Tags Posts tagged with "David Tonjes"

David Tonjes

David Tonjes. Photo by Tania Thomas

Stony Brook University Research Associate Professor David Tonjes of Huntington received the 2024 Eco Award from Westchester County’s Department of Environmental Facilities at its fifth annual Eco Awards ceremony on April 18. 

The Eco Award recognizes outstanding contributions to the environment and sustainability made by residents, students, schools, municipalities, businesses, and organizations.

“I appreciate this award. I couldn’t have done this without my hard-working, dedicated team,” Professor Tonjes said. “The most satisfaction, however, comes from knowing that we may be finding ways to encourage better ways of recycling to help our planet.” 

Selected for his research designed to improve the management of solid waste in New York State, Tonjes has worked on solid waste issues in New York State for thirty years. Related to his research, Tonjes has led teams of students, supervisors and faculty to categorize 43 different types of waste each summer, sorting through 50 tons of waste to-date. In addition, in 2021, Professor Tonjes was key in the entering of a Memorandum of Understanding between Stony Brook University’s Waste Data and Analysis Center and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, awarding $4.25 million to characterize solid waste and improve its recycling. 

“His leadership in Stony Brook’s research on improving solid waste management across New York State was a key factor in his selection. His work serves as an inspiration for residents and aligns perfectly with Stony Brook’s commitment to sustainability,” said Firman Firmansyah, PhD, a research supervisor and sampling specialist in the Waste Data and Analysis Center at Stony Brook University.

Tonjes has been a professor in the Department of Technology and Society for 18 years. He received his PhD in coastal oceanography at the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University. 

File photo by Raymond Janis

Residents deserve better than one-party rule

In the May 4 edition, the editorial board highlights that the Brookhaven landfill is a major issue in this year’s Town of Brookhaven elections [“The landfill election”]. We need bold leadership to tackle Long Island’s decades-long solid waste crisis. This is an issue of economic, environmental and racial justice that we can no longer afford to ignore.

Carting our garbage off of Long Island to another community is not a sustainable solution. We must reduce our waste, and this cannot only rest on individual households, but also on businesses and producers. We can incentivize waste reduction with pay-as-you-throw programs. We can also utilize the knowledge of experts like Stony Brook University’s research associate professor David Tonjes, whose work on waste management provides guidance on how we can address this crisis with innovation and ingenuity. We are capable of long-term, sustainable policy, but only if we have the political and moral courage to do so.

It is clear to me that the current Town Board are not the people to meet this moment. The past decade of one-party rule in Brookhaven includes a botched rollout of the recycling program, our roads in disrepair, and gerrymandering our council districts to bolster a weak incumbent in the 4th Council District. They have left us with a solid waste crisis, used nearly $250,000 of our taxpayer dollars to pay an EPA fine for air quality violations in 2020, and ignored the voices of the directly impacted residents of North Bellport time and again. They do not deserve to be reelected in 2023.

Outgoing Supervisor Ed Romaine [R] must be held accountable for his role in the failures of the Town Board he has led. Romaine is seeking the office of Suffolk county executive, and he must be questioned about the harm he has had a hand in creating in the Town of Brookhaven. We as voters must consider if he is fit to handle higher office, given the mismanagement of our municipal government under his leadership.

We deserve better elected officials than we currently have in our town government. The communities of color who have been disproportionately impacted by the landfill crisis deserve to be listened to by our representatives. There is too much at stake to accept the status quo and small-minded thinking of the current Town Board. It is time for bold solutions that meet the urgency of the moment. It is time for change.

Shoshana Hershkowitz

South Setauket

Still no funding for Port Jeff Branch electrification

Funding to pay for a number of transportation projects and pay increases for transit workers were items missing from Gov. Kathy Hochul’s [D] $229 billion budget.

There is no new funding to advance Hochul’s three favorite NYC transportation projects: the $8 billion Penn Station improvements; $7.7 billion Second Avenue Subway Phase 2; and $5.5 billion Brooklyn-Queens Interborough Express light rail connection. Also missing was funding to advance the $3.6 billion Long Island Rail Road Port Jefferson Branch electrification project. All Port Jefferson LIRR riders have to date is the ongoing LIRR diesel territory electrification feasibility study.

There was no additional funding to pay for upcoming 2023 NYC Transport Workers Union Local 100 contracts for LIRR and Metro-North Railroad employees. The MTA only budgeted for a 2% increase. NYC TWU president, Richard Davis, will ask for far more so his 40,000 members can keep up with inflation. Both LIRR and MNR unions, with thousands of members, will want the same.

Larry Penner

Great Neck

Maryhaven: a breakdown of process

Our village process is broken. Let’s take the Maryhaven project as a recent example of what’s wrong.

This proposed development should have been brought to the Port Jefferson Village Board of Trustees via the Planning Board, which is responsible for overseeing all building-related matters.

But during the recent public hearing, we learned from the developer that he’d been in discussions with the mayor, deputy mayor and village clerk for well over a year, despite the fact there was still no proposal before the Planning Board. The first time the rest of the trustees heard about the project was when it was announced by the deputy mayor at a public meeting on March 6 of this year.

It’s likely the village attorney was also aware of these talks. As previously reported in this paper, he was pressing the village to be “proactive” and change the code to rezone the property in order to clear the path for the developers, whenever they were ready to apply. To that end, he proposed the May 1 public hearing. The attorney also suggested that if the code modification wasn’t suitable to the residents as is, there would be an opportunity to make adjustments. That is not entirely accurate.

We know this from our experience with the Mather Hospital expansion. Before the project came to a public hearing, the village made several decisions, from seemingly irrelevant (at the time) code changes to the most crucial, allowing the hospital a variance for extra clearance. The latter resulted in 2 precious acres of forest being cleared.

The impression the village gave at the time was that residents would still have a chance to weigh in. But when that time came, despite nearly 70 letters protesting the clearing of the forest and all the objections raised at the hearing, it was too late.

The Planning Board’s position was that its hands were tied by all those prior decisions, and it did not have the tools to consider the objections. In other words, we should have been paying attention when Mather first announced the master plan.

So forgive us if we’re skeptical when the village attorney tells us that we’ll have an opportunity to comment on the project overall at a later date.

Ana Hozyainova, President

Holly Fils-Aime, Vice President

Port Jefferson Civic Association

Declining public revenue in Port Jeff

The spirit of New York’s Freedom Of Information Act is transparency and access. Its introduction states, “The people’s right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our society. Access to such information should not be thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or confidentiality.”

The issue of the future tax revenue from the Port Jefferson Power Station is critically important to both the Village of Port Jefferson and the Port Jefferson School District. So, it is surprising to me that the LIPA settlement agreement is not made available on the village or school district websites. And when I asked the village that a link be included, I was told that the village attorney advised the village not to put it on the website. I would have to complete a FOIL application. I did so. It had no redactions, and nothing in the document contained any confidentiality clause. The Town of Huntington puts its Northport Power Plant LIPA agreement on its website. So what is the objection to making the Port Jefferson agreement accessible to all on our websites? Would they prefer to have the fewest taxpayers know its full terms and potential consequences?

While both the village and school district are quick to tell us how little our tax bills will rise when promoting 30-year bond proposals, their assumptions are highly suspect given the lack of any reasonable assurance that the LIPA benefit will survive beyond the glide path expiration just four years away. Both the Port Jeff and the Northport agreements state that any extensions under the same terms beyond the 2027 expirations are dependent on power needs of National Grid. With repowering off the table, and the state’s goal of 70% renewable energy by 2030, it would seem there is little likelihood of any significant extension beyond expiration. The Port Jefferson Village budget for 2023-24 reveals LIPA taxes covering 36% of property taxes while the school district budget includes LIPA representing 42%.

It’s time for the village and school district to face the elephant in the room and (1) make critical information available on their websites and (2) for any discussion of potential costs to taxpayers, include calculations that consider a potentially abandoned power plant and taxpayers having to face 60%-plus tax increases to make up the LIPA loss.

Robert J. Nicols

Port Jefferson

Time to put the brakes on spending

Port Jefferson and Belle Terre residents are facing a school district budget and bond vote Tuesday, May 16, at the Port Jefferson high school from 6 a.m. until 9 p.m.

It’s a rather hefty price tag being proposed: $47 million for the proposed 2023-24 budget and close to $16 million additional for a bond focused entirely on enhancements to the high school.

While district residents have been more than generous in past years in support of our schools, maybe it’s time to ask if spending over $50,000 each year to educate a student is really feasible. (That’s the amount when you divide the proposed 2023-24 budget by the 933 students in the district, as suggested by Deputy Superintendent Sean Leister as a simple approximation of the per pupil costs, at the village board meeting on May 1.)

Perhaps this is the time to put the brakes on this spending and take a hard look at the future of the high school and consider alternatives.

Charles G. Backfish

Port Jefferson

We need to say ‘no’ to the school bond

Port Jefferson School District residents will be asked May 16 to approve an almost $16 million bond entirely for the benefit of the high school building. The more crucial question to be asked is: “Why are we considering this enormous expenditure when our high school student population is still dwindling?”

According to the school district’s own numbers — found on the district website or online (Long Range Planning Study, Port Jefferson Union Free School District 2021-22) — our enrollment numbers are declining precipitously. On page 18 of the report, our high school’s total enrollment grades 9-12 by 2031 will be a mere 233 students. Divide that number by the four grades in the school and your average graduating class size by 2031 would be only 58 students.

Port Jefferson high school’s small size cannot be compared to that of a prestigious private high school. Even most of the top private schools like Choate, Phillips and Exeter keep their total high school enrollment over 800 students. Most parents want a high school atmosphere that is academically, athletically and socially rich for their children — a true preparation for college. A high school with less than 240 students can’t realistically provide that.

Our high school is presently functioning with the classroom configurations it has had for decades. Before we invest many millions to move art, tech ed and music to the main building to create team and trainer rooms, let’s first focus on what we do if the high school population keeps dwindling, as the district study projects. 

Perhaps we could maintain a strong pre-K through 8th grade school system here and investigate tuitioning out our high school students to Three Village and/or Mount Sinai. This solution has been used successfully by many small school districts. Other larger local districts are facing declining enrollments as well, undoubtedly because of the high home prices and high taxes presenting an obstacle to young families seeking to move to this area. Given that reality, neighboring school districts would welcome our high school students.

Right now, we need to say “no” to the school bond. Before we spend almost $16 million on the high school building, we must find a solution to this ongoing decline in enrollment. To keep ignoring this serious issue is unfair to our already stressed-out taxpayers — and equally unfair to our future high school students.

Gail Sternberg

Port Jefferson

Experience matters

Kathianne Snaden is running for mayor and Stan Loucks is running for reelection as a trustee for the Village of Port Jefferson. They have worked together on the village board for four years. 

Kathianne has shown to be tireless and dedicated to the betterment of every facet of our village. She has opened the doors to the internal workings of government by live streaming the board meetings, originating the Port eReport and the practice of responding to every and all questions from everyone. As the liaison to the Code Enforcement Bureau, she is totally committed to improving public safety and was responsible for increasing the presence of the Suffolk County Police Department. Kathianne is also our liaison to the Port Jefferson School District. This is an important relationship that was absent and created by Kathianne. 

Stan Loucks has been devoting his retirement years to the Village of Port Jefferson. Prior to his election to the village board in 2015, he was on the tennis board, the board of governors, the greens committee and the Port Jefferson Country Club management advisory committee for a total of 20 years, including chair. Stan has been the liaison to the parks and recreation departments, deputy mayor and liaison to the country club. 

He is a hands-on person who will always be directly involved in any issue related to his duties. He has been directly responsible for numerous projects and improvements such as renovation of the golf course; building a new maintenance facility, driving range, fitness center, membership office; upgrading village parks; initiating relationships with our schools and much more. 

Kathianne was TBR News Media Person of the Year in 2019, and Stan was Person of the Year in 2021. Seems like they would be the team that we would want to represent our village.

Experience, knowledge, integrity, dedication and hard working are qualities that we need.

Jim White

Port Jefferson

Editor’s note: The writer is a former Port Jefferson Village trustee.

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

Pixabay photo

The Village of Port Jefferson is in a complicated permit dispute with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation over its solid waste landfill at Harbor Hills.

The Port Jefferson Village Clean Solid Waste Landfill, a 1.9-acre kettle hole located on the Port Jefferson Country Club property, has been historically operated to facilitate branch and leaf removal services in the village. In 2017, the small landfill was impacted by changes in state regulations, throwing the future of these services into question.

In an exclusive interview, Mayor Margot Garant summarized the nature of the permit dispute between the village and DEC. For decades, the government has renewed its DEC permit every five years to continue operating the landfill. With its permit set to expire on Dec. 11, the village reapplied but met unforeseen resistance.

“Unbeknownst to us in 2017, there were changes in some of the regulations concerning landfills throughout New York state, and they became much more strict,” Garant said. “We got a letter that we weren’t meeting the needs of the new statutory regulations for landfills.” She added, “They basically had classified our little kettle hole to be regulated like a landfill equivalent to the Town of Brookhaven [landfill].”

Garant referred to the pre-2017 regulations as manageable for the village, requiring breakdown and transport of the debris, among other workable conditions. The new rules, however, will “be impossible for us to comply with,” the mayor said.

An unusual landfill 

David Tonjes is a research associate professor at Stony Brook University’s Department of Technology and Society. His research focuses on solid waste management and the environmental impacts of landfills.

While the Port Jefferson site is officially listed as a landfill regulated under the Long Island Landfill Law, Tonjes described it as distinct from other landfills throughout the area.

“It’s unusual because it doesn’t have a liner system, which is required for all landfills on Long Island,” he said. “As far as I know, it doesn’t have any landfilling functions, which is to take things in, cover them up, and manage the gas and leachate [that are] generated when you do that sort of thing.”

Garant agreed that the landfill does not fit neatly into a conventional classification category, given its prior use. Consequently, the village government is considering entering into negotiations with DEC to reclassify the landfill as a transfer station.

Garant said a change of classification could enable the village to continue using the site. “We realized we were managing this more like a transfer station than we were a landfill, and that’s going to be our approach with the DEC,” the mayor said. “As a transfer station, it means that [branches and leaves] are held here on a temporary basis, broken down and relocated, just like we were doing.”

She added, “If we have to abandon the kettle hole, we then have to put a barrier down, backfill it with clean fill, bring up the grade, and that’s going to cost us approximately $500,000 to do that, to abandon it.”

Tonjes said the Port Jeff landfill seems to fit some of the conditions for a transfer station. However, he noted that DEC guidelines for transfer stations are generally restrictive.

“Typically, a transfer station is a site where waste comes in and is kept under a roof for a period of time, and then it’s moved out to either a reuse point or disposal point,” he said. Depending on the materials stored, that temporary window of time could be as small as 24 hours.

An uncertain future

‘It calls for a degree of technical oversight and awareness that may be too expensive for the village to do.’

— David Tonjes

Conflicts with DEC over the long-term storage of branches and brush are not unique to Port Jefferson. Tonjes said several towns along the East End had met stiff opposition from DEC due to accumulations of storm debris. 

Such materials, if processed promptly, could have been reused. “When they grind it up, they end up with a pile of wood chips that no one really wants,” the associate professor said. “They’re really low-value material, they end up with stuff that should have been reused.”

Tonjes suggests Port Jeff is entangled within a broader conflict within New York state over the reuse of organic waste. By cracking down on the long-term storage of organic waste, DEC aims to reuse these materials before their reuse value diminishes.

While municipalities have historically been responsible for waste disposal functions, this may soon change. Given the ballooning costs associated with managing solid waste, Tonjes suggests these may soon be too burdensome for a small municipality such as the village.

“With the village being such a small entity and trying to run its own — in a sense — disposal facility, it calls for a degree of technical oversight and awareness that may be too expensive for the village to do,” he said.

Further complicating matters is the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. This 2019 law mandates New York to reduce economywide greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels. 

Enforcing these standards, Tonjes said, would require the complete overhaul of the state’s waste management apparatus.

Under this law, “all government actions have to comply with the notion of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions,” he said. “Almost all solid waste activities involve greenhouse gas emissions, so it’s clear that solid waste management will have to change dramatically to account for this new law.”

Meanwhile, Garant admitted that the changes in state law blindsided the village. For her, the permit controversy with DEC offers a window into the challenges small municipalities encounter when interfacing with higher levels of government.

“When large government makes change to a section of the code, they really don’t know the trickle-down impacts that they are making,” she said. “Wanting to be in full compliance, making an application six months ahead of time, now I’m in a situation where I’m in the middle of branch and leaf pickup, and I’m going to have a permit expiring.”

Tonjes said conversations surrounding solid waste management are only getting started. He suggests that finding a workable solution to these complex problems requires significant coordination between all levels of government.

“The future is going to get very interesting in terms of regulating how the state manages its garbage,” he said.