The Soap Box

My wife, Anna, recently called my attention to a bumper sticker that enjoined us to “Bark Less / Wag More”.  She observed that some of us could afford to spend less time forcefully articulating our own positions and beliefs, and give a bit more attention to those of others.  I do not believe that I will become a convert to the other side on any given subject, but I might profit from considering that “they”, too, might just have some credible reasons behind their positions.

I find that I, and others, sometimes assign motives to “they” according to our own subjective beliefs [prejudices?] rather than in accordance with objective evidence.  Such assumed motivation almost inevitably leads to an almost paranoid anticipation / evaluation of current and future actions on the part of “they”.  And if “they” view our actions through a similarly distorted lens, unnecessary distrust and antipathy often result.

Constructive dialogue will not always be possible.  However, if we approach the personal interfaces with “they” under the assumption that they are operating in accordance with only nefarious motives, we will probably guarantee that constructive interaction will be impossible.

We all may need to wag more often - and bark just a bit less.  I’ll try to take a lesson from our dog!

The agenda of the Dock meeting to be held at 9am Thurs at the Town Hall annex, is all about the methods we can use to prohibit, stop, discourage, make difficult and more expensive, residents from building docks. Ostensibily, this is about the moratorium on the docks in the bay, but the applicability will be transferable to any docks, any soundfront, any creekfront. Through the use of zoning, and overlays, we can find our waterfront homes changed into having little more than scenic easements over the water as in California.
There is no discussion as to why, no statement of the need, that is already a done deal. I plan to attend the morning session and advise those who are paranoid like me to do so as well. I have a SV board meeting at 7pm so I won’t be able to attend the evening roundtable, which is probably going to be a chance for the public to voice concerns. We need folks there too who can listen and learn if we are going to be unwilling participants in a public taking of our riparian rights to USE the navitable waterfront we own.

John Kramer

In the year 2008, the Lord came unto Noah,

who was now living in the United States , and said:
Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated,

and I see the end of all flesh before me.

Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing

along with a few good humans.

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying:

You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start

the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

Six months later,

the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard -

but no Ark.

Noah! He roared, I’m about to start the rain! Where is the Ark ?
Forgive me, Lord, begged Noah, ‘but things have changed.

I needed a building permit.

I’ve been arguing with the inspector

about the need for a sprinkler system.

My neighbors claim that I’ve violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations.
We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision.

Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines
and other overhead obstructions,

to clear the passage for the Ark ’s move to the sea.
I told them that the sea would be coming to us,

but they would hear nothing of it.

Getting the wood was another problem. There’s a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl.

I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!

When I started gathering the animals,

an animal rights group sued me.
They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will.
They argued the accommodations were too restrictive,

and it was cruel and inhumane
to put so many animals in a confined space.

Then the EPA ruled that I couldn’t build the Ark until they’d conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood.

I’m still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I’m supposed to hire for my building crew.

Immigration and Naturalization are checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work.

The trades unions say I can’t use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience.

To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I’m trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark.

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky.

Noah looked up in wonder and asked,
‘You mean you’re not going to destroy the world?’

‘No,’ said the Lord.
‘The government beat me to it.

 Anna and I viewed the Town of Southold / Trustee 30 minute video on cable and on the SoutholdVOICE website.  We found it visually gratifying, quite informative, and reasonably effective in presenting an appearance of balance between the various factors [factions?] involved.

While I would not expect otherwise, I was reminded that, all too often, the mantle of “science” [and often “the latest science”] is employed to cover a multitude of other factors involved in real decision making. 

Examples:

Intertidal detritus is good but pet waste is bad [unless you have pet Canada Geese, swans or deer].

Stimulation of green growth via fertilizer runoff is bad but stimulation of green growth by employing perforated plastic grid dock decking is good. [What fraction of the sun light gets through the new grid decking, when structure and sun angle are accounted for?]

Lawn grass clippings cause pollution while the decay of salt grass meadows provide necessary nutrients for the food chain.

Why was a neighbor to the north required to build a “high” dock to promote green growth while a neighbor to the south was forced to build a “low” dock [to minimize visual impact?]?

And why docks inevitably result in visual pollution when so many works of art depict docks and other hard structures prominently in their aesthetically appealing compositions?

Why did the verbal message relative to the adverse impact of bulkheading upon salt grass not mention Phragmites, although the visual employed seemed to provide evidence of the adverse impact of this invasive species?

Why is leaching from sheathing and decking not scientifically acceptable [other than ” We feel that…..”]?

And, finally:

Why does “The public right….” often seen to exclude waterfront property owners from the body public?

“Science” or current fashion and public relations imperatives?

STATE OF MICHIGAN
Reply to: GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR
350 OTTAWA NW GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341
JOHN ENGLER, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973
INTERNET: http://www.deq.state.mi
RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director

December 17, 1997

CERTIFIED

Mr. Ryan DeVries 2088 Dagget Pierson, MI 49339

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm County

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department’s files show that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.

Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price
District Representative Land and Water Management Division

 *****

Dear Mr. Price:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan - I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood “debris” dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize, their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials “debris.” I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

My first concern is - aren’t the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation - so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the dam stream “restored” to a dam free-flow condition - contact the dam beavers - but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter-being unable to read English) - be sure you read them their dam Miranda rights first.

As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers - be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State - I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy, or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green, and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem: bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Tvedten

According to Snopes, this is a true exchange.  Read about the circumstances here:

http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/dammed.asp

Please permit a few observations relative to the “It’s not about Docks in the Bay” exchange:

For good or bad, government “pronouncements” [eg: Southold Town Code, our LWRP, the Andros Patent] generally outlive the individuals incumbent at the time of the pronouncement’s gestation and birth.  Therefore, while my wife, Anna, and I gratefully accept the Supervisor’s statements of position with respect to “I support…”, “I oppose…”, I assure you that I have…”, and “I am not using this…” we wonder if the next administration might just say “I didn’t vote for…, the previous board did…”.  Or might not understand or agree with the philosophy of the previous “I / we”.  We all should view proposed measures with the realities and considerations of longer term - as well as short term -perspectives.  The urgency of short term pressures will usually fade with the natural passing of time.  “Act in haste; regret at leisure.”

I understand the words provided by the Supervisor with respect to “subjective…”, “discretionary…”, “clutter”, and “property rights” versus “waterfront rights”, as they apply to a moratorium on docks in the bay.  However, I do not understand why - in the near term or in the long term - these considerations will not become precedence applied [by others?] to docks in the creeks.  Protestations by a minority of creekfront owners may lead to moratoria or other overly restrictive actions, by public officials, with respect to new or modified creekfront structures.  A few vocal NIMBYs sometimes seem to have more effect on some public officials than the opinions of an understanding but usually quiet majority.

While I am not presently in a position to pass objective judgment on black letter versus discretionary law - or between the relative legal and opportunity costs of permissive versus restrictive codes and enforcement - I do believe that we all have a duty to understand and comment upon factors that will impact upon the use and enjoyment of our marine resources. 

Just a quick comment on the Dredging Video recently posted on the site.

Congratulations to whoever did the video as it was a very good example demonstrating the accomplishment that can be achieved when various agencies within and outside the Town - including organizations like SoutholdVOICE- work together for the common good.

Keep up that cooperative effort. I am sure that it won’t be too long before these agencies realize the value that an organization like SoutholdVOICE can bring to the table, and what benefits to Southold can be achieved.

(Name witheld on request)

Do YOU have a question you would like to ask the Trustees?  One of the positive outcomes of our meeting with the Trustees was an offer on their part to reserve some time for us at their work sessions to answer any questions that we want to pose to them.  I think it is a good opportunity for us to get a better understanding of how the rules and regs work and clear up some grey areas as demonstrated at the 12/4 meeting.  You can either post your question here or email to me at SoutholdVOICE@gmail.com and we will ask the question and post the answer we get from them.  The next work session is 1/23, so email your questions and we will get some answers!

John Kramer

Having been forced to shelter from the hideous noise created by the aerial chariot, the truly clever townsfolk waited until it had once again passed in the opposite direction before venturing outside. One by one the population began to reappear, but not to resume discussion of the most trusted five, but rather to procure food. Toiling to survive whether it was through hunting, fishing, farming has always had to come first. Some of the folks set about collecting shell fish, which was made much easier in recent times do to a viscous storm that had come ashore. This storm had deposited sand and debris where water had once been, making it easier for those brave enough to collect their fill. The young townsfolk where very happy at first, that it took less effort to amass what was required. They only had to place their sticks into the deeper water now and did not even get their feet wet, but there was a dark side to this gift nature had bestowed on them.Some of the elders had warned the young not to be so overjoyed, that nature always has an ebb and flow, what it gives in one instant it may soon take away in another. And sure enough the elders were correct, all the sand had begun to choke off the flow of water and things began to die. The young were forced to travel into deeper and yet deeper water to secure the amounts that were needed. Before the storm the young could wade in relatively shallow waters to shell fish, but now they had to dive down under the surface to collect the amount required. All those clams and oysters which had been close to the old shoreline were covered with sand and what was under it, most assuredly had died. A few of the townsfolk tried to help the young to remove the sand, but as mere mortals it was beyond them and they soon gave in and surrendered to what nature had given them. The young cold and shivering from having been immersed in the cold, cold water had to hurry home to de-frost themselves before dinner.

And so the story goes…

 A continuation …

… But then came forth a very wise old town elder to say, “While I agree that
the council of five do not always treat all the folks that live near to the
dreaded bodies of water the same, this king has no special powers and could
therefore not have cast this spell over the rest. You see all of us have
raised our children together and some of us who are older have known the
king since he was a child along with the rest of the trusted five. The king
simply has never shown any powers beyond being ordinary, just like us, only
a king.” Those gathered began to mutter in agreement with the most-wise town
elder, and a new consensus emerged. Someone from the crowd stepped forth and asked,” If it
were not the king then who?” Once again the most-wise town elder spoke up.
“It must be those of the South Silver Spoon, those whom we of the North have
battled on many occasion and I’m afraid, are doomed to for all the future.”
“We are a peaceful people and as such I cannot believe that any of our town
folk could have cast this spell the divides us in such an insidious way.”

The old man was right; after all it was the folk of the South Silver Spoon
who, until we fought them, repeatedly landed on our shores in great masses
from tall ships, traversing our land in chariots to get to theirs. It was
also the South Silver Spoon folk who, through some unknown method, create a
most disturbing, evil rumble that shoots across our skies, shaking our
vines. Their powers were indeed great and they must be stopped.

Great wars have been waged against those denizens of the South Silver Spoon,
and many a structure has been destroyed; my father’s structure was one and
even my grandfather’s structure was destroyed. My grandfather’s structure
had stood for so many generations and connected us all with our past. Would
we build the same structures today as our grandfathers had? I think not,
but those structures represent all that came before and was worth saving.
The people of the South Silver Spoon destroyed all that was old on their
lands and held only contempt for the past. While us North folk held all that
came before as sacred, not to be torn asunder, after all it was our fathers
and grandfathers who toiled day after day to erect them and to raise
families in them, how could we show disrespect towards our own?

Just then as the crowd huddled, the great rumble conjured up by a South
Silver Spoon aerial chariot spread across our sky, shaking the ground
beneath our feet as it approached, heading in a southerly direction. It was
at this point that our group abruptly disbanded, each heading in the
direction of their homes to seek shelter from this ungodly experience,
knowing full well that it would only be a short time before it returned from
the opposite direction.

…And so the tale goes

To be continued.
name witheld on request