:38 PM
1 member liked this comment
Now Eric, why are u fibbing about Rose Hill Rd? This boat ramp isnt trustee property? Then why is it on your list of trustee boat ramps? Why are signs posted saying "Trustee Ramp Permit Req"? Why do workers with Town Trustee trucks clean the ramp and cut the grass?
Isnt it true that the owner of the big house next door was allowed to use the ramp area as a construction yard during the building of the house and connect his driveway to OUR PROPERTY in exchange for repaving the entrance ...more
By CaptainSig (716), Dutch Harbor on Feb 19, 14 8:23 AM
Where did he say that the ramp was not town property?
If you saw that it was being used by a nearby homeowner improperly, why did you not make efforts to bring it to the attention of responsible parties?
If you did and nothing was done, why were you not at the next town board meeting, banging your fists on the podium and asking why?
What do you perceive as being "innacurate(sic)/incomplete"?
Do you have a mouse in your pocket? What do you mean by "we just don't trust you"
If ...more
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Feb 19, 14 2:53 PM
OK see if you can follow along blank --What Schultz said was that the ramp was not "trustee" property, and that it was "town " property and it was up to the town to "remedy any problems" there. (comment made 2/17/14 9:02pm) I was making the point that this area is i n fact trustee property and they are responsible for what goes on there.
The trustees are the ones who allowed the use of this area for construction purposes, and as part of a private driveway, in exchange for repaving the ...more
By CaptainSig (716), Dutch Harbor on Feb 19, 14 7:03 PM
It is not Trustee Property, it is the Freeholders property. If indeed as you claim, if the Trustees "allowed" the homeowner to use the area, in exchange for his saving the town money and repaving it after, what is the issue. If your use of the area was restricted during construction, then yes, you should be banging your fist on their podium.
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Feb 20, 14 10:23 AM
An excellent update to the article today by Mr. Wright.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 19, 14 10:31 AM
It is implicit in the Supervisor's quotes that she does not "get it" that the Trustees derive their authority from an historical document which pre-dates the very existence of the USA.

To speak of things as if the Trustees will fit in nicely in one of her little mental pigeon-holes is an insult, and a direct challenge to OUR Dongan Patent.

Let the battle begin . . .
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 19, 14 1:21 PM
1 member liked this comment
Anna Throne-Holst's doe-eyed comment that is irrelevant that the trustees have control over their own budget is contemptible. The only reason that the plaintiffs sought this injunction is to prevent the trustees from having the financial resources to continue their suit, a suit of which the town board does not approve. Does anyone doubt the prospects of that action if its continuation depends on town board funding?

The supervisor well understands that law is irrelevant when money is controlled, ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Feb 19, 14 3:17 PM
1 member liked this comment
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By 007 (45), East Quogue on Feb 19, 14 4:02 PM

Time for the facts, like them or not these are the facts:

First and foremost there never was a shutdown of the trustees, EVER. The trustees chose to deny we freeholders of our rights by claiming "we are shut down" nothing in the court order stopped them from performing their duty, it simply required them to do so according to the law. There was no shut down it was a deliberate ...more
By George V (3), Westhampton on Feb 19, 14 4:22 PM
You mean your version of "the law" which denies the authority of the Dongan Patent.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 19, 14 4:46 PM
This is for I'm a Blank. I asked about a dock, a bulkhead, and a piece of property that has trustee signs on it. So your friend nature was not sending me to the right place. The Conservation board has nothing to do with a piece of trustee property. My opinion of trustees is that they are hard workers, but should restrict there business to the balance of a land owners and the environment. We don't need another branch of govt full of attorneys, and a check book to use against its own citizens. ...more
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 19, 14 5:15 PM
" Never have I seen such a large house built on such a small lot with a pool literally 30 ft from the bulk head. Not to mention the grass goes right up to the bulkhead. This 14k sq ft mansion is set on .60 acres with a pool and patio sitting on mecox bay with a dock. How was this even possible to pass the trustees?"

I was being "helpful" by directing you to who is responsible for answering SOME of your concerns. The last line is what led me to believe you thought the Trustees were responsible ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 19, 14 7:40 PM

"We don't need another branch of government ....." your problem is that this is not new. This "branch" of government is here due to the Dongan Patent. It is not Trustee Property, it is the freeholders property, and yes, the Conservation Board does regulate building in and near wetlands. Now some specificity please, who is Mr. Schultz persecuting?
The reality of property ownership is that we are only stewards of the property.
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Feb 20, 14 10:20 AM
1 member liked this comment
Okay I have to reiterate All the Trustee accounts are audited by the independent auditor hired by the Town every year. All bank accounts are listed. The comptroller and the Town board see this report. It is public information. There are NO secret accounts period. I don't know how to phrase this issue any other way. Why do we pay auditors and comptrollers if we are now being painted as doing something wrong. So am I to assume that when we asked them is everything okay with the ...more
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 19, 14 7:53 PM
2 members liked this comment
For those who want to claim eric is a career politician are quick to forget what his real career was: FDNY. He is braver and has more B&&&s than anyone on this board, and yet he has found time to dedicate himself to protecting our local resources for very little in personal return.

I applaud you Eric for what you've done in your career(s) and for your strong stance as the Trustee president. Your desire to answer the questions of the people is refreshing
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 20, 14 9:21 AM
I have been "acquainted" with Mr S chultz for 15 years and I can tell you Eric Schultz is not now a member of the FDNY active or retired, nor has he ever been an active member of the FDNY; and his claims that was during his campaigns for publi c office is an insult to all the hard working and brave men and women of all fire depts
By CaptainSig (716), Dutch Harbor on Feb 20, 14 6:05 PM
FDNY Fire Patrol according to this:

By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 20, 14 6:37 PM
A 2006 NYT article:

"For two centuries, the little-known patrol has responded to fires as an auxiliary force, underwritten by the insurance industry and long overshadowed by its municipal counterpart."

There is a picture of a gentleman of the same name who looks familiar.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 20, 14 6:43 PM
Nature, curious to know the source of your "braver and has more . . . " comment, plus the facts underlying. Thanks.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 20, 14 6:50 PM
"Profession: FDNY, retired"

By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 20, 14 6:53 PM
GUY for crying out loud, I get it that you don't like me but lets get the facts straight once more. I have never said that I was a member of the fdny. I am proud of my service in the Fire Patrol having served for 14 years before its closing by the greedy insurance companies. This service lost quite a few members in the line of duty over the years the most recent being my friend Keith Roma who perished at the trade center. I was one of 6 who carried his body out of the PIT on Christmas Eve. ...more
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 20, 14 9:15 PM
1 member liked this comment
My source is knowing the man personally and knowing that he is retired FDNY and volunteer EQFD. It's a lot more than most people would ever be willing to sign up for.
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 20, 14 9:16 PM
PBR - from the article which you cite:

"Thirty-two fire patrolmen have died in the line of duty, according to the board. Mr. Roma's father, Arnie Roma, a retired patrolman, said those who seek to shut down the force do not appreciate its value. "Being the father of a boy who gave his life for this job," he said, "you can understand how angry I am."

That's a lot more people than die in say the line of duty as a planner... (or the VAST majority of positions).

And as Mr. ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 20, 14 9:22 PM
All bravery is commendable -- just looking to get the facts straight -- nothing personal. It appears that the 27east election material [link above] incorrectly stated Mr. Shultz's profession as "FDNY, retired." Perhaps this was the source of CaptainSig's incorrect conclusions? Did this appear in print also as a supplement to the Press?

To make a side-point about this. If the current litigation gets heated, with perhaps the Army Corps and DEC involved, collateral issues like the above are ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 20, 14 10:20 PM
sorry pbr I was responding to sig
By Eric Shultz (11), East Quogue on Feb 20, 14 11:03 PM
2 members liked this comment
Thank you for the clarification.

A search of the Press's archives (available to all print subscribers) reveals that, on p. A9 of the 11/3/11 issue just before the Trustee election, the following appeared:

"He is a retired member of the New York Fire Patrol, an insurance supported salvage corps."

It appears therefore that the mistaken FDNY language snuck into the source cited above somehow.

[Not sure if the link to be posted below will lead to the ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 21, 14 5:32 AM
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 21, 14 5:33 AM
A prescient quote indeed from Mr. Shultz in that article:

“We envision a Trustees board equal to the Town Board in some ways,” he said, explaining that the board needs to have control of its budget and the authority to borrow money with voter approval. “We need the Trustees to control the destiny of the lawsuits we have to fight to protect the rights of the freeholders. We can’t be beholden to the Town Board.”

"He highlighted the importance of the ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 21, 14 5:37 AM
Mr Schultz Im sure your service in the fire patrol was commendable but you are not retired FDNY as indicated in the links posted above as well as campaign lit i have received, an untruth im sure you were well aware of. You stated on this page that the Rose Hill Rd ramp is not trustee property when you know it is--another untruth (and I have more)
My point here is some of us taxpayers are having a hard time taking you at your word in this mess, and wonder why you are so adamantly against ...more
By CaptainSig (716), Dutch Harbor on Feb 21, 14 8:23 AM
Sig, you got nothing other than a reported not reporting details. You have nothing showing Mr Schultz claimed to be a FF with FDNY.
Once again, nothing is Trustee property, it belongs to the Freeholders and the Trustees are responsible for ensuring our access to same.
I don't believe I am debating with an adult who desires to emulate a reality tv show characters. Time to change my name to Donatello of the TMNT
By But I'm a blank! (1283), Hampton Bays on Feb 21, 14 12:39 PM
Blank - seems as though you're either debating with phantom tv stars or phantom chiefs...
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 21, 14 12:48 PM
Say what???
By CaptainSig (716), Dutch Harbor on Feb 21, 14 1:57 PM

to George V:

Aside from the reference to “your” village disclosing your vested interest in the destruction of the trustees thanks to your participation in lawsuits against them, your post is entirely irrelevant when it is not simply wrong.

All the trustees actions are the result of their continual efforts towards preventing presumptuous, self-assertive, solipsistic waterfront property owners and developers from despoiling our town waters by building on our bay ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Feb 19, 14 9:46 PM
George V (George Frederick Ernest Albert; 3 June 1865 – 20 January 1936

What made you think of WWI?
Feb 21, 14 12:41 AM appended by Mr. Z
EDIT: What ever would make you think of WWI? Add: king mired with turmoil?
By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 21, 14 12:41 AM
to Mr. Z:

That's not the Roman numeral "five" but a capital "V" as in Vegliante.
("By George V (3), Westhampton on Feb 19, 14 4:22 PM")
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Feb 21, 14 4:31 PM
Sorry very high hat that wasn't me as you know I sign my name, it was dead on but still not my post.

Your insulting, baseless evaluation of Judge Mayer exposes a very frail ego.

Why no comment about the reality of these NY State created trustees, or the fact that the court order just requires them to obey the law. Come on, surely you can look up a few more big words to address the undistinguished State Legislature of 1818.

By the way exactly who is the "our" in "our bay ...more
By veggary (45), West HamptonDunes on Feb 20, 14 12:03 AM
to veggary:

Obviously, when I mention "our" bay bottom, the "our" refers to all the residents of the town on whose behalf the trustees protect it from appropriation and despoliation by rapacious economic predators.

Judge Mayer's lack of professional distinction is simple fact. He is one of hundreds of state trial court judges nominated by his party as a reward for party loyalty rather than merit.

I will take your word that the state legislature validated the authority ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Feb 20, 14 9:41 AM
1 member liked this comment
Its funny how anyone from Westhampton Dunes could ask anyone to follow the law. The whole Dune area was washed out by mother nature, but the homeowners did a shakedown of the U S Goverment to have it rebuilt. The septic systems wash directly into the ocean, and there is continuous erosion repaired by taxpayers. You built your houses on the ocean and erosion is a risk take some responsibility!
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 20, 14 10:50 AM
They sue and they twist arms. It's genetic in that town.
By em (51), sagaponack on Feb 20, 14 8:14 PM
Wow "it's genetic in that town" really, you just couldn't help yourself could you?
It's clear your thinly veiled prejudice leaves no room for the facts. In all but one suit we were the DEFENDANTS. The fact is we stand up for our rights and have in fact won every attempt to abuse our community.
Oh yes High hat the state did not just validate our trustees the state CREATED these current trustees and they remain, as we all remain, subject to our laws not some long dead king's. Enlighten yourself ...more
By veggary (45), West HamptonDunes on Feb 22, 14 10:56 AM
The state never voided the authority vested in the Trustees by the Dongan Patent. If anything NYS has acquiesced and in effect confirmed that authority (e. g. in 1818). See you in court . . .

Your reply on the genetic comment is well taken IMO.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 22, 14 11:53 AM
TO PBR, your fair and open mind is appreciated.

On the acts of the 1800's we still disagree to some degree. It is impossible for the state to abdicate or create any authority superior to it's own authority or laws. The trustee's obligations are very clearly defined throughout those years and in fact their own minutes reflect their continued compliance. All that the taxpayers are seeking is simple, no one in our country is above the law and it puzzles me how anyone could argue against ...more
By veggary (45), West HamptonDunes on Feb 22, 14 2:58 PM
I am no fan of WHD or it's mayor and his antics, but that was not a natural disaster that washed away that section of barrier island. It was a direct result of the jetties installed along WHB in the 60s. While they catch a lot of sand to the east, problem is, no matter where you stop building them, West of the last one, there will be problems with accelerated erosion. A better solution would have been to systematically remove the jetties, starting from the East and let the shoreline regain ...more
By smacw (240), New York on Feb 22, 14 11:22 PM
Ah veggary, but if one expands your narrow definition of "the laws" to include the Dongan Patent, as applied through the centuries, what result then obtains? Who then could be seen as "above the law?"

Blinders blind . . .

See smacw's interesting comment below, about historical patents from other countries which resulted in active and valid land titles today (Texas for instance).
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 23, 14 6:37 AM
The Trustees can not operate, the Town Highway Department does not speak to Anna Throne Holst, have any of you asked yourselves how the town is being run? It is not running well in other words. The buck stops at the top as Obama says.

The Trustees must defend their (Our) rights. If it is government by the people then the people had better get involved. Letters to the editor and rants on line do nothing. Don't let me ruin your fun, have at it. But consider this: If the Town is being advised ...more
By AL (83), southampton on Feb 20, 14 12:32 PM
2 members liked this comment
Do you blame the highway to not talk to her. I haven't seen any new equipment in this town and these guys work with complete junk. I wouldn't talk to her either if she keeps cutting my budget. God forbid she gives the highway department a couple of new trucks with new equipment. These guys are driving around in trucks that don't even have parts made for them anymore. All she does is cut cut cut in the highway department meanwhile this is the department which is taking care of the roads for the everyday ...more
By islander6615 (133), hampton bays on Feb 22, 14 6:35 AM
An interesting historical irony perhaps, that the Dongan Patent derives its authority from English monarchy, from whom the colonies separated in revolution?

What are the chances that the current United States Supreme Court would uphold the Patent's grant of authority in this regard?

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 21, 14 6:09 AM
This will probably be deleted, but I think it's a worthy link which passes muster:

Colonial Charters, Grants and Related Documents

By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 24, 14 11:34 PM
That was, and is, the British Monarchy.

The Spanish Monarchy gave large land grants to Spanish settlers in North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some of those land grants were North of the Rio Grande. After the Mexican war when the borders changed, the deeds and titles to those lands were honored by The Republic of Texas, and subsequently by the State of Texas/United States. At least a few of those holdings are still owned by descendants of those settlers.

States such ...more
By smacw (240), New York on Feb 22, 14 11:58 PM
Thank you for the correction about the British Monarchy, and for your interesting observations about the validity of Texan land titles rooted in the Spanish land grants. Fascinating stuff.

The continuing vitality of the English Common Law here is not well appreciated by most citizens today, or by jurists for that matter, as most people think of "the law" as being based in legislation alone.

Shifting gears a bit, what would happen in your opinion to the Trustees' authority if these ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 23, 14 6:51 AM
Ok guys, this is a very interesting on point discussion, also well informed factually.

However it supports the position of law. The holdings, in the states that survived any pre constitutional awards, where delivered by and are completely subordinate to the parental state not whichever monarchy made the offer. Also as you've stated the property in those mentioned states were awarded directly to individuals ( actual past subjects of the particular Monarchy) this simple deeded ownership ...more
By veggary (45), West HamptonDunes on Feb 23, 14 11:34 AM
Same circular reasoning which ignores the centuries-old vesting of title in the Freeholders and Commonalty under the Dongan Patent. Later NYS laws could never take away that title, no matter when passed by the Legislature, nor could any court ruling (without doing so explicitly which never happened).

Title to the land in question has thus been a "done deal" for centuries, the finality of which is still not recognized by all.

Further conversation which ignores this plain truth will, ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 23, 14 12:29 PM
PBR, please read the act of 1818 and subsequent acts. That is exactly what happened. The Trustees for the proprietors (the ones granted by Governor Dongan) were granted the right to sell off their properties and basically ceased to exist when all was sold. These newly created Trustees for the Freeholders were created by that same NYS Legislature and are subject to NYS Laws. The king of the realm held many properties in fact almost all property in the New World was vested by one monarchy or another, ...more
By veggary (45), West HamptonDunes on Feb 23, 14 2:03 PM
1 member liked this comment
The NYS legislation to which you refer did not create the Trustees, it CONFIRMED their existence and CLARIFIED to the scope of their powers.


From the SHT Trustees' website:

"There seems to have been further controversy between the proprietors and inhabitants and thus a further act was passed on April 25, 1831 known as “An Act declaring the Powers and Duties of the Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 23, 14 3:30 PM
PS note the specific reference to the Dongan Patent.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 23, 14 3:33 PM
PS2 hopefully the Village Mayor and Board of WHD are prepared to shoulder possible punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and personal liability if certain thresholds are exceeded for litigation which is found to be baseless and/or vexatious, or beyond the scope of their authority.
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 23, 14 3:36 PM
These suits arise out of the desire of certain Dune Rd. residents to build on the bay bottom on land created by hurricane washover of the dunes. Whereas they have prevailed in the lower courts, continued success is unlikely in the appellate court system wherein more erudite judges sit. On the other hand, if they are able to mute the trustees by cutting off their water, they are much more likely to be able to obtain the title insurance that will make their newly-acquired properties salable.

If ...more
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Feb 23, 14 2:20 PM
1 member liked this comment
Mr Vegilante you talk about the law and no one is above it? For Gods sake you built on a sand bar, and have taxpayers paying for your stupidity. Dont worry when the agreement with the Feds is over the sand bar you live on will be washed away. This time when that mess you helped create called WH Dunes your rights to build will be extinguished like other states have done. Your village has extorted everyone they have come in contact with and it makes me sick!
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 23, 14 3:13 PM
Great news PBR, you've hit the nail right on the head, the portion you've quoted says exactly what I've been saying.
" The said trustees (our trustees for the freeholders) shall have the sole control over all the fisheries, fowling, sea weed, waters and productions of the waters within the said town, ----not the property of individuals----, and all the property, commodities, privileges and franchises granted to them by the charter of Governor Dongan, in [1686],---- except so far as are abrogated, ...more
By veggary (45), West HamptonDunes on Feb 23, 14 11:50 PM
1 member liked this comment
Except that the vested TITLE in the Freeholders and Trustees could never be taken away by later legislation, even if some later legislation said it could be taken away. There's the rub, you assume that the NYS Legislature had some magical power to take away that which was already vested and a "done deal."

It did not have that power, and being mesmerized by the statutory words does not alter the vacuum of power. Smoke and mirrors, mainly.

Going around this circle with you has run ...more
By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 24, 14 5:09 AM
Mr. Mayor - the distinction between the Trustees claim of "your" land, vs. all other bayside lands in the Town is that "your" land was created in a very short time period during/after a severe storm event. Prior to the storm, the land was bay bottom and belonged to the Trustees (and said Freeholders). "Overnight" a storm covered it with sand and because of that someone gets to put a flag on it and claim it as theres? It's entirely different than virtually all other bayfront property in the Town. ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 24, 14 9:27 AM
Nature, let me start from the bottom up you are very mistaken.

I never made a claim, in the documentary or anywhere else, that improper residents (actually "inhabitants" ) were presented in our incorporation petition. As I'm sure you know that petition was fully vetted by our Town Hall and their attorneys. What you may be confused by was an offhanded comment in the documentary by one resident in what I believe to be a silly attempt at humor. I can tell you yes we certainly did work with ...more
By veggary (45), West HamptonDunes on Feb 24, 14 6:06 PM
I'll give you credit for your response (which is well throttled, considering). The term "overnight" was in quotes, because I'm not sure what their defined timeframe is, but their argument is that it occurred much quicker than any other bayside area in recent memory (though their legal memory goes back nearly 400 years one could argue).

Taking your word for the comments made in the documentary (I watched it many years ago and even said I could be mistaken) I do wonder how "jokingly" the ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 24, 14 8:25 PM
to veggary:

Congratulations! Which title insurance company WAS that? Has the property been improved?
By highhatsize (4217), East Quogue on Feb 24, 14 1:00 AM
PBR, I guess your "done deal" trumps those silly "statutory words". Did you read the post before you sent it? It's the law that givith and taketh not the last monarchy that lostith, no magic. Blow away the smoke and remember there is no doubt the taxpayer suit is all about EVERYONE ADIDING BY THE LAW, NOT KILLING THE PATENT, something that has been clearly absent from your posts.

BTW your sanctions comment is especially odd since we've already won and in fact sanctions cut both ways.

High, ...more
By veggary (45), West HamptonDunes on Feb 24, 14 9:34 AM
"Over & Out" just in time to ignore my response... I'm sure you just didn't see it....
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 24, 14 10:08 AM
Hey PBR - how come you were so worried and concerned about Eric Schultz commenting on here and asking (ad naseum) if he had conslulted the attorney respresenting the Trustees, but when the Mayor of WHD comes on here and comments (debates, really) you goad him?
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 24, 14 11:10 AM
Dots above.

By PBR (4956), Southampton on Feb 24, 14 11:18 AM
You fire this shot across their bow:

"PS2 hopefully the Village Mayor and Board of WHD are prepared to shoulder possible punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and personal liability if certain thresholds are exceeded for litigation which is found to be baseless and/or vexatious, or beyond the scope of their authority."

But you spent how many posts warning and inquiring and worrying about Eric Schultz commenting? Guess you like one more than the other
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 24, 14 11:43 AM
No doubt the Feds should of rebuilt the barrier beach, but should of never allowed construction of homes. The village is a disgusting, polluting disfunctional area. Please don't talk about merits of your lawsuit, because there were zero. The government didn't destroy your homes mother nature did. Even a toddler who builds a sandcastle at the beach knows to stay away from incoming waters. Some how your village of bullies never picked up on that theory.
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 24, 14 6:09 PM
Hey Chief - I'm not one to eagerly defend the village... but how much damage did their homes and beach sustain during Sandy? Virtually none.. same can't be said for MANY areas up and down the coast and on both sides of the bay... WHD came out virtually unscathed... They're not asking for any handouts this time 'round
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 24, 14 8:28 PM
Mayor Vegliante mounts a spirited defense of West Hampton Dunes, as he should, but he's cherry-picking. When he says the place was "ravaged by politics, not nature," that's historically accurate, but incomplete. First, the WHD folks lost the influence contest and the groin field was built in the wrong direction and left uncompleted, setting them up for the destruction that followed, and that deal surely was political at bottom.

But then, after doing some predictably hard bargaining with ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1979), Quiogue on Feb 24, 14 9:09 PM
1 member liked this comment
Happy 40th, "Blazing Saddles":

Hedley Lamarr: Wait a minute... there might be legal precedent. Of course! Land-snatching!

[grabs a law book]

Hedley Lamarr: Land, land... "Land: see Snatch."

[flips back several pages]

Hedley Lamarr: Ah, Haley vs. United States. Haley: 7, United States: nothing. You see, it can be done!

By Mr. Z (11847), North Sea on Feb 24, 14 11:46 PM
2 members liked this comment
Actually Nature the ocean breached in WHD in a couple places. The goverment had to bring in a dredge to plug up one of the breaches. What about the dozens of septic systems that went under water and washed in the ocean? What about the tens of millions we as taxpayers paid
to protect these homeowners? The place is an ugly disaster just waiting to fall into the sea.
By chief1 (2800), southampton on Feb 26, 14 12:13 AM
Chief - ocean only breached at Cupsogue County Park, which aside from being in control by the County, it's in Brookhaven Township and the cause of the breach is directly tied to the existence of a hardened inlet directly to the west.

Sure the septic systems flooded - but those septic systems see little use on a year-round basis (mostly summer weekends) and due to the proximity to the inlet and ocean the dilution of this pollution is high and likely happened rapidly. Contrast that with ...more
By Nature (2966), Hampton Bays on Feb 26, 14 9:22 AM
Havana (AFP) - A Russian warship was docked in Havana Wednesday

By They call me (2826), southampton on Feb 26, 14 8:27 PM
So sad to see newcommers so ready to take advantage of what they came here for.... or is it true they only came here to make a dime and then leave the real and legal mess for others to deal with ... to clean up?
By summertime (589), summerfield fl on Mar 1, 14 3:55 PM
All these outrages have one thing in common - Queen ATH. She's likely on her last term, not caring anymore about alienating Southampton voters, so she'll go full bore to benefit rich developers and oceanfront owners and hit them up for campaign funds for her future aspirations to higher office.

Just know where she's coming from. Evil always has ulterior motives.
By Obbservant (449), southampton on Mar 3, 14 9:47 PM
As a SH waterfront owner for 40 years, I support waterfront access for all residents. I wish that other towns did the same beacuse I love to walk beaches. I never minded people walking and using the beach in front of my house as long as there is respect for my property (clean up after your dog, pick up your trash, etc).
Having been in a position to require a trustee permit to repair damage after Sandy and seeing first hand the broad yet inconsistent and irrational powers they give themselves, ...more
By facts maam (4), Manorville on Mar 11, 14 1:51 PM
Just fix Tuthill Lane in Remsenburg, which needs a full repaving like all the other streets got from Eastport to Southampton in the past few years, and take our votes with it. Help! Potholes, water on the edges, a smoothing out and wider please, please! help us, we help you, isn't that how politics works!!
Aug 5, 15 3:04 PM appended by Ibill
nothing done! Totally ignored!
By Ibill (47), remsenburg on Jul 23, 15 3:04 PM