$85 billion? What 85 billion?

Check this out. AIG blew through most of that $85 billion already, without accomplishing what it was loaned the money to do. Now it's planning to feed off the $700 billion bailout fund. I wrote about it here.

Repeating the scary past

"This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today."

Those were the words of President Franklin Roosevelt in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1933 -- his famous "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech aimed at rallying a downtrodden America to rise up and overcome the Great Depression.

Here's how our 32nd president described the "conditions facing our country" 75 years ago:

"Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone."

Sound familiar?

"More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return," Roosevelt continued. "Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment."

Or maybe a certain presidential candidate.

But back to our straight-talking president as he confronted a nation in the throes of economic calamity.

He said, "Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men."

The practices to which Mr. Roosevelt referred included what economist John Kenneth Galbraith, economic historian of the Great Depression, called "large-scale corporate thimble rigging" that "took a variety of forms, of which by far the most common was the organization of corporations to hold stock in yet other corporations, which in turn held stock in yet other corporations."

Does that sound familiar, too?

Carter Glass, a newspaperman turned politician, authored the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, predicted the consequences of banks lending money for stock market speculation, and after the stock market crash in 1929 and the widespread bank failures that followed, wrote a banking reform bill in 1931 to provide the Federal Reserve Board with more control over speculative credit practices by banks. His bill, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, regulated the "practices of the unscrupulous money changers" that drove the nation into the Great Depression.

It worked pretty well for 66 years, until the unscrupulous money changers had their way with Congress and then President Bill Clinton in 1999. They repealed Glass-Steagall with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Former Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas -- Sen. John McCain's economic adviser in his campaign and, reportedly, a likely cabinet appointee in a McCain administration -- sponsored the "deregulatory" legislation. He said at its passage:

"In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets. We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers."

Until the greed of "unscrupulous money changers" in the unregulated free market runs the free market into the ground. Then government becomes the answer again -- to the tune of probably a trillion dollars in the economic calamity of the 21st century.

Sen. McCain, by the way, voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley, in a vote that closely followed partisan lines in the Republican-dominated 106th Congress. Sen. Joe Biden voted against the House bill in May 1999, but then voted for conference bill that reconciled the House and Senate versions in November 1999 -- a vote which Mr. McCain, then seeking the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, missed because he was campaigning in New Hampshire.

Sen. Barack Obama, at the time a member of the Illinois state senate, and Gov. Sarah Palin, then mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, didn't get to vote on it.

It pays to note that the Leach in "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" is former Republican congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, who crossed party lines to endorse Mr. Obama and delivered a speech at the Democratic National Convention this year. Mr. Leach would reportedly have some role in an Obama administration.

When President Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, known as the financial services modernization act, into law on Nov. 12, 1999, he said it made "the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s." Did he know just how "important" those changes would be?

"Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy," Mr. Clinton said.

Freedom to innovate granted to Mr. Roosevelt's "unscrupulous money changers" got us pretty much right back to where we were when FDR took office. But for the intervention of Mr. Glass' Fed, you and I might soon be standing on a bread line.

In 1999, while Bill Clinton and the 106th Congress were entertaining us with the juicy details of the president's Oval Office trysts with intern Monica Lewinsky, they were actually busy undoing the underpinnings of the security of the nation's financial system. The phone sex and stogies were merely a side show. In the background, unbeknownst to most of us, there was true bipartisan cooperation to serve the interests of the titans of finance who, left to their own devices, would get us into a fix very similar to the conditions about which FDR spoke in March 1933.

That's the bipartisan cooperation comic genius Jon Stewart of The Daily Show last week called a "clusterf#@k to the poor house." He's right. He was right, too, about this: "Those who do not study the past get an exciting opportunity to repeat it."

Avoiding "economic calamity"... let's hope so

Is anybody else having trouble keeping track of all the hundreds of billions being doled out by the US government to prop up global financial markets and "avoid economic calamity" (quoting a NY Times headline this morning)?

The House yesterday rejected the so-called "bailout" plan that would have dumped $700 billion into financial markets. But at the same time, the feds are spreading billions of dollars around like Monopoly money.

From an article in today's NY Times:
"With money markets around the world seizing in fear, the Fed on Monday announced that it would provide an extra $150 billion through an emergency lending program for banks, and an additional $330 billion through so-called swap lines with foreign central banks to help money markets from Europe to Asia....

"That was on top of the $230 billion the Fed borrowed last week so it could finance its previous efforts to prop up the American International Group and other institutions. But these are only the latest in a long series of jaw-dropping departures from normal policy that the Fed has undertaken this year as it seeks to inject vast amounts of capital into the financial system. And they are unlikely to be the last."

I don't pretend to fully understand how all this works (or doesn't), try as I might, but it is certainly very very scary.

One thing that's much easier to understand is the lack of leadership on display in Washington. They played a game of chicken on the bailout bill. Nobody wanted to be caught holding the bag. Both "sides" wanted to be able to hold the the other responsible. Typical. And disgraceful.

Here's one other thing I don't get. How can McCain with a straight face blame Obama for the bailout plan being ditched by Congress, when McCain's party rejected it overwhelmingly. Even the eight members of the House representing McCain's home state of Arizona voted NO, including the state's four Republican congressmen. (The congressman from Alaska, also a Republican, voted no, too, I might add.) Way to deliver.

It's funny (using that word loosely) how the presidential candidates and all the political nonsense have so rapidly become largely irrelevant as we watch the train wreck that is Wall Street-Washington DC.

MEET THE HOMELESS SEX OFFENDERS THE COUNTY DUMPED IN RIVERHEAD NOT FAR FROM YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL

These are the registered sex offenders currently housed in the Dept. of Social Services trailer in the parking lot of the county jail in Riverside, on Route 24, according to the NYS sex offender registry. There are presently 17 men living in the trailer, dumped there by the county (beginning in 2007), a stone's throw from Riverhead library and within walking distance to two public elementary schools, an intermediate school, a middle school and a high school. Eleven of these men were convicted of sex crimes against children, as indicated below.

I've posted their information and mug shots here so you can see for yourself, educate your children and, I hope, complain to County Executive Steve Levy for using Riverhead as a dumping ground for the county's homeless sex offenders. It's dangerous and it's just plain wrong. (My editorial about this situation is posted below.)

Speak out. Call Steve Levy at 853-4000 or e-mail him at county.executive@suffolkcountyny.gov.

Under state law, the court classifies sex offenders according to the risk of them committing another sex crime.

• Level one (low risk);
• Level two (medium risk); and
• Level three (high risk).

Andre Briggs (aka Andre Greene)
DOB 8/3/1963
Level 2
black; 5-11; 170;
5/31/1986- sodomy 1st degree, rape 1st degree, sexual abuse 1st degree
female, unknown age

************************
Donald Brown (aka Donald Evans)
DOB 6/26/1982
Level 3
black; 6-0; 207
1999- sodomy 1st degree
victim female, 8 yrs. old


************************
Carmine Califano
DOB 7/31/1962
Level 3
white; 5-9; 185
brown hair, green eyes
sexually violent offender
1992- sodomy 1st degree, sexual abuse 1st degree,
victim female 11 yrs old


************************

Luis Casanova
DOB 3/22/1953
Level 3
black; hispanic; 5-3; 185
black hair, brown eyes
3/8/2001 - use of a child less than 17 in a sexual performance
sexual abuse 1st degree
possessing a sexual performance by a child less than 16
victim female, 13 y/o

************************
Anthony Consolazio
DOB 4/14/1968
Level 3
white; 5-6; 165; blonde hair green eyes
sexually violent offender
course of sexual conduct against child
sodomy 3rd degree
victims male, 10 yrs old; male, 15


*************************
Eric Gallon
DOB 9/9/1983
Level 3
black; 5-8; 185

2002- rape 2nd degree
victim female, 14 y/o

************************
Eric Greaves
DOB 2/15/1982
Level 3
white; 6-0; 135; brown hair, brown eyes
2002- rape 2nd degree




************************
Robert Harris
DOB 10/16/1963
Level 3
black; 5-6; 185
2006- rape 2nd degree
victim female 13 yrs old




************************

Joseph Milnes
DOB 8/16/1953
Level 3
white; 5-9; 175; brown hair, blue eyes
2000- attempted rape 1st degree
victim female, 18 yrs old



************************
Raul Oquendo
DOB 5/2/1967
Level 2
white; hispanic; 5-7; 155; black hair, brown eyes
2006- rape 2nd degree
Victim female, 11 yrs old




************************
Louis Reyes
DOB 9/9/1954
Level 3
white; hispanic; 5-10; 195; brown hair, brown eyes
sexually violent offender
1996- rape 1st degree, female, 33 y/o




************************
Lucas Rivera
DOB 9/7/1961
Level 3
white; hispanic; 5-10; 160; brown hair, brown eyes
predicate sex offender
attempted sodomy 3




******************************
Daniel Rosenblad
DOB 5/25/1964
Level 2
white; 5-10; 160; blonde hair, blue eyes
sexual abuse 1st degree
victim male, 7 yrs old


******************************
Raul Torres
DOB 12/31/1965
Level 3
white; hispanic; 5-11; 215; brown hair, hazel eyes
sexually violent offender
sexual abuse 1st degree
victim female, 6 yrs old


********************************
Robert Trocchio
DOB 2/24/1963
Level 3
white; 5-6; 177; black hair, hazel eyes
1982 sodomy 1st degre



************************

Jermaine Walton
DOB 6/20/1974
Level 3
black; 5-8; 155; black hair, brown eyes
sexually violent offender
sexual abuse 1st
victim female younger than 17 yrs old

****************************
I've also mapped out the registered sex offenders living in the 11901 zip code (on both sides of the Peconic) other than those who are incarcerated at the county jail or living in the DSS trailer. (See below.)

Please note this information is current as of today, and is subject to change DAILY. Under Meghan's Law, the police must notify the school district when a registered sex offender moves into the district. The district notifies its residents. The notification is not taking place regarding the homeless men in the county trailer, because, as social services recipients, they have a right to confidentiality, according to the county executive's spokesman. Good for them, bad for our kids.

If you click on the blue pins, you will see the registered sex offenders name, classification and conviction information.


View Larger Map

County treats Riverhead as a dumping ground — again

The county has set up a quasi-jail for dangerous homeless sex offenders and our hometown gets the honor of playing host. Consider it one of the perks of being the putative county seat. (Riverhead is really the seat of Suffolk County government in name only. County government abandoned Riverhead for Hauppauge long ago. And even the "Riverhead" offices of county government are located across the river, in Northampton, Town of Southampton.)

Over the objection of town officials and our local county legislators, County Executive Steve Levy, for the past couple of years, has housed homeless convicted sex offenders in a trailer in the parking lot of the county jail in Riverside. Many, if not most, of the men housed in this trailer are classified as the most dangerous sex offenders, Level 3 offenders, who are considered by the state to be the most likely to repeat their crimes -- "a high risk of repeat offense and a threat to public safety exists," in the words of the state's Department of Criminal Justice Services. Currently 13 of the 15 men who have the trailer listed as their address on the state's sex offender registry are Level 3 offenders. Nine of those men were convicted of sex offenses against children.

This quasi-jail "program" has been so "successful" -- characterized as such by Mr. Levy's social services department spokesman -- that the county is now expanding it. They've now brought a bigger trailer into the parking lot so they can house even more homeless sex offenders there.

"It's been an ideal solution to keeping homeless sex offenders out of neighborhoods," the spokesman said. Out of neighborhoods they care about, anyway.

The sex offender trailer is within easy walking distance of Riverhead Free Library, Suffolk County Historical Society (the site of hundreds of school field trips), two public elementary schools, an intermediate school, the middle school and the high school, and what's left of downtown Riverhead, which includes another popular attraction for children and school trips, Atlantis Marine World.

The Riverside jail parking lot may seem like a good location to Mr. Levy, but to me, it's all wrong. Unlike Mr. Levy, I have teenage daughters who attend Riverhead public schools, walk from school to the library and potentially share the sidewalks with the Level 3 sex offenders who've been dumped in downtown Riverhead by the County of Suffolk.

But not to worry. The dangerous sex offenders are bused during the day to their "home" social services office, and, when they are returned to the trailer in the evening, they are not allowed to leave. They are watched by a private security firm hired for that purpose. And the location is behind barbed wire.

Well, the barbed wire fence has a gaping hole in it. (See story, page 1) And I don't buy that the men are not allowed to leave the trailer. Remember these men are not in jail. They have served their time. They simply have no place to live.

The county's trailer has no cooking facilities. Where do they eat? What happens when county social services offices are closed on weekends and holidays? What happens when a resident refuses to go to the social services office? Where do the residents go after they've showered at the "industrial site" up-island on weekends? To Mr. Levy's home in Holbrook for tea and cookies?

Even if Mr. Levy doesn't care about Riverhead neighborhoods and Riverhead kids, we know he cares about the Almighty Dollar. And on that score, this "program" can't be too "successful." There's the cost of the trailer itself, the cost of the private security firm, the cost of transporting these men to the various social services offices throughout the county and back five days a week, the cost of transporting them to the unspecified "industrial" location for showers every weekend, and the cost of renting the shower facility.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to put this trailer over at the minimum security county jail in Yaphank -- which is truly not in a neighborhood -- and allow the men to shower and eat there? Those that work could take advantage of the county's marvelous public transportation system to get to their jobs. Those who have no jobs could be put to work on the county farm, to help pay their own freight. And if they roam off the county farm unescorted, they'll find themselves at county police headquarters -- instead of in a neighborhood with schools, libraries and museums, filled with your children and mine.

Another conference

Another conference of newspaper people trying to figure out how to salvage their trade. Most of the publishers are very puzzled by the internet in general and by how to respond to what it's done to the newspaper industry in particular.

The daily newspaper industry is in a shambles. Now that they are giving away their work product online, without being able to replace lost print ad and circulation revenue online, they're losing their shirts. Their stocks are depreciating. Investors are panicking. They're laying people off in droves.

The weekly community newspapers, on the other hand, still have something of a niche market. We're one of the few places people can turn to as a reliable source of extremely local news. The internet hasn't had the same impact on us as it has on the dailies — yet. So there's conference after conference of weekly publishers trying to figure out how not to end up like the dailies.

Nobody's really got the answer. Maybe because there isn't one.

The scary thing to me (other than the potential loss of job security, of course) is the future of journalism. Journalism — real journalism, good journalism — is one of the cornerstones of a free society. If we lose it — and we ARE losing it, little by little — what happens to our freedom? That's what scares me the most about this state of affairs.

Journalism costs money to do. Good reporters, photographers, researchers, fact-checkers, editors — all of those people need to earn money to live. If there's no income from which to pay them, what happens? We're seeing this already on the national and international scene. There's been a major contraction in the industry. Newspapers that used to deploy reporters and photographers to Washington DC to cover the US government or to places overseas to cover world events aren't doing that any more. So news and information is coming through fewer and fewer sources. That's not healthy. We've yet to see the full effects of this trend. It won't be good for journalism and it won't be good for truth and it won't be good for freedom, here in the US and around the world.

These conferences leave me simultaneously depressed and inspired. Seems impossible, doesn't it? On the one hand there's the doom and gloom state of the newspaper industry. On the other hand, there's an opportunity to meet and learn from journalists like Rex Smith, editor of the Albany Times-Union, who led a couple of seminars this weekend, including one on ethics in the newsroom. He reminded me of our mission as journalists.

The fundamentals of journalism:
Seek the truth and report it fully.
Act independently.
Be transparent and accountable.
Minimize harm.

This weekend also presented the opportunity to visit the Newseum, a museum dedicated to news and journalism. That place is an inspiration in itself.

It is said that journalism is "the first draft of history." The Newseum is a place where you can see history as it unfolded, reported by men and women (many of whom lost their lives doing so) who were eyewitnesses to history. The exhibits there (Pulitzer prize-winning photo gallery, the 9/11 gallery, the history of news gallery, the many documentary films shown in various small theaters throughout its six-floors) are moving and awe-inspiring. If you ever visit Washington DC, don't miss this place.

Is FERC acting lawfully or exceeding its administrative authority?

I know I'm a wonk. That's the only way to explain why I find these things so intriguing and downright exciting.

But there are some interesting legal issues to explore on the Broadwater front. (See the article we've published today about FERC's denial of the rehearing requests filed by the NY, Conn., Suffolk County, and four towns, reprinted below.)

The jurisdictional issue is key. Administrative agencies, like FERC, cannot promulgate regulations or policies inconsistent with the enabling legislation that confers regulatory jurisdiction upon the agencies. That's a basic principle of administrative law.

But is that, in fact, what FERC is doing by issuing "conditional" licenses prior to the states' coastal consistence certifications, as the attorney for Riverhead and Southold argues? (The states of Washington and Delaware make this claim, too, in their lawsuits against FERC pending in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.)

Here's what the statute, Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act [15 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)], says:

No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has concurred with the applicant's certification or until, by the state's failure to act, the concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the Secretary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after providing a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Federal agency involved and from the state, that the activity is consistent with the objectives of this chapter or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security.

So, does this prohibition "No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has concurred with the applicant's [consistency] certification..." mean FERC cannot legally issue licenses conditioned on the state's concurrence with the applicant's consistency certification?

That's the question in a nutshell.

There's a similar "condition precedent" in the Clean Water Act (Section 401).

By issuing the conditional licenses in advance of the coastal consistency and clean water act certifications by states, is FERC running amok?

These are interesting legal questions with far-reaching implications. Do you think New York and Connecticut will bring their own federal suits on the same grounds? I bet they will.

From The Suffolk TImes, Sept. 11, 2008:

FERC refuses to reconsider Broadwater permit
Towns will challenge FERC in federal court

By Denise Civiletti
Federal regulators last Thursday refused multiple requests by state, county and town officials to reconsider their March 20 approvals of Broadwater Energy’s floating liquefied natural gas terminal and subsea pipeline in Long Island Sound.

Following New York state’s April 10 coastal consistency ruling, New York and Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct a new hearing on Broadwater’s applications for permits to construct and operate an LNG storage and regasification terminal in the middle of the Sound and the 22-mile subsea pipeline it would use to supply an existing natural gas transmission network with 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily.

But in a 97-page decision defending the findings of its environmental impact study and its original permit approvals, FERC unequivocally rejected the rehearing requests, setting the stage for a federal court battle between local and state governments on one hand and federal energy regulators on the other. At issue will be FERC’s authority to issue permits prior to coastal consistency certification by the host state as required by federal law, according to the attorney representing Riverhead and Southold.

“It’s a violation of the [federal] Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act for FERC to license the project prior to hearing from the state regarding CZMA and the Clean Water Act. Those must be decided by the state first,” said Peter Bergen, the attorney representing the towns of Riverhead and Southold.

FERC issued Broadwater’s permits in advance of New York’s issuing its coastal zone consistency certification, and that’s illegal, Mr. Bergen maintains. “It violates the plain language of the statutes,” he said. Mr. Bergen said section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, both federal statutes, plainly require the host state to approve the Broadwater plan before FERC may issue its permits.

Instead, FERC has been issuing permits ahead of state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications, according to Mr. Bergen and attorneys for New York and other states involved in litigation with FERC.
“We raised that issue in our rehearing request and FERC just blew us off,” Mr. Bergen said. “That’s one of the issues we’re going to take to court.”

At least two other states, Washington and Delaware, are already challenging FERC’s practice of issuing conditional permits prior to state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications. Their actions are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

The issue, according to a brief filed by Washington state in its lawsuit against FERC, is “whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can, through policy and practice, rewrite the terms of federal statutes...” Washington state says the answer is clearly no.

The federal law was specifically crafted to allow states that are hosts to these projects and must live with their impacts a “protected” period of time to evaluate them, said Joan Marchioro, an attorney in Washington state’s attorney general’s office. FERC’s policy of issuing “conditional” licenses turns the statute on its head, she said, and “once FERC says to an applicant ‘you’re good to go,’ it puts all the pressure on the state.”

The New York Department of State would only say it is reviewing its options at this time, and the attorney representing Suffolk County did not return a phone call seeking comment. But Mr. Bergen said he recommended to Riverhead and Southold that the towns take this challenge to the federal court and he believes the other parties would follow suit.
Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko said he is pleased with FERC’s decision denying a rehearing.

“The commission went through it issue by issue and they did a good job reviewing each one of the points made in the rehearing requests,” Mr. Hritcko said in a telephone interview from his office in Houston, Tex., headquarters of Shell Oil, joint venture partner in Broadwater Energy with TransCanada Pipelines.

Broadwater, meanwhile, has appealed the N.Y. coastal consistency ruling to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has the authority to override the state’s consistency ruling. That appeal is pending, with a ruling by the commerce secretary expected in early 2009, according to Ted Beuttler, a staff attorney in the commerce department’s office of general counsel for ocean services.
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

FERC says 'no' to rehearing requests; municipalites to challenge FERC authority, lawyer says

Federal regulators last Thursday refused multiple requests by state, county and town officials to reconsider their March 20 approvals of Broadwater Energy’s floating liquefied natural gas terminal and subsea pipeline in Long Island Sound.

Following New York state’s April 10 coastal consistency ruling, New York and Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct a new hearing on Broadwater’s applications for permits to construct and operate an LNG storage and regasification terminal in the middle of the Sound and the 22-mile subsea pipeline it would use to supply an existing natural gas transmission network with 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily. But in a 97-page decision defending the findings of its environmental impact study and its original permit approvals, FERC unequivocally rejected the rehearing requests, setting the stage for a federal court battle between local and state governments on one hand and federal energy regulators on the other. At issue will be FERC’s authority to issue permits prior to coastal consistency certification by the host state as required by federal law, according to the attorney representing Riverhead and Southold.

“It’s a violation of the [federal] Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act for FERC to license the project prior to hearing from the state regarding CZMA and the Clean Water Act. Those must be decided by the state first,” said Peter Bergen, the attorney representing the towns of Riverhead and Southold. FERC issued Broadwater’s permits in advance of New York’s issuing its coastal zone consistency certification, and that’s illegal, Mr. Bergen maintains.

“It violates the plain language of the statutes,” he said. Mr. Bergen said section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, both federal statutes, plainly require the host state to approve the Broadwater plan before FERC may issue its permits. Instead, FERC has been issuing permits ahead of state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications, according to Mr. Bergen and attorneys for New York and other states involved in litigation with FERC.

“We raised that issue in our rehearing request and FERC just blew us off,” Mr. Bergen said. “That’s one of the issues we’re going to take to court.”

At least two other states, Washington and Delaware, are already challenging FERC’s practice of issuing conditional permits prior to state coastal consistency and Clean Water Act certifications. Their actions are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. The issue, according to a brief filed by Washington state in its lawsuit against FERC, is “whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can, through policy and practice, rewrite the terms of federal statutes...” Washington state says the answer is clearly no.

The federal law was specifically crafted to allow states that are hosts to these projects and must live with their impacts a “protected” period of time to evaluate them, said Joan Marchioro, an attorney in Washington state’s attorney general’s office. FERC’s policy of issuing “conditional” licenses turns the statute on its head, she said, and “once FERC says to an applicant ‘you’re good to go,’ it puts all the pressure on the state.”

The New York Department of State would only say it is reviewing its options at this time, and the attorney representing Suffolk County did not return a phone call seeking comment. But Mr. Bergen said he recommended to Riverhead and Southold that the towns take this challenge to the federal court and he believes the other parties would follow suit.

Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko said he is pleased with FERC’s decision denying a rehearing.

“The commission went through it issue by issue and they did a good job reviewing each one of the points made in the rehearing requests,” Mr. Hritcko said in a telephone interview from his office in Houston, Tex., headquarters of Shell Oil, joint venture partner in Broadwater Energy with TransCanada Pipelines. Broadwater, meanwhile, has appealed the N.Y. coastal consistency ruling to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has the authority to override the state’s consistency ruling. That appeal is pending, with a ruling by the commerce secretary expected in early 2009, according to Ted Beuttler, a staff attorney in the commerce department’s office of general counsel for ocean services.

denise@timesreview.com

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

Broadwater rehearing denied by feds

By Denise Civiletti

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday denied requests by New York, Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington to reconsider its approval of Broadwater Energy's permits to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound, nine miles off the coast of Wading River in the Town of Riverhead.

FERC on March 20 issued conditional approvals to Broadwater Energy, a joint venture of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines, to site, construct, and operate a 1,215-foot-long LNG import terminal in Long Island Sound. The commission also issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Broadwater Pipeline LLC, an affiliate of Broadwater Energy, to construct, own, and operate a 21.7-mile-long pipeline subsea lateral from the LNG terminal to he Iroquois gas transmission system pipeline in Kings Park.

Both approvals were conditioned on a determination by the N.Y. secretary of state that the terminal would be consistent with New York's coastal management policies. Gov. David Paterson announced on April 10 that the N.Y. secretary of state had found Broadwater's proposed terminal inconsistent with state coastal policies.

The states of New York and Connecticut, as well as Suffolk County and four municipalities, subsequently asked FERC to reconsider its permit approvals after the New York secretary of commerce ruled on April 10 that the off-shore LNG storage and regasification terminal was inconsistent with New York's coastal management policy.

On Thursday, FERC said no.

What legal action the states, county and towns may pursue following FERC's denial was not immediately apparent.

Meanwhile, Broadwater Energy has appealed the N.Y. Department of State's consistency determination to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has the authority to override the state's consistency ruling upon finding that the terminal is in the interest of national security. That appeal is pending before the U.S. commerce secretary. A ruling on that appeal is expected in early 2009, according to Ted Beuttler, a staff attorney in the commerce department's office of general counsel for ocean services.

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

We really need term limits

Change is in the air. Not just the change of seasons evident in the first hints of autumn in the cool September morning air. Political change. Change is the word of the day.

In politics, change is good. Even change for the sake of change. I believe in term limits. Nothing is worse for democracy than a political system in which incumbents are so entrenched they're untouchable. It creates an atmosphere in which special interests flourish at the expense of citizens and taxpayers.

We desperately need change in Albany. Our state legislative process has been hijacked by partisan politics, special interests and backroom deals. It's been this way for so long, we barely think twice about it any more. Legendary is the phenomenon of the "three men in a room" deciding our fate: the governor, the speaker of the assembly and the president of the senate. The leadership of each chamber of the state legislature calls the shots. Bills introduced without leadership approval go nowhere. Bills introduced by a member of the minority party without a majority member cosponsor? Fuggedaboudit.

In this system, it benefits us citizens to have an entrenched incumbent who's a member of the majority party representing our district in Albany. As far as that's concerned, we here in the First District are in the catbird's seat. We've got a senator whose tenure stretches back more than 30 years, who is a member of the senate's ruling party (Republican). And we've got an assemblyman who is likewise a member of the assembly's ruling party (Democrat); though he's new to the job, as long as he keeps his nose clean and his trousers zipped, he's probably got the job for life. That's just how it goes.

I've got no ax to grind where State Senator Ken LaValle is concerned. His heart is in the right place. He's compassionate and caring, smart and articulate. And though we don't always agree about everything, I like the man. I'm sorry to have to hold him up as an example of what's wrong with the system.

Ken LaValle is so entrenched, the Democrats aren't even bothering to run anyone against him this year. Just as well. Nearly every candidate they've put up to "challenge" the incumbent for the last two decades has been a joke. Or a fill-in -- somebody, anybody, just to have a name on the ballot. So why bother? This year, the Democrats took a pass. They say they're concentrating on an incumbent they perceive to be more vulnerable to a challenge by a strong Democratic candidate. (Brookhaven Supervisor Brian Foley is running against incumbent senator Cesar Trunzo.) Why waste money -- even a minimal amount -- running a race against Ken LaValle? But really, the Democrats haven't had a serious horse in this race for 20 years or more.

When incumbents are untouchable, they don't have to worry about spending time, effort or money getting re-elected. But they still raise funds for their campaigns. Because they can. Lobbyists seeking to curry favor with the legislature are all too eager to grease the skids with the parties in power, filling their candidates' campaign coffers with dough. In the first six months of this year, Mr. LaValle raised $62,625 from corporations, partnerships and political action committees, and another $14,455 from individuals. (He had $135,260 on hand at the end of the reporting period.) Our senator, as a senior member of the Republican caucus, has a fair amount of clout in Albany, and that makes him valuable to people who want something out of the state legislature.

Without a real need to spend serious money on their campaigns, incumbents use these campaign accounts as handy little slush funds to pay a variety of expenses: cell phone service, breakfasts, lunches and dinners out, lodging, floral arrangements, certificates and plaques, gasoline, and, of course, tickets to fundraisers for other candidates, political committees or charitable causes. Our own senator spent a total of about $18,000 out of his campaign account on such items during the first six months of 2008, according to his campaign committee's disclosure report on file with the state board of elections. (Included: $8,650 on tickets and contributions, $5,274 on restaurant tabs, $1,600 on cell phone service, $1,028 on flowers and $1,437 on plaques and awards.) The money is well spent from a politician's perspective. His contributions spread good will among his constituents. Tickets bought with his campaign cash allow him to attend events -- to be seen and get his name out there. It's political capital. And it goes a long way to ensure that an incumbent like Ken LaValle remains untouchable.

Expenditures on these kinds of items by the campaign committee for Assemblyman Marc Alessi, a relative newbie, pale in comparison: $144 on restaurant tabs; $370 on cell phone service; and $1,060 in tickets and contributions, not including a $2,000 donation from his campaign account to the Independence Party. Mr. Alessi took in $54,415 and spent $15,700 in the first six months of this year, and showed a closing balance of $43,821 on his July periodic report.

But there are perks for us in having a powerful incumbent like Mr. LaValle representing our district. He knows how to bring home the bacon. A senior incumbent Republican in the State Senate gets a big chunk of bacon to bring home, too. Mr. LaValle doled out nearly $2.2 million in "member items" this year. "Member items" are funds members of the assembly and senate can distribute however they see fit. The amount a member gets is determined by which party he's in and how much seniority he's got. Gov. Paterson, searching for ways to close the state's budget gap, wants to eliminate "member items" in next year's budget, saving the state about half a billion dollars. Fat chance. These payments to organizations and community groups also are an important source of political capital for incumbents. When a politician has more than $2 million to spread around his district among key constituent groups, he can win a lot of loyalty. No way the legislators will let that fountain of good will dry up.

There are so many systemic ailments in our system, I find it difficult to get too excited about any one candidate, especially a candidate for executive office, no matter how convincing a case for change he or she makes. If elected, they still have to deal with the legislature, and without true campaign finance reform and term limits in place, the legislature is, more or less, a permanent government, beholden not to the voters but to the people who fund their campaign accounts to keep the system going: special interest groups and business entities looking for a return on their investment -- and that may not necessarily be in the best interests of the people.

denise@timesreview.com

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

Dog Toy Warning

I was sent this link by a Suffolk Times reader. It's worth looking at. 

The Chai Story is a blog about a dog that was seriously injured by an apparently defective toy made by Four Paws, a "pimple ball" that was (and maybe still is) sold by Petland Discount. Other dogs have also been injured by this toy. 

I'm going to check out whether this is being sold by the big pet stores in Riverhead.

Oh, for the love of Vinny

Vinny Nasta, artist and educator who died this week in a plane crash at age 46 (see stories at riverheadnewsreview.com), is gone from this life far too soon, but he continues to teach, inspire and make people love, laugh and learn

I knew Vinny for many years, though not very well. Back when, as director of the East End Arts Council, I dealt with Vinny when he'd mount at least one exhibit of student work in our gallery every year. Deal with him but once, and you knew how deeply he cared for his pupils. They were more than pupils to Vinny. And he was more than a teacher to them.

This week, as I read through messages posted on the wall of a Facebook group created in his memory, and interviewed students and former students of this affable, fun-loving and passionate man, I encountered the same statements over and over again. It was almost eerie, as if they were all reading from the same script -- a testament to the breadth and depth of his commitment to youth and his passion for teaching.

From the teens in Riverhead, to the college students and the alumni artists, photographers and businessmen and women across the country and across the globe, their voices were one:

He was more than a teacher to me. He was one of my best friends. He was like my big brother. He was like my father. He made me believe in myself. He encouraged me more than anyone. He made me understand that I could accomplish something. I wouldn't have gone to college if it weren't for Mr. Nasta. I wouldn't be an artist today if it weren't for Mr. Nasta. He understood me. He cared about me. He cared about everyone. He would do anything for anyone. He was always there for me. He listened. He cared. He cared. He cared.

The intensity and the depth of love and grief that poured forth this week from the young people whose lives Vinny Nasta touched over the past 17 years at Riverhead High School was one of the most startling and moving things I've ever experienced as a journalist.

Their love for this man and the pain they felt at his untimely passing united them, and "the thing Mr. Nasta loved" -- as Erika Haas, the Riverhead High School junior who started the Facebook site in his memory, put it -- technology, gave them the means by which to come together to express that love and pain.

"I thought it was only fitting," Erika answered when I asked what made her set up the Facebook site, "to use the thing Mr, Nasta loved, technology, to create a memorial to him."

She set it up Monday morning, and by time the Duchess County Sheriff's Office, later that morning, officially released the name of the pilot killed at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome on Sunday afternoon, the "In Loving Memory of Vincent Nasta" Facebook group had more than four dozen members. Its numbers steadily climbed throughout the day Monday and Tuesday. As I write this Wednesday morning, it's 371 people strong, and growing still. Its members are almost all Riverhead students and alumni, representing almost every graduating class between 1995 and 2010, every class touched by Vinny Nasta. While most were students in his classes, not all had that honor. You didn't have to be one of his students to be one of his kids -- another oft-repeated refrain of the people who knew Vinny best, his kids.

Vinny's room was a place of refuge as well as learning, a haven where kids who might not otherwise have found their way through adolescence could "chill with Nasty." It was a place where they could belong, share their feelings, express their fears, laugh out loud, and feel good about themselves. Vinny's room was a place where kids dared to dream, and learned to soar.

"Fly high, Nasta," wrote Riverhead alum Sean Rachubka, "fly high."

The halls of Riverhead High School will be a little darker without Vinny Nasta's bright smile and warm presence, but, as his friend and colleague Frank Yolanga wrote, "Heaven just got a little bit brighter."

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers

Just because they say it's so ...

Column published in The Suffolk Times, Aug. 21, 2008

If something is repeated often enough, it becomes "true," right? That's why I'm compelled to answer the spin being spun about The Suffolk Times by various letter writers. The current flurry of criticism started with our "Gay on the North Fork" series in June and hit a crescendo following the publication of a reader's "Guest Spot" denouncing the use of torture of prisoners of war by the U.S. military.

We've found ourselves on the receiving end of many letters and e-mails -- some sent anonymously, so they never made it into the paper, because we require all letters to be signed by their authors -- accusing The Suffolk Times of all sorts of things, including printing only letters to the editor that conform to the editor's opinion about the president, or the war, or __________ (fill in the blank); of "slanting" our "reporting"; of having a "liberal agenda" instead of being "fair and balanced" (like Rupert Murdoch); and of not "reporting local news" (in favor of national or international news) in furtherance of our liberal agenda.

The Suffolk Times consists of about 100 pages each week, give or take. There is nothing but local news between its covers, except on the commentary pages, which are reserved for editorial and reader opinion. Local news is what we do. It's all we do. And it's what we've been doing for 151 years, since August of 1857. It's what community journalism is all about. It's been, and continues to be, this newspaper's formula for success.

We don't "report" on the war or, generally, the federal government, except as its actions and policies affect local people and issues. Yes, we have opined about the war, though not as much as some folks would have you believe. But news articles and commentary are two different things.

I'll readily admit I'm not a fan of Mr. Bush or the war. So I started wondering whether we've printed more editorials and op-ed columns criticizing the president and the war than I realized. I decided to do some research.

I searched The Suffolk Times Web site for all instances of the word "Bush" in editorials and columns between Jan. 1, 2004, and Aug. 7, 2008. That's roughly 238 editions of this newspaper.

In that time, in those 238 weeks, the word "Bush" appeared in editorials 12 times. One was in an editorial about the Iraq war, on the occasion of the U.S. military death toll's reaching 2,000. One was reflecting on the 2006 midterm elections. One was an endorsement of John Kerry for president (an endorsement, as I recall, some unhappy readers complained we, as a local paper, had no "right" to make.) One mentioned the president's name in passing, in an editorial about a former supervisor's "taking a page right out of the Bush-Cheney campaign handbook." The other eight all referenced the president in connection with local issues, such as Broadwater (four editorials), the effect of budget cuts on local hospitals (three), and immigration reform (an editorial in which we praised the president's position opposing a bill passed by the House.)

The word "Bush" also appeared in "columns" 36 times during the past four years and seven months. Seven of those references were completely unrelated or were mentions in passing in "columns" that were not commentary columns, such as the garden column or the Southold Seniors column; the search picked up references such as "under the bushes" and mentions of a local couple getting a tour of the White House but not seeing the president. The other 29 references were in op-ed columns in the commentary section.

The vast majority of those 29 columns had little or nothing to do with Bush or his policies -- they merely mentioned his name. Nine were "guest spot" or "equal time" columns submitted by readers. Of those, one, on Nov. 15, 2006, defended the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. One was about humorous campaign bumper stickers and one was about the number of Bush lawn signs versus the number of Kerry lawn signs.

Of the 20 columns mentioning Bush that were written by staff members, only six were actually about Mr. Bush or his administration's policies, and I wrote all six of them. Their topics? Two were about Broadwater, one was about Plum Island, two were about the war, and one was about the proposed marriage amendment. All of these big issues have big local impacts and I make no apology for thinking about them or speaking out on them.

I believe the commentary section of The Suffolk Times is a valuable forum for community discourse -- even discourse on non-local topics. It's one of the few forums where Southolders can publicly debate issues with one another.

We don't "censor" letters or op-ed columns. We do edit them, which can be a hefty job. We get lots of them, and I read and edit every one myself. I bend over backwards to help many letter writers make their points (whether I agree with them or not), taking a lot of time to correct grammar, syntax, usage and spelling, to make some letters more readable and others comprehensible. I ask people to tone down personal attacks. And I suggest substitutes for obscenities that some letter writers use (because this is, after all, a family newspaper).

What don't we print? We don't print letters that are libelous, because by publishing a libelous statement we bear legal responsibility for its libelous nature. We don't print letters to the editor generated by letter-writing campaigns mass-mailed to media outlets across the nation. (We get these every week.) And we don't print "open letters" to public officials or the community at large or letters to specific people (other than the editor).

If you would like to see more commentary supporting Mr. Bush, or the war, or expressing an opinion on any topic that interests you, then contribute something. This is your forum. Write a letter (350 words maximum, please), or an op-ed column (about 750 words). Put your name (no pseudonyms, please) and hamlet of residence on it, provide a contact phone number where you can be reached, and e-mail it to editor@timesreview.com. (Documents in Word format, attached to the e-mail message, please.) If you're not computer-savvy, we still accept letters the old-fashioned way, addressed to: Editor, The Suffolk Times, P.O. Box 1500, Mattituck, NY 11952 or faxed to 631-298-3287. Please type or print. If we can't read it, we can't publish it.

We look forward to hearing from you, even if it's to tell us how wrong we are or how stupid our opinion is. It reminds me of how much I cherish my freedom of expression.

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers

What to do about Zimbler

David Zimbler didn’t stand a chance. Before he even crossed the threshold of the high school’s main entrance last year, he was a marked man.

His predecessor, Jim McCaffrey, was beloved by students, faculty, staff and parents alike, which may have been an unprecedented feat for a principal at Riverhead High.

Last year, when the new superintendent brought with her a new principal to replace Mr. McCaffrey, a retired principal serving as an interim, with one year remaining on his three-year contract, there was an uproar. The kids wanted no part of the new guy. I know this because I have two children in the high school, and they were as unhappy with the change as were all of their friends.

Everything Mr. Zimbler did or said was unpopular with the kids, whose opinions, I found, were often shaped by comments of teachers in the classroom criticizing the administration for this or that policy or rule. Students even started a Facebook group called something like “David Zimbler ruined Riverhead High School.” The group on the popular social networking Web site was formed within weeks of the beginning of the last school term. Talk about a rush to judgment.

By the end of the school year, while Mr. Zimbler was still no Mr. McCaffrey, it seems a lot of the skepticism and resistance his presence inspired had worn away — at least among the kids. Some teachers, I think, may be another story.

But Mr. Zimbler made a “bad decision” on June 13, as he says in his letter to the community sent to The News-Review for publication this week. (See page 8.)
A really bad decision. One of the worst decisions anybody can make. He drank alcohol and got behind the wheel of a car.

While Mr. Zimbler now faces public humiliation and possible disciplinary action, or worse — his career may be on the line — he is a very lucky man. Driving while intoxicated on June 13, Mr. Zimbler was lucky he didn’t hurt or kill someone. Anybody who drives while under the influence of alcohol or drugs without hurting or killing someone is lucky. People are hurt or killed by drunk drivers every day.

Yet people keep drinking and driving. Lots of people. People you know. People you love. People you respect. Maybe even you.

I know I’ve done it. I have driven home from parties or nights out with friends after having imbibed alcohol and might have flunked a Breathalyzer test had I been stopped by a cop. I don’t know for sure, but I’m willing to bet I’ve taken the same risk that David Zimbler took on June 13 and didn’t get caught. I, too, was lucky — not that I didn’t get caught but that I didn’t hurt someone, or take someone’s life. May God forgive me my stupidity.

Now I’m no party animal, and I don’t take risks the way I did when I was younger. But before we tar and feather David Zimbler, we’d all best look within. Even if you’ve never had a drink in your life, haven’t you ever made a mistake or done something incredibly stupid that you regret? Who hasn’t?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not minimizing the seriousness of Mr. Zimbler’s offense, or the stupidity of his action. I’m not suggesting school officials look the other way or give him a slap on the wrist. As high school principal, he is supposed to be a role model for our children. But as a human being, he’s fallible, and in his fallibility he can also be a role model — by admitting his error, as he’s done, and by talking about it very frankly and openly with his students. And if he has an alcohol abuse problem — something none of us is in the position to know right now — he can be a role model by admitting that, talking about it, seeking help and talking about that, too.

Our kids need to hear adults admit we’re not perfect. They need to learn from us how to admit to making mistakes. They need to learn from us how to face the consequences of our mistakes and bad decisions. They need to learn from us that it’s all right to seek help, if we need it, to deal with substance abuse issues.

David Zimbler has an opportunity to teach kids these important lessons. It sounds like he gets it. We should encourage him as he works through this and encourage him to be that role model in the process.

The district administration and school board also have an opportunity to use this bad situation to accomplish something good. It should break with precedent and be forthright about what the principal did and what action it’s taking to discipline him — as well as how it’s working to prevent other teachers and administrators from making the same mistake. The “no comment, this is a personnel matter” response doesn’t serve anyone well in this situation, least of all the kids.

Finally, the rest of us should be on the lookout for people who will seek to exploit this terrible circumstance to further their own agendas. You will recognize them and what they are trying to do. We should all insist — also breaking with precedent — that reason prevail in Riverhead.

e-mail: denise@timesreview.com.

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

Blues on the riverfront

The 10th Annual Riverhead Blues Festival seems to be a smash success. Great day yesterday. Fantastic lineup of talent. The closing band last night was just awesome. Tonight will rock again, with fireworks after the show.

Stop by the Times/Review tent on the riverfront side of the venue (right next to the LI Blues Society tent). We've got a guitar hero contest going on and (FREE) raffles for a $150 Stop & Shop gift card and 4 tickets to a LI Ducks baseball game. We're also giving away caps, pens, pads and SUNSCREEN.

Bluesfest is a fantastic riverfront party. There should be at least one more riverfront party like this every summer. It proves that if you give people a REASON to come to downtown Riverhead, they will flock there in droves.

Pavilion could be misstep

I honestly don't relish the role of contrarian. Really. Especially when it means contradicting opinions expressed on our own editorial page. As co-publisher and executive editor, you'd think I'd fully support every point of view that appears under the "editorial" banner on page 8. But there's room for disagreement on our editorial board. And there's always room for reconsideration.

Though The News-Review has given its "tentative support" to the BID's riverfront pavilion concept, it was, in my personal opinion, premature to do so.

And I'm not simply expressing reservations about either the initial design offered by BID architect Martin Sendlewski or the revised rendering unveiled at a Town Board work session two weeks later.

I'm not sure that a pavilion is needed on the riverfront and I'd hate to see the town get locked into something that may prove to be more of an impediment to riverfront development than an asset. I can appreciate the frustration of downtown merchants, which makes them susceptible to a "something, anything" kind of desperation. But feelings of desperation don't make for good long-term planning.

I'm not opposed to the riverfront as a concert venue. It's a perfect concert venue. Easily accessed by both forks and eastern Brookhaven, it has plenty of space and is surrounded by ample (free) public parking. I've personally been directly involved in planning and producing numerous concerts on the riverfront, dating back to my days with the East End Arts Council -- everything from Dizzie Gillespie to the American Wind Symphony Orchestra, which sailed into town on a huge concert barge for a riverfront concert, complete with fireworks, a decade ago.

The arts attract people. And there's no disagreement that people are what downtown Riverhead needs most.

Check out what's going to happen downtown this very weekend. The 10th annual Riverhead Blues Festival will be staged on the riverfront, and downtown will be transformed.

So it's really rather a no-brainer (even in my beloved adopted "no-brainer" town) that a riverfront concert venue makes eminent good sense.

But does a pavilion provide the right kind of venue infrastructure? Not exactly. A 6,000-square-foot pavilion is not a great concert venue, except for relatively small concerts. Pavilions, though they provide shelter from raindrops, can actually make staging concerts difficult. With the band set up on a stage under a pavilion, viewing from outside the shelter is limited. The town's showmobile could no longer be used. It couldn't fit inside the pavilion, and couldn't be positioned outside the structure and still be viewable by people within the pavilion. That means a portable stage would have to be set up for each concert -- increasing production costs. The interior capacity of the pavilion is likewise limited.

The fact is, concerts are better staged at bandshells than under pavilions. In addition to providing unobstructed sight lines, bandshells provide great acoustic support -- which pavilions lack. Many years ago, there was a plan afoot to site a bandshell on the riverfront -- also a "no brainer," I thought. But Riverhead wasn't smart enough to do it. The town got bogged down in an argument over location. And the bandshell idea died.

That experience makes me hesitate to voice my concerns about the pavilion. I, too, have a sense that "this is better than nothing -- just do it, do something -- anything -- already!"

But honestly, pavilions are better structures for picnics than for concerts. Not that I have anything against picnics. But the economic development impact of a picnic just isn't the same.

And then there's the potential of this sheltered area becoming a magnet for loiterers -- or worse. Zero-tolerance or no, downtown still offers more than its fair share of unsavory characters who might see alternative uses for our nice pavilion. Enough said?

Riverhead needs to take the time to think this through and get it right. Especially since it's considering plopping this down smack in the middle of the riverfront. Which brings me to another troubling aspect of this proposal.

Is it part of a larger redevelopment plan? Getting the riverfront right means dealing with it as a whole, not doing things hodgepodge and willy-nilly. A few years back, then-Councilman Ed Densieski offered a plan to transform the riverfront with green space, eliminating the riverfront roadway, creating picnic areas, an ice rink in winter and other recreational amenities where now only asphalt exists. He had the right idea, both in terms of the overall plan and the approach.

A couple of months of "big picture" thinking and planning isn't too much to ask for a project that will shape the identity and usability of the riverfront for generation to come.

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

I am what I am

Published in The Suffolk Times and The News-Review June 26, 2008

I'm still not sure if I should write this column. I'm reluctant to give some people another reason to criticize this newspaper for running a series of articles on what it's like to be "gay on the North Fork."

So let me address upfront the critics who will accuse me of furthering a personal agenda. When Gov. David Paterson announced his executive order requiring state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside New York, I wrote a story about local reaction to it because it was news. I didn't set out to tell the story of gay people on the North Fork. But when I started talking to people, I found out there was quite a story to tell. A compelling one. And one that hadn't really been told, certainly never on the pages of this newspaper. That's how the series began.

I knew there would be some "hate mail." (Actually, I thought there would be more of it.) I knew some people would be offended, and others would be pushed beyond their personal comfort zones. But just as telling the stories of people's lives is part of what community journalism is about, so, too, is tackling hard issues and provoking discussion.

Human sexuality is a scary subject. Up until quite recently, it was taboo. People whose sexuality differed from the majority got along all right if they weren't too obvious or outspoken. Ours was a "don't ask, don't tell" society. That's the world I grew up in.

But the world is changing.

The discussion has become a discussion about civil rights. And that, I think, is exactly what it should be.

Opponents of gay rights stand on their Bibles and religious beliefs. I respect the freedom of my neighbors to practice their religion as they see fit, as is their right under the U.S. Constitution. I also respect the Constitution, which prohibits our government from establishing a religion. That means the government can't pull out the Christian Bible and quote from the writings of the Apostle Paul to justify denying people civil rights and equal protection under the law on account of their sexual orientation. Pastors can kick out of their churches people who don't conform to their religious beliefs. That's their business, between them and their God. But the government can't make it illegal to be nonconformist or keep nonconformists out of our nation's voting booths or courtrooms because the religious beliefs of government officials, even if shared by the majority of Americans, condemn the nonconformists.

Keeping quiet and "knowing your place" doesn't work for gays any more than it worked for blacks or women. But it's a lot easier to keep quiet about -- or hide -- your sexual orientation than your race or gender. That could be why the "gay liberation" movement was a few decades behind the other two. Sexuality is, after all, the most private of things. That's true, until it's used as a basis for discrimination and the denial of civil rights.

I never hid or denied my own sexual orientation -- if asked. But I never stood up and made any announcements either. My daughter Katie changed that for me when, as an adolescent questioning her own sexuality, she asked, "Mommy, would you hate me if it turns out I'm gay?" I still fight back tears just thinking about that moment -- that she felt she had to ask me that question, that she thought my love for her could ever be anything but unconditional, that I could ever hate her, that I was such a stranger to my own daughter.

She'd never known me as anything but a straight woman, married to her father, living a very conventional life. I'm not sure how or why I ended up this way. But I fell in love with him.

Being bisexual has its own complications. Straight people tend to think you're simply promiscuous. Gay people tend to think you're simply afraid. I'm neither. But I was, until my daughter asked the question, silent.

I'm not exactly sure what it means to be "bi" when you're in a monogamous relationship. For the past 17-plus years, partnered with a person of the opposite sex, I guess you could say I've been living a heterosexual life. For 14 years before that, partnered with a person of the same sex, I was living a lesbian life. Monogamous is probably a better word to define my sexuality than straight, or gay or bi. But it is what it is. And I am what I am.

It's important to be "out" -- something that's been underscored for me in the course of writing this series, interviewing gay people between the ages of 14 and 84. You can't claim your civil rights as an American citizen from within the confines of a locked closet. And nobody's going to open up your closet door and hand them to you. As long as you're content being quiet, the rest of the world is content pretending you really don't exist. And, as history teaches, in your silence, being ignored is probably the best you can hope for.

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

Broadwater filed its appeal with commerce secretary

See the breaking news story on the home page of one of our four newspapers:
Go to www.timesreview.com

Gay on the North Fork

We've started a month-long series in Suffolk Times and News-Review this week (to coincide with gay pride month) about being gay on the North Fork.

This week, I've written an article about local reaction among gays and lesbians to the governor's executive order requiring NY state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Next week, I'm writing about federal issues affecting local gay people, focusing on immigration. The following week, I'll be writing about gay parents raising families on the North Fork. And the week after that, I'm writing about "then vs. now" — how things have changed, how they haven't.

If you've got a story to share for any part of this series, I'd love to hear from you. Please send me an e-mail at denise@timesreview.com. I can protect your identity if you want to remain anonymous (though I will need to verify your identity myself.)

Also, please visit our Web sites www. timesreview.com and vote in this week's online poll question: Should NY legalize same-sex marriage? (The poll is at the bottom of the home page, on the right.)

Riverhead High School students shine at Music in the Parks

The high school's chamber choir won "Best Overall High School Choir" in the Music in the Parks festival at Kings Dominion, Doswell, Virginia today. They won first place and were rated "superior" by the judges.

The high school orchestra and jazz band were both rated "excellent" and the orchestra placed 2nd in the competition. The jazz band didn't compete because there were no other jazz bands in the competition, according to my trusted source, my 10th grade daughter, Katie Blasl, who's in the chamber choir.

Congratulations to all these fine musicians and their extremely dedicated teachers, Sean O'Hara, David Loddengard and Lee Hanwick.

There were some scary moments in the park late this afternoon, as a line of severe thunderstorms blew through. Nobody was injured, thankfully, but there was lightning, hail and strong winds, and the kids were in the picnic pavillion as the storm passed. The system spawned at least three tornadoes, according to the National Weather Service, which were spotted in communities to the northeast, east and southeast of the park. They were all pretty shook up.

A tornado watch remains in effect there until 9 o'clock tonight. It sounds like the park might be closed for the evening, and the students are going to go back to their hotel in Richmond. They are supposed to go back to the amusement park tomorrow morning, before boarding their buses for Riverhead mid-afternoon.