I had a significant role in several stories you reported in the last issue of some of your papers, but for some it was either omitted or distorted.
Regarding the trees cut down in Albertson, I spoke out for many of the direct or nearby neighbors on Searingtown Road who were extremely displeased that thirteen healthy trees were summarily cut down – regardless of their replacement with saplings.
After I issued two press releases, News12 and then CBS2 interviewed many of the neighbors – though not the single one quoted in your article – and they broadcast their sharp criticism of the project across the region a few weeks ago.
Meanwhile the Nassau County spokesman you quoted had repeatedly denied its involvement in writing, to me.
PSEG’s claim of non-involvement, as you report, is belied by witnesses in the neighborhood and a PSEG source I spoke with confidentially – which I offered to tell you about.
Sidewalks can be repaired without destroying trees, and PSEG never felt the trees were interfering with wires, as your second-page headline implies.
I did not argue that ‘notification’ was needed, that was the neighbors’ argument, and we are now working on a reform to fix it.
Regarding the water stripper proposed in Christopher Morley Park: I sought and obtained the support of the Sierra Club and Green Party local affiliates to challenge the destructive plan, and I issued the press releases informing the media.
Further, I testified before the Nassau Legislature and got several “promises” I also publicized, including a promise that Park users would be notified of hearings by posted fliers.
I also submitted, and publicized, detailed testimony to the water district, town, county and state outlining numerous issues with the plan.
Your articles imply that the challenges just dropped form the sky, denying the public the opportunity to identify relevant local parties.
Regarding the proposed 165-room hotel across from North Hempstead Harbor Beach, I challenged the hotel’s testimony at the town board meeting and elicited acknowledgements that various “promises” presented – an LIRR shuttle-bus, a Hilton franchise, and various ‘green-building’ standards – were not iron-clad guarantees of any specified duration or quality, but only current “intentions” as the developer sought approval of permits and major variances.
I also elicited that with the rudimentary environmental analysis performed – not a full “Environmental Impact Statement” as stated – the issue of impacts on shore-birds of the 60-foot building and connected lighting was not even discussed in the community meetings that supposedly dealt fully with ‘environmental’ concerns.
Town officials did not even seek information from the developer’s environmental experts present before passing the entire package, unanimously.
I do not seek praise or personal gain for my efforts, but credit should be given where it is due, and distorting the news – by commission or omission – does a disservice to the public.
Richard Brummel
East Hills
