Edgemere Congestion

Montauk

August 10, 2015

To the Editor,

At the Aug. 6 town meeting, the East Hampton Town Board took a major step forward in coming to grips with one of Montauk’s largest public safety issues by unanimously agreeing to end parking on key areas of Edgemere Avenue. The board deserves great credit in recognizing and responding to a problem that has existed since the Surf Lodge, a local bar located on Edgemere, first opened for business.

A second, and equally dangerous, Surf Lodge problem was also discussed. As each summer evening advances, huge traffic jams occur at the club’s entrance, caused by dozens of cabs picking and dropping off customers. These jams more than frequently spread across the entire width of Edgemere, with double and sometimes triple-standing creating a huge automotive entanglement. Added to this pandemonium are Surf Lodge employees illegally directing traffic, dozens of unlawful cabbie U-turns, patrons walking to and from their cars, and the regular flow of private automobiles waiting to move through the mayhem. The time of night, the glare of lights, and the average sobriety of those involved make for an incredibly intense, almost surreal recipe for disaster.

There also exists a much more serious situation that has the potential to harm anyone, anywhere in Montauk. During the public forum, the chairman of the Montauk Fire Commissioners, two Montauk fire chiefs, and a Montauk emergency medical technician rose to speak. Each individual, in his own way, eloquently spoke of the nightly Surf Lodge traffic nightmare and the inability of called-upon fire, rescue, and emergency apparatus to negotiate the above described, intense, non-responding human and automotive traffic at the club’s entrance. These men, all long-term serving volunteers, were not talking about inconvenience or irritation but the very serious danger of loss of lives and property, Montauk lives and property. Perhaps one day your life and property.

The four men pleaded for immediate relief and a permanent correction to this constantly repeated danger. The E.M.T. concluded with a tale of a recent emergency call concerning a 1-year-old child, and the E.M.T.’s loss of valuable time in the inability to pass through the Surf Lodge congestion.

The town board recognized and acknowledged the dangerous existence of the problem and the fact that the proposed no-parking legislation, while a major advance, did little to correct the above. The supervisor then read a recent analysis of the problem by the East Hampton Town police chief, which recognized the extent of danger and the extreme difficulty in formulating a workable, effective solution. The report next stated the problem itself could be adequately solved if the Surf Lodge would employ its own private property, an adjacent courtyard, as a pickup/drop-off center for cabs, thus moving the automotive and human mayhem from Edgemere to the private and safer realm of the business’s courtyard. The proposal represented a swift, safe, effective, and equitable solution.

The chief’s report then stated, “Surf Lodge management categorically refused to entertain any and all total or partial action that would physically impose on any portion of their private property.”

What we have here is a business that solely and individually created one of the most dangerous traffic situations in Montauk, a situation that has the potential to disastrously affect anyone, anywhere in Montauk, a business that has the means to quickly and effectively solve the problem but absolutely refuses to do so, a business that has immensely benefited from its physical location in Montauk but rejects any concept of cause, guilt, or responsibility of action. A business that has refused in any and every way to consider issues other than profit, thereby forcing the community to commit time, dollars, and effort in hopefully rectifying the mess that the business itself has created. A business that through its inaction and refusal of civic responsibility will continue to have Montauk suffer and be plagued by a problem that someday, no doubt, will prove disastrous.

Perhaps some may think the above conclusion is unfair, or the concepts of profit and private property by far trump those of civic responsibility and public good. To those I say: Tell that story to the parents of the 1-year-old.

Each of Montauk United’s 400-plus members reaches out to Surf Lodge owners and management to please reconsider your stated position, your responsibility and your obligation as a member of the Montauk community. Whatever, if any, profits forsaken will be more than multiplied by the goodwill and thanks of a grateful community.

TOM BOGDAN

Montauk United

To the Editor,

At the Aug. 6 town meeting, the East Hampton Town Board took a major step forward in coming to grips with one of Montauk’s largest public safety issues by unanimously agreeing to end parking on key areas of Edgemere Avenue. The board deserves great credit in recognizing and responding to a problem that has existed since the Surf Lodge, a local bar located on Edgemere, first opened for business.

A second, and equally dangerous, Surf Lodge problem was also discussed. As each summer evening advances, huge traffic jams occur at the club’s entrance, caused by dozens of cabs picking and dropping off customers. These jams more than frequently spread across the entire width of Edgemere, with double and sometimes triple-standing creating a huge automotive entanglement. Added to this pandemonium are Surf Lodge employees illegally directing traffic, dozens of unlawful cabbie U-turns, patrons walking to and from their cars, and the regular flow of private automobiles waiting to move through the mayhem. The time of night, the glare of lights, and the average sobriety of those involved make for an incredibly intense, almost surreal recipe for disaster.

There also exists a much more serious situation that has the potential to harm anyone, anywhere in Montauk. During the public forum, the chairman of the Montauk Fire Commissioners, two Montauk fire chiefs, and a Montauk emergency medical technician rose to speak. Each individual, in his own way, eloquently spoke of the nightly Surf Lodge traffic nightmare and the inability of called-upon fire, rescue, and emergency apparatus to negotiate the above described, intense, non-responding human and automotive traffic at the club’s entrance. These men, all long-term serving volunteers, were not talking about inconvenience or irritation but the very serious danger of loss of lives and property, Montauk lives and property. Perhaps one day your life and property.

The four men pleaded for immediate relief and a permanent correction to this constantly repeated danger. The E.M.T. concluded with a tale of a recent emergency call concerning a 1-year-old child, and the E.M.T.’s loss of valuable time in the inability to pass through the Surf Lodge congestion.

The town board recognized and acknowledged the dangerous existence of the problem and the fact that the proposed no-parking legislation, while a major advance, did little to correct the above. The supervisor then read a recent analysis of the problem by the East Hampton Town police chief, which recognized the extent of danger and the extreme difficulty in formulating a workable, effective solution. The report next stated the problem itself could be adequately solved if the Surf Lodge would employ its own private property, an adjacent courtyard, as a pickup/drop-off center for cabs, thus moving the automotive and human mayhem from Edgemere to the private and safer realm of the business’s courtyard. The proposal represented a swift, safe, effective, and equitable solution.

The chief’s report then stated, “Surf Lodge management categorically refused to entertain any and all total or partial action that would physically impose on any portion of their private property.”

What we have here is a business that solely and individually created one of the most dangerous traffic situations in Montauk, a situation that has the potential to disastrously affect anyone, anywhere in Montauk, a business that has the means to quickly and effectively solve the problem but absolutely refuses to do so, a business that has immensely benefited from its physical location in Montauk but rejects any concept of cause, guilt, or responsibility of action. A business that has refused in any and every way to consider issues other than profit, thereby forcing the community to commit time, dollars, and effort in hopefully rectifying the mess that the business itself has created. A business that through its inaction and refusal of civic responsibility will continue to have Montauk suffer and be plagued by a problem that someday, no doubt, will prove disastrous.

Perhaps some may think the above conclusion is unfair, or the concepts of profit and private property by far trump those of civic responsibility and public good. To those I say: Tell that story to the parents of the 1-year-old.

Each of Montauk United’s 400-plus members reaches out to Surf Lodge owners and management to please reconsider your stated position, your responsibility and your obligation as a member of the Montauk community. Whatever, if any, profits forsaken will be more than multiplied by the goodwill and thanks of a grateful community.

TOM BOGDAN

Montauk United

The Montauk Crisis

Montauk

July 17, 2015

To the Editor,

The present and past East Hampton Town Board administrations have had varied and disparate approaches to the major civic crises confronting the citizens of Montauk. One policy was mean, the other nice. One argumentative, the other polite, one insulting and dismissive, the other courteous and attentive. Unfortunately, neither one has been in any way effective in coming to Montauk’s aid. Both have failed through neglect, insubstantial effort, and what appears to be a general lack of actual productive action in coming to grips with Montauk’s problems.

In the final analysis, both approaches have been abject failures and an insult to the faith Montauk citizens have placed in their elective officials. While acknowledging the problems are large, complicated, and not easily solved, Montauk deserves a higher form of political representation and protection then has been offered in the past.

As a surprise to absolutely no one, without effective positive action neither mean nor nice works. What will work is courage. Courage and conviction. To have the political courage and sincerity to confront these serious problems and the conviction to do what is necessary to solve them. To have the courage to go beyond the excuse and protective cover of an endless series of why-we-cant’s, and to have the conviction to create and implement effective and innovative strategies. The courage to do the right thing, to place blame where it belongs and to strike to the very heart of the problem, rather than meandering around the ineffective and peripheral. The town board must realize that while Montauk appreciates your good wishes, and believes your expressions of sympathy are sincere, we demand more. Much, much more. We demand courage. The courage to:

• Define publicly what the board believes to be the main problems confronting Montauk.

• Design, explain, and implement innovative and effective measures, and publicly present these solutions in terms of a planned series of goals, both short- term and long-term.

• Appoint individuals and/or committees who will have the authority, responsibility, and motivation for implementation.

• Establish objective timelines and periods of and for public appraisal.

• Make the information available to the public in a timely and easily accessible manner in terms of the success or failure of the plan.

• Have the guts to follow through on all of the above, no matter the political consequences.

At the July 14 meeting in Montauk, a remarkable amount of suggestions and requests were met with “can’t dos” by the town board, for various and sundry reasons. This may be an indication of the council’s lack of experience, or general befuddlement in effectively dealing with this type of civil crisis. If this is indeed the case, it is strongly urged and suggested that an outside experienced task force and/or consultant be hired to deal with the problem. It would be of no shame to delegate the issue to a more appropriate, experienced, and effective body — the very same approach that was employed in the strategy concerning recent East Hampton Airport issues, where no more than 3 percent of the general town population was affected, as compared to 20 times that number in regard to the Montauk crisis.

No matter what the approach, the responsibility is, of course, the town board’s to effectively confront this crisis. The vast majority, if not all, of Montauk citizenry is prepared and ready to stand by the board in all their efforts. In order to assist the town board, a citizens’ action committee is being formed, the details of which will be made public in the coming weeks. Anyone wishing to participate in this important effort is invited to email [email protected]

Never before has Montauk been faced with such a serious social problem. Never before have Montauk’s citizens stood as one in their outrage of the civil abuse and incredible bad behavior that, if left unabated, has the real potential to destroy the very special fabric of our community. Let us face this problem together as one united, organized force. Together, we have the will, strength, and power to prevail.

TOM BOGDAN

Urgency, Please!

MONTAUK UNITED

During the last three months of 2015 MONTAUK UNITED completed two major studies concerning issues currently affecting Montauk. The results of these studies were presented to Town Supervisor Cantwell and Montauk’s Council representative Councilman Van Scoyoc. The following is a summary of the study’s finding and recommendations from those participating.

SOCIAL MISCONDUCT:

The study was undertaken in an attempt to ascertain new and proven effective methods of dealing with late night bad and intolerable public behavior as was so conspicuous during Montauk’s 2015 summer season. Telephone interviews were conducted with a number of municipalities who experienced similar issues and their successes and failures in attempting to solve the problem. Municipalities included those located in Westchester and Nassau Counties, New York City, the New Jersey shore areas, Montana, Texas, Missouri, and Florida. While the demographic and population statistics varied, the basic problems were the same. Additionally, several members of MONTAUK UNITED who had practical law enforcement experience in this area were also included.

In general terms, the municipalities and law enforcement executives were in agreement that steps taken during 2015 Montauk summer season were on the right track and similar in nature to those practiced by the above municipalities. The technique of simultaneously addressing the source (individuals) and enablers (bars and nightclubs) to address the problems were viewed as the most effective strategy. An interesting effective “Enabler” program was learned which included a team strategy of simultaneous enforcement combining Health, Building, Safety and Code enforcement inspections coupled with “selective enforcement techniques.” Additional measures included continuous communication with county and state licensing bureaus and taxing authorities requesting regular audits in the areas of sales tax, bottle sales, table charges, entrance fees, retail sales of spirits and food, and any other type of retail merchandise.

A unique and most effective “Source” program included a series of planned, staged problem area, team based “Zero Tolerance” events conducted throughout a specific period of time.( A sample of such a program was included in the presentation to the members of the Town Board.)

All participants were in agreement of the importance of an effective communication program between the municipalities, the general public and “Source and Enabler” groups outlining the general steps and actions planned to be taken prior to any actual enforcement. The use of social media was emphasized as a key and important element. East Hampton Town was rated very poorly in this area.

It was the unanimous judgement from all study participants that a serious and exacting level of COOPERATION and COMMITMENT by the local Government was essential to the ultimate success of any program. While all who participated in the study agreed that East Hampton Town possessed all of the above, a more intensive, effective, and continuous pressure was required in order to produce the maximum effect. To be successful, the Town was encouraged to increase the level of pressure through additional and more far ranging efforts.

TAXI STUDY:

During the summer 2015 season, Montauk was plagued by an incredible overabundance of illegal taxi services, un-safe vehicles, severe over-charging, and dangerous vehicle operations. MONTAUK UNITED commenced a similar study as the above in an effort to contain and solve the problem. While it was determined that Montauk’s taxi problem is relatively unique, there were areas discovered that very well may lead to an effective, economical solution.

It has been maintained that the only solution to the East Hampton Town taxi issue is the installation of a Town wide taxi commission at an estimated cost of upwards of $250,000, an effort which would be inherently complicated, expensive, bureaucratic, and problematic to maintain and enforce. The MONTAUK UNITED study has discovered a low cost, efficient, highly effective, and practically proven taxi plan as practiced by the city of New Rochelle, N.Y. This Westchester County City has a population of 79.5 thousand (7th largest city in N.Y.S.) and is approximately 10 square miles in size. There are currently 175 city taxi operative medallions issued with plans to increase this number by 50 units in 2016. (Presently the Town of East Hampton has approximately 250 issued taxi licenses with no actual or estimated count of illegal vehicles operating this past summer). All New Rochelle governmental regulatory, operational, maintenance and enforcement issues dealing with the cities’ taxi industry are controlled and maintained by the New Rochelle Police Department. Within the department, all of the above responsibilities of enforcement, maintenance, and operations are the responsibility of one (1) police detective. Specific areas of responsibility include applications, interviews, background checks, insurance, approvals, renewals, vehicle checks, suspension, revocation, and all other areas of operation and enforcement including regular patrol and field inspection.

The detective in charge has managed the above areas of responsibility for over 12 years, has 0 staff and 0 budget. Managerial comments from superiors include the terms “outstanding work,” “efficient operation,” “Ideal Department.”

A 17 page table of organization and official operating procedure of the above department was obtained from the New Rochelle Police Department and presented to the Town Board. Along with the above information the data included Rate Schedules, Police Powers and Duties, Responsibilities of Operators, Penalties and Enforcement, and samples of applications required. It is a complete operational outline of the department. The City of New Rochelle has also invited East Hampton Town officials to visit and observe operational procedures. MONTAUK UNITED urges East Hampton Town officials to contact New Rochelle Police Department for further information.

Additional information and suggestions obtained through the M.U. study:

• Require large unmistakable identity numbers on exterior cab sides.

• Police maintained taxi lines at railroad stations during summer weekends

• Require email and phone taxi backseat signs for customer complaints

• Weekend taxi compliance task force in Montauk

• Printed and posted uniform rate schedules

The Town Board was also presented with a summary and experience report of Beach Fire Rules in the state of California which MU was able to obtain during the research of the above issues. The problems dealing with California beach fires closely resemble those of East Hampton. The study goes into details of the laws and regulations which 21 beach towns have implemented in hopes of preservation.

Tom Bogdan