To the Editor:
I write this letter in response to Howard Husock’s “thought experiment” entitled “Thinking Outside the Tee Box,” wherein he seems to advocate for the reconfiguration of the Rye Golf Course to address the alleged shortage of youth sports fields in Rye.
As a Rye resident for the last four decades, as well as someone who has coached multiple youth sports teams in our community over several years and is a current member of Rye Golf, I feel well-suited to address a number of issues raised by Mr. Husock.
To begin with, Mr. Husock never articulates his basis for suggesting there is a need for more youth sports fields in Rye. Currently, there are approximately 15 playing fields in our community. The issue as I see it is not that we need more fields. But rather what we need is to enhance the availability and accessibility of the already existing sports fields. Perhaps, our efforts should be directed toward that end.
Regarding an anonymous proposal to “repurpose” the RGC, which is described as a “126-acre green space,” permit me to give a deeper, more meaningful description of the crown jewel in our community. RGC was designed over 100 years ago by legendary course architect Devereux Emmet. Mr. Emmet sought to and succeeded in sculpting a course that blends in with the natural landscape, which is replete with cascading hills, rock formations, and unparalleled water views. A century later, this course still showcases the fauna and flora that thrive in our coastal community. I cannot think of anything more destructive and nonsensical than bringing in heavy construction equipment to potentially detract from this scenic beauty and affect the wildlife so that we have 16 or 17 sport fields (with parking lots) instead of 15 such fields.
Also of significance, is the fact that RGC contains government protected wetlands and abuts the Marshlands Conservancy and Jay Estate, making it part of the Boston Post Road Historic District, which is a National Historic Landmark District. The only such distinction in Westchester County and one of only 11 in the entire State of New York. Accordingly, as our proficient local government leaders well know, entertaining this ill-advised anonymous proposal would necessitate an in depth review of landmark law, zoning laws, and environmental protection laws. It would also potentially lead to costly litigation by private homeowners and others having a valid interest.
But perhaps the most important consideration is the fact that RGC has brought sheer joy and happiness to untold thousands over the years. This point cannot be understated. RGC has been the perfect venue for weddings, socializing with family and friends, and of course the love of sport and nature. This is due in large part to RGC’s natural beauty and tranquility. It simply makes no sense to me to potentially change this atmosphere by simultaneously running youth sporting events on its grounds.
Some other points in Mr. Husock’s article need to be addressed. Namely, the suggestion that RGC is affecting the water quality in Milton Harbor. There is no definitive evidence of this. Moreover, Mr. Peter Linderoth, the expert cited by Mr. Husock, actually posted data showing that the water in the Milton Harbor area has improved significantly based on a 10-year “Unified Water Study” conducted on the Long Island Sound (see “Long Island Sound Report Card” at portal.ct.gov).
And Mr. Husock’s use of a 7.6 acre structure built in Scarsdale as an example of what Rye should do respectfully lacks merit as well. Scarsdale is a landlocked community with significantly more usable land. Rye, on the other hand, is a coastal community with a sizable portion of its property consisting of federally protected wetlands. In defense of Rye’s recreation department, I would also add that the staff and workers offer many useful and interesting programs at modest fees. I also maintain that the RGC fee of $7,192.00 for unlimited golf and use of the pool is a great bargain, which is corroborated by RGC’s overwhelming popularity.
In the end, I do agree that as a community, we need to remain open-minded to any and all ideas for improvement. However, any such discussions demand a full and fair consideration of all the facts and circumstances
—Edward Livingston
