A acquaintance of mine asked me to post this.

« **Reply #25 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:03:54 PM »

"How Sebonack chooses to respond is their business. It is certainly not ours."

DavidT:

What are you talking about? Don't you realize this website discussion section makes every golf club's business their business? Pat Mucci even demands to see mission statements and Master Plans of golf courses he hardly knows. Why does he do that? Because there's no question in his mind he could do other people's business a whole lot better than they can.

« **Reply #26 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:15:34 PM »

TEP,

just for the record, the circa-300 acres of Bayberry adjoining NGLA was bought by Charles H. Sabin and his wife, Pauline Morton Smith Sabin, in 1916. He died in 1933, she remarried (again), this time to Dwight H. Davis (of Davis Cup fame). The estate was closed during WWII, then sold to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 3 on Dec. 17, 1949, for $131,250. M. Pascucci bought the land in 2001 from the IBEW Local No. 3 for considerably more than that. I doubt the members of NGLA ever seriously contemplated purchase of the land, certainly not in 1949.

« **Reply #27 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:25:32 PM »

Brad:

Thanks for the correction from my "Mackey" to the actual Charles Sabin who owned the property for a couple decades (and his wife when he died).

When I wrote that I asked myself if I should I go to my material to get the name right or just wing it and so I winged it and got it wrong.

I'm sure you know who Mackey was---another one of those super, ultra, mega bigwigs from that era in New York and Long Island (The Creek) who all knew each other so well and were figuratively joined at the hip in the culture of exclusive Long Island golf of that time.

« **Reply #28 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:33:20 PM »

TEP, somehow I don't think any historical familiarity I might have wth "the Mackeys" would come close to the kind of familiarity you have with them.

« **Reply #29 on:** April 28, 2006, 11:29:37 PM »

There has been no pettiness or spite involved whatsoever. Quite the contrary, Sebonack Golf Club has gone to great lengths to be a good neighbor to NGLA and will continue to do so.

A vast percentage of Sebonack land has been set aside as preserved and restored areas. Every acre that was permitted to be used was used. There was little spare, and in fact we could have sorely used even a few more acres.

The first hole was redesigned with its proximity to NGLA in mind. There was no other place for the maintenance facilty on site, and unfortunately every piece of vegetation had been cleared up to the property line on National's side of the line. Nevertheless, as Brad pointed out, we have spent considerable sums of money on transplanting and berming. I am confident that this process will continue indefinitely. I am also of the belief that the Sebonack maintenance facility will be no more noticeable than the NGLA maintenance facility which is on the eastern side of the same fairway.

« **Reply #30 on:** April 29, 2006, 08:04:46 AM »

Patrick:

I suppose National would have preferred us to locate our maintenance building on the other side of the golf course, but that wasn't possible given the nature of the property. The maintenance facility is set on a 10-acre piece near the entrance which was cut off from the rest of the Sebonack property by wetlands except for an existing driveway. That property could not have been used for golf holes so it pretty much had to become the maintenance facility.

From the day I first saw the map of Sebonack, I knew this would be a sensitive issue because it was immediately clear that National had cleared EVERY tree up to their property line (and a few more besides). In fact the wall of their recently-built cart barn is about three feet from Sebonack's property. They acted on the assumption that it was the neighbors' obligation to maintain a buffer on THEIR side of the fence, or this would all be a moot point. We were always actuely aware of wanting to impact National as little as possible -- I'm the golf course's biggest fan. But that is different than not using 20 acres along our boundary as they might have preferred.

« **Reply #31 on:** April 29, 2006, 11:07:52 PM »

Mark & Tom,

Had Mike already ceded land to the municipalities and college prior to your routing ?

Or was the land, in its entirety available, the routing created, and then the excess land ceded ?

If it was the former, didn't that restrict your efforts relating to the golf course and the maintainance facilities ?

« **Reply #32 on:** April 30, 2006, 03:24:21 PM »

Pat:

Of the approximately 300 acres originally available, there were a number of parcels which were immediately ceded to the Town and other entities.

A little over 50 acres were to the south of Cold Spring Road and were originally designated to be used by Southampton College for research. Ultimately, the Town requested that they take ownership to is and it will be leased to educational institutions for research as they deem fit. A covenant will insure that it is never commercially or residentially developed.

In addition, the road to Cold Spring Point was given to the Cold Spring Point community, and the beach next to it was deeded to the Town. That ate up another 4-5 acres.

A 1.25 acre piece was given to the Town at the end of Cold Spring road, adjacent to the beach parcel and next to the 12th green.

Finally, there were setback areas on the remaining parcel which need to be removed from the equation. There were 100 setback required for no disturbance from all wetlends, and there were four of these on the property and located near the entrance road, the current maintenace facilty, the seventh fairway and in between the 5th and 14th fairways. This setback needed to be 125 feet where there was construction of any kind. Therefore further boxing in the maintenance building.

These would have been futile battles to fight. The likelihood they could be used was remote. So, they were ceded to these various entities.

The maintenance area could only have been used for buildings, and not for golf. As Tom said, the clearing from Nationals side of the property was up to, and over the property line, leaving in effect a negetive buffer from their side. We did not want to make an issue of this. It was cleared innocently I am sure, but nevertheless, it did make this area unfortunately exposed, but through no fault of our own.

A similar situation occurred on the right side of the first fairway where the cart barn was not only right on the property line, but the area behind it was cleared for parking. Again, innocently done on National's part, and something that we have had to deal with. This became the genesis for the reworking of the 1st hole at Sebonack to be good neighbors.

« **Reply #33 on:** April 30, 2006, 09:14:21 PM »

Mark Hissey,

Thanks for the detailed information.

Is golf course design seriously handcuffed in locations with active environmentalist interests ?

Tom Doak,

How does working in Holyoke, Co, & Bandon, Or differ from working in Southampton, NY, with respect to environmental and permitting issues ?

« **Reply #34 on:** April 30, 2006, 09:18:27 PM »

Patrick...what do you mean by "environmentalist interest"?

I was curious because out here in Montana we have a lot of hard rock mining going on, and the byproduct, or waste, from hard rock mining is offend very toxic. Several blue ribbon trout streams have been ruined or are threatened by waste from these mines.

I was thinking if we got rid of the "environmentalist interest" maybe these hard rock miners would not be "handcuffed" and they could dump their toxic waste into our rivers without any worries.

« **Reply #35 on:** April 30, 2006, 10:10:17 PM »

Patrick:

I was not involved in Sebonack when they went through obtaining their permits; the rules I had to follow were very clear if rather complicated.

I did find it odd that we were required by permit to save a high percentage of native trees and plants on site, when the neighbor next door has been aggressively cutting everything down.

Permitting is politics, plain and simple. The more people that are around a proposed development, the more likely you are to find vociferous objectors who you have to pacify. Certainly, there are more of them living in Southampton, NY than in Holyoke, CO. There were a lot more living near Melbourne, Australia than in Tasmania, too.

« **Reply #36 on:** April 30, 2006, 10:45:45 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on April 30, 2006, 09:14:21 PM

Mark Hissey,

Thanks for the detailed information.

Is golf course design seriously handcuffed in locations with active environmentalist interests ?

Tom Doak,

How does working in Holyoke, Co, & Bandon, Or differ from working in Southampton, NY, with respect to environmental and permitting issues ?

Pat:

We've always known what we had to work with on site, so to think that we would have a lot more areas available to us is a little abstract to be honest. I am extremely happy with what we had to work with, and in fact I think that the preserved areas may well add to the allure of Sebonack.

There was early talk of our clubhouse being located up on the 92 foot elevation of the property where the current 10th green is located. In retrospect, I am so happy that it wasn't there. The confluence of the 10th green, 16th green and 17th tee is just an amazing location which would be so spoiled by a big building. the final location of the clubhouse will hopefully add a great deal to the 1st, 2nd, 18th, 3rd and 10th holes. The jury is out on that one, but I believe it is the lesser of two evils.

My only issue with the environmetal regulations is that I think that we went way above the call of duty in that regard. Basically, it cost a tremendous amount of money for things which may not be needed. But, initial results are extremely promising. The diversity of wildlife htat is appearing on site may well be the hidden surprise to this project. The natural beauty that is developing on Sebonack will add to the magic of the place.

« **Reply #37 on:** May 01, 2006, 12:08:59 AM »

Patrick,

Clearly, Sebonack has left no stone unturned. Their consideration for others seems paramount. The choice of paint color for the structure in question, being proof enough, for me. But to hear of these additional acts of neighborly forethought, must be rare, and should be applauded. Would you agree?

Do you continue to view your source as reliable?

« **Reply #38 on:** May 01, 2006, 10:57:35 PM »

Craig Sweet,

It doesn't surprise me that you'd equate a mining operation to a golf course.

It's extremist, one dimensional, views like yours that benefit noone.

How have Southampton, Shinnecock and NGLA harmed the environment ?

I realize that they've only been there about 100 years, but surely, you must have proof positive on their substantive, negative impact on the evironment.

Mark Hissey,

With three, ongoing "clinical trials", with 100 years of experience, next to you, why on earth were you forced to go through hoops ? Wasn't the 100 or so years of experience with three golf courses a sufficient data base upon which to draw prudent conclusions relating to environmental impacts ?

And, let's be candid, with ample land ceded for environmental and permitting reasons, why would a golf course be expected to be a wildlife habitat ?

Will an expanding Southampton College, Municipal building or Hospital require that dual purpose ? I doubt it.
And, had Mike been outbid by a developer, would the homes have been required to be environentally compliant ?

The condos down the street and strip malls along Rt 27 don't look like they went through any environmental or permitting hoops.

Tom Doak,

There's not a doubt in my mind that NGLA couldn't come close to being built today.

The question is, why not ?

Will great new golf courses be relagated to remote locations ?

« **Reply #39 on:** May 01, 2006, 11:22:50 PM »

Patrick, your total disregard for the habitat of other life on earth does not surprise me.

I guess altering the life of a red wing black bird, or a slamander, does not compare to your friend in NJ paving more of America or Sebonack or Shinnecock plowing under some wet lands.

But its your elitist, smart ass aditude that I find offensive. "Enviromentalist interests"

?? Please....I wonder how different life would have been for people in Louisiana if the wetlands hadn't been drained, and filled with petrochemical plants?

There is a balance to life on this planet and its just too darn bad if a golf course (or any developer) has to jump through a few "hoops" , and spend a few dollars to "do the right thing", or at the very least pay lip service to maintaining that balance.

« **Reply #40 on:** May 01, 2006, 11:29:22 PM »

Mr Sweet.

Please explain to me what a great job the environmentalists have done on the south fork? It seems to me that SHGC and NGLA have done more in preserving a small part of the environment than either the towns of Southampton and East Hampton.

Why is it "elitist" for Mr. Mucci to point out the hypocrisy of the environmental quality of life stewards on the south fork?

« **Reply #41 on:** May 01, 2006, 11:43:58 PM »

Quote from: Craig Sweet on May 01, 2006, 11:22:50 PM

Patrick, your total disregard for the habitat of other life on earth does not surprise me.

Would you cite one scintilla of evidence that indicates that I have a total disregard for the habitat or other life on earth ?

I guess altering the life of a red wing black bird, or a slamander, does not compare to your friend in NJ paving more of America or Sebonack or Shinnecock plowing under some wet lands.

How did the glaciers, or this years hurricanes alter the lives of the red winged black bird or salamander ?

How have the forest fires started by lightning, and extinguished by man harmed these creatures ?

You're so far out in left field that it's a joke.

But its your elitist, smart ass aditude that I find offensive. "Enviromentalist interests"??

Every one of our great cities is on a body of water.
If it was up to you and your lunatic fringe, none of those cities would exist. But, we'd have plenty of red winged black birds and salamanders.

Have you ever studied America's evolution, from agrarian to industrial ?

I'm more concerned about humans, their plight, their health, their survival and their standard of living then I am about displacing creatures who can adapt through migration.

Please....I wonder how different life would have been for people in Louisiana if the wetlands hadn't been drained, and filled with petrochemical plants?

Oh, so now it's the petrochemical plants that are to blame.

If the wetlands hadn't been drained and the dikes hadn't been built, NOONE would have lived in that area, it would have been uninhabitable.

If it wasn't for petrochemicals, you'd be back in the dark ages, rife with disease, a life expectancy of 40 and a horrible standard of living.

There is a balance to life on this planet and its just too darn bad if a golf course (or any developer) has to jump through a few "hoops" , and spend a few dollars to "do the right thing", or at the very least pay lip service to maintaining that balance.

How do you KNOW it's the "right thing" ?

How do you KNOW it's not just an exercise in futility ?
A waste of time and money.

A golf course does far less harm to the environment then a farm or real estate development.

It's time for you to leave the dark ages and come into the 21st century, the real world.

Human beings are more important then red winged black birds and salamanders.

Could you answer my question relating to Southampton, Shinnecock and NGLA and the environment ?

« **Reply #42 on:** May 02, 2006, 12:13:41 AM »

Patrick...first of all I WORK on a golf course, so I am aware of what enviromental impacts they have. I also am aware of what many golf courses are doing to lessen impacts and preserve wildlands on their property.

As for Long Island and the Hamptons, you are much closer to that part of the world than I am and you can no doubt speak more intellegently about any impacts occuring out there.

Natural disasters have tremendous impacts on wildlife. But to my knowledge, with the possible exception of large meteor impacts, natural disastors have not eliminated entire species. Man has.

Where I live I have seen forest fires char hundreds of thousands of acres and have extremely positive impacts on wildlife....Smokey Bear and his message of stomping out every fires is probably one of the single largest wildlands mistakes ever promoted. Someday over some beers I'd be happy to discuss with you the benefits of fire in our wildlands....once again, its about a balance that does exist and man's constant tinkering with that balance screws it up.....and it comes back and bites his ass.

Species adapting thru migration? Mucci...now it is you that is out in left field!

I would wager that 80% of the song birds in America use to make the open grassland hills that ring our communities their home in the summer for breeding and nesting....what happens to them when those hillsides are developed? What happens to whales that have been "migrating" for 1000's of years to areas for breeding only to find oil spills, pollution from the fishing industry and the US Navy?

How far do you think whales are gonna move to avoid that?

Where I live the song birds disapeared. Where did they go? Are they staying one step ahead of the developer? What impact does a golf course have on those birds when the habitat is constantly mowed?

While you are busy worrying about the plight of humans, just remember this, as the climate warms, the areas of frozen tundra thaw and release carbon into the atmosphere....and this carbon adds to the warming and more tundra thaws....and it adds to the warming....

They call these areas ecosystems for a reason Mucci...perhaps you should pay attention to them....there is a cause and effect...gee...kind of like "firm and fast"

« **Reply #43 on:** May 02, 2006, 12:20:41 AM »

By the way Patrick...let me quote:

"Would you cite one scintilla of evidence that indicates that I have a total disregard for the habitat or other life on earth ?"

"Human beings are more important then red winged black birds and salamanders."

I think you answered for me.

« **Reply #44 on:** May 02, 2006, 01:16:57 AM »

Wow. Craig, now you know using actual fact and commen sense isn't allowed when someone is just trying to start a fight.

All kidding aside your post is about the most accurate thing I have read here in a while.

« **Reply #45 on:** May 02, 2006, 05:25:06 AM »

"I did find it odd that we were required by permit to save a high percentage of native trees and plants on site, when the neighbor next door has been aggressively cutting everything down.'

TomD:

I don't. Everything has to start somewhere and permitting starts in this country with any kind of development. In other words, C.B Macdonald and friends got to Southampton with their NGLA about 8-9 decades before the environmentlists or Sebonack G.C.

Welcome to the great American "Dividing Line" known as "Grandfathering".

Frankly, if environmental restrictions were applied retroactively (as in the case of treating trees on NGLA the same as trees on Sebonack) I doubt they would be politically feasible in the first place.

« **Reply #46 on:** May 02, 2006, 06:08:15 AM »

Here is one of the bigger environmental groups on The East End:

http://www.groupforthesouthfork.org/campaigns.html

They really are not a bunch of Nazis, they pick on everyone equally, they are losing the battle of maintaining development (see Rt 27 on a summer weekend), and I used to be a member!

Needless to say, when the three golf neighbors were built next door to Sebonack there was was very little population putting stress on the East End's resources.

Growing up at The Jersey Shore, I remember a number of times when the sewage went beyond capacity and was dumped in the bay. Despite tremendous growth in the population over the last decade, Southampton, East Hampton and Shelter Island Towns do not have formal groundwater management plans to assure the future protection of clean drinking water. A good percentage of the town still runs on well water and septic tanks.

I have no doubt that the environmental lobbies create too much red tape, but the problem is they have deal with the lowest common denominator.

« **Reply #47 on:** May 02, 2006, 06:30:38 AM »

Mike:

I'm certainly not up on these types of things but I'm told that basically the entire eastern end of Long Island which is essentially a sand based environment is sitting on top of one gargantuan ton of fresh clean water, as is also the same basic sand based environment in New Jersey sometimes referred to as the Pine Barrens. Parts of South Florida may be similar with its sand based environment and enormous aquifer. I guess the reasons for all this is obvious----eg real sand based environments can be the ideal cleansing "filter" for water.

By the way, if one tries to travel down Rte 27 in the summer not only on the weekends but also during the weekdays beginning around 6am that road is just jammed. If you look at the vehicles you will see most of them at that hour aren't the residents, they are the contractors working on all those new houses and communities being built up on many of East End Long Island's old potato farms, many of which have been in the same families for almost 300 years now. Today the real estate value of those old potato farms is just too high to be used for farming and those old LI potato farm families can't afford to take an asset that valuable through Federal estate taxation.

« **Reply #48 on:** May 02, 2006, 06:37:32 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 02, 2006, 06:30:38 AM

Today the real estate value of those old potato farms is just too high to be used for farming and those old LI potato farm families can't afford to take an asset that valuable through Federal estate taxation.

Tom,

The same families often sit on the Town Boards to further complicate development. Oh then add in the Shinnecock Reservation right smack at the choke point for traffic! Not even Pat Mucci has all the answers!

« **Reply #49 on:** May 02, 2006, 06:43:36 AM »

NIMBY

News:

TEPaul

Brad Klein

TEPaul

Brad Klein

Mark Hissey

Tom_Doak

Patrick_Mucci

Mark Hissey

Patrick_Mucci

Craig Sweet

Tom_Doak

Mark Hissey

A_Clay_Man

Patrick_Mucci

Craig Sweet

HamiltonBHearst

Patrick_Mucci

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

Steve_Roths

TEPaul

Mike_Sweeney

TEPaul

Mike_Sweeney

ForkaB