Former New York State Assemblyman Steve Englebright, left, and Anthony Figliola debate the issues. Photo by Raymond Janis
By Mallie Jane Kim
Forty-year political veteran Steve Englebright (D-Setauket) is facing off against business development and government relations professional Anthony Figliola (R-East Setauket) to be the next Suffolk County legislator for the 5th District. The recent incumbent, county Legislator Kara Hahn (D-Setauket), vacated her seat in August to take up a New York State parks post.
The two candidates discussed current county issues in a rather tense debate hosted in the TBR News Media office. “Can you tell we are passionate?” Figliola asked at one point.
Indeed, their passion was evident as they expressed frustration about each other’s negative political mailings and questioned aspects of each other’s backgrounds. On the issues they discussed that were pertinent to governing the county, their differences were nuanced.
Key issues
Englebright previously held the county post for nearly a decade before he was elected in 1992 to the New York State Assembly, where he stayed until he narrowly lost his seat last year.
He said he felt his work in the county is not yet done, especially in light of the move last summer by the county Legislature to table a bill that would have allowed residents to vote on establishing a 1/8-cent sales tax to create a water quality protection fund, which would help add sewers and Innovative/Alternative septic systems.
“The future of drinking water in this county is in peril,” he said at the debate, pointing to the decision not to include the water referendum on November’s ballot. “They denied that opportunity for people to vote to determine the future well-being of their families and our communities.”
Figliola said he is invested in the community despite watching so many friends leave due to quality-of-life and cost-of-living issues. He said that a priority for him is making sure the Suffolk County Police Department has the resources it needs to fight crime, and in particular to address deadly fentanyl overdoses.
“This is a serious issue,” he said. “It doesn’t care about your political ideology or gender, it’s designed to kill — and we have to put these drug dealers in jail.”
Wastewater
Both candidates agreed Long Island has a wastewater issue — the sheer volume of cesspools on Long Island puts the area’s waterways and sole-source aquifer at risk.
Englebright claimed the county Legislature’s down vote of the referendum over the summer was an effort at voter suppression, assuming the clean water vote would have drawn more Democratic voters to the polls in November. “It was a partisanizing of an issue that has been bipartisan for years,” he said. “Our drinking water is a limited and finite resource, and it should not be partisanized. But it was.”
Figliola said he’s been supportive of the measure as a private citizen, but he also thought the bill, which would designate a majority of the funds to updated septic systems, had flaws. He argued there should be a 50/50 split of funds in order to add more sewers in places like Port Jefferson, Port Jefferson Station and other main streets, and perhaps a percentage of funds could be left as wiggle room.
“I would like greater flexibility to be able to give dollars more to sewers — or perhaps in 10 years, there’s some new technology that we don’t even know about, but we’re handcuffed because there are specific percentages,” he said.
Englebright rebutted that in the decade of preparation for the clean water bill, the proportion was worked out by Stony Brook University scientists and “field tested” in public hearings.
“It’s proportional that it’s about 75% of the problem is in cesspools, not in business districts,” he said.
Migrants and asylum seekers
Both candidates condemned the tactic by Republican governors of busing illegal migrants from border towns to Democratic-leaning so-called sanctuary cities, including New York City, as inhumane. But they agreed the county was right to block any move to bring the migrants to Suffolk, after Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) eyed SUNY campuses like SBU as temporary migrant housing.
The candidates said the county does not currently have the capacity to accept a sudden influx.
“You can’t just unilaterally start flooding this area without any preparations,” Figliola said, adding that there could be ways to activate churches and nonprofits to help out, but leadership on this issue needs to come from the federal government.
Englebright balked at any mandate to receive migrants without funding and time to prepare.
“New York City’s plight is serious and not New York City’s fault, but it shouldn’t be translated into Suffolk County,” he said. “There’s a way to do it the right way, and that’s not what has been proposed.”
Pedestrian/bike safety
Both candidates are pro-sidewalk, saying they think new developments should be required to install them, though Englebright said he sees a “built-in conflict” in mature communities where beautiful trees have grown up where sidewalks should be.
Englebright pointed to other solutions, like recreational walking and biking trails such as Trustees Road at West Meadow Beach and also to potential commuter routes, such as the Setauket-Port Jefferson Station Greenway and the bike paths on SBU’s campus — all of which he said he had a hand in creating through his position in the state Assembly.
But walkers on the Greenway itself see issues of safety and potential drug activity. Figliola said he would like to see bike patrols by the Suffolk County Police Department, and perhaps even call boxes along the trail for easier reporting.
“We need to give police the resources they need so that if you’re walking with your kids, you can feel safe,” he said.
Englebright agreed that the county has a big role to play. “Almost 200 acres of county parkland is strung like jewels on a necklace if the string of the necklace is the trail itself,” he said, suggesting county police should be involved, but this county land could easily house call boxes.
County police
Englebright called the Suffolk County Police Department “almost overwhelmingly the most important issue from an economic perspective of the county budget,” and said upcoming contract negotiations are important since public safety takes up about 70% of the budget.
“We need to have a clear-eyes reappraisal of how we go about the very real need to support our police and make sure the thin blue line is not made so thin that it weakens the protections we depend upon in our communities and for our children,” he said.
Figliola stressed again the need to give police the resources they need to keep communities safe but agreed the contract negotiation is important. “There has to be transparency in the process. We need to make sure what we do is in the benefit of the people,” he said. “We need to have a need matched with a public benefit.”
He also expressed frustration over positions at the county left open, particularly detective positions. He said the Suffolk administration under County Executive Steve Bellone (D) has been “crafty with budgeting” by not filling positions already in the budget and paid for by taxpayers.
Homelessness
Figliola said the county’s Department of Social Services could better coordinate with the towns to assist people living in encampments but said a huge factor is mental illness.
“We have to find a way to help these folks,” he said, suggesting a partnership with SBU to incentivize people to become social workers. “There’s not enough people to help those who are mentally ill.”
Englebright praised the county for working with nonprofit organizations on this issue, but said that could be expanded, and engaging with area churches in particular could work well. He said the county needs to find a way “to incentivize people to leave who are just camping out in open spaces and causing a lot of young families to not want to venture into those spaces.”
County District 5 voters will decide on these two candidates Tuesday, Nov. 7.
We welcome your letters, especially those responding to our local coverage, replying to other letter writers’ comments and speaking mainly to local themes. Letters should be no longer than 400 words and may be edited for length, libel, style, good taste and uncivil language. They will also be published on our website. We do not publish anonymous letters. Please include an address and phone number for confirmation.
Email letters to: [email protected] or mail them to TBR News Media, P.O. Box 707, Setauket, NY 11733
Credit where credit is due
We would like to thank the staff at The Port Times Record for their June 15 editorial [“Election Day is only the beginning”], in which they acknowledged some of the contributions the Port Jefferson Civic Association has made.
There was one item, however, that was incorrectly attributed to us: the formation of a tree committee.
While our membership fully supports the preservation of our village tree canopy, and several PJCA members volunteered to staff the committee, the primary credit for developing it belongs to Village of Port Jefferson trustee Rebecca Kassay.
PJCA member Kelly DeVine initially brought the idea to trustee Kassay, who followed up on it with extensive research on tree-related efforts in various villages within New York state and beyond. She discovered many municipalities have dedicated committees to assist staff and board members in managing a village’s canopy.
Trustee Kassay further consulted with chairs and founders of other tree committees to gather insights and information. These findings were presented to Deputy Mayor Kathianne Snaden, who expressed support for the creation and development of the Port Jefferson Village Tree Committee.
We just wanted to make sure to give credit where credit is due.
Ana Hozyainova, President
Kathleen McLane, Outreach Officer
Port Jefferson Civic Association
American dreams for some, not all
What a beautiful story in The Village Times Herald May 25 [“American Dream” series] on page A7 about the Huangs legal journey from China to the United States and how they worked hard and sent money home to bring other family members here.
Their hard work, sacrifice and ultimate success at their Kai Li Kitchen in East Setauket is a true American Dream story. I have many Chinese friends who did the same, as well as my four Italian grandparents.
It’s too bad that the May 25 letter by Shoshana Hershkowitz [“Words matter in immigration dialogue”] could not have been on page A8. What a dichotomy. Almost every week she is complaining about something in this country. She belongs to Citizen Action of New York (website: citizenactionny.org), that is, progressives like AOC, Warren and Sanders. They bash Republicans, Conservatives and corporations. The problem with socialism is that it needs capitalism to survive. Thus, the ironic hypocrisy.
There is a legal way to become a citizen and an illegal way to play the system. The new “messaging” from the “left” is that “everyone” entering the country illegally is an asylum seeker (see Newsday, June 19). According to Ms. Hershkowitz’s statement, “Asylum seekers are fleeing their countries because of climate change, poverty and political violence.” If that’s true, the whole world can move here. We have the same issues: climate change, antifa (who the left were silent about as the group destroyed federal buildings and businesses in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington), Proud Boys and millions of our own citizens who live in poverty.
So when these “illegal asylum seekers” arrive we are supposed to just let them in, while the people who are legally emigrating from their countries wait to gain citizenship and get penalized by following the law? And I suppose it’s OK for the citizens in Texas, Arizona and California to bear the brunt of the huge, intentional failure at the border by Biden, Harris and Mayorkas.
According to the House Committee on Homeland Security, as of Jan. 23 there have been over 4.5 million encounters at the Southwest border in addition to over 1.2 million “gotaways.” When the illegal immigrants were sent to Martha’s Vineyard, I don’t recall the vice president commenting on their next-day overnight extradition to mainland Massachusetts by the NIMBYs.
The hypocrisy of these elites and socialists is obvious. It’s all about future voters and power at the expense of the citizens of this country.
To the Huangs and Kai Li Kitchen (Chinese translation, “triumphant victory forever”), well done.
Rocky Graziano
Setauket
Two points of view
As an avid reader of the letters section of your paper, I felt compelled to write about the recent exchange of views on the issue of language and the words we use to describe the immigrants who are coming to the United States.
I know both writers personally and know them to be good people who are community-minded and who have worked to make our Three Villages a better place. I think both made good arguments about the current debate, and considering other points is what the American experiment in democracy requires its citizens to do in the pursuit of consensus.
We all know that our recent political discourse has changed, and not for the better. It seems now that we only want to hear one point of view, and criticize or discredit others whose points of view differ from our own.
Local newspapers play an important role in letting the community know about important issues and the various opinions of the people who live here, and I appreciate that.
We can learn a lot by being open to our differing views and maybe even find better solutions for the problems and challenges that we face as a community.
Thank you TBR News Media and to both writers for sharing your thoughts on a very heated and controversial subject.
U.S. Congressman Nick LaLota, above, sharply criticized New York City’s sanctuary status. Photo from LaLota’s congressional website
Continuing the contentious immigration debate in Suffolk County, U.S. Congressman Nick LaLota (R-NY1) denounced federal and city “sanctuary” policies during a telephone town hall Monday night, June 12.
LaLota, who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee, reported that the southwest sector of the U.S.-Mexico border has become the focus of the committee’s public safety and drug prevention efforts.
“More than one million undocumented, unvetted people have illegally crossed our border since President [Joe] Biden [D] took office,” LaLota said. “Drugs are coming across that border every day. China’s making the fentanyl being smuggled across the southwest border.”
“Fentanyl is killing so many of our young people,” he added. “And while counties like Suffolk are dealing with that fentanyl problem, a migrant crisis is brewing, too.”
Title 42, a pandemic-era immigration policy allowing swift expulsion of asylum seekers on public health grounds, ended May 11. Since then, New York City has already cared for over 46,000 new migrants, according to a mayor’s office report published June 5.
Mayor Eric Adams (D) has publicly called for counties across New York state to assist his city in a statewide immigration “decompression strategy.”
LaLota sharply criticized New York’s sanctuary city status, saying Adams and the city council have opted to “not enforce federal immigration law on those who are in our country illegally.”
“The result of the city’s policy, coupled with Biden’s open border, is that New York City has now become overrun with illegal migrants and those claiming asylum,” LaLota said, adding, “Like, 70 percent of those asylum claims are not legitimate — they don’t meet the traditional criteria for asylum.”
As NYC grapples with the logistical constraints of handling the migrant surge, LaLota said the city’s public services are “becoming overrun.”
“Veterans, the homeless, the mentally impaired and other Americans are now being put to the back of the line or rejected services because folks who are not in this country legally are taking those services,” the congressman said. “That, to me, is un-American.”
He added, “We Long Islanders should not have to bear the weight of the mess at the border and the [problems] exacerbated by those sanctuary city policies.”
Next week will be the last issue we run letters of endorsement for village candidates. Deadline for submission: Tuesday, June 6, at noon.
Seeking asylum: legal then, legal now
In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower [R] pushed immigration law in a radical new direction. Instead of housing people in immigrant detention facilities like Ellis Island, such facilities were closed. While immigrants were being processed by the authorities, they would let people live wherever they wanted, blending into communities.
If a Republican president in the 1950s could take such a radical step toward humane immigration, I ask what are the Republican legislators of Suffolk County doing in 2023? Clearly acting inhumanely by drumming up fear. Fear of “those other people.” Stoking that fear as a cheap parlor trick to motivate their base while endangering the lives of countless people regardless of their nation of birth or their documentation.
Most of us have relatives who came to America looking to escape persecution, not of something they did but because of who they are. This is the same for many of today’s immigrants. The story is the same, it’s simply the country of origin that varies. These immigrants deserve a chance to live just as our relatives did.
Some 150 years ago there was a Latvian-Jewish immigrant working as a tailor in Reno, Nevada, named Jacob Davis. Jacob had customers whose work pants kept tearing. To solve the problem, he added metal rivets at the stress points of the pants, making them stronger. When he realized he had a product worth mass producing he teamed up with a merchant in San Francisco, Levi Strauss, another immigrant. On May 20, 1873, they obtained a U.S. patent on a style of jeans still worn today.
We can only speculate the challenges of the next 150 years, but I’ll tell you this. It’s going to require the creativity of as many people from as many diverse backgrounds as possible to solve. When some members of the Suffolk County Legislature decided to respond to the current migration situation with “not our problem,” they gave the incorrect response, for it does not set us up for success on the world stage of tomorrow.
Ian Farber
East Setauket
LaLota’s disturbing immigration posture
I found your story of Suffolk County Republicans including my Congressman Nick LaLota’s [R-NY1] attempt to keep immigrants seeking asylum from coming to Suffolk County very disturbing. [“Republican lawmakers, immigration advocates clash over asylum seekers,” TBR News Media, May 25.]
We are better than that. Seeking asylum is both legal and an important principle. Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese and others came here effectively seeking asylum because of the many dangers in their home countries. Those groups and others were vilified at first but have made important contributions to our country.
We, as a nation, depend on immigrants for our enormous innovation, progress and energy. All American communities must do our part to welcome these people and help them get a good start here. This is not only the right thing to do, it is very much in our country’s interest.
The problem at the southern border was not caused by President Joe Biden [D] but by a Congress that has failed to pass a safe and humane immigration policy. Pandering to our worst instincts, rather than leading and making good proposals to solve the problem, do more harm than good.
Adam D. Fisher
Port Jefferson Station
An open letter on striped bass fishing
To DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos:
Our offices have been contacted by concerned fishermen and boat captains regarding the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s emergency measures to further reduce the size of striped bass for the East Coast Fishery.
It is our understanding that these emergency measures, changing the limit on keeper fish from one fish a day from 28 inches to 35 inches to one fish a day from 28 inches to 31 inches, are currently being reviewed by the Department of Environmental Conservation with the federal requirement to implement them by July 2.
We are being told by our recreational fishermen and boat captains that this rule change will greatly raise the mortality rate of striped bass causing an increase in catch-and-release deaths. This will obviously have the reverse effect on efforts to increase the stock.
Additionally, we have been informed that the for-hire industry utilizes less than 5% of the striped bass stock. The economy of our region is driven by the agricultural and fishing industries. The rich history of our fishermen is a legacy that attracts many tourists and enthusiasts to our area. It will become extremely difficult to encourage would-be customers to use charter and party boats with such a narrow window of striped bass possession.
We are asking that before any emergency measures are adopted by the DEC, a careful review is done based on input from our local fishermen and captains. As you are well aware, our fishing industry is already struggling with difficult quotas, the high cost of fuel, the high property and docking costs in our area, among other challenges. We are hopeful that you will put any plans on hold until all stakeholders are brought to the table and have the opportunity to share their input and concerns.
Please contact our offices if you have any questions or need additional information. We look forward to your expeditious response.
NYS Sen. Anthony Palumbo (R-New Suffolk)
NYS Assemblyman Fred Thiele (D-Sag Harbor)
A challenging race
When I ran for trustee for the Village of Port Jefferson last year, I had the full faith and support of Port Jefferson’s mayor, deputy mayor and the clerk’s office. I was guided through the petition submission process and the mayor even numbered my petition sheets.
In the eight months following the 2022 elections, I went from being an establishment candidate to the opposition. I asked questions and challenged decisions that I found questionable and at times, autocratic. That is why I decided to run for mayor.
I am committed to continuing my campaign for mayor even if it means I’ll be a “write-in” candidate. It may be an uphill battle, but I will not quit the people of Port Jefferson.
If you believe that we need a fresh start in Port Jeff, and that you should have a choice for mayor, then write in “Lauren Sheprow” under the column for mayor on June 20. This is your village and your vote should count.
Lauren Sheprow
Mayoral candidate and trustee
Village of Port Jefferson
No political campaigningon sacred days
First, let me say that Memorial Day is a day of sacred observance where we honor those who have given the full measure of commitment to America — their lives. We celebrate the freedom their commitment and those of their more fortunate brothers and sisters have maintained for us.
Memorial Day is a celebration of freedom and we celebrate it together in the spirit of unity. This is not a day for political campaigning. We like to hear what our elected leaders have to say about unity, America and freedom. We do not appreciate their campaign slogans, campaign attire and campaign leafleting of a parade that is a unifying event.
Please encourage those who engaged in these activities at the Setauket Memorial Day Parade and honorary activities mind their manners and respect those who have served and sacrificed. Ask them to do better on July 4, 9/11 and Veterans Day/Armistice Day.
We need to find some common ground if we are to continue to be a democracy.Bad political manners need to be called out.
Bruce Miller
Sgt. E-5, U.S. Army Armor (former)
2nd Vice Cmdr.,American Legion Post 432
Port Jefferson Station
Juliano, the integrity candidate
Just wanted to take the opportunity to tell you a little about my husband, Bob Juliano, who is running for trustee in the Village of Port Jefferson.
Bob has spent 30 years in public service. The first eight years were spent as treasurer in the Village of Lindenhurst, then 18 years as administrator/clerk for the Village of Port Jefferson, followed by the Village of Westbury as clerk/treasurer until his retirement last year.
For those who know Bob, you know that this man is hardworking, he is smart, honest and reliable. Although this sounds like a Labrador Retriever, it is the man I have been married to for almost 38 years and I believe it is what we need in the Village of Port Jefferson.
He worked tirelessly in his time with the village. I was with him when he would receive calls on the weekends and respond by doing a well visit, or checking someone’s property for them. During Hurricane Sandy, he was at the “bunker” taking care of the village, not home with his family. He was doing his job.
I feel it is time we give Bob a chance to have a voice in the village where he had his hands in everything that went on. Talk about experience, no one can top his. He knows this village, how it runs and how it should run. I hope you will vote for Bob on June 20 at the Village Center. Integrity matters.
Kelly Juliano
Port Jefferson
Snaden would haveno learning curve
With the mayoral election less than 30 days away, we need to give careful thought as to who is best qualified and capable of leading the village for the next two years. The dangers of an inexperienced mayor cannot be overstated.
Deputy Mayor Kathianne Snaden has many years of experience and would have no learning curve when she assumes office.
Institutional knowledge saves the taxpayers money, and Kathianne has amassed a tremendous amount of knowledge and hands-on understanding of what is necessary to move the village forward in the coming years.
Her resume is extensive: She is the Village of Port Jefferson commissioner of Public Safety, also Planning and Building; she is trustee liaison to code, courts, parking and mobility, Business Improvement District, Zoning Board of Appeals, Architectural Review Committee and the employees union. Most importantly, if Kathianne loses, we not only lose a committed public servant but a strong liaison to our schools.
Losing Kathianne would be a significant blow to our community. If she is not elected, a trustee would be elected without any input from voters, adding yet another inexperienced member to the board.
We cannot afford to take risks with our village’s future. We must elect an experienced, seasoned leader who can hit the ground running. That leader is Kathianne Snaden. Please vote for her on June 20 from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. at the Village Center.
Jennifer Testa
Port Jefferson
Review candidates’ history
In reference to our up-and-coming Port Jefferson mayoral election on June 20, I would recommend the village residents to google our candidates’ past employment and endeavors, as you would do if you were hiring a new employee for any political or nonpolitical position. By googling one’s past employment and endeavors, it will give you the insight to see how they will acclimate to their new positions.
This being said, I would recommend that you google candidates Kathianne Snaden and Lauren Sheprow, who was the previous head of media relations at Stony Brook University.
I believe the best choice for the future of Port Jefferson village is to elect Kathianne Snaden for mayor. I base this opinion on her experience, integrity, character, honesty and transparency.
Joey Zangrillo
Port Jefferson
WRITE TO US … AND KEEP IT LOCAL
We welcome your letters, especially those responding to our local coverage, replying to other letter writers’ comments and speaking mainly to local themes. Letters should be no longer than 400 words and may be edited for length, libel, style, good taste and uncivil language. They will also be published on our website. We do not publish anonymous letters. Please include an address and phone number for confirmation.
Email letters to: [email protected]or mail them to TBR News Media, P.O. Box 707, Setauket, NY 11733
A cloud of mystery hangs over Stony Brook University and Suffolk County municipalities as Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) contemplates whether to house asylum seekers at state university campuses.
Spectrum News NY1 reported last week the governor was exploring housing asylum seekers entering the state across three SUNY campuses, including SBU. The governor’s office has yet to clarify its plans as of press time.
New York State Assemblywoman Jodi Giglio (R-Riverhead) said she has been in contact with the governor’s office. According to Giglio’s contact there, Marissa Espinoza, the proposal to house asylum seekers at SBU “is not happening.”
New York State Assemblywoman Jodi Giglio, left, and Town of Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine. File photos by Raymond Janis
“I’m hoping that that’s not the plan because we really need those dorms for students,” Giglio said. “The taxpayers just can’t afford to take care of more people. We can barely afford to take care of our veterans and homeless.”
In the face of uncertainty and preparing for the prospect of new migrants, Town of Brookhaven Supervisor Ed Romaine (R) also expressed apprehensions about the proposed plans.
Though acknowledging the town does not have jurisdiction over state property, the Brookhaven supervisor referred to potential movements of asylum seekers into SBU as “probably a mistake.”
“I’m concerned about the impact on the school district,” Romaine told TBR News Media in an exclusive interview. “Twenty to 30 years ago, you had single men coming up here and sending money back home. Now, they’re coming up as a family.”
He added, “I’m concerned about the impact that would have on the Three Village school district which, to my understanding, is laying off teachers this school year.”
Ivan Larios, manager of organizing and strategy for the Long Island branch of the New York Immigration Coalition, has been among a vocal group of immigration proponents advocating that Suffolk County welcomes asylum seekers. [See story, “Republican lawmakers, immigration advocates clash over asylum seekers,” May 25, TBR News Media.]
In a phone interview, he outlined the reasons for considering asylum requests, appealing to policymakers on humanitarian grounds.
“People are coming here because they’re running away from persecution, political unrest and violence,” he said. “Immigrants are already a part of our community, and they make Long Island richer and better.”
Giglio contended that Suffolk County is ill-prepared for the challenges of providing services to asylum seekers.
“We have people that are living in the woods in encampments across the street from our parks,” the assemblywoman said. “Our hospitals are not ready for it, the need for services that we can’t provide. We can barely take care of the homeless people we have now.”
Romaine, who is running for Suffolk County executive in November’s election, when asked whether the county is prepared for an influx of new migrants, said “no.”
“I sympathize with asylum seekers,” Romaine said, “But I am concerned about migrants coming to this country without adequate preparation, and I don’t believe we have adequate preparation.”
“We believe elected officials should be working in finding solutions instead of saying, ‘No, we can’t take more people.’”
— Ivan Larios
Larios suggested arguments advanced against asylum seekers can be deceptive. He maintained that asylum seekers are not diverting public resources and attention from already-vulnerable communities across the state.
“There are rumors that asylum seekers have displaced veterans or homeless people in other localities around the state, but these are lies,” the immigration advocate said. “These are lies that have been perpetrated to create division.”
But, he added, “There are issues taking place with, for example, housing, but … we believe elected officials should be working in finding solutions instead of saying, ‘No, we can’t take more people.’”
Meanwhile, County Executive Steve Bellone (D) issued an emergency order, May 26, regarding the continuing asylum-seeker crisis. In a press release he said, “Today, I issued an emergency order as New York City continues to grapple with a shortage of available housing options for families and individuals fleeing desperate circumstances and legally seeking asylum. We remain supportive of Governor Hochul’s coordinated and humane approach to addressing this crisis and this emergency order serves to protect the local communities from bearing any costs associated with the potential arrival of asylum seekers.”
The emergency order repeats the county’s calls “for a coordinated approach in which New York State will serve as the lead agency, working to identify potential federal and state sites to temporarily house asylum seekers,” the release added.
Veterans for Peace Golden Rule sailing into Port Jeff Harbor
The Golden Rule, above, will enter Port Jefferson Harbor tomorrow, May 26, at 6 p.m. Photo courtesy Myrna Gordon
Veterans for Peace Golden Rule will be sailing into Port Jefferson Harbor on Friday, May 26, at approximately 6 p.m. and will be docked at Harborfront Park from May 26-28.
This historic small ship is currently on a journey along the Atlantic coast for educational conversations about peace, nuclear disarmament, clean water and collective consciousness for our environment.
In 1958, as atmospheric nuclear testing heightened the stakes in the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Golden Rule sailed toward the Marshall Islands aspiring to stop early atmospheric testing.
The Golden Rule was the first sailing vessel in American history to practice nonviolent activism on the high seas 65 years ago and was the forerunner for today’s better-known Greenpeace ships, as well as the template for every kayak, canoe and outboard motorboat that’s peacefully protested anything in the nearly seven decades since.
The Golden Rule helped ignite a worldwide movement to end nuclear testing and led to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed by President John F. Kennedy [D] in October 1963, some five years after the initial action.
The boat has a significant connection to Long Island as its first crew included William Huntington, a Quaker from St. James. In homage to him, a true trailblazer, the Society of Friends, Conscience Bay Quakers Meeting will join members of the Setalcott Nation, the original stewards of our waterfront community, and many other peace and justice organizations in meeting the boat and welcoming its captain and crew.
North Country Peace Group with South Country Peace Group are the sponsors of this event with a special acknowledgment to the Conscience Bay Quakers. We hope everyone can join us.
Myrna Gordon
Port Jefferson
Words matter in immigration dialogue
One of the most beautiful elements of America is diversity. The immigrants who live in our communities contribute to our economy, our culture and our public life. We are a better nation for it.
We have seen a vilification of those seeking asylum at our southern border. This past Sunday, local, state, and federal Suffolk County Republicans held a press conference, announcing a plan to hire legal counsel to block asylum seekers from entering Suffolk County.
Though seeking asylum is legal, county Legislature Presiding Officer Kevin McCaffrey [R-Lindenhurst] said, “We don’t know who’s coming over.” In doing so, McCaffrey implies that asylum seekers are a danger to us.
U.S. Congressman Nick LaLota [R-NY1] differentiated between documented and undocumented immigrants. Both ignore a basic truth: Asylum seekers are fleeing their countries because of climate change, poverty and political violence. They are not seeking to do us harm. Our federal government must provide assistance and address these root causes in our foreign policy. That is the direction we must take, rather than demonizing and “othering” asylum seekers.
Today’s asylum seekers remind me of my paternal grandfather. As a teenager, he fled Odessa [now in Ukraine] after his father, a practicing rabbi, was murdered in Siberia. My grandfather didn’t consider paperwork — he fled to survive. My grandfather may have had a different religion and skin color than the migrants at the border, but their stories and their humanity are quite similar. As a Jew who has had branches of my family tree cut off by political violence, I know that “Never Again” applies to every one of us, including asylum seekers.
Words matter. When our politicians use xenophobic rhetoric like the county Republicans are, it makes all of us less safe. Will the base they have riled up distinguish between which of their neighbors are documented or undocumented? Did the teenager who murdered Marcelo Lucero in Patchogue in 2008 check his immigration status before ending his life? Rather than learning from our history, the county Republicans seem intent on repeating that harm, all in the name of firing up their base for the November elections.
We cannot accept this in Suffolk. We must seek solutions that bring us all together, rather than divide us up. We must expect more from our elected leaders. If they cannot deliver, we must vote them out and replace them with moral leaders who can.
Shoshana Hershkowitz
South Setauket
Concerns about proposedMaryhaven development
The 19 units in Canyon Creek, which were completed in 1999, are directly impacted by any activities on the former Maryhaven Center of Hope site on Myrtle Avenue.
All four Port Jefferson Village trustees have met with several of the Canyon Creek Home Owners Association members on-site, and we expressed to them our overall concerns about the proposed development of the site by Beechwood Homes.
Our biggest concern is the proposed nearly 200 units, on the 10-acre site, to be priced at approximately $1 million each, in buildings that would be allowed to be three stories in height, plus the requirement for two parking spaces per unit.
Canyon Creek is located on close to 10 acres and has 19 units. We would hope that the village Board of Trustees would change the zoning to include a requirement of an equal density in the adjoining property. Our quiet and peaceful neighborhood will be detrimentally impacted with the proposal now before the board.
The proposed development plan calls for preserving the old building on the former Maryhaven site, but Beechwood is seeking concessions from Port Jefferson Village to change the zoning code to allow for increased density of residences on the site. The consensus among the homeowners is that while there are positive considerations for preserving the historic building and converting it for residential and recreational use, as proposed by Beechwood, the allowance of an incentive of increased units and taller structures as a tradeoff is absolutely detrimental to the Canyon Creek community.
There are numerous serious adverse impacts on our community from such a development so close to our backyards: loss of privacy, noise, change in ambience of the surrounding area, increased traffic, water runoff into properties and many more.
We as a community are very concerned that there appears to be a rush to change the code to allow the development of a property that would be inconsistent with the surrounding area without submitting an environmental and traffic study for full public review and comment.
We recognize that the board’s only role is to alter the zoning code, and we hope that they will take into consideration how all of Port Jefferson will be impacted, as well as the devastating impact it will have on Canyon Creek.
Maybe it’s the mayor and school board that lack that vision and understanding. The community wants answers. Port Jefferson currently spends over $50,000 per student, well above other districts. Our enrollment is declining, with graduating classes projected to drop to near 60 students by 2031.
Taxes are already projected in the school district’s current financial plan to increase 34% by the 2027-28 school year. After the LIPA glide path expires in 2028, taxes would double if the plant is closed. Mayor Garant said “The norm is like another 10-year glide path to give you a chance to settle into another loss of revenue.” [“Powering down?” May 18, TBR News Media]. Really, another glide path — what norm?
Over 10 years, Shoreham saw its LIPA taxes — which represented 90% of its budget — drop 10% per year. There was no further assistance. If the mayor knows where Port Jeff would get yet another glide path, please let us know the source, and have their representatives confirm it. And will this white knight also provide additional benefits for Northport and Glenwood Landing, which are on similar glide paths to Port Jefferson?
As an alternative to hoping for a magical rescue, let’s plan appropriately and realistically, with every option considered before we are asked to commit to another long-term bond that would effectively remove several options from consideration. Let’s find out if other districts would be interested in a merger or tuitioning our students. Let’s have an impartial consultant analyze the numbers and determine what our taxes would be with LIPA gone if we continue alone, or with a merger or some combination.
Also, let’s discuss whether the opportunities for our projected 60-student per grade high school enrollment would be greater, and at less expense, in a merged or tuitioned district.
And will the mayor and school board please stop discounting the feasibility of a merger based on our current school tax rate being so much lower than neighboring districts. That projected rate is 190.11%, according to PJSD’s Summary of Estimated Revenues in the 2023-24 Draft Budget, an increase from 178.46%. Take out LIPA’s assessed value and by my calculations the rate jumps to 330.37% which is equal to or greater than surrounding districts.
Our vision and understanding needs answers.
Robert J. Nicols
Port Jefferson
The reality of closing local generating plants
Your editorial and lead article [TBR News Media, May 18] both address the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed stringent limitations on power plants’ emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that cause the climate change we already see here.
The EPA’s proposal is consistent with the existing state Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act that mandates similar reductions in New York state of fossil fuel generation and its replacement with renewably generated electricity.
Both TBR pieces recognize that the Northport and the Port Jefferson plants cannot continue for too many more years to be powered by natural gas.
Your editorial correctly challenges local governments and school districts that have been subsidized by tens of millions of dollars annually that are indirectly paid by other Long Island residents through the taxes on these greatly overassessed properties to start “imagining a future in which those subsidies no longer exist.” These entities should certainly seek state aid to ease this transition, but that is not a long-term solution.
There could be other uses for these sites that are robustly connected to the grid, such as for landing power cables from offshore wind farms, or massive batteries to store electrical energy during times of low renewable generation.
Bruce Miller, former Port Jefferson Village trustee, suggested two possibilities for continued onsite electrical generation. One would be continuing to burn natural gas, while adding equipment to capture the resulting carbon dioxide. This possibility ignores the known substantial leakage of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas — at the well, and all the way to the generating plant. Such carbon dioxide removal equipment does not now exist at scale, and would be rather expensive.
He also suggests burning hydrogen to produce electricity when renewable generation cannot meet demand. Such “green” hydrogen would be produced during the summer from water using renewably generated electricity, stored in large quantities, transported here by pipelines that could not leak even small amounts of climate-changing hydrogen, and burned to produce electricity. The main combustion product would be harmless water. However, the oxides of nitrogen and other polluting combustion products would have to be removed before being released, adding to the cost of the electricity generated.
There are no certain answers to continued use of these sites for electrical purposes to replace lost tax revenues. Just the opposite is true: The higher the taxes on any new facilities, the more expensive will be their operation and less likely they would be built here.
Peter Gollon
Huntington
Editor’s note: The writer was a LIPA trustee from 2016-21.
EPA power plant standards are cost prohibitive
The EPA’s proposed rules for cutting emissions are so onerous that older generators, like Northport and Port Jefferson as well as hundreds around the country, will be shut down because the expense to upgrade would be prohibitive.
These power stations have operated since the 1960s with incredible reliability and cost-effectiveness. They have blessed Long Island and the communities that host them with tax income and life-sustaining, consistent energy. The developed world survives on this.
A main difference between our society and the third world is their lack of affordable, reliable energy. It is also a matter of survival. One can broil in the heat and freeze in the cold. One can starve for lack of food and water. One can die from inadequate health care facilities and resources.
Note well that these power plants have operated within EPA pollution regulations. Now the EPA is moving the goalposts. Companies, towns and cities that have relied on the energy for our civilization will be in mortal danger.
It is extremely difficult, costly and lengthy to site, plan, permit and build a new power station. The real estate is gone. The possibility of rebuilding an old power station to new standards, repowering, may not be cost-effective, especially if there are the preferential power purchase agreements that put wind and solar electricity ahead of fossil fuel generation.
Another consideration is China, Russia, India and the Global South in general are building fossil-fueled power plants, including coal, at a breathtaking rate — hundreds a year. Decarbonization of New York state and the U.S. power plant emissions will have no effect.
Furthermore, wind and solar power operate on average about 20% of the nameplate capacity of generation. Spinning reserves are mandatory. Battery backup, aside from the huge expense, child labor and devastation to the environment in obtaining rare earths, may work for a few hours. Where is that coming from if Northport, Port Jeff and other power stations are closed?
Planet Earth, throughout its billions of years, experienced much higher temperatures and CO2. In fact, the Holocene period, with the greatest explosion of flora and fauna in history, flourished with way higher temperatures and CO2. Life adapted and thrived. In fact, thousands of scientists confirm there is no CO2 crisis.
Buy some candles if this goes through.
Mark Sertoff
East Northport
Have you seen my wife?
If you live in the village of Port Jeff, I’m sure you have.
The kids and I, however … not so much. Since my wife, Kathianne Snaden, became village trustee in 2019 and deputy mayor in 2021, I sometimes think village residents get to see her more than we do.
When I get home from work, my first question to the kids is, “Where’s Mom?” Their answer in that typical teenage voice is usually, “At a meetinggggg… .”
It seems like my wife is always at a meeting. Board meetings, trustee work sessions, union negotiations, meetings with business owners, meetings with residents, meetings with Suffolk County Police Department brass, and on and on the list goes. When what she does as deputy mayor comes up in conversation and she explains all that she actually does here in the village most residents respond with some variation of “wow, I didn’t realize that you did so much.” All the nice flowers you see planted this week … Kathianne personally worked with the garden center and the parks department to make that happen and so much more.
Kathianne makes so many positive safety and quality-of-life improvements here in the village it would be difficult to list them all in under 400 words.
On top of all that, I think one of the things that really sets Kathianne apart is her willingness to meet with people, be approachable and be open to any inquiry from residents. On more than one occasion, Kathianne and I have been out in the village and she will post online where we are and anyone who wants to talk can come down and sit with us, whether we are at the Farmers Market, watching our kids play at Rocketship Park or even out to dinner. Kathianne makes herself available to everyone.
As a business owner, I recognize the drive and positive spirit my wife has to get anything done that she sets her mind to, and I’ve seen her do it. As a Port Jeff resident, I’m thankful for the great ideas, programs and initiatives she has brought to the village that benefit us all.
As a husband I’m so proud — she impresses me every day. And while it means I (and the kids) still won’t see her that much at home, I urge everyone to vote for Kathianne Snaden for mayor so she can continue to excel for us here in Port Jeff.
William Snaden
Port Jefferson
Sheprow will put residents first
It’s time for a change of direction in Port Jefferson. That’s why I’m proud to endorse my long-time friend, Lauren Sheprow, for mayor.
I’ve known Lauren since our days at Scraggy Hill Elementary. She’s always been bright, dedicated, focused and, most importantly, a great friend. As a single mom, she raised three wonderful children while pursuing a career that ultimately led to her becoming chief media relations officer at Stony Brook University.
I know running for mayor wasn’t in Lauren’s plan. But when she became a village trustee, she saw major decisions being made without any input from residents. So she did what Lauren always does — started asking the tough questions. The concerns she raised, however, even when they identified a potential conflict of interest or a question of ethics, were frequently met with denial or simply ignored. That’s part of the reason she decided to run.
With deep roots in Port Jeff, Lauren has a vision that’s focused on putting residents first. She wants to bring best business practices back, increase transparency and put an end to closed-door decision-making. Lauren is a communications professional and as mayor will work to improve our relationships with the business community — as well as our town, county and state governments — to ensure we’re making the most of all our resources.
She’ll also put an end to wasteful spending. On day one, Lauren will seek board consensus to enlist the expertise of a forensic accountant and an administrative consultant to help bring fiscal responsibility and operational excellence to Port Jefferson.
If, like me, you’re ready for new leadership and a fresh start for the village, I urge you to vote for Lauren Sheprow as our next mayor.
April Quiggle
Port Jefferson
Exploiting bail reformis not a solution
In response to my letter on bail reform [“Eliminating bail reduces recidivism,” TBR News Media, May 4], Jim Soviero takes exception to my use of the term “crocodile tears” [“Local crime exposes bail reform dangers,” May 18] to describe his professed concern for “minorities” that “tragically . . . continue to suffer disproportionately from violent crime.”
This was not an attack on his person or behavior, or an attempt to question the sincerity of his political beliefs. My point was that it seems a trifle presumptuous for Soviero, who is white, to proffer ending bail reform as a cure for the suffering of “minorities” when they themselves overwhelmingly disagree.
The larger point is that exploiting bail reform to excite fear and division for political gain is the worst possible way to actually address the underlying issues behind violent crime. Bail reform isn’t something that was just dreamed up by “leftist think tanks” as Soviero puts it. It was to address a very real problem he ignores, namely, the inequity of a system that condemns people who have not been convicted to days, weeks or even months in jails such as Rikers Island, for, in effect, the crime of being poor. As I noted in my May 4 letter, it is overwhelmingly supported in the minority community. If it’s so harmful to them there’s a very simple remedy— they can vote out their representatives who support it.
Soviero scoffs at the data presented by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice study I cited, surrounding the word “data” with scare quotes. Naturally, since the data doesn’t support his contention that bail reform is terrible, he would much rather rely on anecdotal evidence that seems to. And for every horror story he could cite where someone was harmed by a person arraigned and released without bail, I could cite a horror story of someone who committed suicide or whose life was damaged beyond repair by being held in jail for days or weeks without being convicted. The point is, this is no way to formulate criminal justice policy. If we don’t use data, what do we use? Who can cite the most sensationalized anecdotes?
New York City Mayor Eric Adams [D], whom Soviero approvingly cited in his original letter denouncing bail reform, recently termed fixing it a “bumper sticker slogan.” Adams is right. Instead of politicians weaponizing this issue for political gain what we need is reasoned discussion of underlying issues. The problems with the criminal justice system are much deeper and more entrenched beyond the obsession with this one issue.
David Friedman
St. James
Editor’s note: This correspondence on bail reform is now closed.
Immigration advocates during a May 23 press conference at the William H. Rogers Legislature Building in Hauppauge. Photo by Raymond Janis
A nationwide debate over immigration, coupled with the end of Title 42, is sending shockwaves through Suffolk County.
Title 42, a COVID-19 pandemic-era federal immigration policy that expired earlier this month, enabled U.S. Border Control agents to swiftly expel asylum seekers on public health grounds. The end of the procedure has led to a spike in new migrants entering the country, with many directed toward New York City and, possibly, Long Island.
Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has identified three SUNY campuses, including Stony Brook University, for migrant housing, Spectrum News NY1 reported on Tuesday.
NYC received more than 900 migrants daily over several days, Mayor Eric Adams (D) told CBS News “Face the Nation,” Sunday, May 21. It is an influx, the mayor suggested, that has overburdened the city’s budget and facilities. Adams called upon Hochul and counties throughout the state to assist his city, referring to the requested relief as a statewide “decompression strategy.”
“New York City is the economic engine of the state and the country,” he said. “We believe the entire state should participate in a decompression strategy, and it’s unfortunate that there have been some lawmakers and counties that are not carrying on their role of ensuring that this is a decompression strategy throughout the state.”
Tensions swelled on the same Sunday morning during a press conference at the William H. Rogers Legislature Building where immigration advocates clashed with Republican lawmakers.
Suffolk County Legislature Presiding Officer Kevin McCaffrey, at podium, with Republican officials during a press conference at the William H. Rogers Legislature Building on Sunday, May 21. Photo by Raymond Janis
Suffolk County Legislature Presiding Officer Kevin McCaffrey (R-Lindenhurst), standing alongside U.S. Congressman Nick LaLota (R-NY1) and Republicans from across levels of government, criticized the city’s policies, affirming that Suffolk County is not open to new asylum seekers.
“New York City made a conscious decision to call itself a sanctuary city. Suffolk County did not,” McCaffrey said.
U.S. Congressman Nick LaLota during the May 21 press conference. Photo by Raymond Janis
He added, “The residents of Suffolk County have already dealt with the financial costs of the pandemic and the historic inflation because of the failed policies of the state and federal government. We cannot stand by and allow the residents of Suffolk County to further burden the failed policies of the Biden, Hochul and Adams [Democratic] administrations in dealing with this crisis.”
McCaffrey stated the federal government’s vetting process is inadequate, so “we do not know who’s being sent into this county,” noting the potential strain upon law enforcement is still undetermined.
He described the expected cost of food, shelter and related medical and school expenses as “daunting,” saying that financial assistance from the federal and state governments would be “a mere drop in the bucket compared to what it would actually cost” to accommodate these requests.
“We cannot allow the federal [government] and state to pass on these costs to the residents of Suffolk County,” McCaffrey added.
LaLota criticized New York City’s sanctuary city designation, tying the influx of asylum seekers to unresolved issues at the U.S.-Mexico border.
“We here in Suffolk County are 2,000 miles from the southern border, but we are to become a border county because of the Biden administration’s failed border policies and the sanctuary city policies of New York City,” the congressman said.
Protesters storm a press conference at the William H. Rogers Legislature Building in Hauppauge on Sunday, May 21. Photo by Raymond Janis
Throughout the Sunday morning press conference, the speakers heard steady chants from the gallery opposing their efforts. “No hate. No fear. Immigrants are welcome here,” the protesters cried in unison.
Two days later, at the same county complex in Hauppauge, the immigration advocates held their own press conference Tuesday morning.
“For far too long, Suffolk Republicans have denied Long Island families — particularly those seeking asylum — the freedom to thrive,” said Elmer Flores, advisory board member of the Long Island Immigration Clinic. “People seeking asylum are individuals, children and families that deserve to live in peace and live free from danger, which is why exercising their human and legal right to seek safety in the U.S. should be protected.”
Minerva Perez, executive director at OLA [Organización Latino Americana] of Eastern Long Island, during a May 23 press conference in Hauppauge. Photo by Raymond JanisMinerva Perez, executive director at OLA [Organización Latino Americana] of Eastern Long Island, suggested the vetting process for asylum seekers is adequate, noting the possible regional economic benefits of expanding the workforce.
“Asylum seekers can work — they are given work permits,” Perez said. “If anyone’s noticed, there’s also a labor shortage in Suffolk County. Do the math.”
Ivan Larios, manager of organizing and strategy for the Long Island branch of the New York Immigration Coalition, appealed for the acceptance of new asylum requests on humanitarian grounds, noting the harsh conditions from which many are fleeing.
“Immigrants are already a part of our community and make Long Island richer and better because of their economic, social and cultural contributions,” he said. “People seeking asylum are individuals, children and families fleeing danger and persecution in exercising their human right, a legal right to seek safety in the United States.”
Despite these appeals, the county Legislature introduced a procedural motion on May 23 to appoint a special counsel “to pursue any and all legal options available to protect the unfunded location of any asylum seekers in Suffolk County,” McCaffrey said.
A vote on the motion is expected during the Legislature’s June 6 meeting.
