ELECTION: Town office candidates’ responses to questionnaire about South Fork Wind Farm ahead of Nov. 5 election

See what the candidates for relevant Town-wide offices have to say about the Deepwater (South Fork Wind Farm) project ahead of the Nov. 5, 2019, general election.

We asked all candidates on October 14 to provide responses to several questions. All candidates received that email as well as a follow-up. Find below all unedited responses in alphabetical order (last name). We have indicated if no response has been received.

east hampton town SUPERVISOR

David Gruber

  1. I do not support the Deepwater Wind South Fork Wind Farm (SFWF). For Long Island and NYS, offshore wind energy is an inevitable part of eliminating fossil fuel consumption. But SFWF, as currently designed, is a deeply flawed and inappropriate project. It is so far removed from the objectives it is supposed to meet that one can only conclude that there was improper political influence, almost surely from the governor’s office, in LIPA’s selection of this project to meet its Request for Proposal (RFP).

    The wind farm itself is in the wrong place, inappropriately located in the midst of Cox’s Ledge, one of the most productive fishing grounds and fish breeding grounds in the Northeast. In Denmark, the world leader in offshore wind and the headquarters of state-owned Orsted, the owner of Deepwater Wind, they do not locate wind farms in active fishing grounds for good reason. However, even if the fisheries problems were worked out, there are still profound defects with this project.

    If one reads the original RFP issued by LIPA to which SFWF is supposed to be responsive, it is clear that SWFS fulfills none of the requirements of the RFP. It cannot avoid the upgrading of transmission facilities to serve the South Fork, the major stated purpose of the RFP, for two reasons. First, it is an intermittent source that will provide zero power at times for longer than battery storage life, which means the facilities must still exist to obtain all our power from the LIPA grid. Second, load balancing (keeping production equal to consumption in real-time, as is technically necessary for electricity) requires that facilities must exist to transmit most of the output west during the winter months when SFWF output would overwhelm local demand. As well, the 60 mile submarine transmission line is more expensive than the land transmission lines we need. Substituting a submarine cable for a land cable does not avoid transmission upgrades. In addition, SFWF cannot meet our peak summer demand, a stated purpose of the RFP, both because it is an intermittent source and because it is significantly smaller in output than what the RFP requires. SFWF has no “synchronous condenser” capability (exactly the opposite as it is a source that inherently cannot by synchronized with demand). It therefore exacerbates the problem of load-balancing, particularly if connected on the South Fork which is described in the RFP as a partially isolated load-pocket.

    The failure in every respect to meet the requirements of LIPA’s RFP is not the end of the problems with SFWF. According to NYSERDA, it is only 1/3 the minimum size required to be economic. This is at least part of the reason that it is grossly overpriced, 3-4 times the going rate for wind energy and more than double the current LIPA average cost for energy. It makes no economic sense to dedicate a transmission line to a field as small as SFWF. The appropriate structure would be to bundle the transmission with the adjacent fields, such as Sunrise, also owned by Orsted. But if that is done, the connection to the grid, which is technically inevitable for an asynchronous source so that loads can be balanced, cannot possibly be on the South Fork. The production load would be far too large. A larger transmission line for much larger output must come ashore mid-Island where the necessary infrastructure exists.

    Finally, contrary to the misrepresentations about the project, it does not represent a significant contribution to East Hampton’s goal of 100% renewable energy. The project must be connected to the LIPA grid, because it is an asynchronous source. There must be controllable sources, such as gas-fired peaker plants and synchronous condensers, available online to balance the variations in wind output and that is not possible unless all of the sources are simultaneously connected to the grid. Once that is so, there is no physical meaning to the claim that SFWF’s energy will be provided to the South Fork, the name notwithstanding. Electricity simply doesn’t work that way. The entire grid is in virtually simultaneous energy equilibrium (at the speed of light in any case which over the length of Long Island is simultaneous for any practical purpose). The energy is therefore drawn simultaneously by everyone on the grid consuming electricity, from the entire LIPA ratepayer base from the Rockaways to Montauk. That is why the entire LIPA ratepayer base would pay for the energy. East Hampton is only 1.5% of LIPA consumption. Therefore, the only attribution that makes any physical sense at all would be that East Hampton would receive 1.5% of SFWF output. That represents slightly more than 2% of East Hampton’s average annual consumption.

    If SFWF output is bundled and comes ashore up-Island, the reduction in fossil fuel consumption will be exactly the same as if it comes ashore in Wainscott. From the prospective of global warming, it is a matter of complete indifference where it comes ashore. The only thing lost by doing the project the right way, bundling the transmission, would be the ability of some in East Hampton to claim, falsely, that SFWF is meeting East Hampton’s 100% renewable energy goal. The false bragging rights are not merely benign if we are indeed serious about meeting the goal, because SFWF is being used as the excuse for failing to plan for the only possible means of meeting the goal, solar energy (with just possibly a modest contribution for onshore wind). In March 2019, Frank Dalene, a member of the Wainscott CAC and of the Energy Sustainability Committee and its former chair, wrote to the East Hampton Star to say that, after six years of doing nothing, the Town Board does not yet have any idea how to meet the 100% renewable energy goal. He is right.

    For all these reasons, I am opposed to SFWF as presently designed.
  2. For the reasons explained above, I am opposed to bringing the SFWF cable ashore at Beach Lane or anywhere else in East Hampton or east of LIPA’s Canal substation (near Shinnecock in Southampton). It makes no technical or financial sense to bring a wind farm transmission cable ashore in what LIPA correctly describes as a “partially isolated load-pocket.”
  3. If coming ashore in East Hampton is unavoidable due to political pressure from above, Deepwater should be required to evaluate both the shortest route to the Cove Hollow substation and the shortest route that does not pass through a bathing beach and passes the fewest homes and businesses. Assemblyman Thiele told the Wainscott CAC that applicants must be forced to evaluate alternatives and the two alternatives are not enough. I agree. As well, for purposes of proper environmental analysis, alternatives west of East Hampton must also be considered.
  4. Absolutely, the route selected must be that one that minimizes adverse environmental impacts and also achieves the energy production objectives. The current SFWF design does neither.
  5. I would without question use my position to oppose SFWF as presently designed. To be acceptable: (a) the fisheries issues must be addressed, either by relocating the project or assuring both that fisheries impacts are mitigated and that Montauk fisherman are swiftly and fairly compensated for disruption or displacement, and (b) transmission must be bundled with other fields that collectively exceed NYSERDA’s minimum economic size of 400 Mw and then come ashore at a technically, financially, and environmentally proper location.
  6. I am running for Supervisor as the head of the EH Fusion Party slate of candidates, including Betsy Bambrick and Bonnie Brady for Town Board and Rick Drew, Susan Vorpahl, Stephen Lester, David Talmage, Rona Klopman, Michael Havens, and Fallon Bloecker-Nigro for Trustee. I believe we are in broad agreement about SFWF, although there are slight nuances as to which we may differ, such as whether it is even possible to re-design the project in a technically, financially, and environmentally sound manner.

    There are those who may reserve judgment regarding a landing site given that there is not yet an environmental analysis that properly considers the alternatives. It is clear to me, however, that Beach Lane cannot possibly be a technically and financially appropriate site to bring a submarine transmission cable ashore even if it were no worse in its immediate environmental impacts than other sites. Overall, there is environmental harm that would result from a technically and financially inappropriate choice such as Beach Lane as resources are not unlimited and waste reduces our ability to meet critical environmental goals.
  7. For more than 20 years, I have been at the forefront of efforts to bring noise from East Hampton Airport under control. I believe we can yet do so and would use my position vigorously to that end.

Peter Van Scoyoc

No response to the questionnaire received.

Town board (Councilman and Councilwoman)

Elizabeth Bambrick


Below are my answers to the questionnaire.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my platform as it relates to Deepwater Wind.

1) I do not support the Deepwater Wind South Fork Wind Farm. Placement in Cox’s Ledge (one of the most fertile fishing grounds in the Northeast) is potentially disastrous – not only to the fisherman but to the marine life itself. I understand the push for renewable energy, but I’m of the opinion that we have put all our eggs in the offshore wind basket while dragging our feet on solar initiatives. I’m not convinced that this project will truly get us close to the goal of 100% renewable.

I’m also confused by the notion of industrializing the ocean,destroying  the ocean floor and disturbing pristine beach (to accommodate for the cable landing)  Haven’t environmentalists been fighting for years to protect those sensitive areas? Why are we handing our most precious and irreplaceable resources over to Orsted? I have more questions and frankly – we’re not getting answers. I can not support this project as proposed.

2) I am opposed to bringing the cable ashore at Beach Lane. I am also opposed to the Hither Hills option. If it is an inevitability that the wind farm will be built – there needs to be more options for the cable landing site. In addition. I find it distressing that our elected officials are pitting hamlet against hamlet. They have some accountability here and they’ve been less than transparent with the public.

3) Yes I would push for alternative sites – but there needs to be environmental analysis done wherever the potential site would be.

4) I don’t see how one could not consider the New York Public Service Commission standard of minimum adverse environmental impact in such a decision. As stated previously – so many have worked so hard to protect our environment, why would we neglect our responsibilities as stewards of the environment now?

5) I would use my position to oppose the entire project (in it’s proposed form)

6) Bonnie Brady (who is more knowledgeable than ANYONE on this topic, and David Gruber (who I’m sure will provide a wealth of information in HIS answers) are on the EH Fusion ticket. We are all committed to working collaboratively with not only like-minded individuals, but those who have informed opinions that might differ from our own – so other options can be discussed and explored. 

7) First – thank you for the opportunity to answer these questions. The very reason I’m running is because I feel our town board has lost sight of the fact that they were elected to be our representatives. They are required to listen to/respond to the concerns of their constituents. The wind farm is only one example of how we are not permitted to have a voice and are expected to sit by silently while decisions are made that will seriously impact our community. Government is by the people and good government welcomes interaction with the public they serve.

Warmest Regards,

Elizabeth “Betsy” Bambrick

Bonnie Brady

I oppose the landing of the South Fork Wind Farm (SFWF) transmission cable in Wainscott, in Montauk, or anywhere else within the Town of East Hampton.

In 2015, the announced LIPA South Fork Request for Proposals (RFP) had one primary and one secondary goal. The primary was the desire to “cost-effectively defer the need to build new transmission grid.” The secondary “optional” goal was to “acquire resources that support operation of the South Fork, or subareas, as an isolated power system or microgrid in the event of an extreme contingency.”

This project does neither. The PSEG transmission grid, at a cost of $500 million, is being upgraded, and has been for the last two years. The contingency resources have never been achieved, those that could be within a behind the meter electricity initiative that would allow for resiliency in the case of a catastrophic event like a Cat 3-5 hurricane.

By upgrading the transmission grid, there is no need for the SFWF.

On average annually, the SFWF will be highly inefficient, only be producing 36% power of its nameplate MW, and all wind power requires natural gas 24/7 not only as back up for when the wind is not blowing, but to modulate the equilibrium of the electric grid itself. Natural gas is the only fast ramp energy source that can be turned up or turned down quickly, like on your stove, to prevent surges and blackouts. Wind guarantees natural gas as its partner. The large scale batteries placed in East Hampton and Montauk cannot maintain power for more than eight hours before requiring eight more hours to recharge from the electric grid, not from the wind farm.

It will not address peak (highest) consumption on the East End (during the summer when A/C use is high) because the wind blows less in the summer; average 26% of nameplate MW. And with a $1.6 billion dollar price tag, it has been said the cost will be four to six times more expensive.

The SFWF is purely, in my opinion, an attempt by LIPA to maintain a monopoly over electrical power generation with everyone but the ratepayers receiving benefits. In the beginning, DE Shaw, the $5 Billion hedgefunders who initially concocted the Deepwater Wind project, flipped it to Danish energy giant Ørsted for a cool $500 million. Ørsted will now get a 24% Production Tax Credit on the total cost of construction of the SFWF, and LIPA will earn Renewable Energy Credits from the SFWF, which are required now as part of the Clean Energy Vision policy of the NYS Dept. of Public Service. Meanwhile, pile driving towers, jet plowing benthic habitat and laying hundreds of miles of EMF loaded cables will take place on Cox’s Ledge, a cod nursery ground. What could possibly go wrong?

SFWF has nothing to do with becoming more renewable, more resilient, more efficient, and more sustainable. I have learned more than I ever thought possible about this subject and want to do the best that I can for all of the Town residents on this issue of sustainability, including Wainscott, but in a way so that the residents never again feel like they don’t have a voice, that what they say doesn’t matter. So that never again will elected officials shove a project upon you without your consent, or pit you against your hamlet or other hamlet neighbors over a project that should have never gone forward in the first place.

I believe most of you have heard the concerns of the fishing industry regarding this project, but simply, in addition to the industrialization of the ocean, we have serious concerns re the surveys, all phases of construction and operation, and what each step might do to the fish, their benthic habitat, and the possible long term sequelae of the alteration of the marine ecosystem through industrialization.

For two years the commercial fishing industry has been requesting of the Town either the funds to do an in-house funding for a comprehensive monitoring and mitigation plan, (Fish-COMP) with compensation as necessary for all phases of the SFWF, or fund outside entities to do the job. We could have already started scientific monitoring for baseline data, and begun gathering fishermen’s landings data, working on mitigation and negotiation from surveys to construction to operation to decommissioning. Instead, the Town just put out an RFP last week.

For example, in Montauk last week a survey vessel was in among lobster gear south of Montauk of a local fisherman, who may have lost gear as a result. Many Rhode Island fishermen have also lost gear from survey vessels going as far back as the Block Island Wind Farm. Without and fair and equitable compensation for their lost gear, which can cost thousands of dollars, lost gear can equal the loss of income for the year. Without a full monitoring and mitigation plan, with appropriate compensation for gear losses, all fishermen stand to lose, some could lose everything. That is unacceptable.

I am running as part of the Fusion Party, myself and Betsy Bambrick for Town Board, and David Gruber for Supervisor. We also have Rick Drew, Susan Vorpahl, Stephen Lester, David Talmage, Rona Klopman, Michael Havens, and Fallon Bloecker-Nigro for Trustees. I believe all do not support the SFWF.

Thank you for your time
Bonnie Brady

David Lys

  1. Do you support or oppose the Deepwater South Fork Wind project? Please explain your position given our keen interest in renewable energy.

    I support the need for a diverse renewable energy portfolio that includes sources from wind power both on shore and off shore. As a town councilman I voted against a memorializing resolution to support the needed easements for the export cable, for a multiple of reasons at that time. The aggregate of these reasons lead me to decide that the application was not complete enough at that time to vote in favor of the resolution. Most specifically the need for greater construction and deconstruction protocols and mitigation plans for the fishing industries that were not present at that time. As the article 7 process has begun to accelerate the information that was not available in 2018 is starting to come clearer in the picture and I have become more favorable of the application as a whole.
  2. Do you support or oppose the use of the Beach Lane/Wainscott to land the cable for this wind farm? Please explain your position.

    Currently I do not support or will oppose the use of Beach Lane in Wainscott as a landing site for the export cable. Much more information has to be provided to me before I make that firm decision.
  3. Would you push Deepwater for other alternative routes given their two current routes both have issues of concern to the community?

    I will continue to request or the project organizers to look at the entire townships concerns globally while deciding where to potentially land the export cable. This would include a vigorous and complete examination of the two currently presented routes and any other routes that might emerge through the article 7 process.
  4. In judging the best available route on the merits, will your decision be guided by the route that represents the “minimum adverse environmental impact” (the New York Public Service Commission standard)?

    My decision to support the export cable route will be guided by, among other factors, the route that has the most minimal adverse environmental impacts. It will also be guided by the amount of construction impact that it will have on the residents of the township as a whole and also the potential cost involved that could be levied onto the ratepayers.
  5. If you oppose the use of Beach Lane/Wainscott, will you use your position as an official to actively oppose the use of Beach Lane?

    As mentioned in question #2, I currently do not support or oppose the use of beach lane, wainscot as a landing site. Once I am satisfied by the amount of information that has been requested of myself, and the information that will come to light through the review process, I will make an educated decision on where I will support the landing of the export cable. When I make this decision in the future, I will be strong in the support of that location and vocal against other potential options.
  6. Are you running as part of a slate or coalition with other candidates? If so, please list those candidates. Do those candidates share your position on the use of Beach Lane as a landing site?

    The candidates for town council on my slate are Peter VanScoyoc and Sylvia Overby.

    I can only speak for my personal views on the use of Beach Lane as a landing site.
  7. Please provide any other information about your candidacy that you feel is important for the people of Wainscott to know when selecting a candidate.

    For over 43 years I have been educating and preparing myself for the opportunity to become a town councilman for the home town that I grew up in, East Hampton. During these years I became an expert in the values and traditions that have set the town of East Hampton apart from other communities that have forever been trying to replicate the inherent foundations that East Hampton was founded on. And in the beginning of 2018 when my town and its leading officials ask me to rise and serve on the town council, I knew that I was ready and qualified to do so.

    I was fortunate to be brought up by wonderful parents that took the job of parenting extremely seriously. I am the son of a former 29-year tenured school teacher of the East Hampton school district and of an immigrant who escaped tyranny at the time in his home country of Indonesia. They both fought hard to establish values in myself and my sister that would mold us to be successful throughout our adult lives. I feel that my parents Joyce and Hakim have accomplished those goals and I am proud to be known as their son.

    I was educated in the local East Hampton school district by some of the finest teachers and administrators that a community could ask for. I am also thankful for the opportunity to seek higher education and complete my degree in kinesiology from The Pennsylvania State University. But it is the education that I learned from my cumulative life experiences that has given me the most strength and knowledge to continue to lead East Hampton.

    Over my entire life I have observed the changes that our community has gone through. Changes that have been both positive and negative. Changes in social economic strata and discrepancies, the over development of areas that tarnish East Hampton’s unique character and the diminishing purity of our environmental resources. All of these negative changes have also been followed or happened at the same time as many positive actions. Preservation of our surviving historical structures, the increase in local volunteer organizations to support our community, and the priority in dealing with sea level rise and clean drinking water. Its only with proper long-range planning and community input and buy in, that any positive action happen. I look forward to continuing the positive planning that our town desires and deserves.

    I am not running to retain my councilman seat because of political gains or aspirations. I am running to retain my councilman seat because I know that I have the background to help my hometown continue being a leader and to help to continue to shape East Hampton’s future to be one that mine and your children can be proud of.

    My life experiences and desire to help East Hampton are what sets me apart from my competition. I will not wage a negative campaign full of false narratives to better myself in the eyes of East Hampton’s voters. The voters are too smart and will see the wrong in that. Instead I will let me record of volunteerism, community involvement, and accomplishments as a town councilman speak for itself.

    As a childhood cancer survivor, I learned a very hard lesson of never giving up and trusting in the lord’s decisions and the guidance of professional doctors.

    As a founding member of Paddlers for Humanity we have been able to donate a over one million dollars to local children’s-based charities such as project most and build on.

    Helping to found and serve on the board of Citizens for Access Rights I helped lead the grass roots charge to defend public beach access in East Hampton and unify generations of beach users together for a common goal.

    For over eight years I have led the fundraising and the complete restoration efforts for the historic Amagansett Life-Saving Station. A project that I helped unify multiple craftsman’s, preservationist and town department to help carefully complete. And now it’s a town owned structure that recently has been added to the National Historic Register.

    I completed a five year term on the towns Zoning Board of Appeals. It was there that I earned the respect of my fellow board members, town staff and residents of East Hampton for my constant preparedness, tenacity to defend the environment, and the character or East Hampton’s neighborhoods. I immersed myself in the towns written code and gave each applicant a fair and unbiased hearing on their application. I am very proud of how my time on the zoning board of appeals and how I represented the residents of the town in that appointed role.

    And most importantly as a husband and father of four young children, I have the pleasure to help educate them in their personal life experiences so that they can all bring out the best in themselves. All while balancing the demands of work and financial stability. That is the definition of working family concerns.

    While this background history is what has prepared me for my role on East Hampton’s Town council, I feel proud in what I have been able to accomplish in the short time that I have been an East Hampton Town Councilman.

    I have helped to move forward and complete studies, design and a construction project at the ditch plain beaches that addressed safety, increased public parking access and prioritizing the towns residents. I helped the board accomplish this by listening to community input and also by taking on a hands on role during construction to meet tight deadlines.

    Successfully I sponsored funding for the upgrades to multiple town’s recreational complexes. These includes resurfacing of the Stephens hands path soccer fields, new complaint lights on the Montauk Lion’s field, and the restoration of David King baseball filed at Maidstone park in Springs after it was vandalized. I believe, Recreation and its arenas are of the utmost importance to a balanced life style of work and play in our town.

    In my desire assist in water quality concerns I have been a steady attendee of the water quality technical advisory committee meetings. It is at these meetings that brainstorming and design solution are discussed in how to help advise the town board in the actions that they can take to increase the water quality of our bays and estuaries. And from my desire to continue on the multiple front battle for improved water quality I successfully submitted and was awarded the largest grant in East Hampton’s history from the Empire State Development fund for the design of the consolidation of the town’s Aquaculture department.

    With all of these recent accomplishments that I helped spearhead and my liaison roles to the towns parks and recreation department, aquaculture and land management departments, waterfront advisory, wildlife management, and fisheries advisory committees, I have shown that I have hit the ground running as your town councilman with the spirit and energy that is need to get tasks accomplished at the town board level.

    As a town councilman I look forward to forwarding the conversation about affordable housing on all levels. Housing for seniors, work force and working families that make up the fabric of East Hampton.

    I also am extremely motivated to find tangible, strict solutions to the noise and safety problems that hamper the East Hampton airport. This is a quality of life issue for many residents that has to be addressed by our town government firmly so that our residents’ voices are heard on the national level.

    Meaningful job creation is of the utmost importance to the success of our children’s future and the future of East Hampton volunteers and citizens. Without having economically tangible jobs that allow for ample family and free time, there will be less availability of potential volunteers in our community and the community grassroots organizations that our town relies on.

    I feel that I have the temperament, and desire to learn and listen, that the residents would want to see in a town councilman. A leader by example, that puts the love of his hometown over any politics that can be divisive and negative to good government.

    For all of the factors that I stated above, I respectfully ask for your support and vote in the upcoming November 5th general election.

Sylvia Overby

No response to the questionnaire received.


Francis Bock, Bill Taylor, James Grimes, John Aldred, Susan McGraw Keber, Rick Drew, Tim Garneau, Mike Martinsen, Ben Dollinger

[Reprinted from responses to questionnaire sent during the Democratic primary Summer 2019. No update received.

[Mailed] June 19, 2019
Democratic Endorsed Candidates
East Hampton Town Trustees

Dear Citizens,

I write in response to the included questionnaire very recently received from Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott. I am representing the following Democratic Endorsed candidates:

Francis Bock, Bill Taylor, James Grimes, John Aldred, Susan McGraw Keber, Rick Drew, Tim Garneau, Mike Martinsen, Ben Dollinger

Based on group discussion, we believe a single unified response is appropriate to your inquiry.

Question #1.

On August 27th, 2018, the trustees, ‘intending to continue to negotiate a land use agreement with Deepwater Wind, South Fork, and to participate as interveners in the Article VII process’, voted unanimously (Susan McGraw Keber absent) to hire a special counsel to represent them. On September 10th, 2018, the trustees agreed, again unanimously (Dell Cullum absent), to form a negotiating committee to work with the special counsel on ‘issues pertaining to Deepwater Wind’s request to land their transmission cable across the Trustee beach.

Without prejudgment, we are committed to continue evaluating the serious issues regarding a cable landing in East Hampton and to holding Deepwater Wind accountable to addressing the specific issues of concern to the people of the town, reserving any final decision to the result of this process.

As elected officials, we believe this is the responsible approach to a final resolution of this matter.

Thank you.

Francis Bock
Democratic Endorsed Trustee candidates

Dell R. Cullum

[Reprinted from responses to questionnaire sent during the Democratic primary Summer 2019. No update received.]

[Mailed] June 19, 2019

These are my responses to your questions as numbered 1 thru 7.

1) Although I am a huge supporter of alternative / green energy, I am not, nor have I ever been a supporter of the Deepwater South Fork Wind project. Based on small but vital impacts on both fish migration and environmental disruption was my concern until I clearly, and constantly began seeing signs of non transparency, misleading information and just plain bad business. This immediately became my primary concern and remains so.

2) Absolutely. Even more, I’m not happy with the beach landing of the cable plan, so their attempt to land the most direct and easiest route to the sub station regardless of the community in its path (or their concerns), is in perfect harmony with their business practices.

3) I have and I do. It goes from the easiest route to the most difficult. Now you’re impacting an already sensitive area that runs along the railroad tracks. The roads crossings would become very disruptive, particularly through East Hampton Village. I’ve always felt it was made an alternative site for its complexity, to make the easy Beach lane route more appealing to those who are easily misdirected.

4) I would absolutely vote the Hither Hills route before Beach lane, for a combination of all my answers above.

5) Absolutely. I have from day one and have never swayed about the entire issue.

6) I can’t quite say who supports what in this political arena. I run as an individual ready to protect the rights of the public as I’m required. As a present Trustee, I’m appalled by the political agendas, conflicts of interest and non transparency within the board itself, not to mention toward the public in which we are suppose to serve. It’s important that these folks who abuse the Tustee body, while playing pawns to the Town board, are NOT voted back in to office. The ONLY two people running for Trustee I would recommend, is local candidates SUSAN VORPHAL and Stephen Lester.

7) I wish to continue protecting the beaches, the wildlife, public access and public rights to their roads and properties. I’d like the Trustee body to once again be a fine tuned machine where everyone works together, focused on the same goal, looking out for the best interest of THE PEOPLE whom they serve.

Thank you,

Dell R. Cullum

Rick Drew

  1. Do you support or oppose the Deepwater South Fork Wind project? Please explain your position given our keen interest in renewable energy.

    Answer: I cannot support the dwwsf project in its current format. Also, the applicants inadequate community host proposal to our town is troubling.
  2. Do you support or oppose the use of the Beach Lane/Wainscott to land the cable for this wind farm? Please explain your position.

    Until the applicant conducts the necessary federal, state and local reviews, environmental studies, etc. and makes our township a fair host community agreement offer, we cannot move forward.
  3. Would you push Deepwater for other alternative routes given their two current routes both have issues of concern to the community?

    I have advocated for the eastern Li sound as a potential turbine field site and that the associated transmission cable be routed to shoram for the past two years.
  4. In judging the best available route on the merits, will your decision be guided by the route that represents the “minimum adverse environmental impact” (the New York Public Service Commission standard)?

    I believe in due process and projects that have minimal impacts on our marine environment.
  5. If you oppose the use of Beach Lane/Wainscott, will you use your position as an official to actively oppose the use of Beach Lane?

    I will oppose any project that doesn’t follow due process and is not in the best interest of our local community
  6. Are you running as part of a slate or coalition with other candidates? If so, please list those candidates. Do those candidates share your position on the use of Beach Lane as a landing site?

    Democratic, independance, libertarian.
  7. Please provide any other information about your candidacy that you feel is important for the people of Wainscott to know when selecting a candidate.

1. I have attended every Trustee Meeting for the past four years.

2. As a member of the Trustee ponds committee I have supported the Wainscott community on several environmental projects, such as, opposing the tommy car wash, developing and executing a management plan for Georgica Pond, and supporting a new management plan for wainscott pond.

3. I have settled beach access and coastal management matters in a fair and professional manner, while respecting private property interests and considering the public trust.

4. I have provided leadership regarding ongoing NYS Certified water testing programs with Dr. Gobler. The Trustees have compiled six years of actionable, defensible data.

5. I am a lifetime recreational fisherman and a passionate student of our local marine environment.

Michael Havens

No response to the questionnaire received.

Rona Klopman

From: Rona Klopman, Democratic Primary Trustee Candidate
To: Citizens for Preservation of Wainscott
Re: Response to questions

Date: October 15, 2019

  1. I am NOT supportive of the Deepwater Wind Farm project as I feel they have not been upfront with their plans and certainly not transparent to the community.

    2. and 3. I feel that DWW should come into shore mid-island since the energy they will produce will be going to that area. I don’t like Beach Lane nor the Hither Hills site. Digging in either of these sites will be destructive to East Hampton and certainly to the Wainscott community.

    4. If elected to the Trustee Board you can be rest assured that I will not support the use of either one of their routes. I feel quite independent of this Town Board. Actually, the Committee chosen candidates owe their election to the Dem Committee and the Town Board. I don’t!

    5 and 6. I’m running on the EH Fusion Party line with Dell Cullum, Rick Drew, Steven Lester, and Susan Vorpahl, et al. I believe we are all supportive of the Wainscott community and not supportive of the DWW project landing on Beach Lane. I have been very vocal in addressing this issue and appreciate Fred Thiele’s comments and for taking the stand he took.

    7. As a longtime Democrat, I am readily aware of how the Democratic Committee demeans independence of thought. You can count on me wanting factual research on issues and that we should have expert environmental impact opinions on DWW. The committee has chosen to run 5 Dem Committee members as Trustee candidates………I question the need for the Committee to control the Town Board, the Trustees, and the Town Justice Department.

Stephen Lester

#1 I do not support Deepwater south fork project
#2 I oppose the cable at Beach Lane
#3 I oppose any aspect of this project
#4 I am committed to opposing the Beach Lane landing of cable
#5 yes [Question was: If you oppose the use of Beach Lane/Wainscott, will you use your position as a Trustee to actively oppose the use of Beach Lane even if the town board supports it]
#6 Democratic reform fusion Dell Cullum Richard p Drew Rona Kaplan I believe we are all one the same page
#7 I have twelve years of past experience as a East Hampton Town Trustee
And a good connection with the local fishermen, and community. My family and relatives are in the commercial fishing business and have been for over thee hundred years.

Fallon Nigro

No response to the questionnaire received.

David Talmage

No response to the questionnaire received.

Susan Vorpahl

No response to the questionnaire received.