Lesson from decades of developers’ assurances: Local residents are forever stuck with the impacts

In an effort to give Alan Weissman the benefit of the doubt (Guest Column: Agri-tourism project is ‘a thoughtful approach to land use’ and farmland preservation, Aug. 22) , maybe he is just unaware of the decades of empty promises made by way too many developers that have turned out to be largely self-serving, and ultimately destructive to the region’s historic character and fragile environment. 

As a land use professional  working and teaching on the East End for nearly 40 years,  I grow increasingly weary of such promises, and regrettably angry at the unavoidable inference that the people who live here must be idiots.  

Whatever the sales pitch, overdevelopment has always brought higher taxes, higher service demands, and a diminished quality of life and environment.  

We can’t simply build our way out of our community’s most vexing challenges, and I would think most developers and more importantly, our elected officials, would know it. 

So I hope your readers will forgive my informed skepticism as we all sit here, forever stuck in the traffic, water pollution, habitat destruction, commercial sprawl, and service demands that too many developers and their consultants have repeatedly assured us and our leaders would simply never occur. 

If you have lived in Riverhead Town (as I did for over a decade) you will recall that Tanger, the aquarium, the hotels, the sprawl on Route 58, and EPCAL were all going to save the day. 

How has that approach turned out, and how many tax breaks have been given along the way to further short change whatever tax revenue such projects would otherwise provide? It’s a failed strategy and yet it persists. 

So Mr. Weisman should not be surprised by broad public and even neighboring town government‘s opposition to this proposal. 

This proposal was privately onboarded to the town, reflects the developer’s considerable time and professional resources in its drafting, was jammed, last minute, into the town’s soon-to-be-adopted comprehensive plan update, and is presently positioned to avoid the absolute legal necessity of a town-sponsored environmental impact statement.

We have to do better, and I want to make clear that with EPCAL, despite a similar path almost to the end, the Riverhead Town Board ultimately did do better, and see the vague and shoddy deal it was being handed before it was too late. 

It’s not too late to follow that path with this proposal, but ultimately it will take strong town leadership that is prepared to trust the wisdom and experience of its own community members as much as those seeking to develop and monetize its resources for individual gain. 

Robert DeLuca is president of Group for the East End.

Editor’s note: RiverheadLOCAL welcomes guest columns from anyone who wants to submit a viewpoint on any topic. The opinions expressed in guest columns are those of the author and do not reflect the point of view of RiverheadLOCAL’s publishers. Please be sure to include your email address and daytime phone number with your submission. Submit your opinion here.