Amazed Again

I have just returned from the Town Hall meeting.  After listening to the "Sewers" segment of the meeting, I have decided to cease researching and commenting on anything pertaining to the proposed sewer system for our community.  Even though I have three (3) Master's degrees and two (2) additional postgraduate degrees, I have taken the advice of our General Manager Arthur Lighthall never to believe anything written in our local paper, The Pointer.  Whether they are well-researched columns such as "Opinions on Point by Sandy Beach," provocative editorials, letters to the editor by residents with expertise in the field, or even my own well-researched letters, I will no longer pay any attention to such writings. 

I was so roused by Mr. Lighthall’s statement, that I wanted to jump out of my seat and shout out, "You are all knowing, my lord."

Yes, I now know that I do not have the wherewithal to do my own research, and that no one else in our community has that capacity.  I shall just bow to the wisdom of our Board members, such as Robert Pierson whose answers to questions posed to him by shareholders attending the Town Hall mostly consisted of "I don’t know," “Yes,” “No,” and "No idea." 

I apologize for thinking (is that allowed in this community?) that I was educated enough to make an informed decision on my own.  I now know that I should take as gospel the word of our General Manager Arthur Lighthall even though to my knowledge he has never been elected by any of the shareholders.  I realize now he is all knowing and ruling.

Therefore, I bow before the all-knowing GM and those Board members who worship at the altar of the Sugar Bowl.  I realize now that I am but a serf in their kingdom.

Ed Coyne

217-23 Rockaway Point Blvd.

I have to disagree with your editorial on bicycles in Breezy. I have not found cyclists to be a menace in any way and I think security is doing an excellent job on this issue.

There is a lot for everyone in the family to do in the summer and there can be a lot of ground to cover with all the sports, clinics, shows and of course the beach. Sometimes it is very helpful to be able to hop on your bike and catch up with family and friends, or run an errand or two.

I'm sure it happens, but I have yet to witness any dangerous or rude behavior from any bicyclists this season. Even from teens and younger riders, who in my cynical nature I expect worse from, I have seen only reasonable speed and also patience and polite "excuse me's" when passing pedestrians. As a cyclist on the walks I find that people are happy to step aside for you, especially when they see you are riding responsibly. My wife and I are always happy to make way with our stroller or wagon when a courteous cyclist comes by.

I understand that this rule needs to stay on the books but I don't think any drastic measures need to be taken to enforce it. Let's not punish our courteous neighbors on bicycles because there may be irresponsible or rude riders out there.

-Brian Murphy

Letters To Thanks

To Miss Theresa and Staff at Little Tots Red Wagon
Our children (as well as ourselves) are blessed to have all of you. Besides great teaching your experience has given our children the ability to have their weaknesses strengthened and their strengths enhanced. What a great start for all our wonderful children. If you would like I could come read to the new students. Just let me know.

To the Golden Age Club
Ceil Delia, Joyce Shields, and the Board of Directors
Thank you for always making sure we had a wonderful season. All of you were caring and great representatives on our behalf. Good luck to Anne Grossinger and Pat Tissot. I know that both of you will work as a great team.

The Parish Show
You never think the show is going to work and yet it always comes out fantastic. The show was patriotic, colorful and caring. It was a pleasure to be with everyone. Thank you Twozee, Mary Ellen, Dan, Denise, Cathy, Theresa Flannigan, Denise Neibel and out beautiful children. And we cannot forget our drummer Hap and Gary our Piano Player.

Breezy Point Coop
Thank you for putting on such a magnificent water boat display and fireworks exhibition. It is always an exciting event which we look forward to every year.
God Bless All,
Catherine Tennyson

I direct your attention to Section 13. Capital Improvements, which states in relevant part: "...[N]o commitments for a capital improvement requiring an expenditure of $1,000,000 or more shall be made by the Officers or Board of Directors of the Cooperative unless the proposed expenditure has been presented to all the stockholders for approval by written mail-in ballot and, thereafter, the expenditure is approved by more than fifty (50%) percent of the returned written ballots on which a vote is cast. [emphasis added]"

In other words, if 100 shareholders return their written ballots on a sewer vote and just 51 votes are cast in favor of sewers, then all 2,800 shareholders in the Cooperative will get sewers.  People need to be made aware that they must vote on this important issue.  For all practical purposes, not voting will be the equivalent of a "yes" vote.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this story idea.

Ellen McCarthy

Dear Coach Kent,

I work with the Rockaway Point News and have been typing your columns for years and years even when Don Ryan owned the paper. After many columns and learning that you were at St. Mary of the Plains College in Kansas, I mentioned it to my brother, Charlie Fagan, who also went to St. Mary of the Plains College as a student and went on to be a Coach. He told me that he knew you and wanted to reach out to you. He now lives in Colorado.
When the CHSAA Tournaments came and went and there was no column about you I started to get worried and mentioned it to my brother.
Then in the July 2nd Edition of the RPN you wrote a letter saying you had been ill. I had mentioned to Noreen if she knew how to get in touch with you but we know you don't use the computer. So... I will use this forum to reach out to you for my brother, Charlie, who would love to get in touch with you and also for me (someone you don't know) who was worried about you and send our prayers and thoughts for your speedy recovery.
Sincerely,
Erin Fagan-Cabezas
Sunnyside, NY

I respect and appreciate that Mr. Campbell has clarified that in providing a $45Million estimate as the cost of a sewer system he was not making that estimate for the Airvac system proposed in the COOP Board’s resolution, but was, in fact, estimating the cost of a conventional sewer system; similar to, I presume, the system his committee recommended to shareholders some years ago. 

Since we are being asked by the COOP board to vote on a completely different approach to sewers his estimates have no real applicability to our deliberations.  In the most recent issue of the COOP Newsletter Mr. Ingram confirmed, as was also noted in last evening’s Town Hall meeting, that his committee was aware of the potential cost of $45Million for a conventional sewer system.  Costs of that magnitude were one of the factors that lead the committee to the recommendation in favor of the AirVac system.

I can’t comment relative to what it would cost for each shareholder to hook in to the system or Mr. Campbell’s estimate of cost of electricity to operate the system.  My understanding of the Airvac system is that each household would hook into a holding station with about 4 homes on each station; I presume that this would entail a relatively short distance from each of the homes involved. 

When that holding station reached a certain level, one of the central vacuum pumping station would vacuum the contents of the holding station thru the piping in the community to NYC's main sewer line. It was my impression that there would be 3 central vacuum pumping stations in the community, one in Roxbury, and two in Breezy Point.  Each of these vacuum pumping stations would be connected to the NYC main and these would be the primary, and perhaps the only connections, to the main. 

That sounds substantially simpler than what Mr. Campbell indicates in his letter, and, simpler is usually, not always, less costly.  Perhaps I misunderstood the general concept of the AirVac system, but I don’t think so.  I noted in the mock up of an AirVac holding station, displayed at last night’s Town Hall meeting, that there is no electrical connection to each shareholders home. Obviously, there are electrical costs involved in the operation of the system that would be included in the monthly charges to each shareholder and it is well worth understanding what they might be. 

Mr. Campbell again raised a number of very important issues relative to the use of PVC pipe needing approval of various departments and Boards in NYC.  In Mr. Ingram’s review in the latest issue of the COOP newsletter he addressed these same approval issues and emphasized that it was up to AirVac to bear the cost to get NYC’s certification of the system for use in the City.

  If the system is certified we will still have to get specific plans approved by the City; we would have to bear that cost for any kind of sewer system. I understand that navigating this complicated approval process is one of the reasons Mr. Campbell believes that the AirVac system is not suitable for us.  I think Mr. Campbell’s experience could be very useful to guide us through the approval process he outlined, if the COOP Board’s resolution is approved by shareholders. He also promised further information on the operation of the 700 or so Airvac installations in operation around the world, which might help us make a decision on its utility to the community.

The Airvac system has been in the US since the late 1970’s and has over 200 units operating around the country.  When Mr. Campbell provides his operating information I hope he will present data on a broad cross section of, at least, the installations in our country.

With all that said I think Mr. Campbell’s actual position, as stated in his earlier letter to the RPNews, is that we, as a community, should vote against the board resolution and do nothing different than what we are doing today relative to managing sanitary waste. He doesn’t see the need for any kind of sewer system, conventional or AirVac. I expect that a number of our fellow shareholders agree with him.  I disagree with that approach. I do not underestimate the difficulty of putting in the Airvac system.

 I worry about the system being properly engineered and operated and meeting the proposed budget. I know that we will be inconvenienced during the excavation process, but less so than with a conventional system.  The only way to avoid the inconvenience is to do nothing, as Mr. Campbell suggests.  However, I think that is a very short sighted position.  

Sincerely, Tom Meyer

IF you are an inconsiderate slob, you probably already know it. The good news is, you can lose this unenviable label without having to lift anything too heavy. Of course, I am speaking of those who routinely litter and those who fail to pick up after their dogs. In an age where obesity is alarmingly prevalent, it is indeed a positive thing to see that many people are choosing to drink lower calorie beer. However, the sight of dozens of Bud Light cans strewn about our otherwise pristine beach is always a source of great consternation. Like you, I also grew up in Breezy Point and sometimes had occasion to enjoy a frosty beverage. That said, I can assure you that my 'good time buddies' and I always "put litter in its place" (which is a nearby trash can for those of you who are blissfully unaware).

As for those who fail to clean up after their dogs, this is simply unacceptable. Never before have I observed so many Pointers fail to perform this most basic (and considerate) function of pet ownership. IF you don't want to clean up after your dog, you probably shouldn't own one. (Yes, I also own a dog.) IF this is a case of having one of your kids (who are too squeamish to scoop the poop) walk your dog because you are "too busy", find some more time or budget your time better so that my kids don't have to run an obstacle course of Fido or Fifi's droppings when playing wiffle ball by the Promenade.

While sewers and Co-op expenditures are debatable and important issues, I believe that some of us need to focus on some of the more basic things that have a significant impact on our Breezy Point quality of life. By all means, have a great time but don't be an inconsiderate slob in the process.

Wayne Welsome

Letter to the Editor:

Stanley & Ollie on the Sewer Issue

Some time had passed since I last saw them, but there they were taking counsel among themselves.  Stanley, still with the dull eyes and idiotic smile and still very much the beanpole.  And Ollie, dimples in his plump, round cheeks and with an expression of frustrated, exasperated, resignation on his face.  They didn’t seem to mind me, so I listened in. 
“Ollie what is bothering you, you seem upset.”

“It is this Letter to the Editor that appeared in last week’s Pointer titled ‘More on the Sewer Issue.’  The author believes it more equitable to charge the entire cost of sewers on a per site basis because, as he states, ‘our Roxbury members use the facilities as often as the shareholders in Rockaway Point and Breezy Point.’”

“Well it’s hard to argue with that logic” said Stanley. “In fact, people in Roxbury may use the facilities more than the ‘up-staters” do because on a per capita basis they may drink more beer.”

Stanley, eyes now tiny slits of agony continued: “Ollie the logic is so compelling why limit the discussion to just sewers, why not include other costs of running the Cooperative?  In fact, I wish I had thought of this idea .  If I had you know what I would do?”
“No, what would you do Stanley?”

“I’d take it to the Mayor.  Yes sir that’s what I’d do!.”
(To myself I’ thinking do they know that about 75% of all the costs of running the Coop are charged to stockholders on a per site basis.)

Ollie, now deeply exasperated turns to face Stanly.  “What reaction do you think the citizens of New York City would have if Mayor Bloomberg were to announce that the City was going to impose a new way of funding its operations - from now on Seventy-five percent of the cost of running the city would be on a per site basis, meaning homeowners living in modest homes in Glendale, Woodhaven, and Far Rockaway would pay the same for their site as homeowners in the upper west side of Manhattan, or in Central Park South pay for theirs.

After all, a site is a site.  Does location really mean that much?  Does the size of the site really mean that much?  Who can understand those silly real estate agents always telling people ‘Location, Location, Location’.”

Stanly: “You may have a point, Ollie.  I do remember two married couples, friends of mine, who took a trip together but in separate cars.  As the day drew to a close it was decided to spend the evening in a hotel even though no advance reservations had been made.  The first couple to arrive checked-in, and were provided a room on the top floor.  It had a large bath, a huge bedroom, and a view of the ocean.   

When the second couple arrived there was only one vacancy left.  It had a small bath, a small bedroom, and a view of the parking lot.

Next morning at checkout time both couples were charged the same amount.  Amazed they asked the manager for an explanation: ‘A room is a room, no matter the view, no matter the size.  Room location and size play no  part  in calculating our fees.’”
Needless to say that hotel soon went out of business. 

Now this little exchange of ideas set me to pondering.  Let’s see how “Fair” the Per Site charge is: Per Site means that that one story, less than one thousand square foot bungalow, located in the middle of a bunch of other bungalows where the owner looks out the window and sees the neighbor’s kitchen, bedroom, toilet, … this site pays the same as the double deck, two thousand Plus square foot home with an attached sun room, wrap around deck, private parking for several cars, and where the owner looks out the window and sees water, either the ocean or bay. 

And each of these sites pays the same per site charge.  Boy oh boy, you can’t get any fairer than that.  Can you?
You know I hear there are communities that levy fees based upon the market value of a home.  What a novel idea!
The present method of assigning costs to shareholders is, in my opinion, not fair because too much of the cost (about 75%) is assigned on a per site basis giving insufficient weight to location, the size of the site, and the market value of the home.  The only “good” thing the present system has going for it is time.  For years this is the only system we’ve known.  That doesn’t make it right, but to assign 100% of the cost of sewers to per site would just exacerbate the issue.

In the final analysis here is where I come down on this whole problem of assigning operating costs: the current method is not right.  As a result some people, maybe a lot of people, maybe quite a lot of people are getting screwed - some a little; some perhaps quite a bit more than a little.  My fear is my fellow stockholders, rather than trying to determine what is the right thing to do, will devote too much time to figuring out if they are the screwer or the screwee. 

Bill Feimer, Roxbury