Main menu:

Archive

Categories

Angrily Attacks – Letter to the Editor, East Hampton Star, May 7, 2012

Dear David,

I am shocked and appalled at Peter Wadsworth’s vicious attacks on Quiet Skies Coalition and the two ladies on its executive board in his letter last week to the editor of the East Hampton Press. He condescendingly accuses the coalition of not educating one of the ladies, implying she is not capable of acquiring information on her own. Then he angrily attacks the former chairwoman of the Airport Noise Abatement Advisory Committee, not disclosing that he also served on the committee and actually wrote a report on behalf of the committee. There appears to be deep-rooted anger. I don’t know nor do I care where the anger comes from; however, I know the two ladies don’t deserve such a tirade, and an apology is in order.

I get totally confused reading Mr. Wadsworth’s other letter the same week to the editor of The East Hampton Star as he bloviates, lauding the accomplishments of ANAAC, appointing himself as the person that can simplify the issues. The two letters in juxtaposition appear to indicate two different personalities. In the letter to The Star, Mr. Wadsworth fancies himself an aviation expert, F.A.A. legal expert, and airport operations expert; he is not an expert in any of these areas. He states in his own biography he specialized in health care finance, which has no relevance to the subject matters addressed.

More disturbingly, Mr. Wadsworth was informed that the data he received from the town, used in his report for A.N.A.A.C., is flawed, thereby rendering his findings and conclusions false. In fact an F.A.A. investigator informed me the system used by the town to produce this data is not F.A.A. approved and they have no use for the data in enforcement proceedings. If the data cannot be accepted legally then how can it be used scientifically or analytically to produce reliable findings and conclusions? Mr. Wadsworth generously quotes these false conclusions and findings throughout his letters, thus being the originator of false and conflicting information.

Mr. Wadsworth used to live off the departure end of runway 28. He took the position to support grant assurances expiring in 2014. Now that he moved away from the airport to the Sammy’s Beach area, he takes a position to support East Hampton Town to take more money from the F.A.A. and lock into another 20 years under an F.A.A. agreement. The coalition believes no taxpayer, whether federal or local, should pay anything at East Hampton Airport. Let the people who use the airport pay for the airport. In the Hamptons, why should that be difficult to do?

Mr. Wadsworth accusingly questions what the former chairwoman of A.N.A.A.C. knew and when. Mr. Wadsworth knows full well that A.N.A.A.C. failed to acquire the 2008 Kirsch memorandum from the prior administration and the current administration while the coalition had it all along. The coalition was able to acquire the document that A.N.A.A.C. could not.

When Mr. Wadsworth finally found that document on the coalition Web site he should have read the paragraph that begins on the bottom of page 20 and ends on page 21. Here Mr. Kirsch advises the prior administration to deceive the public regarding its strategy at the airport. What kind of attorney advises a town board to deceive the public? Is it possible that an attorney that advises deception is capable of deceiving the current town board himself? Is it possible that Mr. Wadsworth is part of a deception strategy?

Mr. Wadsworth should consider that the next time he wishes to take on the coalition. For those who seek accurate and reliable information can see the coalition’s responses directly from the F.A.A. with the assistance of Representative Tim Bishop and a legal memo directly from Sheila Jones, an aviation expert, on quietskiescoalition.org. (Press the button on top, “Issues/Learn.”)

Here is Ms. Jones’s bottom line:

“1) There is a material difference between a situation where the airport proprietor is “grant obligated” and a situation where the airport proprietor is not.

2) A grant obligated airport proprietor has to comply with Part 161. Part 161 imposes procedural and substantive requirements on the airport proprietor that are not otherwise applicable to a local government evaluating and selecting measures to control or reduce noise impacts from airport operations.

3) There also is a material difference if a legal action is commenced in federal court concerning the proposed restriction. Who has the burden of proof? And what is the issue to be decided by the court? The answer depends on whether the FAA initiated the litigation by commencing an administrative enforcement action based on an alleged violation of the grant agreement. If it did and all other things are equal, the airport proprietor/grant recipient’s litigation risk in federal court is higher than it would be if the FAA foregoes the administrative enforcement action and sues the airport proprietor in federal court.”

This is simple enough even for me to understand.

FRANK DALENE

Be Sociable, Share!