Yearly Archives: 2022

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer is leading the charge to prevent changes at Northport VA that could slash services. Photo from Schumer’s office

After the release of a recent report from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs recommending the slashing of services at veterans hospitals, including Northport VA Medical Center, local elected officials have demonstrated exemplary behavior to ensure our veterans are properly cared for.

Among the recommendations in the report are the downsizing and reorganizing of the Northport location, which will transition into a subacute care facility. Inpatient medical and surgical procedures will be moved from Northport to Stony Brook University Hospital and NYU Langone Hospital in Mineola. Services that are offered now in Northport will be provided by St. Albans VA Medical Center in Queens and its community partners.

The VA has cited the changing needs of local veterans and millions of dollars of repairs needed for the Northport VA as their reasons.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is taking action, unveiling an advocacy plan with the hopes of defeating these recommendations. His first call of action is to circulate a petition across the Island. In a press release, the senator said he would present the signatures in a personal meeting to those who proposed the Northport reductions, also including closing two New York City VA hospitals. He will ask local hospital officials to express concerns about treating veteran-specific conditions and will then take the matter to the VA.

Schumer said he will bring the matter to President Joe Biden (D) if necessary.

In a press release, U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY1) said that he will work with the Long Island veterans community to figure out the “best path forward.” U. S. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY3) also criticized the report, saying that elected officials were not consulted on the recommendations.

The report has evoked bipartisan support for the VA hospital and rightfully so. Our veterans have given up so much to protect their fellow citizens. When they enlisted, they risked their safety and sometimes their lives to guarantee the rights of all Americans. Thanks to our vets, we can criticize the government, assemble freely, and enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Through their words, Americans often thank our veterans for their service. Now is the time to thank them through action. Residents should call the offices of their U.S. senators and representatives and demand that they join the fight to keep veterans health services as local and accessible as possible.

Veterans-specific care needs to be expanded, not slashed. Thank a veteran today by taking action.

Photo from Stony Brook Athletics

The Stony Brook baseball team entered the day down a game in its weekend set with Hartford on April 2. They finished the day with a pair of wins and a series victory, winning 9-5 and 7-5 to sweep Saturday’s double dip at Dunkin’ Donuts Park.

Shane Paradine finished the day 4-for-7, hitting .571 with a pair of doubles and a home run, leading the Seawolves in all three categories. Colton Book earned the win in game number one, throwing two scoreless in relief while striking out three. Devin Sharkey received the win in game two, a 2.1 inning relief effort.

The big blow for Stony Brook in the opener was a four-run ninth in a seven-inning contest, as Matt Brown-Eiring’s fielder’s choice allowed the go-ahead run to score. He would then score on an error by the third baseman that plated two.

In game two, the Seawolves scored in four of the seven frames, including a pair of runs in three innings. A RBI groundout and wild pitch gave Stony Brook the lead in the fifth before a two-run double in the sixth from Evan Giordano gave the Seawolves much-needed insurance.

“I’m very proud of the guys. The last two weekends, we’ve dropped that first game but we have been able to lock back in and battle back to win the series. Today specifically… it is not easy to sweep doubleheaders but we were able to be physically and mentally tough. We had some guys sick and then some guys get hurt but everybody stepped up and we were able to get the win,” said head coach Matt Senk. ‘Today was a total team effort and I couldn’t be more proud of our team.”

The team returns home for a three-game set with UAlbany. First pitch on Friday is slated for 3 p.m., at Joe Nathan Field.

#12 Elli Masera scored 6 points during Friday's game. Photo from Stony Brook Athletics

Sophomore midfielder Ellie Masera and junior attacker Kailyn Hart each tallied six points, leading the No. 5 Stony Brook women’s lacrosse program to a 16-4 victory over the Arizona State Sun Devils on April 1 at LaValle Stadium.

Masera recorded a five-spot in the goal column, adding 11 draw controls on the day. Hart had four goals and two assists, leading her squad in the facilitation department.

10 different players recorded an assist on the afternoon, with four different players recording multiple goals. Hart started the scoring as the Seawolves raced out to a 3-0 lead in the first quarter.

The home team used a 5-0 run in the second quarter to pull away, establishing a six-goal advantage with 2:45 in the second frame. They went two better in the second half, rattling off the first eight goals.

“You know, Friday night, our team was excited to be out here. We had a lot of Long Island youth teams here and their [Arizona State] assistant is an alum. They brought a lot of intensity early on and we were a little rattled,” said head coach Joe Spallina after the game.

“I didn’t want to call timeout. I wanted to see how they would handle adversity and handle the situation and I thought they did a good job of getting through. Once we got that first goal, it calmed us down. This is the formula for us right now: getting stops defensively and play smart and efficiently on offense. Sometimes that means putting the ball in the corner and living to fight another day. … I’m proud of our kids. We’re playing really good lacrosse. We’ve learned a lot as the season has gone on but we are making major strides,” he added.

By Bill Landon

The Mad Dogs of Middle Country came out snarling in their first league game of their 2022 campaign with a dominant road win against Riverhead in a 16-5 victory, April 1.  

Attackman Charlie Cavalieri split the pipes four times, one goal an acrobatic around the back no look score. Jack Cavalieri netted three goals as did Jeremy Poggi, and Colin Cleary scored twice. Aidan Eck, Collin Farrell, Justin Robbert and Joe Speziale add a goal apiece. Michael Gagliardi had six saves in net. 

The win lifts Middle Country to 1-0 in their division, 2-1 overall.  

Port Jeff Village Trustee Stan Loucks discusses the East Beach bluff. Photo from the Village of Port Jefferson website

This week, TBR News Media sat down for an exclusive interview with Stan Loucks, trustee of the Village of Port Jefferson. In the interview, Loucks addressed the relative inactivity at the club, the looming $10 million effort to save it, and the controversy around bluff stabilization.

You are the trustee liaison to the Port Jefferson Country Club. What does that role entail?

The liaison to the country club means pretty much that I’m in charge of everything up here: the golf across the road; the tennis, which we will not have this year because of the erosion of the bluff; and I coordinate with the tenant upstairs. 

Could you inform the readers on how this building was acquired by the village?

In 1978 the mayor of the village was Harold Sheprow. I’m pretty sure the land was owned by [the Estate of Norman K.] Winston. He had a large building corporation up here in Harbor Hills. In 1978 the village voted to purchase not only the country club, but both East and West beaches were involved in that sale for about $2 million. 

Since its acquisition by the village over four decades ago, has this country club been a profitable investment for the village?

The country club has been deemed a self-sustaining, separate entity from the village in that we have our own budget. We have to pay our bills. We had a tennis membership last year of over 300 members and a golf membership of around 500 members. 

The revenue that we take in has to meet our expenses. The village taxpayer, after the purchase of the property and the payoff of the bond, contributes no tax money to the country club whatsoever. Everything up here is basically coming off the backs of the membership.

As a follow-up, is there any kind of rent that the country club pays to the village treasury?

No, we are not renting the property. We are an attraction, I believe, for the village. I believe the village benefits even if you’re not a member. I think they benefit from the fact that we have a country club that’s available to residents at a very, very reasonable rate. 

We have the two beaches that are kind of semi-private. There are nonresidents that can use our beaches because they are members of the country club. The only rent that’s collected is from the tenant upstairs and that rent money goes directly to the village, not to the country club. 

And that tenant upstairs, is that the concession?

That’s the concession. They own Danfords downtown. It has just recently changed hands [to TPG Hotels, Resorts & Marinas]. The Crest [Group] had this for a couple of years and when they sold Danfords, [TPG] took over the tenancy of this building not downstairs, but the upstairs restaurant and catering end of it [known as The Waterview at Port Jefferson Country Club]. 

The downstairs here is pretty much all country club. We have two locker rooms. We have a large meeting room. We have a fitness center and a membership office. That’s pretty much what we have downstairs. Everything else upstairs belongs to the tenant. 

What has been the return on investment over the several decades since the village purchased the country club?

In terms of dollars and cents, really nothing other than the fact that we have in our possession two beautiful beaches, a beautiful golf course — we did have beautiful tennis courts, eight of them. Other than that, the village has received considerable rent over the years. The only thing the village has gained financially is from the rent of this building. All of the money that is made by the golf course stays with the golf course. 

That’s pretty much all the village has gained from this country club, which is a lot. I think property values are certainly affected by what’s going on here. People want to move into this village and I think one of the reasons they want to be here is for the opportunities coming out of the country club. 

Right now, those opportunities have diminished a little because of what’s going on out there with Mother Nature. With all of the upcoming anticipated construction, we decided that we will not have any tennis membership this year. We can’t put people out there and put them in danger on those courts because at any given moment, a massive landslide can just let loose. There’s a huge ravine over there now. The gazebo that they used for their wedding receptions went over the bluff. The bluff is moving in on us. 

To backtrack a little, you said before that it’s kind of a private country club. What does that mean exactly? You’re a public official, so what is the connection between the country club and village? Is this a private or a public entity?

Well, it’s private in that you have to be a member to be on the facility and to play golf or tennis, but it’s public in that there is a public restaurant upstairs. I think very few people realize that, so in my mind it’s kind of a semi-private area even though we own it. 

By we, do you mean the village?

The village. The village owns it. Anyone from the public can come in here and go to the restaurant, but you cannot come in here to play golf unless you’re a guest of a member. The golf course is private just like any other club, but the property itself is not private. You don’t have to be a member to go to the beaches and, as I said, you don’t have to be a member to go to the restaurant upstairs. 

At the time when this property was purchased by the village, bluff stabilization must have been an unforeseen expense. In your view, is this property a depreciating asset?

That’s a tough one to answer. Since I started my term, I have walked that beach down there since 2015 with the Army Corps [of Engineers], with DEC, with other engineers. At that point in time, it was very obvious to me that this bluff was rapidly eroding. 

A lot of it was caused by global warming, storms and the Town of Brookhaven ignoring the repair of the two jetties in Mount Sinai Harbor. It took us from 2015 to just this past year to get the first permits, which are for the lower wall, that have already been approved. We finally got the permits from DEC. We waited a few more months for the Army Corps to approve. Once they approved, we put it out for bid. We got bids ranging from $4.8 million to $6.8 million. The bid was awarded and construction will begin shortly to do the lower wall, which runs from the bottom of the East Beach Road 450 linear feet along the bluff from east to west. 

That’s not going to save our tennis courts. The engineers have told us that the bluff is so steep now that it’s got to eventually level out to about 30 degrees before plantings can really go on there. A lot of our bluff is almost straight down and when it goes, it collapses. Right now the bluff is in a situation where, in my opinion, I don’t think plantings are going to hold on there. There are plans for another wall, what they call the upper wall, that’s supposed to go behind this building. There is an engineering plan in place to put a steel wall all around this facility. I’m not 100 percent sold on the idea that a wall is going to permanently protect the building because, if the bluff keeps on going, it may come in from the sides. 

The plans are in place and the drawings have been made. It has not been voted upon by the board yet to move forward with it or not. The $4.8 million bond for the wall has been awarded. I think the treasurer has figured out that it will cost the taxpayer about $170 a year. However, we are actively applying for help from FEMA. I don’t know how the taxpayers are going to react to it. We’re looking at a total of $10-to-$12 million to save this building, basically. I’m not sure how the rest of the board feels about this, but it’s scary. 

Just to go back to the original question, given all of these expenses, is this property a depreciating asset for the village?

Well, it depends on what you mean by depreciate. If it’s going to cost us $10 million to save it, that to me is a depreciation. It’s a burden that’s going to be put on the taxpayers. I guess, yes. If we lose this building, that’s a depreciation. One the other side of it, $10 million is also a big fiscal responsibility to put back on the village residents. It’s a tough one to answer. The village is receiving rent from the restaurant. I am not sure that the amount of rent that we’re getting is enough to offset a $10-to-$12 million bond. 

Although fewer than 10% of village residents are members here, the other 90% of village residents that are nonmembers will be included in that bond. What would you say to those 90% of resident nonmembers who are being asked to foot the bill to preserve an area that they do not use themselves?

I can only speak for myself here.

I thought we should have had a referendum to vote on the remainder of the repair work. I totally agree with the lower wall because I think the lower wall is going to help protect our beaches. The beaches are used by the entire village.

In terms of the clubhouse, my wife and I come up here every Friday and we enjoy it, but the village residents and the membership do not use the building the way it should be used. I can’t comprehend it. We come up here and always have a good meal and get good service. I sit there every Friday night and wonder why the place is not filled with people. 

We have 8,000 residents in this village. We have 500 golf members this year. The place should be frequented and it’s not. I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not so sure that if it were put to a vote it would be approved. We didn’t think it would be approved when the referendum went out to buy it, but it was. 

Yeah, I think it would be unfair to ask the village residents to pay for something that they do not use. However, I totally approved of the lower wall. I think that’s going to protect our beaches. 

In your view, is it a worthy undertaking by the village to save the clubhouse?

The mayor understands it too. She’s baffled by the same question that I have: Why do the residents not use the facility that’s available to them? They don’t take advantage of the programs that are run up here. Yeah, there’s a charge, but it’s something that you can’t get anywhere else.

I’m biased. I love this club and I’ve been here for a lot of years and I know the club pretty much inside and out. The one question I can’t answer is why people don’t use it. The other question that’s difficult for me to answer is, is it worth it to the rest of the residents who do not belong here? I guess the obvious answer is “no.” I want to save it, but it’s not a decision that one person can make. There hasn’t been a movement one way or the other. 

You would think that at a board meeting, if this was a major concern, that that boardroom would be filled with residents — and it’s not. The residents that were there at the last board meeting, they’re concerned about the park; they’re concerned about my taking over Texaco Park so that we could play pickleball once a week. They’re not concerned about the big, huge, major issue facing this village and that bothers me and it bothers the rest of the board. Where’s the interest? You’ve got a bluff that’s going to take away not only our country club, but residents along this bluff too. And they don’t seem to be concerned. 

Is there a possible incentive to bring more people into the club? Could the village make the course open to the public, like Bethpage State Park?

The possibility is there that you could open it up and make it a public course. I would not like to see that. I see five public courses at Bethpage — I’ve played a lot of them down there. Yes, the Black is gorgeous, the Red is not too bad, but the other courses down there are pretty beat up. I don’t think making this a public golf course will change the feelings of the community at all. They voted to buy the place, but now they don’t want to save it. To me, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

Another big question is: “Can it be saved?” Nobody gives us a guarantee. I am not the engineer, but I’m thinking there’s a potential that when you start driving steel into those areas that it’s going to fracture that bluff. The upper wall design is a very long line that’s being cut into that bluff and I’m not sure they can possibly do it without taking the back deck off of here and I’m not sure, if they can do it, that it’s not going to fracture that bluff. 

Is it possible for this to be more of a collaborative effort between the taxpayers and the village government?

I would love to hear from the taxpayers, the residents — and we haven’t. We believe that we’ve publicized it enough and I know there’s a constant stream of traffic going down East Beach Road [in Belle Terre]. People are looking at the bluff, but they’re not coming to the board meetings. They’re not telling us their feelings one way or the other. To me, it’s frustrating to see that. 

Boy, if I were a taxpayer, I’d be at that board meeting and say, “What’s going on here? We want to know. Where are we at? What are we doing? How much money is it going to cost us? When is it going to happen? Is it going to happen?”

I’d like nothing better than to see that board room filled with people, negative or positive. I want to know why the interest is not there. 

Is there anything else you like to say to the local readers of Port Jefferson? 

I love this village and I love this country club. I want to see the best result that we can possibly get. I don’t have the answers. I just don’t understand why the village and the membership do not use this building. It’s frustrating to me. 

Pixabay photo

By Elof Axel Carlson

Elof Axel Carlson

In 1997 I sent Leah Dunaief several essays that I called Life Lines and I asked her if she thought these might be of interest to the readers of her new newspaper, the Village Times.  

About a month later she replied and said she retrieved my packet from her pile of correspondence and liked my essays and thus began a 25 year association and more than 400 columns of Life Lines as her newspaper chain grew in number across the North Shore of Long Island.  

My aim was to inform my readers of the importance of science in our lives. I am a professor, now retired, who taught in Canada (Queen’s University), UCLA, and Stony Brook University as well as holding visiting professorships over the years in San Diego State University, the University of Utah, the University of Minnesota, and Tugaloo College  in Mississippi.

I have also taught twice on Semester at Sea a floating campus that sales eastward or westward around the world for a semester with 500 students. I have taught also in programs for a federal program to raise science literacy in former USSR republics, including Samara —  on the Volga River, and Tbilisi in former Soviet Georgia. I have mentored 6 students through their PhDs in my laboratories and have published 15 books on genetics, the history of genetics, the eugenics controversy, and science and society conflicts. I love to teach and have taught thousands of students at UCLA and Stony Brook University in a course titled Biology 101-102 Biology – A Humanities Approach.

I argued that a knowledge of science and its history and its application to society is important in showing how science has greatly reduced infant mortality, greatly increased life expectancy, eliminated most communicable disease, and restored health to millions of people through its applications to our food industries, pharmaceutical industries, and public health programs.  

It gives us greater control over our lives and allows a person like me to live more than 90 years. I will be celebrating my 91st birthday in July and I am grateful that I have lived an examined life, avoided alcohol and other harmful agents in my life and have insights into how life works that are worth sharing.  

I read widely, love the arts and humanities, consider science to be part of the liberal arts education we should extend past K-12 to college level programs that make us informed citizens in a democracy and parents able to make informed decisions about their children’s well-being rather than relying on political ideologies or religious traditions first introduced two or three thousand years ago as guides for how to protect ourselves and our families.  

Science allowed me to understand how life works. I can follow it from atoms to molecules, macromolecules, cell organelles, cells, tissues, and organs. From there I can extend it to the population, the diversity of life on earth, and the importance of human stewardship of that life by informed ways using the earth’s bounty, protecting it from pollution, avoiding erosion, preventing desert formation, and preventing discharges of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use that lead to climate change that can flood our coastal cities and bring chaotic weather patterns around the world.  

I thank Leah Dunaief and her son Daniel for the many articles on science that inform North Shore readers of what is going on in our universities, research institute, and industries on Long Island. I thank you readers who have written to me, stopped me when I shopped in the local stores, or offered different points of view to which I would respond.  

I have lived an examined life, selected, as an Epicurean, from the best minds and writing of Western civilization. I am grateful for the gift of life to have lived this long. But now in my 90s I lack the energy I had ten years ago and have decided to use the time remaining in my life to work on my unpublished manuscripts and get them published or place them to print-on-demand programs on the internet. I much appreciate you, my reader, for the pleasure of having this opportunity,

Elof Axel Carlson

[email protected]

Many doctors are suggesting people learn to live with the virus and begin returning to usual activities such as going to the movies. Photo from Pixabay

Dr. Gregson Pigott went to the movies this week.

While the activity would be considered mundane in 2019, the decision to go to the theater to catch a flick is yet another example of how local doctors, or, in this case, commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, is practicing what he preaches.

“We need to learn to live with the virus,” said Pigott, who has also been to a few Brooklyn Nets basketball games. Pigott, who is not using a mask except in situations where it is required, such as on a plane or on public transit, suggested people are “trying to resume life as it was pre-COVID.”

While the percentage of positive tests has risen, the numbers haven’t raised any alarm bells.

The percentage of COVID positive tests increased to a seven-day average of 2.6% as of April 2, according to figures from the New York State Department of Health.

That figure is higher than it had been in the weeks prior, when the percentage dipped below 2%.

“I certainly expected this,” Dr. Sean Clousten, associate professor of Public Health at Stony Brook University explained in an email. “I suspect this increase is due to unmasking at public schools because many kids who are infected are asymptomatic or the symptoms are different.”

Pigott said the current symptoms for the newer variant of omicron, called BA.2, which is becoming the dominant strain across the country and through much of the world, includes stuffy noses, scratchy throat and a slight cough.

Clousten added that the symptoms can also appear more like a bad stomach bug.

Second booster

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration approved a second booster for people over 50 and for those who are immunocompromised and who had a first booster more than four months ago.

Pigott said he would urge people who are over 65 or those who are immunocompromised to consider getting another jab.

“Most of the general population is fine with the three-shot regimen,” Pigott said. “Your body will recognize any kind of COVID infection and deal with it quickly.”

Dr. Sharon Nachman, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Stony Brook Children’s Hospital, indicated in an email that Stony Brook has been “advocating for switching vaccines.”

Switching vaccines could mean triggering a different response to the shot for the second booster, Nachman added.

Data about a second booster shows that the shot provides “good protection” against serious COVID, Nachman said. “Will it protect against any infection (meaning you might get a runny nose, cough or upper respiratory infection)? Not really.”

Nachman urged people to consult with their primary care doctor to decide whether to take a booster. What people are doing and where they are going can and should affect that decision.

Finally, daily activities such as going back to a crowded office or starting to take New York City transit could be “excellent reasons” to get a booster, she said.

Nachman plans to get a booster, although she is working on the best timing for another shot.

“Before I travel abroad is key to making sure I have my booster and am protected,” Nachman added.

Conferences

Nachman is encouraged that people are returning to in-person conferences and other activities.

“It will be great to have people starting to get back to routine living, and that means being with other people,” she explained in an email.

She urged people to stay at home if they don’t feel well.

“Now is not the time to push to go to that meeting or get together with extended family, since you might just be responsible for getting someone else sick,” she explained.

She suggested people should be patient and understanding of others who choose to wear masks or continue to practice social distancing.

“Don’t shame anyone who is wearing a mask,” Nachman advised. “If that is what it takes to get them together with you in public, go for it.”

In another sign of a return to a pre-pandemic life, Pigott suggested that the Health Department was planning to direct more resources to tracking illnesses like Lyme disease.

The fate of the clubhouse at Port Jeff Country Club is uncertain. Photo courtesy of Port Jefferson Village

Debate around the future of the Port Jefferson Country Club intensified on Monday, April 4, when longtime local residents confronted the Village of Port Jefferson Board of Trustees during a public session.

Myrna Gordon and Michael Mart both condemned the board for moving ahead with plans to curb coastal erosion at East Beach without first holding a public forum, arguing that an issue of this magnitude requires greater public input. “The bluff touches every resident … and there should be a public forum for this,” Mart said. Gordon added, “This is an important issue in this village … and on this particular issue, the ball was dropped.”

Responding to these charges, Mayor Margot Garant said the bluff projects are time sensitive, requiring prompt action on behalf of the village before its permits expire.

“This is an area regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers and the [Department of Environmental Conservation],” Garant said. “The window of opportunity is closing because our permits are not going to be there forever.”

History of the country club

Philip Griffith, historian of PJCC and co-editor of Port Jefferson historical society’s newsletter, chronicled the history of the country club since 1908. According to Griffith, the club originated as a nine-hole golf course designed for the residents of Belle Terre.

In 1953 Norman Winston, a wealthy real estate developer, purchased 600 acres of land in Belle Terre and added nine more holes, establishing the Harbor Hills Country Club. In 1978 Mayor Harold Sheprow leased the Harbor Hills club for $1 and in 1980 village residents approved the purchase of the property for $2.29 million by voter referendum. In 1986 the club was renamed the Port Jefferson Country Club at Harbor Hills.

“The club is 114 years old and it is not private anymore,” Griffith said in a phone interview. “Once the village took it over, it opened membership to all residents of Port Jefferson. Membership pays a fee and they operate the club not by using the residents tax money, but by membership dues paid to the country club.”

Due to the erosion of East Beach, the clubhouse, which sits along 170 acres of village property with golf, tennis and parking facilities, is in danger of falling down the slope. Village residents and elected officials are now weighing their options. 

Man vs. Mother Nature

TBR News Media sat down with Mayor Margot Garant in an exclusive interview. She addressed the rapid erosion of East Beach, the precarious fate of the clubhouse and the measures her administration is taking to address this growing problem.

“This is a village asset,” Garant said. “We always say that the country club is one of the five crown jewels of the village and I feel I have to do everything I can — and I will continue to do so — to preserve that facility because I think that’s in the best interest of the community.”

Projects to combat erosion have been ongoing since 2015. Intense storms, such as hurricanes Irene and Sandy, prompted shoreline restoration efforts on behalf of the village. However, as officials addressed the damaged beach, they spotted an even more alarming trend along the bluff.

“We noticed that the bluff started to have chunks of land just kind of detach and start sliding down the hill,” Garant said. 

Malcolm Bowman, professor of physical oceanography at Stony Brook University and distinguished service professor at the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, said eroding bluffs have become commonplace for coastal communities along the North Shore.

“It’s a particular problem on the North Shore of Long Island because these bluffs are very steep, they’re very high and they’re made of what we call unconsolidated sand,” Bowman said in a phone interview. “In other words, it doesn’t stick together and it’s only held together by vegetation, which can be very fragile and can be easily eroded.” 

In 2018 Garant filed permit applications with the DEC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These applications were subjected to multiple rounds of modification, with the approval process lasting over three years. During that period, the bluff continued to wither away.

“Because there’s no protection of the slope, we lost 16 1/2 feet of property in three-and-a-half years, so now the [clubhouse] is in jeopardy,” Garant said.

Man-made efforts to resist erosion do not offer long-term solutions, according to Bowman. Nonetheless, coastal engineering projects can buy valuable time for communities before large swaths of territory get washed away to the sea.

“In the end it’s futile because, basically, you’re buying time,” Bowman said. “You can fight it and you may get another 50 years out of it. And you might say, ‘That’s almost a human lifetime, so therefore it’s worth it.’ The taxpayers of the incorporated village — they’re the ones who are paying for it — might say, ‘It will allow me to enjoy the club for another 50 years and my children, maybe.’” He added, “Beyond that, it’s anybody’s guess.”

In a unanimous vote, the Board of Trustees approved a $10 million bond on Nov. 15, 2021, to finance bluff stabilization. The entire project will be completed in two separate iterations: phase I to secure the towline of the bluff, and phase II to preserve the clubhouse.

Phase I: Lower wall

“Phase I is going to consist of hardening the toe of the bluff with steel riprap rock and some concrete, as well as the revegetation of the bluff itself,” said Joe Palumbo, village administrator. “We’re basically creating a seawall there to slow down, or prevent, any further erosion.”

In its initial permit application, the village planned to construct a 20-foot-high steel retaining wall that would run approximately 650 linear feet along the toe of the bluff. However, due to concerns about the wall’s length and height, DEC asked the village to scale down its proposal.

“Part of the modification of the permit required us to eliminate the steel wall for the portion of the property behind the tennis courts,” Garant said. “We originally wanted to go in — I’m going to estimate — 650 linear feet and they pulled it back to about 450 linear feet.” The mayor added, “We went a little back and forth with DEC, saying we don’t understand why you’re making us do that, but we’ll do it because I’m trying to get something started to protect the integrity of the bluff.”

Phase II: Upland wall

After a 4-1 vote to approve phase I, the board is now considering ways to protect its upland properties, including the clubhouse, tennis courts and parking lot. Phase II involves constructing an upland wall between the clubhouse and the bluff to prevent any further loss of property. 

“The upland project will consist of driving steel sheets into the ground behind the village’s [clubhouse] facility, extending past the courts on the lower side and the upper side,” Palumbo said. “Some revegetation in front of that wall and behind the wall will also take place. I believe the wall itself will extend out from the ground about 15 to 24 inches so as not to impede the view that exists there.” 

The Board of Trustees is also exploring the option of demolishing the clubhouse, a less expensive option than building the upper wall, but still a multimillion-dollar project due to the cost of demolishing the building and adding drainage atop the cliff. “I’m trying to get all of that information together to put on the table, so that we can make an intelligent decision about the upland plan while we proceed with advancing the installation of the toe wall,” Garant said. 

Weighing the options

Although the village’s acquisition of the country club was finalized by voter referendum, residents have not yet voted to approve phases I or II. Garant believes voters had a chance to halt these projects during last year’s election process.

“When the Board of Trustees voted 5-0 to borrow the $10 million, that’s when the public had an opportunity to say, ‘Hey, wait a minute,’” Garant said. “I could have put it out as part of the election that’s coming up or had a separate vote, but the clock is ticking on my permits.” She added, “I feel I have the authority — and my board has the authority — to do these kinds of projects.”

During the interview with Garant, she agreed that bluff stabilization was an unforeseen expense when the village purchased the property. Asked whether the country club is a depreciating asset, Garant maintained that the property has been a lucrative investment.

“It’s not just the building [that we’re protecting], it’s all of the country club’s assets,” she said. “The parking lot is a tremendous asset. I’m trying to preserve some of the sports complexes up there and even expand on them.”

One of the central arguments made for preserving the clubhouse is that the country club raises the property values of all village residents, and that to lose the facility would hurt the real estate market. Jolie Powell, owner of Port Jefferson-based Jolie Powell Realty, substantiated this claim.

“What makes us unique here in the incorporated Village of Port Jefferson is that we are one of very few [villages] that offers these amenities,” Powell said in a phone interview. “It adds value to the community and to prospective homeowners because they want to live in a village that has a private beach, country club amenities and pickleball.” She added, “The country club is essential to a prospective buyer who comes to the village. … They’re looking for amenities and the golf course is huge.”

When asked about the potential costs to village residents, Powell offered this perspective: “I don’t know what that cost will be for the residents, but it will be nominal. Our taxes are so low to begin with compared to every other community.”

Another sticking point is the long-term prospect of golf as a recreational activity. Martin Cantor, director of the Long Island Center for Socioeconomic Policy and author of “Long Island, The Global Economy and Race,” said the popularity of golf has waned in recent decades. He suggests any proposal related to the preservation of the clubhouse should also include a plan to boost recreational activity at the golf course.

“Golf is not as widely played as it was 30 years ago,” Cantor said in a phone interview. “If the village puts up a retaining wall, then it has to also have a development plan or a plan for how it’s going to generate economic activity to pay back the loan for the retaining wall.”

Responding to Cantor, Garant said the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to revive interest in the sport. “Prior to the pandemic, I would say that might be right,” the mayor said. “Since the pandemic, the sport is booming. That program up there is so robust that they have not only paid back the money they owed the village to help them run operations, but they’re now exceeding their budget and have money to put up netting.” She added, “Right now golf is the thing.”

Since bluff stabilization is closely linked to the activities at the country club, Cantor suggested that an economic feasibility study may add clarity to this issue, allowing residents and officials to determine whether preserving the clubhouse is in the fiscal interest of the village. 

“In terms of economics to the village, other than the rent, all of the money that gets paid in the golf club stays within the golf club,” Cantor said. “They have to do a feasibility study on the economics of keeping it open.”

Factored into this multivariable equation are also the qualitative benefits that the clubhouse may offer to the community. Griffith packaged the country club with the library, school district, public parks and other amenities that raise taxes but contribute to the character and culture of the village.

“These are things that add not only to the monetary value, but also the cultural and aesthetic value of the village,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to see those kinds of things eliminated. Each of these amenities — these assets — are wonderful values that make this village what it is.” He added, “It’s not just a home. You’re buying into a community and a community has to offer something beyond your own little piece of property, and that’s what Port Jefferson does.” 

Griffith added that he would like the issue to be put on the ballot so that residents have the final say. “I am in favor of having a public hearing on the matter and then having a public referendum. Let the people decide, just as they decided to purchase the country club.”

Photo from Councimember Kornreich's office

Councilmember Jonathan Kornreich, Suffolk County Legislator Kara Hahn and members of the Three Village Chamber of Commerce attended the grand opening of “Mondays at Racine” at Gypsy Hair Lounge in the Three Village Shopping Center, 1389 Route 25A in Setauket on March 28. 

“Mondays at Racine” is a not-for-profit organization that strives to increase a sense of control with wellness, beauty and therapeutic services for anyone experiencing the side effects of cancer. When patients go through chemotherapy treatment, they look in the mirror and are reminded every day of their medical condition. The physical effects, such as hair loss, nail discoloration and weight loss, take a toll both physically and internally. The program is open to anyone regardless of age or gender. 

“Last week, I had the honor of attending the official opening of ‘Mondays at Racine’ at Gypsy Hair Lounge in Setauket. It was a beautiful event supported by many members of our community. Cancer has touched almost every family in our community in one way or another, and we know all too well the impact it can have on a patient’s physical appearance and emotional well-being. ‘Mondays at Racine’ partners with charter programs like Gypsy Hair Lounge all throughout Long Island to offer free services that help remind those with cancer of how beautiful they are,” said Councilmember Kornreich.

For more information, call 631-374-6397 or visit [email protected].

Clockwise from back row left, Ginger Dalton, Stephanie Moreau, Christine N. Boehm, Marci Bing, Linda May and Michelle LaBozzetta. Photo by Steven Uihlein/Theatre Three Productions, Inc.

By Tara Mae

“Laughter through tears is my favorite emotion.”

This famous line from Robert Harling’s Steel Magnolias embodies the ethos of the comedy-drama, which is Theatre Three’s next Mainstage production, opening on April 9.

Spanning three years in the lives of a group of Southern women, the play explores how the depth of their bonds sustain them through triumphs and tragedies. Harling wrote the play in 1985 as a way of processing his sister’s death and paying homage to the women from his childhood. It was later adapted into an award-winning film starring Sally Field, Julia Roberts, Shirley MacLaine, Dolly Parton, Olympia Dukakis and Daryl Hannah.

Unlike the film version, the play exists strictly in the world of women, featuring female characters with the male characters only referenced through dialogue. 

“Working with an all-female cast was absolutely wonderful, and we all talked about how we connected to material both as mothers and daughters. I love that in this show every single person is integral to the play, and it really celebrates the strengths of these women and the beauty of their souls and personalities,” said director Mary Powers. 

Starring Stephanie Moreau (Truvy), Christine N. Boehm (Annelle), Marci Bing (Clairee), Michelle LaBozzetta (Shelby), Linda May (M’Lynn), and Ginger Dalton (Ouiser), Steel Magnolias is a personal favorite of Artistic Director Jeffrey Sanzel, who first saw the play when it debuted off-Broadway in 1987.

“I believe it is an absolutely perfect play. Very few plays are as well constructed as Steel Magnolias. It is one of the top ten theater experiences of my life. I do not think there is one moment that is false or one moment that does not work. This is the second time we have done it…and we felt it was time to bring it back for our 50th season,” Sanzel said. 

Unfortunately, the 50th anniversary season (2019-2020), designed to showcase some of the of the theater’s most revered productions, was cut short due to the pandemic lockdown.  The cast was completing the rehearsal process and preparing to open the show when the world around it abruptly shut down, and  the show was postponed. After a two-year delay, rehearsals resumed in February of 2022.

“We were very committed to the project. We thoroughly enjoyed the rehearsal process the first time around and were all very invested in coming back, which everyone did,” Powers said. “We kept our schedules clear for that time. It was like riding a bike; one rehearsal and we were back to where we had been with the exact same casting, exact same roles. Nothing changed at all. We all had our scripts and got to work. We get along so well, and the cast and crew are a delight to work with.” 

Interpersonal, emotional connections onstage are reflected in the dynamic between the actresses, who also kept in touch with Powers and Sanzel during the hiatus. 

“One of the best feelings I’ve had thus far was at our read through this year. Finally being together again, hearing everyone’s voices, laughing and crying as we read was such a unique experience and I’ll cherish it forever,” said LaBozzetta. 

The dedication to the material, its message, and each other are highlights of the process, according to Bing, who played the role of M’Lynn in Theatre Three’s production in the 1990s. “We have a strong connection onstage as well as offstage. I love the whole group, which makes it easy to connect,” she said. 

For LaBozzetta, after the interrupted pre-production process, opening the show is a relief. “I am most looking forward to finally having an audience! We’ve been having so much fun in rehearsals and I just cannot wait to share what we’ve created.”

Theatre Three, 412 Main Street, Port Jefferson presents Steel Magnolias from April 7 to May 9. Tickets are $35 adults, $28 seniors and students, $20 for children ages 5 and up. For more information, call 631-928-9100 or visit www.theatrethree.com.