Saunders, Real Estate, Hamptons

427 Comments by localEH

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  >>  

Group Will Press Town To Close East Hampton Airport

You Quiet Skies people are apparently allergic to the facts and truth. Let me correct your wildly incorrect comment and revisionist history. The airport has NEVER been just a "small general aviation" airport. While it has been here for nearly a century, it was paved in the mid 1930's because the US government wanted to expand a network of airfields across the US. In the 40's it served as a military training field, among other things. There were extraordinarily loud P-47's, Hellcats, Wildcats, Thunderbolts, and EDO XOSE seaplanes buzzing all over the East End and HTO. By the 50's it had a terminal building for people commuting back and forth to NYC and elsewhere. By the 60's it got its first control tower and was frequented by long time EH resident, Juan Trippe, the founder of Pan Am Airlines. By the early 80's there were two full time scheduled commercial flight services between NYC and HTO - East Hampton Air and Montauk-Caribbean Airways. By the late 80's there was a full service scheduled helicopter commuter company called Trump Air that flew helicopter commuter flights from 34th St. to HTO and there were hundreds of very loud older model jets flying in every weekend. In the late 80's to earl 90's the terminal was expanded to allow for greater commercial traffic. So no, it did not suddenly change in 2007-8 just after you moved out here NIMBY. Runway 10/28 has been the main runway since 1936, so no Stanzione did not suddenly change it to that a few years ago. Yes the helicopters have been lining up circling Peconic Bay before 9am because YOU demanded new regulation that now makes them sit there and wait until 9am to land - yet now you want more regulation? The town can never EVER regulate plane or helicopters in flight so no you can never change the minimum flight altitude. Even if you closed the airport they would still fly the same over your house to a different location. Learn some facts please." Aug 25, 16 9:43 AM

East Hampton Will Remove Trees, Charge For Parking At Airport

Wait you mean you admit that the airport you are so desperately trying to close down will not be busy for the next 9 months? That for 9 out of 12 months there is virtually no noise or heavy traffic? But yet you still spin and dissemble non-stop to characterize it as a constant problem. Could it be it has nothing to do with noise ... and everything to do with greed and self serving real estate development. Then again as a Sotheby's real estate agent who bought a discounted priced house next to the airport, you already know this. " Sep 22, 16 6:06 PM

Local Artist Starts Online Petition to Ban Plastic Cutlery and Styrofoam Containers in East Hampton

Good grief. Perhaps we need a ban on smug liberal NIMBYs instead. Think of the benefit to the environment by eliminating all the hot air they spew, not to mention the decrease in traffic from all the new ones who move in one week and want to change everything the next week. " Oct 4, 16 8:13 PM

Officials Struggle To Find Source Of Loud Noise In Westhampton Beach Saturday Morning

Lol, that's the Sound of Freedom folks. Sonic boom from military jets doing practice maneuvers in W-105 and W-106 zones offshore. Concussive sound travels quite well over water. They only do those maneuvers over water in the East Coast because they would shatter windows if done over land. " Oct 9, 16 1:13 PM

Brundige To Return As East Hampton Airport Manager

The community highly respects both of the airport's managers - they are good people doing a hard job. It's just you 10 airport haters that don't like them, and your only reason has nothing to do with their qualifications, it's just more of your never ending complaining about hating all things aviation related. " Oct 21, 16 6:16 PM

And Deelove have you noticed how civil and mature they are... Harbor is a perfect example. " Oct 21, 16 6:19 PM

Let's see, you just publicly said Mr. Brundige stole money and committed theft. That's something call defamation per se, meaning Mr. Brundige can bring suit against you and damages are automatic. How about you post your real name so he can address your allegations directly.
As for your claims against Mr. Charlton, there was no need to call the police for a wheels up landing (not a crash) when there wasn't severe damage to the plane, no one hurt, no fire, and no big deal. What were the police going to do other than stand around and talk baseball - it's FAA jurisdiction. As far as your "dangerous conditions" if he laughed it's because your ignorance and drama queen antics over a fuel truck being parked on the active ramp somewhat near the airport lobby was ridiculous and nothing more than theatre by you QSC people. If you're so terrified of a fuel truck I suggest you a) never drive on any roads (fuel trucks drive on them all the time), b) never go to any gas station (fuel trucks unload fuel there and there are big tanks of fuel nearby), and c) never leave your house (since regular things that are done in every day life terrify you). In fact, some poor woman crashed head on into a propane fuel truck this week and it didn't suddenly blow up into a massive conflagration burning all of Montauk to the ground. I'm starting to wonder if your QSC rabble didn't have a hand in the termination of Mr. Charlton - nothing like costing a military veteran with a new baby his job. " Oct 21, 16 7:52 PM

East Hampton Airport Curfew Violations Continue To Fall in Second Year

Why does Hillary Clinton's plane get to be excluded from the rules? So now the town board gets to pick and choose who they want to apply the rules to according to their political affiliation?? Why couldn't Hillary fly in and out within the curfew period - other candidates had no problem complying with the curfew. I guess our town board follows the same pay-to-play rules Hillary does. " Nov 1, 16 4:59 PM

Unless it's HRC. She's excluded because you like her. That's how your rules work, you don't apply them to yourself or your interests, just everyone else's. There's a word for that - NIMBY. And the only helicopter that actually is coming from or going to HTO at night now is either military/CG or medical, which makes your complaint about them sound really shallow. " Nov 2, 16 5:53 PM

Southampton Resident Responds To Trump Criticism With A Bigger Sign

Hahaha! The sanctimonious, narcissistic smug is strong is the "Cove Citizens ". What happened to all that blather about tolerance and acceptance they typically crow. " Nov 4, 16 7:23 PM

Federal Appeals Court Orders East Hampton Town To Lift Airport Curfews

Yes that was a C--130 out of Gabreski that flew by carrying the honorable men and women of our Air Force Reserves on a training mission. Keep complaining about them..." Nov 4, 16 7:26 PM

Unfortunately that was a lie told to the town board by anti-airport activists and the board believed it. The aviation community repeatedly warned the town for years that the acceptance or non-acceptance of FAA funds made no difference because there was a federal act (ANCA) that directly controls how noise regulations can be imposed on all airports, no matter who owns them. The town was told they were being misled, but they chose to listen to the wrong people (some of them have posted above) and it has cost the town MILLIONS in taxpayer funded attorneys fees, only to be told by a unanimous 3 judge court how wrong they were. Rejecting FAA funding has no impact and does not give the town any special control over the airport or noise regulation - it only starves the airport of funds, which is what the anti-airport folks wanted so they could try to close it and develop the land for their own personal profit at the expense of the community and the taxpayers. " Nov 5, 16 4:54 PM

No it's not. If you finally stop attacking the aviation community and start to cooperate and work with them. The aviation community is willing to voluntarily comply with the same curfews but without the ridiculous criminal penalties over their heads. No more having groups of aircraft hovering and circling overhead while waiting for the curfew to expire because they can spread things out a bit over a broader geographic area to not inundate the same people below. Some reasonable aircraft noise will always exist, so if your goal is to eliminate all aircraft noise entirely then you will always be disappointed. But if your goal is reasonable noise reduction and management, you should stop the salted earth approach and stop demanding the nuclear option of closing the airport (not gonna happen - big federal rules prohibiting that too) - you'd be pleasantly surprised about how eager the aviation community is to work with those who have legitimate noise concerns. You should also consider disassociating with those in your group whose motives are not about noise reduction, but are about lining their own pockets with a big land development deal. " Nov 5, 16 5:13 PM

They can't just up and decide to close the airport. Again, just like this case, there are federal rules that prohibit that kind of action. And now the FAA is motivated to save this airport. Trying to close it will just result in millions more in taxpayer funded attorneys fees being thrown away again. The town board needs to stop listening to your really bad advice. Stop trying to create more problems, swallow your hubris, and work with the aviation community to reasonably mitigate any legitimate noise issues. " Nov 5, 16 5:22 PM

Your spreading this kind of misinformation (either intentional or woefully ignorant) is the reason the town just wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on a pointless effort. The closure of those airports was only accomplished with the express approval of the FAA, and the vast majority of those airports were old grass strips and unused facilities. There is a well known grant obligation that extends to 2021 which directly precludes the town from closing the airport without the FAA's express permission (which it is not ever giving). There may also be an AIP grant from a long time ago which precludes the town from ever closing the airport in perpetuity (that means forever). Regardless, we all know you want the land to develop it into McMansions and make yourself millions in personal profit at the expense of permanent and irreversible damage to our local economy. For years you and your cadre have stuffed yourselves in those cute little sheep costumes claiming you didn't want to close the airport, but now have been exposed for the voracious self-serving wolves you are. Our local community will not tolerate any more of your costly misinformation tactics. " Nov 6, 16 7:00 PM

http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/General-Interest/401281/East-Hampton-Towns-Airport-Attorney-Will-Discuss-Federal-Grants-And-Noise-Tuesday" Nov 6, 16 7:00 PM

East Hampton Town Republican Committee Celebrates President Trump With Inauguration Ball

That's because the liberals and Democrats had promised such extreme violence against Trump supporters (and did in fact engage in widespread acts of violence) that attending the inauguration was about as risky as walking through downtown Aleppo. Nearly 63 million people voted for Trump and support him. That's why he's the POTUS. Say it out loud - Trump is PRESIDENT. That's only 4% less votes than Obama got. There was not a 4% difference in attendees so there was clearly another factor - liberal's violence, hate, intolerance and bigotry. Your saying the lack of people somehow reflects the amount of support he has is ridiculous and only makes you look like a petulant pouty child. Can we get you some Kleenex and a coloring book?" Jan 22, 17 6:45 PM

East Hampton To Borrow $1.6 Million For New Fuel Storage At Airport

It is completely self sufficient and would have been able to entirely pay for the new fuel farm out of the money it self-generated ... except the Town Board (at the direct insistence and advice of the anti-airport group) has used up more than $1.6 million dollars of the airport's operating and maintenance funds to pay for the attorneys in the recent airport litigation that it lost. The misappropriation of those funds to pay for attorneys fees was directly against federal law (again fine st the advice of the anti-airport group) and now the Town faces having to pay it back and big fines. The litigation was completely unnecessary and the Town was told by many people how ill advised it was, but again the very small but very vocal anti-airport group insisted and gave them completely inaccurate advice. Now because of the anti-airport group the fuel farm has to be paid for with a bond. So ask yourself - who is really responsible for the taxpayers now having to have to fund this project (hint: it's spelled SayNoToKHTO/Quiet Skies). Oh and the new fuel farm won't enable "more aviation". It will just cut down on the number of times per day the tanks have to be refilled by big gas trowhich will cut down on the number of gas trucks driving up and down 27 every day. " Jan 26, 17 12:36 PM

Fliers Denounce Proposed Car Wash On Springs-Fireplace Road

Good grief. Why is it every time two or three NIMBYs don't like something they form an anonymous vague "coalition" to protest it and cover the neighborhood in little flyers filled with half truths and angry scare tactics to force the community to bend to their will? I'm forming the Concerned Friends Protection Coalition for the Preservation of the East End Peconic Fork Citizens. We protest all bake sales and the wearing of red on a Tuesday. Don't you dare confuse us with the Concerned Citizens Preservation Coalition for the Protection of the East End Peconic Fork Friends. Those crazy people protest the wearing of blue on Tuesday. Splitters!!" Mar 29, 17 3:35 PM

State Poised To Strip Local Authority Over Uber; East Hampton Official Warns Of 'Chaos In Montauk'

Because Uber charges a standardized and much more reasonable rate, so more people will use it more often and thus less of them will drive drunk. Certain taxi companies out here on the (cough) East End will randomly increase the rate they charge depending on where they pick you up, how many people they pick up, and the color of your outfit. They will often charge around $25/mile per person. Plus they won't tell you the astronomical rate until you are a mile down the road and then threaten to throw you out on the side of the road if you don't pay it. If you call the owners to complain they will scream curse words at you, call you names, and tell you "if you are too poor to pay the rate you shouldn't be in the Hamptons". I look forward to using Uber!" Mar 30, 17 6:40 PM

Corcoran And Blade Offer Free Helicopter Flights For Prospective Hamptons Renters

Wow just when I thought the unscrupulous anti-airport land developers hit rock bottom by glorifying and celebrating a few recent plane crashes in the NE and the death of a few pilots, now they resort to DOXING and harassing anyone doing business through the local airport. You do realize that the economy of the Hamptons is directly tied to summer visitors and without them we would permanently lose thousands of local jobs and millions in local wages. So sad such a small group of people will stoop to bullying and thuggery trying to get the airport closed down so they can make themselves rich by developing the land into giant mansions. They don't care what happens to the hard working locals or this community. " Apr 3, 17 11:47 AM

Nice public threats of bully tactics and harassment from the small group of hate-fueled anti-airport "activists". " Apr 3, 17 3:09 PM

The study was actually performed and published by leading transportation and economics researchers at NYU's Rudin Center. They found that the airport brought nearly $50 million in direct spending PER YEAR to the community and resulted in over $13 million in income/wages to local resident employees. Closing the airport WILL have a MAJOR negative effect on the local economy in the short and long run. In fact, one of the only reasons the Hamptons currently has the economy it does is because the EH Town Boards in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s actively solicited commercial operators to set up commuter flights between here and NYC to bolster the economy. The airport itself was expanded to its 3 runway format in the 1940s when the Town borrowed WPA funds to build it for the sole purpose of connecting NYC to the Hamptons via aircraft. You are living in some alternate universe if you think closing the airport won't negatively effect every single part of our local community and economy. " Apr 3, 17 5:28 PM

That's an outright fabrication. Name the "distinguished NYU professor" you claim discredited it. Name the article or source showing it was discredited. Random denials and disbelief by people associated with QSC and the anti-airport faction do not qualify. " Apr 5, 17 8:59 PM

So to completely ruin your ridiculous narrative and misguided presumptions, but I'm a long time EH resident pilot and have never flown or owned a helicopter in my life. I'm also someone who wants to stop the out of control, self-absorbed NIMBYs from permanently harming our local community and destroying one of you community's greatest assets. If you don't like aircraft noise you shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport that's been there for 80 years!! However, the fact that your account is brand new and this is the only article you've ever commented upon leads me to believe your just one of the same anti-airport developers/NIMBYs who simply open a new account to make it seem like you have more support than you actually do. Just like you did with the noise complaints (making up to 56 calls per day and nearly 3000 calls in just a few months). " Apr 6, 17 1:21 PM

Still waiting on you to name the mystery "distinguished NYU professor" who purportedly "debunked" the legitimately published report from NYU's own Rudin Center. I certainly hope you don't mean one of the leaders of your own Quiet Skies Coalition (absolutely no conflict or bias there /sarc/) whose area of research was the sexual preferences of rats, until the animal rights protestors shut him down and he switched to the study of indigenous peoples. Certainly you mean all independent third party not on the steering committee of the anti-airport faction, someone who actually has knowledge of economics and transportation, like all the actual distinguished NYU scholars who wrote the report. We're waiting..." Apr 10, 17 2:57 PM

Supreme Court Orders Additional Briefings In East Hampton Bid To Overturn Appeals Court Ruling

PBR, clearly neither you nor the Town Board have a clue about how a Writ of Certiorari works at the SCOTUS level. You probably should refrain from commenting because you just make yourself look terribly ignorant. The Respondent always has the right to chose to file a BIO (Brief In Opposition). Once the Petition for Cert is filed the Respondent has three options: 1) acquiesce to the Petition (doesn't mean the SCOTUS will take the case, just that the the Respondent doesn't object if they choose to do so); 2) waive its right to file a BIO (but the docketing clerks at the SCOTUS can still ask them to file a BIO anyway); and 3) send notice that it intends to file a BIO. Once either the clerks or the Respondent indicates they want a BIO then the case is placed on a petition docket, notice is sent to the Respondent, and the Respondent has 30 days to file their BIO and the Petitioner has 14 days later to file their response. So there is absolutely nothing unusual or unique about the FOEHA being provided the standard procedural notice from the docketing clerks of the commencement of the 30 day filing period - it is simply the standard docketing procedure for ALL cases which the Respondent elects #2 or #3. It's kind of ridiculous for the Town Board to issue a press release saying the SCOTUS has shown interest in the case when not one of them has even come close to seeing it (nor have any of their law clerks). The Cert is still just plodding through the regular paper pushing docketing clerk's office. Moreover, this stage is just the Petition/BIO stage, meaning the whole brief and the response are about WHY the SCOTUS should bother to accept certiorari (i.e: whether there are questions about which law applies, conflicting opinions from different courts, why the lower court ruling was wrong, etc.). It is NOT a brief on the merits. In fact if the SCOTUS eventually accepts certiorari and takes the case a completely new set of briefs will have to be filed by all sides that discuss the merits of the case and arguments themselves. That's why it was kind of silly for NYC and Southold to file amicus briefs now because if they argue anything about the merits their briefs will be completely disregarded and not considered during the Cert pool review process, which is performed later on by the SCOTUS law clerks before anything is ever presented to the SCOTUS seven person review panel. The chances of the SCOTUS granting certiorari for this case is incredibly tiny, so don't pin your hopes on it. And the recent editorial, written by one of the leaders of the anti-airport developers who want to build a bunch of McMansions on the airport land, is not worth lining the bottom of a bird cage. Sorry but our community airport, which benefits our whole community not just the tiny group of rich developers and real estate people who want to make a fortune off its development, is here to stay.
" Apr 20, 17 3:37 PM

As for local pilots being intransigent, again you have no clue of what you are talking about. Clearly you missed the public work session meeting and presentations held on Tuesday. Local pilots are the ones who have brought together the helicopter counsel and the Town Board to come up with a strictly enforced noise abatement curfew plan that mimic's the one in place last year which the court threw out. There are also new routes created to alleviate helicopter noise over the same households and the helicopters are now flying the routes at 3500ft - which is 1500ft higher than the most restricted airport in the country (Naples). You missed how hard local pilots are working to go above and beyond to mitigate noise from aircraft. However, no matter what we do you will still complain because you have ulterior motives that have nothing to do with noise. The data presented at the work sessions clearly showed how the anti-airport people are continuing to falsify and manipulate the complaint data by switching to a company called Air Noise Report which does not require that they enter their location or address. They have teamed up with anti-airport people from up island and all over the country to go onto the Air Noise website and repeatedly enter complaints about every single airplane anywhere over the East End. They are able to file complaints whilst sitting in ANOTHER STATE. They are entering tens of thousands of fake complaints about every single aircraft just to drive up the numbers. Comically, they have done this so much the numbers are clearly faked - ex: 22 complaints came in about one single engine SR22 light plane (max take off is only 72db) that only had 2 operations (landing and taking off). The presentation showed that 85% of the complaints that used the older tracking system, Plane Noise which requires the complainant to enter their address, came from JUST 23 HOUSEHOLDS. The data also showed that Air Noise Report does not have any means of filtering complaints about planes simply transitioning to Republic, Gabreski, Islip, Brookhaven, Block Island, Groton, Bridgeport, New Haven, Nantucket, and beyond, but never landing or taking off from East Hampton. No matter how much you smear and insult local pilots, we are the ones who care about this community and are the ones working to resolve the situation. You just complain." Apr 20, 17 4:31 PM

So if it's not in Twitter format you anti-airport people just live in boundless ignorance. That explains a lot. However I suspect it's more about the fact that you hate to be proven so completely wrong, so you act like a surly pre-teen and stomp off in a huff. " Apr 20, 17 7:58 PM

Actually that's exactly what Jeff Smith announced in his presentation on Tuesday to the Town Board. They will be doing all of the transitions at 3500ft and will be doing best rate of climb which is about 80kts. The caveat is weather, if there is a thick cloud deck below 3500ft then occasionally they will have to fly under it (but not under 1000ft). But remember they cannot just fly right over the airport at 3500ft and descend vertically straight down - that is a major violation of several FAA rules and incredibly dangerous because they would be descending through three patten levels of other aircraft who could not see them and they could not see those aircraft, and 3500ft is above the Class D space of the tower (who does not even have a radar). So at some point they will have to descend prior to landing. But they are going to do the transitions higher and slower and more spread out to alleviate as much noise as they can. Everyone in the aviation communities are all working to find a solution. Unlike you with just want to call people names and complain and spout inaccurate information no matter what. " Apr 21, 17 8:26 AM

Your claims about real estate prices having any connection to the existence of HTO are utter bull carp. There are plenty of legitimate real estate reports on why home prices have taken a dip recently and NOT ONE of them has even hinted at the airport or aircraft being a factor. All of the reports said the drop was due to "stock market jitters, slowing global economy, and the drastic drop in Wall Street bonuses" causing a "loss of confidence and a dampened appetite to buy". If you are telling clients those kinds of lies, you are doing them a terrible disservice just to push your own personal agenda. " Apr 22, 17 11:59 AM

Complaints About East Hampton Airport Traffic Spiked Last Summer, To More Than 24,000

The town's own consultants admitted that the recommended noise restrictions were in place this past year and that pilots "did exactly what we wanted them to do" in complying with them. As a result, the complaints should have gone down, yet instead the complaints contradictorily skyrocketed. How can this be? Here's how: The presentation showed that 85% of the complaints filed using Plane Noise, which requires that the complainant enter their address, came from JUST 23 HOUSEHOLDS. The new Air Noise system, which is developed and promoted by the anti-airport folks, doesn't track where the complaint is filed from and allows people to file complaints from anywhere in the entire US with the click of a mouse. It lets the local anti-airport faction and their friends in the big anti-aviation groups out in Santa Monica and NYC pull up a map online depicting every aircraft in the air, then repeatedly click on each one to file a barrage of complaints on every single aircraft over eastern Long Island that are nowhere near them at the time they complain. It does not have any means of filtering complaints made about planes actually going to Republic, Gabreski, Islip, Brookhaven, Block Island, Groton, Bridgeport, New Haven, Nantucket, or just simply flying by overhead having no contact whatsoever with East Hampton Airport. They are entering tens of thousands of fake complaints about every single aircraft in the vicinity just to manipulate the system and drive up the numbers to make this relatively minor matter look like a major problem. This very small group of people are manipulating the public and the town so they can essentially steal this community's vital and essential airport asset to redevelop the land for their own personal interests. Thankfully our local community is fighting back to protect our airport from these self-serving opportunists!" Apr 23, 17 8:00 PM

Out of the more than 200,000 households in the twin forks, only 371 made any complaint at all. That's 0.0018%. And it's 85% of 14,432 complaints came from just 23 households. " Apr 23, 17 11:23 PM

It brings in nearly $48 million in local revenue to our economy and is directly responsible for $13 million in local salaries and income. It provides access to emergency medical services (LifeFlight) and free medical transport for patients who need to get to large medical facilities (PALS and Angel Flight). It provides training for teens and youth who are interest in aviation related careers, from A&P mechanics to aerospace engineering. In the event of a natural disaster or bomb in NYC it will be one of the only ways to evacuate or bring in supplies to our area. I could go on but you get the point.
Absolutely none of these things would be provided by the dozens of $15 million McMansions the anti-airport developers want to build on the land and our local economy would take a permanent deep hit. " Apr 24, 17 9:15 AM

Simply refusing to believe hard established facts with a childish "nah uh!" and storming off in a huff is not a valid position. Sorry but those are the supported and documented facts no matter how much they annoy you. And as for your last weird point, who ever said NYC's recovery from 9/11 was dependent on HTO - that's a very off-topic and irrelevant statement to make. What I pointed out was that in the event of a natural disaster or bomb in NYC or western LI, the only land based access point for eastern LI, the presence of an airport is critical to being able to move people and resources into and out of the East End. " Apr 24, 17 11:57 AM

Wrong again. I'd be happy to support my statements - let's see you do the same.
Economy: A full economic study was performed by NYU. See http://www.savehto.org/files/91526866.pdf
Medical services: Ask any EMS worker or police officer in the Hamptons how many times per month the ambulances load medical emergencies into medevac helicopters at HTO. Or just google the number of news stories that end with the injured being taken to the airport by ambulance to meet the medevac helicopter. You can also read all about the other medical services the airport enables at: http://www.27east.com/mobile/article.cfm//General-Interest-EH/118881/Volunteer-Pilots-Fly-Young-Cancer-Patients-into-East-Hampton-Airport
Youth opportunities: Why don't you stop by the airport one day and talk to all of the young people there about how "not vital" their futures are. Or come to Just Plane Fun Day in September and see the opportunities in action.
Disaster ingress/egress: The smaller airports you reference (presumably Montauk and Mattituck) are too short and not rated for anything but 2-3 seat light planes which can't carry any cargo over a few pounds and have no fueling capabilities. If you can't figure out that we are on an island surrounded by water and are only connected by a few susceptible roads and bridges then common sense will perpetually elude you while your head is buried in the sand.
Your turn. Provide us all with support for your "nuh uh" response - other than just more of your empty commentary and baseless attacks. " Apr 24, 17 3:14 PM

Just in case you still wanted to beleaguer that last point why don't you Google FEMA's report on a local airport's role in regional disaster preparedness and recovery, unless you think FEMA is unsupportable data. There's a saying - In a disaster an airport can substitute for almost anything else, but nothing can substitute for an airport. Here's a quote from Brent Warr, the Mayor of the City of Gulfport after Katrina: “Our highway infrastructure had been destroyed, the Port had suffered catastrophic damages and the rail system was inoperable. Our airport was the primary source for receiving aid and materials. Without the airport’s quick turnaround, we would have been cut off from the world and the much needed assistance that we needed to survive.”" Apr 24, 17 3:39 PM

Of course we recognize that some people are bothered by aircraft noise. Just as some people are bothered by leaf blowers, barking dogs, and racing motorcycles. We just don't agree that the whole airport should be closed because of the complaints by 0.0018% of the community. We are all for having a quieter functioning airport and are working hard on it. Tell us what we are failing to do to make the airport quieter? Is it because we refuse to join up with those who want to close the airport and redevelop the land - why on earth would we join with them? Is it because we refuse to roll over and quietly play dead while you dictate the closure of the airport? We are not going to let you permanently harm this community because of your personal greed and opportunism. Is it because we don't support an all out ban on helicopters? Banning all helicopters is not possible nor will it ever be possible under Federal law. You may not like it but that is the current law and you can't ignore it. The way we see it is we all diligently complied with your noise restrictions and curfews yet the one year they were in place the complaints INCREASED by a whopping 28%! In fact, the complaints about local pilots' small single engine prop planes increased by 47% even though there was only a 2% increase in traffic! Yet still we are trying to work with you people despite your increasingly crass political attacks because we care about this community. You just want to complain until you destroy everything." Apr 24, 17 4:48 PM

East Hampton Town Votes To Evict Country School From Airport After Lease Expires

To be clear, the airport itself has nothing to do with raising the lease price. This is entirely the town board being greedy and padding their own surplus. The town decided to stop taking the free maintenance and operation funding provided by the FAA and instead decided to raise the rents of everyone who had leases on the adjacent airport commercial property create sufficient revenue. However, none of that money is going towards the airport either. In 2015, the airport directly generated over $2.5M in revenue, all of which, pursuant to federal law, was supposed to go back into funding its operation and maintenance. Yet the town only spent $25K on maintenance (that's 1% of the money). Instead the town spent over $1M of those funds on legal fees against the airport - even though their own attorney and several others told them they were not going to win. They are just raising the leases on people like the school to generate more money to keep paying more losing lawyers to pander to the 0.0018% of the community who are against the airport. What a scam. " May 9, 17 3:14 PM

Democrats Seek To Muster City Voters To Shift Their Polling Places East

So smug cidiots who don't really live here other than on weekends a couple of summer months have decided they know how to run our small farming and fishing town better than the locals who live here year round. They are so narcissistic that they have to impose their globalist big city views on small towns where none of that makes any sense. Pushing party politics in a small town is absurd since the DNC doesn't care about a school budget, fishing fleets, or dog poop on a beach. Real locals vote on issues, not parties. These carpetbagger cidiots need to stop importing their corruption out here. " May 31, 17 8:59 AM

Poor TinFoilHatSize is feeling defensive and bitter today. Must not have realized there are mostly farmers and fishermen who live full time out here and work hard trying to make a living. Probably thinks dirty hands are gross and work trucks are ugly and should only be seen at his service entrance used by the "invisible people". The smug is strong in this one. " May 31, 17 12:28 PM

Supreme Court Declines To Hear East Hampton Airport Appeal

The Part 161 study normally costs taxpayers absolutely nothing because it is entirely paid for out of the airport's own direct revenues. However, the Town gutted the airport's funds for this type of thing by illegally diverting the money to pay for their attorneys in the lawsuit (which they lost every single round after listening to the terrible advice of the anti-airport people). If the airport is allowed to continue to operate safely under a set of voluntary noise abatement restrictions proposed by the pilots and aviation supporters, then it will generate sufficient funds to pay for the study.
But, I f the Town tries to close the airport the taxpayers will not only lose over $40M in total revenue brought into our local economy per year, it will cause a 7.3% increase in unemployment and the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits from the loss of use of the airport by all the aviation operators, hanger owners, and local businesses. Local medical and animal rescue charities will no longer be able to operate critical flights out of the airport, and if you have a major medical emergency you can expect to have to sit in traffic for an hour to get to the nearest helipad for a medical helicopter to take you to a trauma center. All just so a small handful of greedy people can line their own pockets by redeveloping the land into more McMansions. " Jun 26, 17 3:03 PM

There are almost 25,000 flight operations every year and only 8,000 of them are helicopters. The airport does a LOT of things for this community that doesn't involve helicopters or rich people. Trying to tie it to just rich people is a misinformation tactic being used by the anti-airport faction. An NYU study in 2013 determined it brings in over $40M dollars to this community and is responsible for 7.3% of local employment. Here's just one example of how vital it is: If anything were to happen to the bridges at Shinnecock (such as Sandy) then this whole area would be an island entirely cut off from help. Dozens of small towns in Louisiana said after Katrina that the only way their residents literally survived and didn't die was because they had airports so they could get supplies and aid flown in. Don't be naive - the airport is vital to our community. " Jun 26, 17 3:33 PM

Not my numbers - they are from a bunch of well respected experts and researchers at NYU whose job it is to study economic impacts of transportation facilities. But I guess you think you're so much smarter about these things than they are. Must be nice to live in a bubble in Sagaponack. " Jun 26, 17 3:40 PM

Good grief Trish, your hysterical exaggerations are becoming ridiculous. Outrage from NYC to Orient? Out of the over 7,800,000 people you just referenced only 302 of them filed any kind of noise complaint last year - that's 0.000038%. Some outrage. Those same people are more likely to be killed by an asteroid than to file a noise complaint about HTO. No economic benefit? Besides the NYU study showing the airport generates over $40M, the town's own recent study said 70% of its revenues came from second home owners, many of which commute through the airport. The airport creates hundreds of full time jobs. Where is your study by a leading university or report by accredited experts supporting your claim that the airport with its 25,000 flights per year creates "no economic benefit" to the community? Not allowed to access the property? Of course residents are welcomed and encouraged to come to the airport, and most of us local pilots will happily take visitors up for a sightseeing flight. Can you stand in the middle of the runway, no you can't, but you can't stand in the middle of the LIE either. The airport's safety record is abysmal? In the last 10 years there have only been two accidents (only one had injuries). How many car accidents have there been in East Hampton in the past 10 years - perhaps a few more than two! Bonus points for you and Barry calling the airport a "hazardous waste dump". That is the biggest load of horse hooey I have ever heard, even from people who wear tin foil hats. I challenge you to name ONE SINGLE STUDY that shows the East Hampton Airport has caused any measurable level of hazardous waste or environmental damage to our local environment. You don't have even the tiniest shred of support for that completely fake claim. Next you'll be telling us local pilots are secretly spraying you with mind control chemicals and have planted spy bugs in your house. " Jun 26, 17 11:56 PM

Governor Andrew Cuomo Announces $2 Million To Improve Water Quality On Long Island

Wait, really?? Ewwwwww!!! I can't believe I ever tried to debate anything with him. Now I feel like I need to wash my hands or something." Jun 28, 17 4:27 PM

PODS Storage Facility Takes Lease At East Hampton Airport

Both the Second Circuit and the SCOTUS have said that the Town is required to comply with FAA and Federal laws (ANCA) regarding the imposition of noise restrictions REGARDLESS of whether the Town takes $0 or $100M. The application of these laws is completely independent of the taking of federal funds for airport operations and maintenance. So noise abatement is not addressed in any way by the Town's refusal to take freely offered Federal (or State) funds. Instead the Town has chosen to now saddle local taxpayers with the maintenance costs the airport (as opposed to the FAA paying the full cost for free with no burden to the local taxpayers) without ever putting the matter up for a vote by the people to decide if free funds should be used (like the ones just given to Gabreski for a new tower). Makes you wonder why the Town would do that since it's clearly not about noise abatement... " Aug 2, 17 10:11 AM

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  >>