Reader’s Write: Overbuilding destroying LI’s character

The Island Now

If I were writing an editorial targeting an un-elected person, one that was caustic, mocking, and ideologically-biased, I would surely check the facts twice, and verify its reasoning a lot better. (“Tree Lover Gone Wild”, Nov. 8, 2013).

Can we tell the real story?

There is a widespread consensus that Long Island is now inundated with too much traffic, caused by too many people, too much development, and too poor planning. Natural open space has been widely eradicated.

Now, this overbuilding is rapidly destroying the pastoral, tree-lined character of many of our communities. As an environmental activist, I have tried to fight that trend both here and elsewhere.

In older communities, “redevelopment” has meant builders are demolishing medium-sized older homes, cutting down all or most of the trees and shrubs, building the largest “box” of a house that will legally fit, and parking it on a sterile green lot.

Often this story is a toxic combination of ‘gold-rush’ real-estate speculation, disposable wealth from Wall Street , and compliant government that sees a larger tax-base as easy-money, as it is where I live, in East Hills.

Like other communities, we have a “Tree Law” designed to “protect the tree canopy for current and future generations,” and an architectural review law designed to “preserve and promote the character, appearances and aesthetics of the Village.”

The law affirms that our trees are critical to a healthy environment and provide essential habitat for wildlife, among many benefits. And consistent, properly-scaled architecture is needed to maintain harmony and tranquillity on our streets.

But these laws are little more than window-dressing. Houses are demolished and reconstructed here at 50- or 100-percent size increases, usually as computer-generated “boxes.” Developers, new residents, and some panicky current residents have been aggressively destroying our tree canopy house-by-house.

Many oppose this. Last year, I went door-to-door across the seven or eight developments that make up East Hills circulating a petition. Dozens of residents signed, agreeing that developers were “rampaging through our community” and supporting a moratorium on tree destruction.

I presented the petition to the [East Hills] Village Board but they just played politics.

First they deferred a decision pending a “hearing”. Then they held two hearings seeking “suggestions” but not addressing the moratorium. 

Then they formed a “review committee,” which they appointed with no public input.

The “committee” held about three meetings, the last in the springtime, as I recall. Nothing more has been done. Even after the issues were raised, incumbents to the village board were re-elected as the mayor’s “Team.” 

Meanwhile, the demolitions and tree removals have continued.

All the while, I and others keep appearing at architectural board meetings to oppose tree removals and overbuilding, with little effect.

Faced this intransigence, I ‘took pen to paper’ and sued the village, challenging its failure to follow its own laws and procedures. I am not a lawyer, but I have been putting my education and experience to use.

Contrary to your editorial, I have not done so as a “tree lover gone wild” but as a serious environmental and civic activist who tries hard to fix the problems otherwise. I have turned to the judicial branch of our government as it was designed, to exercise a review function over flawed government actions.

There have been three cases, each over different issues. The issue in the current case was not about “public notice” but flawed decision-making.

The current case is still pending. Justice Arthur M. Diamond only ended a restraining order, while relying on arguments made by the four opposing attorneys. But their arguments were based on substantially false or deceptive information, as I responded in my own papers.

For example, they submitted a “transcript” that was missing crucial information; they claimed a decision was made on one thing, when an accurate transcript showed it was made on another; and in front of the judge, one attorney argued that the half-acre property had numerous trees so it would not miss nine set to be cut, but the number he cited was wrong, and the trees to be left were not physically comparable to the ones to be destroyed.

I may still lose because bad legal advice – for which I paid  – led me to not appeal a very wrong-headed decision by very-conservative prior judge, and now parts of that decision are legally binding on me.

This is not a case about the rights of a man “building a home on his own land” as the editorial says. Rather it is about a village government’s failure to properly review a new resident’s effort to demolish a perfectly good house, degrade the local environment, and build a massive new structure over the objections of his longtime neighbors — whose position was supported by Village law.

That is what happened here, and without success in this case or other efforts by myself and many others, it will tragically keep happening, both in East Hills and across Long Island.

Richard Brummel

Organizer, Keep East Hills Green Civic Association

Share this Article