When push came to shove, the Town Board punted. Riverhead IDA should send Triple Five right back to the Town Board for decision.

An open letter to the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency:

You have pending before you one of the most consequential decisions facing the Town of Riverhead—the sale and development of the land at EPCAL, the Navy’s gift to this town.

Make no bones about it, the town, through its CDA, is responsible for the sale and use of this land, but having bungled its job for as long as the people of Riverhead can remember, it has now tried to shift that responsibility to you. You will inevitably be the fall guy and take the heat for them if you approve tax breaks for this project. Why take that risk? This contract with CAT is of their making; it is their responsibility not yours. This sale will be transformative for this town and the people have spoken loud and clear: they don’t want this deal.

Your mission as an IDA is to attract new businesses to the town that will create jobs and bring economic prosperity. Your means of doing this, simply put, is to offer tax breaks to developers. Yet, at the outset, your own outside counsel told you that for this joint application you have assumed a task you do not normally assume, i.e., vet the financial viability of the developer. Why take on that task for the town—it’s their job, not yours.

Moreover, it is not within your authority to approve site plans, make decisions about compliance with zoning laws or grant permits that may be needed for a project. When a developer comes to you, he is supposed to be ready to go having procured everything he needs before coming to you seeking tax breaks. On June 26 in a Newsday article about another project seeking tax breaks in Riverhead, your own director, Tracy Stark-James was reported as saying “the agency (IDA) does not approve projects before they clear other regulatory processes, including a site plan and an environmental impact study the town board is reviewing.”

If that is indeed true, and you said the same thing in your resolution #44-22 accepting this joint application, then why are you willing to move forward with consideration of tax inducements for this project at EPCAL? As of right now, you don’t even know exactly what this project is and CAT certainly doesn’t have an approved site plan and any of the other needed permits and approvals. In September of last year, CAT made a presentation of its plan, but we now hear from the CEO of CAT, Justin Ghermezian, that that is not really the plan. In a July 11, opinion piece in RiverheadLOCAL he said:

CAT will continue to work with the town to create a plan for a project that is consistent with the town’s vision for EPCAL and in compliance with the adopted studies and regulations that govern its use. We look forward to presenting our development plan at a future public hearing when we seek the required town approvals for the development of EPCAL.

Clearly, this is not a project that is ready for consideration by you, the IDA. It would be reckless and foolhardy to approve an inducement resolution on this application. Let’s face it, you are not a popular agency in this town, and your handling of this application will be scrutinized not only by the people of Riverhead, but also by the state comptroller, and possibly the courts. The town, and the town alone, is responsible for the sale and development of the land at EPCAL. You should deny an inducement resolution and let the town manage this deal.

Rex Farr is coordinator of the EPCAL Watch group. A farmer, he lives in Calverton.

RiverheadLOCAL welcomes letters to the editor. We don’t publish anonymous letters, so please include your full name, hamlet of residence, email address and a daytime phone number where we can reach you for confirmation or clarification. Submit your letter here.