TBD

Amagansett Truck Beach Trial Begins Monday

Rate this topic

414 posts in this topic

YES C-palms thanks for making my point..using your brain IS YOUR FRIEND. The house dropped significantly in value as soon as the town made definite overtures about its willingness to go forward with Condemnation.This was discussed at town board meetings as recently as late 2014. Listed in 2014 for $13Mill and then 9.5 Mill in Oct. What's your point? The town began condemnation proceedings about a year and a half before this Judge's ruling.

By the way,looks like even the judge thought that your defense of how the greedy homeowners at Napeague (The GROUP SAFE)were right about safety and overcrowding at that beach was a complete exaggeration. Even if it listed at $9.5 mill in October 2016 ...now that it won't be a private beach that will drop too. And unless you are insane....going from 13MILL to $9.5 is a pretty BIG depreciation in home value. My home's value remained the same or went up in this time period. Hope you haven't lost any sleep over being so misinformed??? The judge didn't see it your way about the "Talladega Speedway" crap you were referring to this family beach as resembling,either! In fact,he ruled that ownership of the beach was not proven and that he did not see any evidence of the truck drivers creating safety, heath or nuisance issues. In case you STILL don't get the picture, the house lost value and it's because TRUCK BEACH was a factor. And all of those land grabbers ARE in on the blatant attempt to privatize said beaches, so their property values would increase.

 

Also if you go to several heavily read REALTOR sites or forums where realtors are discussing the property they all talk about how TRUCK BEACH affects the property value of the house ! They really do....no bull!!

So all of your snobby,disingenuous, Napeague buddies were expecting a big payday and they thought they'd roll over everyone....hope you are not feeling blue.

Happy thanksgiving. Google is your best friend...Google Mike Wright's article on 27 East, the town was already surveying the two beaches in question for Condemnation by June 2015. The discussions about condemnation began a year before that, on an official level and CFar has been pushing for it since 2011.

Jay,

Thanks for always having a sane answer, and well researched information when these " interested parties" get up on their high horse.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Pete

Edited by Shag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay,

Thanks for always having a sane answer, and well researched information when these " interested parties" get up on their high horse.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Pete

Pete,

Thanks my friend.  Hope that you and yours have a nice holiday,too.   

Its funny Pete, just read this thread over again and you'll note that the most misinformed posters consistently have been wrong about every aspect of the truck beach trial's outcome.

They swore that the public was obviously in the wrong. They accused the beach goers of overcrowding, being perpetually drunk, trespassing,creating health hazards,destroying the beach ,making too much noise and of unsafe driving.  But the judge refuted these claims dramatically.   So in truth,some of the posters here turned out to be exactly what we all thought they were, misinformed and rooting for the  SAFE GOONS.   But they have one good quality....they are consistently wrong,just like the elitist turds who just got their asses kicked.  Thank god for that!

Lastly,it's kind of cosmic KARMA that in their attempt to steal the sand from the public to make their property values soar,TODAY not only did the turd brigade suffer the indignity of spending big bucks  on legal costs, they were outed as being the PHONIES that they are and shades of BAD KARMA,THEIR HOME'S PROPERTY VALUES went down as a direct result of their greed and they managed to stigmatize the entire area,as being a place where prospective home buyers might need to avoid,should they want to avoid costly litigation.  Isn't it obvious that a select few lawyers who are kind of promoting a "Cottage Industry" when it comes to making legal assaults on public beaches,are laughing their way to the bank.

 The latest scuttlebutt(although I personally think it's just more chest thumping and saber rattling),some very wealthy instigators may within two years find more legal costs mounting with regard to new tax legislation coming down the pike concerning overlooked property maintenance and dune damage affecting public beach usage. Flooded access roads,chemicals getting into waterways and failure to protect a pristine natural environment, will figure into the suit.  

   AAAHHH  KARMA!!  They would all have been better off, had they just dealt with the town/towns in question,  like good citizens and pushed for better policing of the beaches in a civil way,instead of shaking us all down and burning bridges. These fools literally have let the GENIE out of the bottle.                                                                                                          

Edited by JettyGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no relationship between the drop in price as most oceanfront homes go through several price chops. The sellers are just not realistic at the start and as time goes the brokers convince them to chop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no relationship between the drop in price as most oceanfront homes go through several price chops. The sellers are just not realistic at the start and as time goes the brokers convince them to chop.

As usual,just like you have been misinformed about all things related to this case...your predictions about the trial's outcome have been ALL wrong,so you are batting 100%.

It is obviously painfully plain as the nose on your face...that people who now live on or nearTRUCK BEACH have been promoting this beach as being the next private beach and now that it will still remain THE ONLY all day 24/7 beach where truck driving and parking are allowed in E.H. on the ocean side--will have lots of filthy rich "Buffies and Muffies" ...getting hives over the outcome.

I won't google for you actual comments ,which are available on realtor websites where realtors and buyers are discussing how buying near the beach in question is a bad investment because of the "all day driving privileges officially cemented",but there are several forums where you can see this.  The house we are discussing sunk by 30% in value in just months after it appeared that the homeowners were going to be losers and that the town had hired lawyers and began the CONDEMNATION process.

It's disingenuous of you to claim otherwise and like I said, you have been wrong on all things truck beach related and you are still keeping up the tradition of making up half truths. The poor little BUffies and MUffies have dug themselves a big hole and they have tainted their home values by drawing attention to the seasonal truck traffic and picnicking.  They should have left it alone.....but now anyone looking to buy on 'their' beach will think twice and try to get the homes at bake sale prices.   That's a fact Robin.

And You need to realize that,because the irony of it is so sweet! 

Edited by JettyGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  The house we are discussing sunk by 30% in value ....... Robin.

 

 

The asking price was lowered because a seller can ask whatever he wants. Only number that matters is what the property actually sells for.  In this case the seller was asking an unreasonably high asking price. The seller we are discussing paid $246,500 for the property less than 20 years ago, lets just say it's worth ~$9,500,000 today.  Me thinks he will be OK with his investment return LOL!  

 

Btw, why do you guys keep using TBD's real name - not cool and against forum rules.

  •  
45 Whalers Ln.Sold for $246,500

Located at 45 Whalers Ln.. Sold on 28 Jul, 1997.

 

 

 
 
Buyer(s)
Kuzmier, Darcy, Whaler'S Ln., Amagansett, Ny

Whaler's Ln.

Amagansett NY 11930

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The asking price was lowered because a seller can ask whatever he wants. Only number that matters is what the property actually sells for.  In this case the seller was asking an unreasonably high asking price. The seller we are discussing paid $246,500 for the property less than 20 years ago, lets just say it's worth ~$9,500,000 today.  Me thinks he will be OK with his investment return LOL!  

 

Btw, why do you guys keep using TBD's real name - not cool and against forum rules.

  •  
  •  
  •  
45 Whalers Ln. Sold for $246,500

Located at 45 Whalers Ln.. Sold on 28 Jul, 1997.

 

 

 
 
Buyer(s)
Kuzmier, Darcy, Whaler'S Ln., Amagansett, Ny

Whaler's Ln.

Amagansett NY 11930

 

Boy you just can't seem to tell the truth or ever make a rational statement about anything. This you have proven all along and you have been consistently wrong about the court viewing Truck Beach as being crowded ,unsafe and being a parking lot, with Yahoo Zombie drunken beach goers. in fact, the court ruled that the homeowners were unbelievable and misleading and that they deserved NOTHING. To date, the second stupidest theory that  you have is that the lovely family beach would be perceived as "TALLADEGA SPEEDWAY" by the courts.  YOUR LATEST HOME VALUE rant is equally moronic and of course unrealistic. Now you try to pull the wool over everyones eyes and you refuse to admit that your snobby, elitist Amagansett based buddies, haven't decreased the values of their homes by drawing so much unnecessary attention to those beaches located within the 4,000 ft section of beach where they live. Of course any dumb-sky will achieve slightly more value from their home twenty years later,if they bought intelligently in the first pace. But stop with the deflective tactics...just admit it. The realtors selling the houses directly on truck beach are bitching because their moron clients have forever tainted that area by drawing UNNECESSARY attention to the FALSE CLAIM that in their eyes, the beach is over crowded and being used by miscreants.  The price of that home we are discussing, dropped from $13million to 9.5 million in just months....all due to the truth ,which is that the morons drew too much adverse attention to their plight.   And you are fibbing again,LOL.    What we always go up against when it comes to battling snobs and privatizers  ..No brains, just mouth and no substance whatsoever.

This makes it easier for us to win in court or in other decision making venues.

 

YOU can't even get it right about using a person's first name on SOL !!??? I refer to even people I occasionally disagree with at times, by their first names with no malicious intent. I refer to Shag as Pete...... Pak as Jim, Cascade as Marty and TBD as Robin....there is no ill intent there.

People call me Jay.    it's a product of acknowledging people who don't consistently hide behind using their screens names because they are trolling the rest of us.  Its actually a sign of respect,because these people aren't afraid to claim the credit on their opinions about the issues they defend. Unlike certain internet tough guys who are all MOUTH,but feel that they can go on making childish and dishonest statements,only because no one really knows their true identity. What's against the rules ,is to use the person's full name with malicious intent. LOL  You can't even get that right!!  

Hell, as a sign of respect,kinship and FRIENDLY acknowledgement, people here have been calling TIM  by his first name since this forum's inception.What do think, that someone can identify someone's location by referring to them just by their first name??.....go ahead google the name Robin and see what comes up ...TBD is very safe and besides his body guards are very capable people,LOL.   

Edited by JettyGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Right you are Jetty Guy but I got put on notice that using first / last or any combo of the two will result in me getting evicted from this site. HMMMMMMM

 

 

Ahh well, That's because the gentleman I linked is not a member of this site, therefore isn't afforded the same protections as me, you or TBD.  Using his name is no different than using Cindi Crane's, Larry Cantrell, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump's name.  His name is in the public record - you can look it up at the EH Town Hall or a variety of real estate websites (in this case I used Streeteasy). Being that the guys name is not important, I will edit my post if it means that much to you Jim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

YOU can't even get it right about using a person's first name on SOL !!??? I refer to even people I occasionally disagree with at times, by their first names with no malicious intent. I refer to Shag as Pete...... Pak as Jim, Cascade as Marty and TBD as Robin....there is no ill intent there.

People call me Jay.    it's a product of acknowledging people who don't consistently hide behind using their screens names because they are trolling the rest of us.  Its actually a sign of respect,because these people aren't afraid to claim the credit on their opinions about the issues they defend. Unlike certain internet tough guys who are all MOUTH,but feel that they can go on making childish and dishonest statements,only because no one really knows their true identity. What's against the rules ,is to use the person's full name with malicious intent. LOL  You can't even get that right!!  

Hell, as a sign of respect,kinship and FRIENDLY acknowledgement, people here have been calling TIM  by his first name since this forum's inception.What do think, that someone can identify someone's location by referring to them just by their first name??.....go ahead google the name Robin and see what comes up ...TBD is very safe and besides his body guards are very capable people,LOL.   

 

 

Just say so and I will send you all of my contact information. I have nothing to hide.  I figured you already knew who I was because you have repeatedly referenced the guy I bought my house from when you have ranted at me.  I'm Chris is that helps.  If you want the rest of my contact information just send me a PM.

 

And please give it a rest with the class warfare stuff, it's getting really old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just say so and I will send you all of my contact information. I have nothing to hide.  I figured you already knew who I was because you have repeatedly referenced the guy I bought my house from when you have ranted at me.  I'm Chris is that helps.  If you want the rest of my contact information just send me a PM.

 

And please give it a rest with the class warfare stuff, it's getting really old.

Bite me dip stick. Please Pm me your location as per your offer. You are full of HOT AIR!!!

You don't have the balls to send me your contact information puss face,with your your real first and last name and your street address.

Go ahead and do it.   Remember you offered. And I didn't ask for it ,this time around!  This I have to see.

There is no CLASS WARFARE...only classless snobs who think that it is their way or the highway.

You truly have SELECTIVE UNDERSTANDING,as well as memory! I had asked you to send me your contact information right here on SOL,months ago, so I could share your good will and stellar recommendations with the CFAR board. I seem to recall you crying about not receiving a membership card or something like that..but you claim to have sent us a check. How is it when I asked you to send me your contact information then,you never followed through?  

Did you suddenly grow a pair overnight?   Good for you!!  Yes,lets see proof that you sent a check to Cfar and I can compare the contact info. with our enrollment data.

Yes ,please PM me ,so we can help you...LOL  Be sure to include your email and your phone number..i'll be expecting your PM,when pigs fly and hell freezes over.  By the way there is no implied threat here of any kind,I would simply like to make sure that I familiarize our few hundred Cfar members with your brilliant theories.  No need for you to be slinking around in the shadows. Some of your views on the public record here will be of special interest to our board. But lets see if you are truly a member of CFAR as you have stated and not just one of the SAFE advocates,as you appear to be.                   

Edited by JettyGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's gonna be hot in Amagansett this summer!

 

Court Says No Driving on 'Truck Beach'

 
20210610_Gov_TruckBeach2020DK4244.jpg?it
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
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cpalms said:

It's gonna be hot in Amagansett this summer!

 

Court Says No Driving on 'Truck Beach'

 
20210610_Gov_TruckBeach2020DK4244.jpg?it
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
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."

I hope this sh-t don’t stick. A couple of Rich idiots ruining it for a whole community it’s sad. These people should be ashamed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miserable prick bastards from away! These asshats from the city move here because they love the place , then proceed to try to turn it into a sht hole like the one they left.Elitist tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.