BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Cpalms

  • Rank
    5,000 Post Club!

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

5,148 profile views
  1. Holy ****ing pity party. The self esteem on the forum hits an all time low with you cry baby losers. No wonder the 2nd home owners are so easily snatching your birth right right out from under your nose (not sand flee, he's from Islip LOL) First canyon trip of the season tmrw boys, Pakalulu, still slaying the porgy's?
  2. wow, this guy is really lathered up....did you google those or did you already have them saved?
  3. Another “I have a buddy” post from this clown. ask you buddy if he is complaining about his real estate values…And tell him buh bye, don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
  4. Not true, my house is (thankfully) a few miles away from truck beach. I will always enjoy the most open access to the beach of any community on the eastern seaboard. Always. I support beach access both with my actions and my checkbook. I will say, I do enjoy watching the arrogant entitled local yokel government officials flail away against a bunch of rich old geezers who are annoyed that the hillbilly locals have been permitted to turn their beach into the infield at the Talledega speedway. You know, cuz it's a tradition. You are going far out of your way to mad at the wrong people. The locals politicians are elected by and for the locals. Start there.
  5. But hey look how well the locals have handled the truck beach situation. Seen the latest on the Marc Rowan/ Duryea's chicanery or the massive Gosman's fluke poaching operation? Nothing screams local pride like having to pay some clowns a fortune for a beach that you already own, shady backroom real estate deals or running an illegal fluke poaching cartel!!
  6. Nah, the last thing I ever want to be confused with is some inbred local. Which luckily for you - you are not. You were born up island, went to high school up island. You ain’t a local, you just talk the same bitter entitled nonsense as the locals. Your fat ass defines the genre.
  7. Well, the homeowners down at truck beach disagree with you lololll! Their cash is sending you peasants packing for good. Next stop, Manorville!
  8. It’s amazing how hard you people try simply just to be angry.
  9. Hey Dummy, what exactly am I trying to change?
  10. So are you. You are a wanna be local. Nothing will eve change that fact.
  11. Sure keep the easement. But you still can't drive on the beach during daylight summer hours, you have to walk on to the beach as is the law on every other inch of south facing beach in EH. And there is nowhere to legally park close to truck beach except for the giant beach parking lot a mile away. Access to the beach is not really the issue. Access to the beach IN YOUR VEHICLE during daylight summer hours is the issue. The locals are insulted by having to walk onto the beach - it's a tradition.
  12. No, never work. The home owners contend and this appellate court affirms that the beach is the homeowners land. Period (subject to further appeals). Essentially, according the the Appellate court (and the home owners), the town has illegally been allowing other EH landowners to use these people's land for the last 150 years. Can I go fish on your land without your permission? Nope. Can an EH landowner drive his vehicle onto the beach during summer daylight hours simply to "engage in fishing related purposes" on the other 20 miles of EH beaches? Nope. Say your argument holds water, there would still be no way to access this stretch of beach during summer daylight hours in your vehicle. You would have to walk. The locals have made it very clear that walking on to the beach to take their kids boogie boarding is FAR too much of a burden....remember the largest beach parking lot in EH parking lot is a mile away. The town is in a pickle and their old threat to condemn this stretch of beach will cost every other homeowner in town a fortune. The current Supervisor has said for years that he would 100% condemn this stretch of beach if it got that far. And it's an election year in EH. This ain't Delaware.
  13. It's gonna be hot in Amagansett this summer! Court Says No Driving on 'Truck Beach' The stretch of Napeague oceanfront known as Truck Beach looked a lot different in 2020, above, than it did last weekend, when East Hampton Town began enforcing a new court-ordered prohibition on driving or parking along that section of beach. Doug ****z By Christopher Walsh June 10, 2021 East Hampton Town officials are enforcing a prohibition of vehicles on a 4,000-foot stretch of ocean beach on Napeague popularly known as Truck Beach, following Friday's injunction issued by the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division reiterating its February affirmation that the property owners do, in fact, own the beach and that residents have no inherent right to drive or park vehicles there. Ownership of the beach is at the heart of a dozen-year legal battle pitting property owners landward of the beach against town residents who have driven and parked on and otherwise enjoyed that stretch of beach for generations. The injunction names as defendants the five members of the town board, the nine town trustees, East Hampton Town Police Chief Michael Sarlo, and Ed Michels, the chief harbormaster, threatening them with civil contempt should they violate the Feb. 3 decision that the homeowners associations' chains of title to their respective properties extend to the mean high-water mark of the ocean. It came in response to an application by James Catterson, an attorney representing one of the homeowners associations, to hold the town in civil contempt for failing to prohibit vehicular access to the beach. The defendants are to appear in State Supreme Court in Riverhead next Thursday. The town, according to Friday's injunction, must comply with the Feb. 3 ruling and revoke "any and all permits issued by the town for the 2021 season that do not expressly prohibit driving or parking on the beach in question." In the Feb. 3 decision, a panel of four Appellate Division judges reversed much of a 2016 State Supreme Court decision ruling that an 1882 deed in which the trustees conveyed some 1,000 acres on Napeague to Arthur Benson "clearly reserved some rights 'to the inhabitants of East Hampton' and, arguably, the allowances for some public use." It's unusual for enforcement to try to enforce private parking violations. — East Hampton Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc The Appellate Division judges came to a starkly different conclusion in February, writing that, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the homeowners associations "established their title claims by a preponderance of the evidence." The trustees, they wrote, had conveyed title to the disputed portion of the beach to Benson, "the homeowners associations' common predecessor-in-interest." The town and trustees contended that even if the homeowners associations established their title claims, the town nonetheless retained the right to allow the public to operate and park vehicles along the beach, including the portion owned by the homeowners associations, based on a reservation in the Benson deed, the panel wrote. "Specif-ically, the clause at issue 'reserved to the inhabitants of the Town of East Hampton the right to land fish boats and netts [sic] to spread the netts [sic] on the adjacent sands and care for the fish and material as has been customary heretofore on the South Shore of the Town lying westerly of these conveyed premises.' " But that reservation cannot be construed as broadly as the town and trustees contend, they wrote. Rather, it is akin to "an easement allowing the public to use the homeowners associations' portion of the beach only for fishing and fishing-related purposes" and not authority to issue permits allowing the public to drive and park on any portion of the beach owned by the homeowners associations. "We are in a situation where we need to seek further clarification from the judge in the case as to what exactly we will be enforcing," Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said on Tuesday. "It's unusual for enforcement to try to enforce private parking violations." Until such clarification, he said, "we are asking people not to drive at this section of beach." Expressing his personal opinion, Mr. Van Scoyoc said that "we need to take every step necessary to ensure our traditional beach access rights, no matter where they are within the township. . . . In the interim, I'm asking you to be patient and comply" until the next steps are determined. That is "a step," Stephen Angel, an attorney representing four of the property owners' associations, said on Tuesday. But "what the town has to realize is that for the last 20 to 30 years they've been directing people to park on our clients' properties over their objection." Driving on the beach in question had historically been allowed, even though it is prohibited during the day on most other beaches. "They just can't sit back after 20 years of telling people to do it," Mr. Angel said. "They've got to do something affirmative to keep people off it. The problem was created by directing people there." The property owners had asserted their ownership of the beach in parallel lawsuits brought in 2009. In a five-day bench trial in Riverhead in June 2016, they carried out a broad attack aimed at activities on the ocean beach between Napeague Lane and the western boundary of Napeague State Park. They portrayed a dangerous environment with hundreds of vehicles weaving through crowds and children at play, and people and dogs urinating and defecating in the dunes. This, they contended, represented a threat to public health and degradation of the environment. The defense countered that residents of East Hampton have been using the beach in question for generations, a fact that was established in the 2016 trial with testimony from residents including Mr. Michels, Bill Taylor, a trustee and then the town's waterways management supervi-sor, and then-Councilman Fred Overton. Some who testified recalled driving on the beach more than 50 years earlier, and all dismissed suggestions that conditions had ever been hazardous. Before the 2016 State Supreme Court decision affirming the public's right to access the beach, town officials were planning eminent domain proceedings had the court sided with the plaintiffs, resolving to condemn a total of just over 22 acres of shorefront between the mean high-water mark and the toe of the sand dunes. Mr. Van Scoyoc said after Tuesday's meeting that that option is "still on the table. We would prefer to resolve the issues and concerns we have with the ruling," he said, and the town is pursuing an appeal. "Hopefully, we don't have to go to that stage."
  14. Omg, the sanctimony. Vomit. Maybe hire a sky writer to tell the kids to get off your lawn. Your tears here, while humorous, are clearly not getting your dopey message across.
  15. Incorrect.