RETURN TO NOTICES

May 21, 2004

This is an update on the incorporation of Sagaponack and our opposition to Dunehampton/Southampton Beach (as it is now renamed!)We would first like to remind you why we have devoted a great effort to incorporate the hamlet of Sagaponack over the past twelve months. In an article that appeared in Dan's Paper on April 16, we stated that our objective in incorporating Sagaponack is protecting the integrity or our historic hamlet.The hamlet of Sagaponack is defined by the school district that corresponds to the little red schoolhouse on the corner of Sagaponack Road and Sagaponack Main Street. On the north-south axis it extends from the Long Island Railroad tracks to the ocean; the western boundary runs from the tracks to the ocean through Sagg Pond and the eastern boundary is generally Town Line Road.Sagaponack is also one of the last communities on the East End which retains the original bucolic character that once extended from Shinnecock to Montauk. We have the good fortune to have in our number families who continue to farm large tracts of the South Fork's rich land, reminding the rest of us that we sit on the continent's most productive soil. Some of these farms still go down to the dunes, reminiscent of the views that once made up our whole shoreline. The families who continue to farm here are sharing with us their priceless patrimony. As far as those of us who wish to incorporate Sagaponack are concerned, their best interest is our best interest.It is also in our interest that all resources available - federal, state, county, town and private - be directed in a unified and depoliticized way to the conservation of our beaches. The beaches belong to all of us. They constitute, besides the land, the most valuable treasure of all the citizens of Southampton.The May 6th hearing on Sagaponack incorporation which took place at the Topping Riding Club was a constructive and unifying event that reaffirmed the value of community and tradition.Thus far, we seem to be holding our own. In February, Judge Jones of the New York State Supreme court supported Supervisor Heaney's rejection of the Dunehampton petition for incorporation on the basis that there are not enough regular inhabitants in the designated area and that their petition is filled with errors regarding regular inhabitants, stating that "While reside does not mean domicile, neither does it include a holiday and occasional weekend visitor." The ruling also strengthened the Supervisor's authority to determine the validity of incorporation petitions.OVER>As you can see, much turns on the interpretation of who is a regular inhabitant. According to New York State village incorporation law, a regular inhabitant is a person who resides in the territory - except if they maintain a residence in another location where they are registered to vote - and their minor dependents.We are now dealing with four key events:

1) In hope of obtaining a reversal of Judge Jones' decision which supported Southampton Supervisor Patrick Heaney's rejection of their petition, Dunehamptoners have appealed to the New York State Appellate Division.The Town is the primary respondent in this action but we are supporting the Town with our own legal arguments.

2) DunehameHean Hea pton petitioners attempted but failed to obtain a court injunction against the hearing on Sagaponack incorporation held on May 6. While the court refused to stop our hearing, it requested legal briefs on why Supervisor Heaney should not issue a decision on the sufficiency of Sagaponack's petition until after the Dunehampton appeal is finally resolved. Briefs were filed on May 12, 2004.

3) Dunehamptoners have challenged the Sagaponack petition to incorporate on various grounds including errors on petition signature pages and the sufficiency of our map. We are currently filing factual and legal responses with the Southampton Supervisor.

4) Dunehamptoners have filed a new petition for incorporation under the name Southampton Beach which differs little from the Dunehampton petition except that it adds territory in Bridgehampton. This petition has also to be challenged.We need hardly tell you that all this is taking hours and hours of our volunteer time. We have also benefited from a lot of pro bono legal advice but we will require more money for legal fees to prepare the required court briefs.Our current estimate is that we will need $40,000 through the end of this year -- $15,000 of it immediately to address items 1 and 2 above.Based on the very enthusiastic turnout at the May 6 hearing, we believe our community is still fully committed to supporting the incorporation of Sagaponack and to stopping the competing Dunehampton incorporation of our beachfront into a separate village by whatever name. If you are with us, please give us your active support.


*******************************************************

YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE BY MAILING THE BIGGEST CHECK YOU CAN ADDRESSED AND PAYABLE TO SAVI-II

(our legal fund account) @ box 589, Sagaponack 11962

*******************************************************


ALSO, PLEASE NOTE:There will be a Sagaponack Association meeting on Sunday, June 13 from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. @ the Bridgehampton Nation Bank community room.The agenda will cover: Sagaponack Association annual meeting; an update on incorporation activities; discussion of support for ongoing incorporation activities.We want to hear your questions and ideas.


PLEASE TRY TO ATTEND



RETURN TO NOTICES

©2002 Sagaponack Association