When a church says 'enough'

The Open Arms soup kitchen had been serving a hot meal each weekday to hungry and often homeless people in the fellowship hall at First Congregational Church in downtown Riverhead for the past 16 winters. To many served by this program, supported largely by donations, that meal was their only meal of the day. The hour or two during which the church opened its doors was, for many, their only chance to sit in a warm room, sheltered from the cold, snow and rain.

On Oct. 1, 2008, the church trustees sent Open Arms a letter ordering the soup kitchen to vacate its premises by Dec. 31. No explanation was provided.

Zona Stroy, a retired IBM executive who heads up Open Arms' volunteer board, was puzzled by the termination notice, as there had never been any problems at the site, she told me last week. So she called the chairman of the trustees -- twice, leaving a message each time, she said. Her calls were not returned.

Ms. Stroy said she learned by reading this newspaper that the church trustees hoped to rent out the space for more money, possibly for use as a day-care center. She remains baffled that Open Arms was never even asked if it could pay a higher rent before it was told to leave. (It's been paying $125 per month.)

Clearly, Ms. Stroy concluded, the church just wanted the soup kitchen out.

Resigned to that fact, Ms. Stroy wrote a letter to the trustees last month asking if the church would extend Open Arms' occupancy of the space until the end of March, offering to pay a higher monthly rent.

Again, no reply.

I called the new chairwoman of the trustees myself last week and left a message on her home answering machine. I never got a call back either.

Ms. Stroy has since wrangled temporary use of the unoccupied Riverhead railroad station to distribute cold sandwiches and coffee, supplied by Suffolk County Community College's culinary school for $2 per person. About 80 people have been showing up for lunch at the train station. At $2 a head, it's costing Open Arms much more to feed the hungry than before. The group has use of the train station until April. Ms. Stroy is searching out other locations, so far without luck. And she's desperately seeking financial support. (Open Arms is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit. In addition to the soup kitchen, it operates a food pantry out of space donated to it by First Baptist Church on Northville Turnpike.)

I used to be a member of First Congregational Church. I was enticed to join by its former pastor, the Rev. Donna Schaper. We became good friends during her tenure there (late 1980s-early 1990s) and remain so to this day. She struggled as a pastor with the sometimes conflicting needs of a church congregation versus those of the world at large.

Whose church is it anyway? Does it "belong" to the families who attend services there on Sunday and support its maintenance with their weekly donations? Does it exist to tend to their needs? Or is its function to reach out beyond the congregation, to touch the lives and hearts of others, to care for the poor and the hungry among us?

These are not new questions. Some 20 years ago, Donna went head-to-head with church trustees who objected to her practice of allowing homeless people to sleep in the church office on frigid winter nights. And First Congregational is not alone in wrestling with this basic issue. At least it wrestles. Some church congregations don't even find themselves discussing such questions.

Meanwhile, the hall at First Congregational Church sits empty at mid-day. Plans to use the space as a day-care center, if they exist, are in the very earliest stages and months from fruition. There was no good reason to kick Open Arms -- and the hungry -- out into the cold this winter. Especially not this winter, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, when the needs of the poorest among us grow greater each day, and the number of people needing help is also escalating.

Copyright 2009 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

Will happy days be here again?

The Great Depression was something my grandparents talked about, something I read about in history books in school, something depicted in scratchy black and white photographs and the jumpy frames of celluloid film reels.

Its psychological impacts could last a lifetime -- exemplified by a family friend, a "Depression-era baby" who grew up poor in 1930s Tennessee and to this day saves, reuses and hoards everything -- though she would live out her life in upper-middle-class comfort on Long Island -- because, in her perspective, you just never know when you'll have to make do and go without again. The day she's long dreaded may have finally arrived. (And she's lived to see it. Yesterday, coincidentally, was her 90th birthday. Happy birthday, Ruth.)

Monday night we went to sleep trying to digest staggering reports of massive job cuts totalling about 64,000. That's on top of the 2.55 million jobs lost since the recession began (in December 2007) and not counting the jobs lost in December 2008. The national unemployment rate is now pushing 8 percent.

The unemployment rate is even higher when you count previous full-time workers forced to take part-time jobs and people who have given up looking for work and are no longer counted in the official tally. Adding those folks into the mix, unemployment rates are already in the double-digit range, according to economists.

It's all very depressing. And scary.

For the first time in my life I truly understand the meaning of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's admonition to the nation upon his taking office in March, 1933: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Until recently, that famous quotation was little more than rhetorical flourish to this child born into the prosperity of post-World War II America. In my world view as a child growing up during the 1960s anything was possible. There was nothing America couldn't do, invent or build. It was an age of wonder.

I remember as a kid watching the Verazzano Bridge take shape not far from where I lived in Brooklyn -- the longest single-expansion bridge in the world. Across the river, work began on what would be the tallest skyscrapers in the world, and we watched in awe as their towering, square steel frames -- the Twin Towers, they'd be called -- rose on the tip of Manhattan Island.

We eagerly watched every Mercury, Gemini and Apollo rocket launch and every capsule splash-down in our nation's quest to fulfill President John Kennedy's challenge -- to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade and return him safely to earth. Each one was an event -- a kind of modern-day, man-made miracle worthy of observance. And so, briefly, America would pause from its work and watch.

It was an age of optimism, a time when Americans believed we could accomplish anything. And so President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" was born. No one would be left behind in our new era of progress, not even the poorest of Americans -- especially not the poorest of Americans -- nor Americans who had not had a seat at the table because of the color of their skin. America could overcome and heal the injuries inflicted by a history of slavery and racial segregation.

America could, after all, do anything.

Even through the troubled times that followed those halcyon years -- the country's bitter division over the Vietnam war and the crisis of confidence and trust in government wrought by Watergate -- we still held tight to the belief that America could overcome any obstacle, meet any goal, accomplish anything it set its mind to.

This age of optimism and confidence shaped the world view of our 44th president. It is in Barack Obama's blood. He exudes it. And that's good. It's just what we need right now. It's exactly what we need to overcome the only thing we really have to fear, as FDR said: fear itself. We have to shed that fear, and, to borrow from Mr. Obama's inaugural address, pull ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and set to work remaking America. We have to set things straight, fix the broken systems that allowed the current crisis to take shape, and reinvest in America.

I believe the president when he says yes, we, as a nation, can do this.

I have to. The alternative is too bleak for me to imagine -- and it's one I refuse to accept, not only for myself, but for my children, coming of age as they are at this pivotal moment in history. I want them to optimistically and confidently embrace life in an America in which anything is possible with hard work and perseverance. That's the essence of the true meaning of freedom at the heart of the American Dream. And the dream still lives.

Tankleff case may be tip of the iceberg

The notorious criminal case of Martin Tankleff, the Belle Terre teenager convicted in 1990 of murdering his parents early in the morning on Sept. 7, 1988, ended without real resolution last December, when the state attorney general announced he would not seek a new trial of Mr. Tankleff.

His conviction had been tossed out in 2007 by a state appellate court after nearly 20 years of maneuvering by a team of believers who never gave up hope that justice would be served.
But the attorney general’s investigation and report did not exonerate Tankleff. It simply found that while there was “some evidence” that the youth committed the crimes, it was too old to form the basis of a new prosecution.

Marty Tankleff won his freedom. But justice was not served. The killer or killers of Seymour and Arlene Tankleff walked away.

A recently released book about the investigation and prosecution of the Tankleff case portrays the Suffolk County criminal justice system — police, prosecutors and judges alike — as a corrupt good ol’ boys network far more interested in protecting each other’s hides than pursuing truth and justice.

“A Criminal Injustice: A True Crime, a False Confession and the Fight to Free Marty Tankleff,” was co-authored by the private investigator who devoted seven years of his life to digging for the truth of the Tankleff murders (remunerated with a $5,000 retainer paid by Tankleff’s pro bono law firm). The book provides eye-popping details about what the investigator, Jay Salpeter, a retired NYC police detective, found — and how the Suffolk DA and the court went out of their way to disregard or bury it all, or worse.

“They are still hunkering down,” his co-author Rick Firstman told me Tuesday, about the posture of law enforcement officials regarding the Tankleff case and new disclosures made in the book.

And with good reason, according to the details laid out in “A Criminal Injustice.” It’s a gripping, can’t-put-it-down read.

The Tankleff case is a gripping, can’t-stop-thinking-about-it kind of case.

Lonnie Soury, a Manahattan-based PR man and part-time Southold resident, who said he became obsessed with Marty’s cause, said “people got infected with Tankleff” because “there was an undercurrent in Suffolk County that this kid got a raw deal.”

There’s the confession coaxed from a traumatized kid with lies by a detective who may have had his own business relationship with the murder victim’s estranged business partner, whom many believe was involved in the crime. Then the same detective becomes partners in a bar with the defendant’s half-sister, who bankrolls their business venture — Digger O’Dell’s in Riverhead — with the inheritance she got because her brother was convicted.

The detective, James McCready, denied under oath that he knew Tankleff’s business partner, Jerry Steuerman, the self-proclaimed “bagel king” of Long Island; he denied he even knew of him.

A “crucial” witness whose testimony at a post-trial hearing in 2004 linked McCready to Steuerman was Lenny Lubrano, now proprietor of Lenny’s Restaurant in Jamesport. Lenny had a wholesale business in the 1980s and bought bagels from Steuerman. He saw the two men together at the store. Later, when he owned a pizzeria in Rocky Point, McCready would come in and buy lunch for his crews — he had a thriving construction business “on the side.” McCready told Lenny he was doing construction work for Steuerman. This was long before the murders. After Lenny heard that Steuerman and McCready were involved in the Tank­leff case and that they denied knowing each other, he came forward.

Greg Blass of Jamesport, an attorney in private practice in Riverhead during the 1980s (he was also then a member of the County Legislature), represented Seymour Tankleff in several business transactions. Seymour usually brought Marty along with him to meetings with the lawyer — he was “grooming” Marty to take over his business. Blass told me he was supposed to meet with Tankleff the day of the crime.

“I had absolutely no doubt that Marty did not do a thing like that,” Blass said. A subdued youth who had a loving relationship with his father, “he was not capable of it.”

Blass remembers Tankleff asking him to review some promissory notes he was planning to foreclose on. He believes they were from Steuerman and that Steuerman knew Tankleff was going to call them in. “Seymour told me he had spoken to him,” Blass said, “and suspected there were going to be some difficulties.”

That may be the understatement of a lifetime.

Copyright 2009 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

County's trailer hocus-pocus

I give a lot of credit to Mason Haas and Mike Brewer for trying to do something constructive about the county warehousing homeless sex offenders in our community. (They've organized a community forum Jan. 15 at Riverhead High School. Assemblymen Marc Alessi and Fred Thiele, County Legislators Ed Romaine and Jay Schneiderman, and representatives of the county Department of Social Services will be on hand.)

Getting people together is a good first step. It's important for people to understand why the county is dumping all of its homeless sex offenders in a trailer at the jail in Riverside and why the county's policy is wrong.

The county has a legal obligation to provide homeless people with a place to sleep. It turned out there was a saturation of homeless shelters housing registered sex offenders in the Coram area, and when the extent of the saturation was exposed by news reports, there was a loud public outcry. In response, the county announced a new program that would rotate homeless sex offenders among several trailers at different locations throughout the county. That way, according to chief deputy commissioner of social services Greg Blass, the burden would be shared. That sounded reasonable. But the rotation thing ended almost as fast as it was begun, and the trailer in the parking lot of the county jail in Riverside quickly became the only place where homeless sex offenders can bed down as the county's guests.

It got crowded. So they brought in an even bigger trailer. And they reportedly are outfitting the bigger trailer with bunk beds, so they can cram even more in there.

County social services officials are big on double-talk when it comes to explaining why Riverhead-area residents shouldn't be concerned about hosting the county's flophouse for homeless convicted child molesters and rapists. They are brought to the trailer only to sleep, we're told. They are dropped off at county social services offices throughout Suffolk during the day, we're told. Officials give no clear answers about how these men spend their days after being dropped off. Nor do they explain what happens to them on weekends and holidays when the social services offices are closed -- other than to say that they are driven to some up-island industrial park for showers. (The trailer has no shower -- or kitchen.) But, we're told, they're not left to wander the streets of Riverhead. So don't worry.

But we do worry. And so we should. The county's track record on this subject does not inspire confidence. And the trailer is a short walk from our public library, the historical society (a popular place for school class trips) and several public schools.

If the sex offenders are dumped at their "home" county social services centers on weekdays, as we're told, what threats do they pose to the communities near those centers? You should be interested in that, too, because Riverhead hosts one of the county's five social services centers. How many of the homeless sex offenders are being dropped off on East Main Street in Riverhead, then -- and left to wander our streets? We have a right to straight answers, and we're not getting them.

East End county legislators Ed Romaine and Jay Schneiderman introduced a bill in October that would limit to four the number of registered sex offenders that could be placed in emergency housing (like the trailer) in any given zip code. The bill hasn't gone anywhere and even if it is adopted, the county executive would likely veto it.

We need to hold our local officials accountable for their inexcusable passivity on this subject. Supervisor Phil Cardinale and the Town Board have barely said anything. Three councilmen are ex-cops. I can't believe they're not incensed at the county dumping homeless sex offenders on our community like this. The fourth is married to the chief deputy commissioner of social services, the very agency that's perpetrating this mess, so her reticence is more easily explained.

The Town Board's great contribution to the "fight" against the trailer was to make a park out of a little strip of land on West Main Street -- which they named after self-appointed town government watchdog George Schmelzer. I wish Mr. Schmelzer were alive to give the board what-for about its pathetically lame attempt to "do something" about the sex offender trailer dumped in our backyard by the county. Never mind putting his name on it. Mr. Schmelzer always told it like it was. I can only just imagine what he'd be saying at the Town Hall meeting room podium.

Broadwater fate out of Bush's hands

This is probably very good news if you're an opponent of Broadwater:

Broadwater fate is out of Bush's hands
Decision on appeal will be made by Obama administration
By Denise Civiletti
Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Dec. 18, 2008

The fate of Broadwater's proposed floating natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound will not be decided by the Bush administration, after all.

A decision on Broadwater's appeal of New York's rejection of its plan has been postponed until at least mid-February. U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on Dec. 10 issued a stay in the appeal proceedings that will keep the appeal record open until Feb. 13, effectively punting the decision to the incoming Obama administration.

“It's one more nail in the coffin,” Broadwater opponent Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We're hoping the new administration is going to keep its promises of advancing renewables and relieve us of our dependence on foreign fossil fuels,” she said. “The market for LNG is not good right now anyway. Broadwater would have been a giant white elephant floating in Long Island Sound.”

Broadwater Energy senior vice president John Hritcko said the stay was “not unanticipated” because of the scope of the review. “There is a large record to consider,” Mr. Hritcko said.

The N.Y. secretary of state on April 10 ruled Broadwater's proposal inconsistent with the state's coastal management policy. That ruling would effectively block Broadwater's plans to moor a 1,200-foot-long floating natural gas terminal in the middle of L.I. Sound, about nine miles off the coast of Wading River — in spite of the fact that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the Broadwater application. That's because the federal Coastal Zone Management Act gives the state the last word on activities that impact coastal areas. But the federal law allows the federal commerce secretary to override the state's consistency ruling, and Broadwater appealed to the commerce secretary to do just that.

Mr. Gutierrez's decision to keep the record open for an additional 60 days — to collect additional information from various federal agencies — means it's likely that President-elect Barack Obama's pick for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, will decide Broadwater's appeal.

Mr. Richardson served as energy secretary in the Clinton administration, from 1998 to 2001 and, as a candidate for president in the last campaign, declared he would be “the energy president.” In a key energy policy speech in May 2007, he pledged to lead “an energy revolution” as president, to wean the U.S. from foreign oil dependence and “free the U.S. from its status of international hostage of costly energy” by focusing on developing renewable energy sources. But in the same speech he also spoke of natural gas as a “relatively nonpolluting, plentiful, reliable energy source.”

Mr. Hritcko said the identity of the commerce secretary will not be the deciding factor in Broadwater's appeal.

“It's an administrative review by legal staff, based on the record, the merits of the arguments on both sides and legal precedent. It's a conclusion that's handed to the secretary by the staff. It's not a political decision,” he said. Mr. Hritcko noted that only two LNG appeals have ever been brought to the commerce secretary under the CZMA, and both were brought during the tenure of Secretary Gutierrez. The secretary upheld the state in one appeal and overrode the state in the other.

A spokesperson for the N.Y. state department was optimistic about the eventual outcome of the Broadwater appeal. “We've made our position vigorously to the Department of Commerce,” said Joel Barkin, deputy secretary for public affairs, in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We believe we made our decision properly and we are confident that ultimately we will be upheld.”

denise@timesreview.com

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

You gotta love Riverhead

What a game! What a team! What a season! What a town!
Saturday’s Long Island championship game was classic 2008 Riverhead Blue Waves football. A romp, effectively wrapped up in the first half. It seemed like every Waves possession ended in a Waves touchdown. Give the ball to Miguel, put six points up on the board. Two Maysonet TDs separated by — what — 11 seconds?
But, in classic Blue Waves style, Maysonet was only the beginning. There was Gilliam. There was Moore. There was Velys. And LaGue. And Fitzgerald. And Meyer. And the rest of the undefeated championship team.
Let’s not forget Coach Shay, who’s come a long, long way from being “reassigned” in 2007 for covering up the lens of a security camera in the gymnasium.
But this isn’t about football, exactly.
This is more about what Saturday meant to Riverhead and about my adopted home town.
Saturday, Riverhead kicked butt.
In a big way.
There was the 42-6 score posted on the board at Kenneth P. LaValle Stadium at Stony Brook University.
But the story of Riverhead’s triumph was told in the stands and in the parking lot almost as much as it was told on the field.
Riverhead turned out to support the home team. The Riverhead crowd filled up most of two levels of the stadium seating. (In contrast, the turnout for our rivals on the gridiron, not counting Elmont’s excellent marching band, fit into one section of the one-level bleachers across the field.) But — and this is the really cool part — the Riverhead crowd wasn’t there just because it was the L.I. championship game. No, no. Riverhead’s “road” crowd — the people who turn out to watch “away” games — is as big or bigger than any other team’s “road” crowd in the league. There are the parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles of team members. And then there are the people like Tony James, star of a Waves team of more than 30 years ago, in the stands every week, ringing a bell, shaking a tambourine and shouting out words of advice and encouragement to current team members on the field. And the teachers, administrators and staff. And the people who come just because … it’s Riverhead, their team, their town.
Riverhead, the much-maligned, often dumped-on putative seat of Suffolk County government. Riverhead, the little town that couldn’t.
Oh, yes, we can. Yes, we can. And we do.
Whether it’s Blue Waves football or any one of a host of other teams, clubs and groups in our school district (for example, our award-winning Latinists, our nationally recognized, exemplary Council for Unity, our award-winning choirs, to name a just a few), Riverhead’s young people shine. They excel. They do us proud. Every day.
They are children of honest, hardworking people who live in a community that still has a soul, a sense of place, an identity — increasingly precious commodities in the modern world.
The magic this weekend — the players on the field and the people in the stands ­­— reminded me all over again why Riverhead is such a great place to live and raise a family.
Thank you, Blue Waves. And congratulations.
Ms. Civiletti invites you to join a discussion of this topic at civiletti.blogspot.com. Her e-mail address is denise@timesreview.com.

Riverhead Blue Waves football L.I. Class II Champs

It was awe-inspiring. Our Blue Waves trounced the Elmont Spartans 42-6 in the Class II L.I. Championship final game today at Stony Brook University. See The News-Review's game story here. And nearly as awe inspiring as the victory itself was the turnout of the Riverhead community to root the team on to victory today. The stands of LaValle stadium were filled to the brim with cheering fans from home. It made me very proud of our town — and our team! Way to GO WAVES!

CHECK OUT THE NEWS-REVIEW'S LIVE BLOG FROM TODAY'S LI CHAMPIONSHIP GAME

News-Review sportswriters will be blogging live from the L.I. Championship game today at Stony Brook University. We'll be posting photos there too. Check it out: www.riverheadnewsreview.com

GO WAVES!

NY AG Andrew Cuomo sues FERC over Broadwater permits

By Denise Civiletti
Times/Review Newspapers, Mattituck, N.Y.

(Nov. 26) Two New York agencies are asking a federal court to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of Broadwater Energy's application to site, build and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound.

In a petition filed earlier this month with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City, the New York departments of state and environmental conservation claim that FERC violated the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act and the Natural Gas Act when it issued permits on March 20 to Broadwater Energy LLC and Broadwater Pipeline LLC to construct and operate the floating LNG terminal and a 22-mile subsea pipeline in New York waters of L.I. Sound, about nine miles north of Wading River.

Though the petition does not detail the state's arguments regarding the alleged violations of federal law by FERC, which will be contained in the state's subsequent brief and memorandum of law, at issue is FERC's practice of granting permit approvals prior to completion of review and approval by the appropriate state agencies under the federal Coastal Zone Management and Clean Water acts.

FERC has issued such permits expressly conditioned on approval by the required state agencies pursuant to the CZMA and Clean Water Act. At least two states, Washington and Delaware, already are challenging FERC's practice of issuing such conditional permits before state review is completed and approvals or certifications are issued by state agencies. Those actions are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

The question, 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" that require prior state approval.

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, Joan Marchioro, an attorney in Washington State's attorney general's office, told The Suffolk Times in September. 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."

A call seeking comment from the New York attorney general's office was not returned by presstime.

"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," Peter Bergen, the attorney representing the towns of Riverhead and Southold on the Broadwater matter, said in September, when rehearing requests were denied by FERC.

"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. "We raised that issue in our rehearing request and FERC just blew us off," Mr. Bergen said.

Broadwater Energy LLC, a joint venture of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines, proposes to build a 1,200-foot-long floating LNG terminal in the Sound. The terminal, a storage and "regasification" facility, would be capable of supplying the New York metropolitan area with one billion cubic yards of natural gas each day. It would take delivery of supercooled liquefied natural gas from two to three oceangoing tankers a week, and heat the liquid to return it to a gaseous state. It would then supply the distribution network with gas via 22-mile subsea pipeline that would connect to the existing Iroquois pipeline that traverses the Sound and connects to a land-based distribution pipeline in western Suffolk County.

The Broadwater proposal drew fire from environmental and civic groups on both sides of the Sound, and was quickly opposed by the towns of Riverhead, Brookhaven, Southold, East Hampton and Huntington, as well as by Suffolk County and the Connecticut attorney general.

FERC approved Broadwater's permit applications in March over the broad opposition of local governments and citizen groups. But under federal law, the project must be ruled consistent with the state's coastal policy and the clean water act by the state DOS and DEC, respectively. The new legal challenge brought by the state addresses FERC's policy of approving permits before the state's consistency rulings are issued. Subsequent to FERC's permit approval, the New York State Department in fact ruled Broadwater's plan inconsistent with the state's coastal management policy. Broadwater has asked the U.S. commerce secretary to override the state's consistency determination in the interest of national security. A decision on that pending petition is not expected until 2009.

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

Meet your new neighbor, a registered sex offender

We may not live in a battleground state, but we still get robocalls. And all too often, the robocall is to inform us that a level two or three registered sex offender has moved into the Riverhead area.

Like their political counterparts, these robocalls tend to induce fear.

Here's the one I got on my voice mail Thursday night:

"Good evening. This is Nancy Carney from the Riverhead school district. We have received notification from the Southampton Town Police Department that a moderate risk, level two sex offender is residing in the Riverhead area."

Also like their political counterparts, these robocalls are not very informative. The school official doesn't tell us who the sex offender is or where he lives or works "in the Riverhead area."

How useful.

If you are a parent -- and you are if you're getting this robocall, which is going out only to parents of children registered in the district -- odds are you'd want to know this pertinent information. I mean, isn't that the whole point of the sex offender registration and notification law? To get that information out to the public, especially parents, to protect our children?

Maybe. Maybe not.

The robocall message continues: "Information regarding the individual is available at the district office." In other words, we have the information, but we're just not giving it to you now.

So how do I get the information? It's important for me to know, right? It's important enough that there's a state law mandating disclosure of the addresses of sexual predators, so surely it must be easy to get my hands on the information, right?

Not exactly, at least not according to the school district.

"Should you wish further information," the robocall message continues, "you may examine our records regarding this matter at the Riverhead Central School District office Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m."

In other words, I have to take off from work to go to the school district office to "examine" this record. That's swell. But, wait -- they're not done making this as complicated and inconvenient as possible: "It will be required that you complete a Freedom of Information request prior to the examination of these files." And the robocaller doesn't offer any help on how to make the Freedom of Information request. (I'd bet plenty of parents aren't even familiar with what that is, let alone how to make it.)

Since the police department informed the school district of the sex offender moving in, maybe I could get the information from the police.

"Do not contact the local police department," warns the robocall, "as they are unable to provide you with any information."

Say what?

I'm not sure why the school district thinks it's a good idea to make such completely uninformative and somewhat misleading robocalls about a subject so important to parents. But I'll bet lawyers had something to do with it.

In the interest of providing useful information to other parents who are as concerned as I am about sexual predators roaming our streets, here's the deal.

You can find out the names, addresses and descriptions of the level two and three registered sex offenders living in our community by going to the state sex offender registry Web site, http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/, where you can also view mug shots and find out the details about the offenders' convictions. Be warned: It is not a pleasant experience; this stuff will make your skin crawl.

You can get a lot of the same information, plus interactive maps, from a Web site called familywatchdog.us. In addition, you can sign up for e-mail alerts from familywatchdog.us, which will notify you every time a level two or three registered sex offender moves into your ZIP code. The Stony Brook-based Parents for Megan's Law organization offers the same service through its Web site, parentsformeganslaw.org.

Sex offenders are classified as levels one, two or three, according to the likelihood of the offender repeating his or her sex crime. Level three is someone considered at high risk of repeating. Level two indicates moderate risk.

According to the state registry, a total of 32 level two and three sex offenders live in the "Riverhead area" (including the 11901 and 11933 ZIP codes). Of those 32, 16 are homeless men being warehoused by the county social services department in the controversial trailer sitting in the parking lot of the county jail. The agency used to put homeless sex offenders in housing in communities throughout the county, until there was an uproar in places like Coram and Mastic about "sex offender saturation." Then the county simply began dumping them in Riverhead -- effectively doubling the number of level two and three registered sex offenders who call Riverhead "home."

Twelve of the 16 men sleeping in the trailer -- you can't call it "living" since they have no kitchen or shower, just cots lined up nice and tight -- are level three offenders.

In contrast, of the 16 registered sex offenders living in private homes in Riverhead, only five are classified level three.

Some of these offenders are considered "sexually violent offenders," i.e., they committed forcible rape or sodomy. Many of them committed crimes against children, with some victims as young as 4 or 5 years old.

Parents, don't bury your heads in the sand. Get informed. And don't let bureaucratic red tape and "lawyered" notifications dissuade you from exercising your right to know. The information is readily available on the Internet, 24/7. Go get it. This is one of those times when what you don't know can hurt you -- or the people you love most.

Some things are not negotiable

I set out to write a column about how lucky we are to live in such a beautiful corner of the world. I was reminded of that over the weekend, when our roads were clogged with tourists in search of a little piece of something we take for granted every day: the splendor that is the North Fork. I spent some time this weekend interviewing people at a couple of local corn mazes, and more than one remarked on how lucky I am to "actually" live and work out here.

Yes, that's true. We are blessed to actually live and work here.

We take it all for granted. The natural beauty of our surroundings, the provision of basic necessities, the love and support of family and friends, the right to live our lives in peace and freedom.

Another thing we take for granted is truth. We don't appreciate the innate value of truth, how precious it is, or how central it is to our way of life.

As I reflected on the things I intended to write about, the things we take for granted, I couldn't get thoughts about truth out of my head. I've been bombarded with untruths lately, and shards of truth twisted into untruths, all masquerading as truth. If you've got an e-mail account, you know what I mean.

Perhaps because I'm a newspaper editor, I am treated to more than my fair share of e-mails that purport to disclose the "truth" about Barack Obama that the "liberal elite media" refuses to report. Some of these messages pour in from all corners of the country. Some originate from right here on the North Fork. Obama is a Muslim. Obama is not a U.S. citizen. His Hawaiian birth certificate was forged. Obama refuses to salute the flag. Obama won't wear a flag pin. Obama's education was paid for by radical Muslim organizations that are using him to infiltrate the U.S. government, so they can overthrow it.

I knew that sooner or later it would come down to a matter of biblical prophesy: Obama is the anti-Christ. And I quote (from an e-mail that arrived in my inbox Tuesday night: "According to The Book of Revelations [sic]: The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal ... The prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything."

Never mind that the Book of Revelation doesn't even mention "the anti-Christ," or that Islam didn't come into existence until more than 400 years after the Book of Revelation was written during the first century A.D. Why bother with truth? As Huffington Post blogger Chez Pazienza observed recently, "the truth is negotiable." In this Internet world we live in, where the proliferation of "information" is easy, instantaneous and free, it is the lie, he observes, that has value. Especially in politics.

Mr. Pazienza puts it quite eloquently: "Whereas once there were a select few sources of information, and those sources were generally deemed credible by all but those on the furthest fringes of the public, now anyone can be his or her own news source. And while ... the rise of citizen journalism and hyper-connectivity has been good for the ethics of media as a whole, it's also created a treacherous wasteland of journalistic mini-fiefdoms, each spouting its own version of reality and together making it impossible, at times, to tell honest, well-researched fact from made-up crap conjured out of thin air to further an agenda."

I've had enough of the "made-up crap conjured out of thin air to further an agenda" to last a lifetime.

Truth really is not negotiable, you know. And truth should never, ever be taken for granted -- just because you see it on TV, or online, or in print doesn't make it truth. The next time you get a scurrilous e-mail, think before you click "forward." Research its claims. Like nature, good health and the love of your family, truth is precious -- and fragile. Don't take truth for granted.

denise@timesreview.com

Steve Levy, quit dumping on Riverhead

Wake up, Riverhead! What's it going to take to get the people of this community to rise up and tell County Executive Steve Levy we're not going to stand for being a dumping ground for the county's homeless sex offenders and we're not going to tolerate any more bull?

How about this? The county is now planning to replace the cots in the trailer with bunk beds, so the county can double up the number of men "living" in the trailer? (See story in the Oct. 9 edition of The News-Review.) That will allow twice as many sex offenders to live in the trailer.

Stack 'em up and pack 'em in, Stevie boy. Thank you very much.

When the county first set up house for homeless sex offenders in a trailer in the parking lot of the county jail in Riverside in early 2007, county officials told this community the trailer was going to be moved from one location in Suffolk County to another.

Bull chips. It hasn't budged.

Despite complaints from residents and town officials, not only did the county keep the trailer here, it brought in an even bigger one, so it could house even more homeless sex offenders. Now 16 convicted sex offenders, some of them bearing the "violent sex offender" designation and the vast majority of whom are deemed "level three" by the state, or at high risk of repeating their heinous crimes -- many of them against little children -- call that trailer home.

When residents and town officials complained, because this concentration of dangerous sex offenders, thanks to the County of Suffolk, was living within walking distance of the library and several public schools, county officials told us not to worry. The sex offenders were kept locked up in the trailer at night under the watchful eye of private security guards behind a secure fence (even though the men are not, technically, in jail) and during the day they are taken in a county van to their "home" social services offices.

More bull chips. The "secure" fence has a gaping hole in it and a wide-open gate through which anyone can stroll, any time. (They're fixing it now, they say.)

Well, we asked, what about on weekends and holidays, when county offices are closed? What happens then?

On weekends, the county spokes-hack tells us, the men are driven up-island to shower at an industrial complex whose location the county refuses to disclose.

All right, that's half a day. What about the other day-and-a-half every weekend? And the trailer's got no kitchen. What do they do for meals?

Humminna ... humminna ... humminna...

The needle on the bull chip meter just went wild.

The county rejected my idea of moving the trailer to land outside the county's minimum security jail in Yaphank -- a very good idea, if I do say so myself -- because the Yaphank site is undergoing a $150 million renovation that "makes it impossible" to place the trailer there.

Wanna bet this is just more bull?

And now, in the add-insult-to-injury department: bunk beds, so the county can squeeze 40 men in a trailer now equipped to house only 20.

Remember, folks, the county trailer came into being because other communities -- Coram and Mastic -- objected loudly to the large number of registered sex offenders in county housing within their borders. Mr. Levy's solution was to put them in a trailer and rotate the trailer around the county. It would be moved every week or two, we were told at the time.

Social Services deputy commissioner and Jamesport resident Greg Blass (our former county legislator, one-time Family Court judge and the husband of Councilwoman Barbara Blass) told The New York Times in February 2007 that the trailer would be rotated around county-owned sites "in large, undeveloped areas away from communities."

Uh, like downtown Riverhead?

"[Sex offenders] have tended to locate permanently in places where they were placed in temporary shelters," Mr. Blass was quoted in The Times. "This lets us avoid making any one area a haven for sex offenders. It's an attempt to prevent saturation."

Except saturation is OK if it's in Riverhead.

Mr. Levy, a Democrat cross-endorsed by the Republicans last time out, thinks he is politically invulnerable; he certainly doesn't think he needs Riverhead's votes. He believes he can do whatever suits him.

And right now, dumping on Riverhead suits the county executive just fine. It's convenient, and not too many voters seem to give a damn. This is Riverhead, after all. We're used to it.

Besides, Stevie figures what better place to dump all the county's homeless sex offenders than a town where a convicted sex offender once headed up the Business Improvement District and actually ran for supervisor? We must be a very tolerant place.

C'mon, people, make some noise.

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

$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.