More Taxes? Nah. More Fees? Why The Heck Not?
Nassau County Exec Ed Mangano has promised "no new taxes" in his budget proposal (where have we heard that before?), but nary a word has been uttered (at least not in public) about new or increased fees.
Well, our good friend and purveyor of pride in our public parks, Bruce Piel of PARCnassau, has discovered a plethora of fee increases for Parks and Recreation fees alone.
A tax by any other name (fee?) is still a tax, isn't it?
We wonder what other wallet-lighteners lurk in the County's proposed 2011 budget, hidden from sight, buried among the gratuitous (if not largely disingenuous) verbage* of cutting waste and reducing spending, ready to bite?
- - -
Well its Friday afternoon (9/24) and Nassau Parks did a last minute submission to increase more parks fees. Does anyone see a pattern here? Fortunately, unlike parks administration, not all civil servants leave early on Fridays and they continue to process and distribute these submissions in a timely manner allowing us to pass them on to you.
Parks is updating their 2011 budget proposal includes the following:
An Alcohol Beverage permit will go from $45 to $50. (Enforcement will probably remain at zero)
The Eisenhower batting cage will go from $3 a token to $5 (a 66% increase)
Nickerson Entry Fee will go from $8 per vehicle to $10. (a 25% increase)
Nickerson seasonal sticker will go from $80 per vehicle to $90. ( a 12.5% increase)
Nickerson Cabanas will go from $2,100 per season to $2,520 (a $420 increase)
Nickerson Cabinette will go from $700 to $765 per season ( a 13% increase)
Rifle & Pistol Range will go from $7 to $10 per entry (a 30% increase)
Leisure Passes will go from $25 to $30 per person ( a 20% increase)
Eisenhower miniature golf will go from $7 to $9 (a 22% incease)
By the way, since we told the legislature this past Monday, that parks was including fees for Hempstead Harbor Beach Park and Whitney Pond Park and that those parks were given to the Town of North Hempstead in 2007, they wisely deleted them with this amendment. Who is in charge?
Have your fees been increased yet? Hang on, let's see what next Friday's surprise will be. If your fees have increased, feel free to let your legislator know you aren't happy about it.
Note: The Legislative Financial Committee will meet on October 8, 2010 at 10:00 am to discuss the proposed county budget including the unjustified camouflage taxes disguised as fee increases submitted by parks. It wouldn't hurt to use that committee to practice for the final hearing on October 18th.
Bruce Piel
Chairman
Park Advocacy & Recreation Council of Nassau
246 Twin Lane East
Wantagh, NY 11793
(516) 783-8378
*A deliberate misspelling and mispronunciation of verbiage that assimilates it to the word "garbage".
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
. . .And Speaking of Farm Stands
Is That Garlic We Smell?
Join Citizens Campaign for the Environment at Garden of Eve at their 7th annual Garlic Festival for a day of food, crafts, music, and entertainment!
DATE: Saturday & Sunday, September 25 & 26, 2010
TIME: 10:00 am – 6:00 pm
LOCATION: Garden of Eve - Organic Farm, 4558 Sound Ave, Riverhead, NY
The two day festival is jam-packed with organic goodies and eco-friendly fun. Head out to Long Island's North Fork farm region and celebrate the harvest season with some good organic fun. Enjoy delicious and exotic foods, crafts, vendors, live music, pumpkin picking, pony rides, hay rides, and animals to see and feed.
Attention chefs and garlic lovers!! Do you have a garlic dish your family and friends go crazy over? Register for the great garlic cookoff and compete for titles of "Sweet, Sweet Garlic"; "Savory Garlic"; and "Miss Garlic Originality." Registration can be completed through the Garden of Eve website.
We hope to see you there!
Join Citizens Campaign for the Environment at Garden of Eve at their 7th annual Garlic Festival for a day of food, crafts, music, and entertainment!
DATE: Saturday & Sunday, September 25 & 26, 2010
TIME: 10:00 am – 6:00 pm
LOCATION: Garden of Eve - Organic Farm, 4558 Sound Ave, Riverhead, NY
The two day festival is jam-packed with organic goodies and eco-friendly fun. Head out to Long Island's North Fork farm region and celebrate the harvest season with some good organic fun. Enjoy delicious and exotic foods, crafts, vendors, live music, pumpkin picking, pony rides, hay rides, and animals to see and feed.
Attention chefs and garlic lovers!! Do you have a garlic dish your family and friends go crazy over? Register for the great garlic cookoff and compete for titles of "Sweet, Sweet Garlic"; "Savory Garlic"; and "Miss Garlic Originality." Registration can be completed through the Garden of Eve website.
We hope to see you there!
Trash Talk: It Costs You More Than You Think!
Town Sanitary District Charges $500 For Release of Records
If you think your property tax bill is high, by reason of the egregious special district taxes for garbage collection, among other not so niceties, imagine how those who seek information under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) feel when they're asked to cough up $500 -- yes, FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS -- for copies of public records maintained by the Town of Hempstead's notorious Sanitary District 7 in Oceanside.
From the very folks who brought you Million Dollar Garbage (the greedy and corrupt officials in the City of Bell have nothing on the folks who bilk the taxpayers at Hempstead Town's Sanitary Districts), comes trash talk, and at a price residents cannot afford.
Garbage In. Garbage Out. That's what they used to stay. Okay, in the Town of Hempstead, and at those outmoded fiefdoms known as the special taxing districts, they're still saying that. Garbage. Piled high upon the taxpayers. Taking good government, and our wallets, to the dump!
Read on. . .
From the Long Island Herald Community Newspapers:
Good-government group wants to take out the town's trash
Works to expose waste and corruption in special sanitation districts
By Lee Landor
Most Long Islanders know -- thanks to pocket-draining experience -- that living here carries a hefty price tag. What many don’t seem to know is that they can change that.
How?
One way is consolidating or dissolving the most fiscally abusive and wasteful special taxing districts -- of which there are more than 200 -- in Nassau County.
And how exactly would they do that?
Thanks to a new state law, the New York Government Reorganization and Citizen Empower Act, all it takes is signature collection and ballot referendums. Of course, responsible dissolution requires analysis of special districts -- the type of thing that takes FOIL requests (requests by members of the public, made under the Freedom of Information Law, to access records maintained by governmental agencies), audits and lots of digging beneath the surface.
Luckily for concerned taxpayers, there’s a group that is willing to take over those tasks: the Nassau County Government Efficiency Project, a coalition between the Residents for Efficient Special Districts and the Long Island Progressive Coalition. The project, run by Director Andrew Calderaro, has already begun tackling the Town of Hempstead’s five special sanitation districts, submitting FOIL requests to each.
“If I had to sum up the problems in a few words,” Calderaro said of the sanitation districts, “I’d say: tax waste, abuse and unfairness of taxation, in some instances corruption and a lack of oversight. Every taxpayer has a right to know how their money is spent, particularly in an economic climate that’s difficult for not only Nassau County, but the state.”
The Government Efficiency Project submitted requests to Sanitation Districts 1, 2, 6, 7 and 14, asking for a variety of information, including expenditures, tax levies, union and other contracts, employee salaries and benefits, and more. “This is public information ... and the taxpayers have a right to know how this money is being spent, what [the districts’] internal operations include and so forth,” Calderaro said. “These are entities that they’re funding.”
Sanitation Districts 1, 2 and 6 have complied, so far, with the Project’s requests. District 14, which has a small office and few staff members, referred Calderaro to the Town of Hempstead, to which he will submit a FOIL request. District 7 responded to the request in a manner Calderaro called “frustrating.”
District 1, which encompasses the Five Towns and Valley Stream South, provided the documents free of charge. District 2, which includes Baldwin, charged $30. District 6, the town’s largest special sanitation district, which includes Elmont, Franklin Square, Lakeview, Malverne Park and West Hempstead, charged $5.25 for photocopies of 21 pages at 25 cents per page. Sanitation District 7, which covers Oceanside, charged the Project a $500 deposit fee to produce photocopies of the requested documents.
District 7’s attorney, Jerome Cline, reportedly refused to budge on the fee. “When I said that the public has a right to this information,” Calderaro told the Herald, “he stated that Sanitary District 7 ‘has a right’ to request $500 for the FOIL request and that they ‘want that money.’”
Legally, an agency cannot charge more than 25 cents per page for photocopies up to 9 by 14 inches. The fee for records that are larger or maintained electronically is based on the actual cost of reproduction. No fee can be assessed for search or labor for the 9-by-14 photocopies, but for the other records, an agency can establish a fee based on the hourly salary of the lowest-paid employee able to prepare the copies, as well as the cost of the storage media, like a tape or disk.
When asked why District 7 requested a $500 deposit, Cline told the Herald that it would take at least two to three hours to prepare the records and it would cost the district to do so. “We are terribly organized, but [Calderaro’s request] is extensive and somebody’s gotta do it,” Cline said. “We gotta pay somebody and, unfortunately, it’s a very high-priced person that’s available to do this. We don’t have clerks doing this kind of work, so we’d have to pull somebody off what they’re doing to do it."
Cline insisted that his agency could charge for labor for photocopying documents regardless of their size. When the Herald attempted to clarify the law for him, Cline said he would double-check it. “If I’m wrong, I’ll definitely correct my statement to him,” Cline said of Calderaro. “And if we have to do it, we’ll do it.”
Frustrated by his conversation with Cline on Sept. 13, Calderaro had contacted Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York Department of State’s Committee on Open Government, for help. According to Freeman, that was a smart move.
“Unless the request involved at least 2,000 photocopies, the response would have been inconsistent with law,” Freeman said upon hearing of the $500 fee. “So, from my perspective, [Calderaro] did the right thing: He got in touch with this office, I sent a response, which laid out the law, in the hope that it would be passed on to the sanitation district and that they would say, ‘Oops, we didn’t know that. Let’s do our best to comply.’”
Calderaro, too, said he hoped Freeman’s insight would provide clarity to the situation. He submitted a written response to Cline in which he cited Freeman’s comments. Calderaro asked in his letter that Sanitation District 7 re-adjust the $500 fee to follow the law.
As he awaited Cline’s response, Calderaro continued to pursue his objective of streamlining special districts through the Government Efficiency Project. “Really, the power is in the hands of the taxpayer with the new New York Act,” he said. “It empowers the taxpayers.”
For more information on the project, visit www.fixmypropertytaxes.com.
Comments about this story? LLandor@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 205.
If you think your property tax bill is high, by reason of the egregious special district taxes for garbage collection, among other not so niceties, imagine how those who seek information under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) feel when they're asked to cough up $500 -- yes, FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS -- for copies of public records maintained by the Town of Hempstead's notorious Sanitary District 7 in Oceanside.
From the very folks who brought you Million Dollar Garbage (the greedy and corrupt officials in the City of Bell have nothing on the folks who bilk the taxpayers at Hempstead Town's Sanitary Districts), comes trash talk, and at a price residents cannot afford.
Garbage In. Garbage Out. That's what they used to stay. Okay, in the Town of Hempstead, and at those outmoded fiefdoms known as the special taxing districts, they're still saying that. Garbage. Piled high upon the taxpayers. Taking good government, and our wallets, to the dump!
Read on. . .
From the Long Island Herald Community Newspapers:
Good-government group wants to take out the town's trash
Works to expose waste and corruption in special sanitation districts
By Lee Landor
Most Long Islanders know -- thanks to pocket-draining experience -- that living here carries a hefty price tag. What many don’t seem to know is that they can change that.
How?
One way is consolidating or dissolving the most fiscally abusive and wasteful special taxing districts -- of which there are more than 200 -- in Nassau County.
And how exactly would they do that?
Thanks to a new state law, the New York Government Reorganization and Citizen Empower Act, all it takes is signature collection and ballot referendums. Of course, responsible dissolution requires analysis of special districts -- the type of thing that takes FOIL requests (requests by members of the public, made under the Freedom of Information Law, to access records maintained by governmental agencies), audits and lots of digging beneath the surface.
Luckily for concerned taxpayers, there’s a group that is willing to take over those tasks: the Nassau County Government Efficiency Project, a coalition between the Residents for Efficient Special Districts and the Long Island Progressive Coalition. The project, run by Director Andrew Calderaro, has already begun tackling the Town of Hempstead’s five special sanitation districts, submitting FOIL requests to each.
“If I had to sum up the problems in a few words,” Calderaro said of the sanitation districts, “I’d say: tax waste, abuse and unfairness of taxation, in some instances corruption and a lack of oversight. Every taxpayer has a right to know how their money is spent, particularly in an economic climate that’s difficult for not only Nassau County, but the state.”
The Government Efficiency Project submitted requests to Sanitation Districts 1, 2, 6, 7 and 14, asking for a variety of information, including expenditures, tax levies, union and other contracts, employee salaries and benefits, and more. “This is public information ... and the taxpayers have a right to know how this money is being spent, what [the districts’] internal operations include and so forth,” Calderaro said. “These are entities that they’re funding.”
Sanitation Districts 1, 2 and 6 have complied, so far, with the Project’s requests. District 14, which has a small office and few staff members, referred Calderaro to the Town of Hempstead, to which he will submit a FOIL request. District 7 responded to the request in a manner Calderaro called “frustrating.”
District 1, which encompasses the Five Towns and Valley Stream South, provided the documents free of charge. District 2, which includes Baldwin, charged $30. District 6, the town’s largest special sanitation district, which includes Elmont, Franklin Square, Lakeview, Malverne Park and West Hempstead, charged $5.25 for photocopies of 21 pages at 25 cents per page. Sanitation District 7, which covers Oceanside, charged the Project a $500 deposit fee to produce photocopies of the requested documents.
District 7’s attorney, Jerome Cline, reportedly refused to budge on the fee. “When I said that the public has a right to this information,” Calderaro told the Herald, “he stated that Sanitary District 7 ‘has a right’ to request $500 for the FOIL request and that they ‘want that money.’”
Legally, an agency cannot charge more than 25 cents per page for photocopies up to 9 by 14 inches. The fee for records that are larger or maintained electronically is based on the actual cost of reproduction. No fee can be assessed for search or labor for the 9-by-14 photocopies, but for the other records, an agency can establish a fee based on the hourly salary of the lowest-paid employee able to prepare the copies, as well as the cost of the storage media, like a tape or disk.
When asked why District 7 requested a $500 deposit, Cline told the Herald that it would take at least two to three hours to prepare the records and it would cost the district to do so. “We are terribly organized, but [Calderaro’s request] is extensive and somebody’s gotta do it,” Cline said. “We gotta pay somebody and, unfortunately, it’s a very high-priced person that’s available to do this. We don’t have clerks doing this kind of work, so we’d have to pull somebody off what they’re doing to do it."
Cline insisted that his agency could charge for labor for photocopying documents regardless of their size. When the Herald attempted to clarify the law for him, Cline said he would double-check it. “If I’m wrong, I’ll definitely correct my statement to him,” Cline said of Calderaro. “And if we have to do it, we’ll do it.”
Frustrated by his conversation with Cline on Sept. 13, Calderaro had contacted Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York Department of State’s Committee on Open Government, for help. According to Freeman, that was a smart move.
“Unless the request involved at least 2,000 photocopies, the response would have been inconsistent with law,” Freeman said upon hearing of the $500 fee. “So, from my perspective, [Calderaro] did the right thing: He got in touch with this office, I sent a response, which laid out the law, in the hope that it would be passed on to the sanitation district and that they would say, ‘Oops, we didn’t know that. Let’s do our best to comply.’”
Calderaro, too, said he hoped Freeman’s insight would provide clarity to the situation. He submitted a written response to Cline in which he cited Freeman’s comments. Calderaro asked in his letter that Sanitation District 7 re-adjust the $500 fee to follow the law.
As he awaited Cline’s response, Calderaro continued to pursue his objective of streamlining special districts through the Government Efficiency Project. “Really, the power is in the hands of the taxpayer with the new New York Act,” he said. “It empowers the taxpayers.”
For more information on the project, visit www.fixmypropertytaxes.com.
Comments about this story? LLandor@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 205.
Sustainability: From Marketplace to Main Street
Where Fresh Fruits and Veggies Go Hand in Hand with Fighting Blight in Suburbia
There aren't too many farms in Nassau County, New York. Indeed, aside from the old Grossman's Farm in Malverne, today but a barren patch of land and a lofty dream of tomorrow's harvest, there aren't any farms at all.
Indeed, county residents had to trek out to a farm stand in Suffolk, or take a ride upstate, to be where the good earth yield apples, strawberries, broccoli and vine ripened tomatoes. Until now, that is.
Over the last few years, farmers' markets, bearing the fresh and the healthful, untainted by chemical additives and raised with care, mostly locally, have popped up in Nassau. [The county itself hosts two farmers' markets, one in Garden City, the other in Roslyn.]
Today, the noteriety -- and significance -- of the local farmers' market is on the rise, and has been made more prevelent, not to mention relevant, by an organization better known for raising downtown than raising asparagus (asparagi?).
Sustainable Long Island, long a catalyst for sustainable development in the communities we call home, has reintroduced the farmers' market, and in particular, the youth-run farmers' market, across our island, raising hope, esteem, nutrition smarts, the idea and ideal of a sustainable economy and a green environment -- together, of course, with the carrots, beets and the occasional green squash.
These farmers' markets, in Roosevelt and North Bellport, support not only the local economy, but a return, if not to farming and tilling the land as vocation on Long Island, to a more natural, sustainable way of life.
"The launch of these two markets brings hope to these communities, along with countless others on Long Island, that fresh, healthy, affordable food alternatives are available," said Sarah Lansdale, Executive Director, Sustainable Long Island. "No more will they have to settle for high fat, sugar filled, greasy snacks and meals; they will now have what every community and every person deserves: an option."
Of course, the farmers' markets also make for exceptional photo ops for the politicos, so, apparently, there's no cutting the "high fat" and "greasy snacks" entirely. ;-)
Yes, we chide, with more than a bit of sarcastic causticity, our friends at Sustainable Long Island for what appears, on the surface, to be a move away from curing the ills on Main Street to a throwback to the agrarian past of Long Island's yesteryears.
"You say apples and broccoli. We see apathy and blight," has been our common cry on Twitter posts at www.Twitter.com/CommunityAlli. Our downtowns are crumbling, rarely inviting and barely sustainable (economically and otherwise), and here is the very group whose energies and fortitude stood at the forefront of Main Street's revival, hawking fruits and vegetables.
Ahhh. Sustainability is not brick and mortar alone. Sometimes, it takes a banana and a handful of bean sprouts to raise a village.
There is clearly no retreat on the part of Sustainable Long Island from the work -- that which has been accomplished and, to be sure, that which lies ahead - of downtown renewal. The rebirth of Main Street, through innovative, smart growth initiatives, is vital to a new beginning for America's first and oldest suburb.
Man does not live by bread alone, the old saying goes. Nor do the men, women and children of Long Island emerge from economic starvation, ergonomic deviation, and developmental stagnation by merely placing planters at the curb alongside art-carved benches and Victorian-style streetlamps, calling it "Streetscape Improvement."
Food for the body is as necessary as food for the soul (and the ever-popular food for thought) in reshaping our island into a truly sustainable environment, from the nutritional value of the fresh fruits and legumes we purchase at the local farmers' markets, to the inherent value of walkable, livable, viable "downtowns."
Kudos to Sustainable Long Island, and please, pass the cherries.
- - -
JOIN Sustainable Long Island e-news network, and watch for the renewal of SLIs website, itself a sustainable work in progress, at www.sustainableli.org.
There aren't too many farms in Nassau County, New York. Indeed, aside from the old Grossman's Farm in Malverne, today but a barren patch of land and a lofty dream of tomorrow's harvest, there aren't any farms at all.
Indeed, county residents had to trek out to a farm stand in Suffolk, or take a ride upstate, to be where the good earth yield apples, strawberries, broccoli and vine ripened tomatoes. Until now, that is.
Over the last few years, farmers' markets, bearing the fresh and the healthful, untainted by chemical additives and raised with care, mostly locally, have popped up in Nassau. [The county itself hosts two farmers' markets, one in Garden City, the other in Roslyn.]
Today, the noteriety -- and significance -- of the local farmers' market is on the rise, and has been made more prevelent, not to mention relevant, by an organization better known for raising downtown than raising asparagus (asparagi?).
Sustainable Long Island, long a catalyst for sustainable development in the communities we call home, has reintroduced the farmers' market, and in particular, the youth-run farmers' market, across our island, raising hope, esteem, nutrition smarts, the idea and ideal of a sustainable economy and a green environment -- together, of course, with the carrots, beets and the occasional green squash.
These farmers' markets, in Roosevelt and North Bellport, support not only the local economy, but a return, if not to farming and tilling the land as vocation on Long Island, to a more natural, sustainable way of life.
"The launch of these two markets brings hope to these communities, along with countless others on Long Island, that fresh, healthy, affordable food alternatives are available," said Sarah Lansdale, Executive Director, Sustainable Long Island. "No more will they have to settle for high fat, sugar filled, greasy snacks and meals; they will now have what every community and every person deserves: an option."
Of course, the farmers' markets also make for exceptional photo ops for the politicos, so, apparently, there's no cutting the "high fat" and "greasy snacks" entirely. ;-)
Yes, we chide, with more than a bit of sarcastic causticity, our friends at Sustainable Long Island for what appears, on the surface, to be a move away from curing the ills on Main Street to a throwback to the agrarian past of Long Island's yesteryears.
"You say apples and broccoli. We see apathy and blight," has been our common cry on Twitter posts at www.Twitter.com/CommunityAlli. Our downtowns are crumbling, rarely inviting and barely sustainable (economically and otherwise), and here is the very group whose energies and fortitude stood at the forefront of Main Street's revival, hawking fruits and vegetables.
Ahhh. Sustainability is not brick and mortar alone. Sometimes, it takes a banana and a handful of bean sprouts to raise a village.
There is clearly no retreat on the part of Sustainable Long Island from the work -- that which has been accomplished and, to be sure, that which lies ahead - of downtown renewal. The rebirth of Main Street, through innovative, smart growth initiatives, is vital to a new beginning for America's first and oldest suburb.
Man does not live by bread alone, the old saying goes. Nor do the men, women and children of Long Island emerge from economic starvation, ergonomic deviation, and developmental stagnation by merely placing planters at the curb alongside art-carved benches and Victorian-style streetlamps, calling it "Streetscape Improvement."
Food for the body is as necessary as food for the soul (and the ever-popular food for thought) in reshaping our island into a truly sustainable environment, from the nutritional value of the fresh fruits and legumes we purchase at the local farmers' markets, to the inherent value of walkable, livable, viable "downtowns."
Kudos to Sustainable Long Island, and please, pass the cherries.
- - -
JOIN Sustainable Long Island e-news network, and watch for the renewal of SLIs website, itself a sustainable work in progress, at www.sustainableli.org.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Play Ball?
Sure. For a Fee!
Our good friend Bruce Piel of PARCnassau updates us on plans to increase fees to play ball at Nassau County parks:
The county administration's attempt to covertly muscle through an ordinance to assess increased fees (camouflage tax) on every ball player in Nassau was stopped this past Monday, September 20th , when the county legislature agreed to table the measure. It will next be addressed along with the entire 2011 county budget in the near future after full investigation and public comment.
The justifications tendered by the county were filled with misconceptions, misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright falsifications. Thanks go to each league that testified Monday, each league, team and player that sent letters, emails and made phone calls to the legislators. Ultimately that is what cut this bill off at the pass.
The battle is not over. Whatever is motivating the county and park administrations to attack the ball players who are county residents and taxpayers is known only to them and the almighty. Inviting private leagues into becoming public leagues is fine, destroying private leagues is not! The latest tactics being used include:
"For profit" leagues should pay more to use county fields.
All 38 private leagues using county fields in 2010 are technically "for profit" even if their sponsoring entity is not. A church may be a 501(C) 3 but a ball team providing recreation and fellowship is not. Not should it be. Even the largest independent leagues only pay a living wage to their "owners", virtually all of which are involved for the love of the game. No George Steinbrenners here, Nassau. No ticket sales, no concessions stands, parking fees, TV contracts or product endorsements, just the minimum player fees to provide scheduling, referees or umpires, web sites and office support.
Non-residents should pay more to play on county fields.
What non-residents? While the rules mandate at least 80% of the players must be residents, the actual number is in the upper nineties. It is much more likely that a Nassau resident would be playing on a company team in NYC where he works than a city resident would be playing out here.
The proposed bill would allow eliminating field fees for Little Leagues.
The Parks commissioner has always had the authority to "waive any fees which he believes would be in the public interest." If they want to eliminate Little League fees, do it! We have no objection.
Every league, team and player that opposes these unjustified increases should call his county legislator and request being notified the next time this measure is up for discussion and public comment. When that occurs they should make every effort to make their opposition known via letters, emails, phone calls and by testifying before the legislative committees and the full legislature itself. Tell the county that Nassau taxpayers deserve better!
Bruce Piel
Chairman
Park Advocacy & Recreation Council of Nassau
246 Twin Lane East
Wantagh, NY 11793
(516) 783-8378
Our good friend Bruce Piel of PARCnassau updates us on plans to increase fees to play ball at Nassau County parks:
The county administration's attempt to covertly muscle through an ordinance to assess increased fees (camouflage tax) on every ball player in Nassau was stopped this past Monday, September 20th , when the county legislature agreed to table the measure. It will next be addressed along with the entire 2011 county budget in the near future after full investigation and public comment.
The justifications tendered by the county were filled with misconceptions, misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright falsifications. Thanks go to each league that testified Monday, each league, team and player that sent letters, emails and made phone calls to the legislators. Ultimately that is what cut this bill off at the pass.
The battle is not over. Whatever is motivating the county and park administrations to attack the ball players who are county residents and taxpayers is known only to them and the almighty. Inviting private leagues into becoming public leagues is fine, destroying private leagues is not! The latest tactics being used include:
"For profit" leagues should pay more to use county fields.
All 38 private leagues using county fields in 2010 are technically "for profit" even if their sponsoring entity is not. A church may be a 501(C) 3 but a ball team providing recreation and fellowship is not. Not should it be. Even the largest independent leagues only pay a living wage to their "owners", virtually all of which are involved for the love of the game. No George Steinbrenners here, Nassau. No ticket sales, no concessions stands, parking fees, TV contracts or product endorsements, just the minimum player fees to provide scheduling, referees or umpires, web sites and office support.
Non-residents should pay more to play on county fields.
What non-residents? While the rules mandate at least 80% of the players must be residents, the actual number is in the upper nineties. It is much more likely that a Nassau resident would be playing on a company team in NYC where he works than a city resident would be playing out here.
The proposed bill would allow eliminating field fees for Little Leagues.
The Parks commissioner has always had the authority to "waive any fees which he believes would be in the public interest." If they want to eliminate Little League fees, do it! We have no objection.
Every league, team and player that opposes these unjustified increases should call his county legislator and request being notified the next time this measure is up for discussion and public comment. When that occurs they should make every effort to make their opposition known via letters, emails, phone calls and by testifying before the legislative committees and the full legislature itself. Tell the county that Nassau taxpayers deserve better!
Bruce Piel
Chairman
Park Advocacy & Recreation Council of Nassau
246 Twin Lane East
Wantagh, NY 11793
(516) 783-8378
Town Hangs Up On Wireless
An Act To End The Proliferation Of Cell Towers In Hempstead Town
Pre-emption. The word the wireless providers hung over our heads as they planted their cellular towers, at will, in front yards, shopping center parking lots, adjacent to school buildings and abutting residential properties.
Thinly veiled as massive flagpoles and mutant pine trees, the attempted masquerade of the cell towers fooled absolutely no one.
Better service? Not really. The right to place a 300 foot pole anywhere the cellular companies want to? Not anymore!
The new regs adopted by the Hempstead Town Board are not perfect, and, in all likelihood, will be challenged in court and fought in the trenches before the Town's Zoning Board. Still, the rules are a tremendous leap forward, and a definite challenge to the "all and powerful" telecommunications industry, which heretofore had the only say in where their aesthetically displeasing and potentially harmful cell towers and antennae could go.
Residents were outraged. Community advocates were stymied and frustrated. Town of Hempstead officials took note, and, yes, have acted in the best interest of the people they were elected to serve.
Town Supervisor Kate Murray often talks of "maintaing the character of our suburban community." In leading the charge to enact this legislation, Ms. Murray has given moment to the cause.
Bravo!
- - -
Hempstead Town Approves Tough New Law to Regulate Cell Towers
Leading the way for other municipalities, Hempstead Town has passed tough new legislation that regulates where cell antennae and other wireless telecommunications equipment may be placed within the township. The law establishes a very high standard of proof for cellular service providers in establishing the need for new cell towers and also ensures that approved wireless communications equipment is located at sites that minimize negative impacts on local communities.
“This new law gives residents real power in the decision making process on cell tower placement,” said Supervisor Kate Murray. “It will also offer real protection against the siting of cell towers and antennae in locations that would adversely impact home values or the character of local neighborhoods.”
Along with the new town ordinance, Hempstead Town has retained nationally renowned wireless telecommunications expert Richard Comi to review applications and provide objective testimony on wireless telecommunication applications that come before the Hempstead Board of Appeals.
“Wireless communication providers will have to submit compelling evidence to prove an absolute need for new wireless equipment, and the town’s expert will give residents a voice with the same technical knowledge as the consultants hired by the telecommunications industry,” stated Murray. “Mr. Comi will make certain that cell companies provide accurate technical information to the town Board of Appeals,” added Hempstead Town Senior Councilman Anthony Santino.
The town’s proposal authorizes Hempstead to retain consultants like Mr. Comi to review and analyze the applications of wireless service providers. Further, the new legislation outlines documentation that applicants must provide as evidence in establishing an absolute need for the proposed wireless equipment. Among the required documentation are drive test or call test results that demonstrate gaps in service as well as a checklist to determine whether existing locations have been excluded from consideration. Maps detailing all structures within 1500 feet of a proposed location are also mandated.
A key goal of the town’s proposed law is to encourage shared use or co-location of new antennae onto existing cell towers or other structures while discouraging the unnecessary construction of new towers. In support of that priority, applicants for new cell towers must furnish a written report to the town detailing meaningful efforts to co-locate. Cell companies requesting a new tower must also conduct widely advertised balloon tests which offer the public a representation of the visual impact of a newly proposed tower utilizing a large, brightly colored balloon at the proposed tower site. Written reports, replete with pictorial representations of the proposed tower, must also be produced as well as a thorough discussion of steps the applicant would take to effectively minimize the visual intrusion of wireless structures as much as possible.
“It’s critical that we work to minimize the number of cell towers in local communities,” observed Councilwoman Angie Cullin. “As a result of this legislation, residents will receive more detailed information, making it possible for them to have a greater say than ever before at public cell tower hearings,” stated Councilman Gary Hudes.
Establishing a priority agenda, outlining the town’s preferences in the siting of wireless telecommunications equipment, is an important component of Hempstead’s planned law. First priority would recommend co-locating equipment on existing structures on town-owned and other public property. The second most preferred option would be the co-location of equipment on other existing structures (towers) in the town. The third priority would be a new tower located on town-owned or other public properties. Other preferred options (in order of priority) include a new tower on industrial-zoned land, light manufacturing areas, or other non-residential areas within the town. The least preferred option would be the location of a new tower on residentially zoned land.
“Putting forth a clearly defined priority list for the locating of wireless equipment will help promote its placement in areas that present the least impact on residential communities,” stated Councilman James Darcy.
Other highlights of the new legislation include the following:
§ No new cell towers or antennae shall be located closer than 1500 feet to a residential home, house of worship, daycare center or school.
§ Applicants proposing new cell towers must provide a report inventorying existing towers and other suitable structures within 2 miles of a proposed cell tower site.
§ In justifying a request for a cell tower of any height, data must be provided to document the effectiveness of a tower at a lower total height at the same location.
“The town’s new wireless telecommunications law addresses the concerns of neighbors in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner,” stated Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby. “This law levels the playing field and gives residents the resources necessary to fight proposals that will negatively impact neighborhoods,” announced Councilman Ed Ambrosino.
The town’s new proposed wireless communications law will also codify guidelines that support oversight in the placement of other wireless communications equipment to be installed within Hempstead Town.
“Hempstead Town will now have the most aggressive tools at its disposal in dealing with telecommunications giants,” concluded Murray. “A new telecommunications law and the testimony of a telecommunications expert at public wireless communications hearings will protect residents and give them greater voice in preserving the suburban character of our communities.”
Pre-emption. The word the wireless providers hung over our heads as they planted their cellular towers, at will, in front yards, shopping center parking lots, adjacent to school buildings and abutting residential properties.
Thinly veiled as massive flagpoles and mutant pine trees, the attempted masquerade of the cell towers fooled absolutely no one.
Better service? Not really. The right to place a 300 foot pole anywhere the cellular companies want to? Not anymore!
The new regs adopted by the Hempstead Town Board are not perfect, and, in all likelihood, will be challenged in court and fought in the trenches before the Town's Zoning Board. Still, the rules are a tremendous leap forward, and a definite challenge to the "all and powerful" telecommunications industry, which heretofore had the only say in where their aesthetically displeasing and potentially harmful cell towers and antennae could go.
Residents were outraged. Community advocates were stymied and frustrated. Town of Hempstead officials took note, and, yes, have acted in the best interest of the people they were elected to serve.
Town Supervisor Kate Murray often talks of "maintaing the character of our suburban community." In leading the charge to enact this legislation, Ms. Murray has given moment to the cause.
Bravo!
- - -
Hempstead Town Approves Tough New Law to Regulate Cell Towers
Leading the way for other municipalities, Hempstead Town has passed tough new legislation that regulates where cell antennae and other wireless telecommunications equipment may be placed within the township. The law establishes a very high standard of proof for cellular service providers in establishing the need for new cell towers and also ensures that approved wireless communications equipment is located at sites that minimize negative impacts on local communities.
“This new law gives residents real power in the decision making process on cell tower placement,” said Supervisor Kate Murray. “It will also offer real protection against the siting of cell towers and antennae in locations that would adversely impact home values or the character of local neighborhoods.”
Along with the new town ordinance, Hempstead Town has retained nationally renowned wireless telecommunications expert Richard Comi to review applications and provide objective testimony on wireless telecommunication applications that come before the Hempstead Board of Appeals.
“Wireless communication providers will have to submit compelling evidence to prove an absolute need for new wireless equipment, and the town’s expert will give residents a voice with the same technical knowledge as the consultants hired by the telecommunications industry,” stated Murray. “Mr. Comi will make certain that cell companies provide accurate technical information to the town Board of Appeals,” added Hempstead Town Senior Councilman Anthony Santino.
The town’s proposal authorizes Hempstead to retain consultants like Mr. Comi to review and analyze the applications of wireless service providers. Further, the new legislation outlines documentation that applicants must provide as evidence in establishing an absolute need for the proposed wireless equipment. Among the required documentation are drive test or call test results that demonstrate gaps in service as well as a checklist to determine whether existing locations have been excluded from consideration. Maps detailing all structures within 1500 feet of a proposed location are also mandated.
A key goal of the town’s proposed law is to encourage shared use or co-location of new antennae onto existing cell towers or other structures while discouraging the unnecessary construction of new towers. In support of that priority, applicants for new cell towers must furnish a written report to the town detailing meaningful efforts to co-locate. Cell companies requesting a new tower must also conduct widely advertised balloon tests which offer the public a representation of the visual impact of a newly proposed tower utilizing a large, brightly colored balloon at the proposed tower site. Written reports, replete with pictorial representations of the proposed tower, must also be produced as well as a thorough discussion of steps the applicant would take to effectively minimize the visual intrusion of wireless structures as much as possible.
“It’s critical that we work to minimize the number of cell towers in local communities,” observed Councilwoman Angie Cullin. “As a result of this legislation, residents will receive more detailed information, making it possible for them to have a greater say than ever before at public cell tower hearings,” stated Councilman Gary Hudes.
Establishing a priority agenda, outlining the town’s preferences in the siting of wireless telecommunications equipment, is an important component of Hempstead’s planned law. First priority would recommend co-locating equipment on existing structures on town-owned and other public property. The second most preferred option would be the co-location of equipment on other existing structures (towers) in the town. The third priority would be a new tower located on town-owned or other public properties. Other preferred options (in order of priority) include a new tower on industrial-zoned land, light manufacturing areas, or other non-residential areas within the town. The least preferred option would be the location of a new tower on residentially zoned land.
“Putting forth a clearly defined priority list for the locating of wireless equipment will help promote its placement in areas that present the least impact on residential communities,” stated Councilman James Darcy.
Other highlights of the new legislation include the following:
§ No new cell towers or antennae shall be located closer than 1500 feet to a residential home, house of worship, daycare center or school.
§ Applicants proposing new cell towers must provide a report inventorying existing towers and other suitable structures within 2 miles of a proposed cell tower site.
§ In justifying a request for a cell tower of any height, data must be provided to document the effectiveness of a tower at a lower total height at the same location.
“The town’s new wireless telecommunications law addresses the concerns of neighbors in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner,” stated Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby. “This law levels the playing field and gives residents the resources necessary to fight proposals that will negatively impact neighborhoods,” announced Councilman Ed Ambrosino.
The town’s new proposed wireless communications law will also codify guidelines that support oversight in the placement of other wireless communications equipment to be installed within Hempstead Town.
“Hempstead Town will now have the most aggressive tools at its disposal in dealing with telecommunications giants,” concluded Murray. “A new telecommunications law and the testimony of a telecommunications expert at public wireless communications hearings will protect residents and give them greater voice in preserving the suburban character of our communities.”
The Maverick Versus The Machine
Insurgent Sweeps Through Democratic Primary. Seeks To Upset GOP Applecart.
Having shot his party-nominated opponent out of the water on Primary Day, with 59% of the vote, political neophyte -- but definitely no stranger to community, to service, and to putting people before politics -- Democrat Patrick Nicolosi, takes on Republican Edward Ra, an attorney for the Town of Hempstead, on November 2nd for the 21st Assembly District seat being vacated by Tom Alfano (R-Valley Stream).
Can a shoot-from-the-hip, speak-his-mind, take-no-prisoners community activist (in the truest and most pure sense of the word) in the form and person of Pat Nicolosi take on a died-in-the-wool (or was it Republican cloth?) electoral newcomer, Ed Ra (who just happens to be the son of Joe Ra, former Town Councilman, longtime counsel to Sanitary District 6, GOP stalwart, and current Town Attorney) and actually win?
Did the little piggy cry "wee, wee, wee" all the way home?
Anything is possible, even plausable. And with Pat Nicolosi, the consummate maverick [name us just one in Albany], in the ring, going mano-a-mano with the machine's pick, Ed Ra [who is clearly running on his father's name, perhaps hoping to prolong the Dynasty's rule of the roost], look for a battle royale, and don't count out a surprise at the polls!
- - -
Even Republicans Respect Democratic Assembly Candidate Patrick Nicolosi's Community Experience
On September 14th, voters from New York's 21st District officially declared to Albany that Patrick Nicolosi is the best choice for this year's Democratic Assembly candidate. His opponent is a 28 year old Republican, who is the son of longtime Town of Hempstead attorney Joseph Ra. The 21st District includes Elmont, Floral Park, Franklin Square, and West Hempstead in addition to parts of Malverne, New Hyde Park, Garden City, and Hempstead. But is it only the Democrats of these towns who feel that candidate Nicolosi is well-experienced and greatly qualified to hold the State Assembly position?
Recently, Republican Frank Scuttaro's campaign for Congress responded to a concerned citizen's outreach questioning the credentials of a 28 year old candidate who is the son of the current Town attorney. Within their response, the Republican campaign declared that “[Pat Nicolosi] is an insurgent with a credible history of community involvement.” The campaign representative also admits that “Ed Ra...does not have decades of experience in public service.”
Moreover, the Republican campaign disturbingly claims that “an Assembly nomination is...an entry level position.” When asked for his response, Mr. Nicolosi stated that “The 21st Assembly seat is much more than just an entry level position on which one would use as a stepping stone to advance his or her political career. As Assemblyman, I would work tirelessly on behalf of my constituents to create jobs right here in the 21st District and provide real tax relief to the residents of this great district.”
Patrick Nicolosi has a long history of service to his community including Elmont Library Board Member, President of the Elmont East End Civic Association, and Co-Chairperson of the Elmont Coalition for Sustainable Development. In fact, in his first year as an Elmont Library Board Member, Mr. Nicolosi achieved a zero tax increase, as well as a zero budget increase, without cutting any services or programs. He is also a member of RESD (Residents for Efficient Special Districts), and appears before Town Board of Zoning Appeals on behalf of residents.
Residents of the 21st Assembly District deserve a candidate who will go to Albany not as a stepping stone to further a family career in politics, but will go to create jobs and bring meaningful tax relief to its tax-paying residents.
- - -
Check out Republicans for Patrick Nicolosi on Facebook
Having shot his party-nominated opponent out of the water on Primary Day, with 59% of the vote, political neophyte -- but definitely no stranger to community, to service, and to putting people before politics -- Democrat Patrick Nicolosi, takes on Republican Edward Ra, an attorney for the Town of Hempstead, on November 2nd for the 21st Assembly District seat being vacated by Tom Alfano (R-Valley Stream).
Can a shoot-from-the-hip, speak-his-mind, take-no-prisoners community activist (in the truest and most pure sense of the word) in the form and person of Pat Nicolosi take on a died-in-the-wool (or was it Republican cloth?) electoral newcomer, Ed Ra (who just happens to be the son of Joe Ra, former Town Councilman, longtime counsel to Sanitary District 6, GOP stalwart, and current Town Attorney) and actually win?
Did the little piggy cry "wee, wee, wee" all the way home?
Anything is possible, even plausable. And with Pat Nicolosi, the consummate maverick [name us just one in Albany], in the ring, going mano-a-mano with the machine's pick, Ed Ra [who is clearly running on his father's name, perhaps hoping to prolong the Dynasty's rule of the roost], look for a battle royale, and don't count out a surprise at the polls!
- - -
Even Republicans Respect Democratic Assembly Candidate Patrick Nicolosi's Community Experience
On September 14th, voters from New York's 21st District officially declared to Albany that Patrick Nicolosi is the best choice for this year's Democratic Assembly candidate. His opponent is a 28 year old Republican, who is the son of longtime Town of Hempstead attorney Joseph Ra. The 21st District includes Elmont, Floral Park, Franklin Square, and West Hempstead in addition to parts of Malverne, New Hyde Park, Garden City, and Hempstead. But is it only the Democrats of these towns who feel that candidate Nicolosi is well-experienced and greatly qualified to hold the State Assembly position?
Recently, Republican Frank Scuttaro's campaign for Congress responded to a concerned citizen's outreach questioning the credentials of a 28 year old candidate who is the son of the current Town attorney. Within their response, the Republican campaign declared that “[Pat Nicolosi] is an insurgent with a credible history of community involvement.” The campaign representative also admits that “Ed Ra...does not have decades of experience in public service.”
Moreover, the Republican campaign disturbingly claims that “an Assembly nomination is...an entry level position.” When asked for his response, Mr. Nicolosi stated that “The 21st Assembly seat is much more than just an entry level position on which one would use as a stepping stone to advance his or her political career. As Assemblyman, I would work tirelessly on behalf of my constituents to create jobs right here in the 21st District and provide real tax relief to the residents of this great district.”
Patrick Nicolosi has a long history of service to his community including Elmont Library Board Member, President of the Elmont East End Civic Association, and Co-Chairperson of the Elmont Coalition for Sustainable Development. In fact, in his first year as an Elmont Library Board Member, Mr. Nicolosi achieved a zero tax increase, as well as a zero budget increase, without cutting any services or programs. He is also a member of RESD (Residents for Efficient Special Districts), and appears before Town Board of Zoning Appeals on behalf of residents.
Residents of the 21st Assembly District deserve a candidate who will go to Albany not as a stepping stone to further a family career in politics, but will go to create jobs and bring meaningful tax relief to its tax-paying residents.
- - -
Check out Republicans for Patrick Nicolosi on Facebook
Water, Water Everywhere
Hempstead Appoints Members to Water Authority of Southeastern Nassau to Study Public Takeover of Aqua
Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray, Councilwoman Angie Cullin and Councilman Gary Hudes announced that the Hempstead Town Board has appointed three individuals to serve on a reactivated Southeastern Nassau County Water Authority. The Authority, created through state legislation in 1991, is charged with studying the feasibility of a public takeover of a private water company. The Authority is also authorized to commence a takeover of Aqua New York, Inc. (Aqua) if its findings indicate such an action would be beneficial. The recommended members include Richard T. Ronan of Merrick, John Reinhardt of Merrick and John Molloy of Wantagh.
Under the New York Public Authorities Law, Hempstead and Oyster Bay Town Boards were authorized to appoint five members to the Authority (three members appointed by Hempstead and two by Oyster Bay). The communities that are served by Aqua are within the two towns. It is anticipated that Oyster Bay's town council will consider the appointment of Edward "Woody" Kennedy of Massapequa and Walter D'Amato of Massapequa at an upcoming town board meeting. Pursuant to the action of Oyster Bay officials, the complete authority can commence its study concerning the feasibility of a public takeover of Aqua.
Currently, residents of several south shore communities in Nassau County who are served by Aqua, a privately owned water company, pay among the highest water rates in the nation. Homeowners and businesses in surrounding communities served by the Town of Hempstead and independent commissioner-operated water districts in both towns pay a fraction of the rates charged by Aqua.
"Ratepayers served by Aqua are paying outrageous rates to a private water company," stated Murray. "The members that we have appointed to the board will aggressively research all of the issues associated with the cost of providing water to determine if a public takeover of Aqua can result in real savings."
"We've appointed people with top-notch credentials and a high level of expertise who are well equipped to research this issue," stated Hudes. "The fact that our appointees are Aqua ratepayers gives them a unique perspective and sincere motivation in their quest for true ratepayer relief," added Cullin.
The Authority, a public benefit corporation, is an independent governmental entity. Prior to this most recent initiative to reactivate the board, a group of duly appointed members of the Southeastern Nassau Water Authority studied the takeover issue. In fact, a July 27, 2007 Nassau Comptroller's report stated, "?the Water Authority voted to stop the public acquisition effort in 1997." Notwithstanding the actions of the previous board, Murray, Cullin and Hudes indicated that it's time to reexamine the matter.
"Although a previous water authority board decided not to pursue a public takeover, the ratepayers served by Aqua deserve an authority that will take a fresh look at the issue," stated Murray. "The economy has changed since the last takeover study and Aqua was recently granted a 12% rate increase over three years. The newly constituted water authority can take this updated information into account in reexamining the takeover option."
Murray, Cullin and Hudes stated that superior qualifications and experience were key factors in the selection of members of the authority. The officials observed that each person brings a unique set of talents and skills to the water authority.
John Reinhardt, Commissioner of Hempstead Town's Department of Water, is uniquely qualified and possesses a high level of expertise in water district management and operations. The Water Commissioner is responsible for six water districts, serving 115,000 residents. The department includes 31 wells and pumps 20 million gallons of water per day. A budget of over $16 million funds department operations, and 80 part-time and full-time staffers comprise an efficient and effective work force. Indeed, the Nassau Comptrollers Office recognized the cost effectiveness of John Reinhardt's water operations in a December 18, 2007 report when it stated, "three of the five least expensive water providers are town-run special districts in the Town of Hempstead."
Richard Ronan is a Professional Engineer and the outgoing Commissioner of the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation. He oversaw a staff of 572 and a $125 million budget. The department collects waste from 81,000 homes. Ronan was a driving force behind the closure of the former Merrick landfill and its conversion to the award-winning Norman J. Levy Nature Preserve. He was named Engineer of the Year by the Nassau County Chapter of the New York State Society of Professional Engineers. He was a Regional Director of the New York State Association of Solid Waste Management. The Commissioner is also the past president of the American Public Works Association, Long Island Branch. Ronan's department was cited as a cost effective operation by former Nassau Comptroller Howard Weitzman in a December 18, 2007 report.
John Molloy is a Professional Engineer and the Chairman, President and CEO of H2M, architectural, engineering and environmental consultants. The company includes 260 employees and Mr. Molloy has extensive experience in water supply system engineering, operations and water quality. As H2M's direct representative for the Hicksville and South Huntington Water Districts, serving 115,000 people, John Molloy is engaged in capital planning, engineering design, operations and cost analysis for both operations. John Molloy is active in the American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation.
"I want to thank Councilwoman Angie Cullin and Councilman Gary Hudes along with the entire town board for approving superior individuals with the right skills to represent homeowners in the Aqua service area," concluded Murray. "I look forward to members of the Water Authority of Southeastern Nassau determining the most cost effective water service option for Aqua ratepayers."
Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray, Councilwoman Angie Cullin and Councilman Gary Hudes announced that the Hempstead Town Board has appointed three individuals to serve on a reactivated Southeastern Nassau County Water Authority. The Authority, created through state legislation in 1991, is charged with studying the feasibility of a public takeover of a private water company. The Authority is also authorized to commence a takeover of Aqua New York, Inc. (Aqua) if its findings indicate such an action would be beneficial. The recommended members include Richard T. Ronan of Merrick, John Reinhardt of Merrick and John Molloy of Wantagh.
Under the New York Public Authorities Law, Hempstead and Oyster Bay Town Boards were authorized to appoint five members to the Authority (three members appointed by Hempstead and two by Oyster Bay). The communities that are served by Aqua are within the two towns. It is anticipated that Oyster Bay's town council will consider the appointment of Edward "Woody" Kennedy of Massapequa and Walter D'Amato of Massapequa at an upcoming town board meeting. Pursuant to the action of Oyster Bay officials, the complete authority can commence its study concerning the feasibility of a public takeover of Aqua.
Currently, residents of several south shore communities in Nassau County who are served by Aqua, a privately owned water company, pay among the highest water rates in the nation. Homeowners and businesses in surrounding communities served by the Town of Hempstead and independent commissioner-operated water districts in both towns pay a fraction of the rates charged by Aqua.
"Ratepayers served by Aqua are paying outrageous rates to a private water company," stated Murray. "The members that we have appointed to the board will aggressively research all of the issues associated with the cost of providing water to determine if a public takeover of Aqua can result in real savings."
"We've appointed people with top-notch credentials and a high level of expertise who are well equipped to research this issue," stated Hudes. "The fact that our appointees are Aqua ratepayers gives them a unique perspective and sincere motivation in their quest for true ratepayer relief," added Cullin.
The Authority, a public benefit corporation, is an independent governmental entity. Prior to this most recent initiative to reactivate the board, a group of duly appointed members of the Southeastern Nassau Water Authority studied the takeover issue. In fact, a July 27, 2007 Nassau Comptroller's report stated, "?the Water Authority voted to stop the public acquisition effort in 1997." Notwithstanding the actions of the previous board, Murray, Cullin and Hudes indicated that it's time to reexamine the matter.
"Although a previous water authority board decided not to pursue a public takeover, the ratepayers served by Aqua deserve an authority that will take a fresh look at the issue," stated Murray. "The economy has changed since the last takeover study and Aqua was recently granted a 12% rate increase over three years. The newly constituted water authority can take this updated information into account in reexamining the takeover option."
Murray, Cullin and Hudes stated that superior qualifications and experience were key factors in the selection of members of the authority. The officials observed that each person brings a unique set of talents and skills to the water authority.
John Reinhardt, Commissioner of Hempstead Town's Department of Water, is uniquely qualified and possesses a high level of expertise in water district management and operations. The Water Commissioner is responsible for six water districts, serving 115,000 residents. The department includes 31 wells and pumps 20 million gallons of water per day. A budget of over $16 million funds department operations, and 80 part-time and full-time staffers comprise an efficient and effective work force. Indeed, the Nassau Comptrollers Office recognized the cost effectiveness of John Reinhardt's water operations in a December 18, 2007 report when it stated, "three of the five least expensive water providers are town-run special districts in the Town of Hempstead."
Richard Ronan is a Professional Engineer and the outgoing Commissioner of the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation. He oversaw a staff of 572 and a $125 million budget. The department collects waste from 81,000 homes. Ronan was a driving force behind the closure of the former Merrick landfill and its conversion to the award-winning Norman J. Levy Nature Preserve. He was named Engineer of the Year by the Nassau County Chapter of the New York State Society of Professional Engineers. He was a Regional Director of the New York State Association of Solid Waste Management. The Commissioner is also the past president of the American Public Works Association, Long Island Branch. Ronan's department was cited as a cost effective operation by former Nassau Comptroller Howard Weitzman in a December 18, 2007 report.
John Molloy is a Professional Engineer and the Chairman, President and CEO of H2M, architectural, engineering and environmental consultants. The company includes 260 employees and Mr. Molloy has extensive experience in water supply system engineering, operations and water quality. As H2M's direct representative for the Hicksville and South Huntington Water Districts, serving 115,000 people, John Molloy is engaged in capital planning, engineering design, operations and cost analysis for both operations. John Molloy is active in the American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation.
"I want to thank Councilwoman Angie Cullin and Councilman Gary Hudes along with the entire town board for approving superior individuals with the right skills to represent homeowners in the Aqua service area," concluded Murray. "I look forward to members of the Water Authority of Southeastern Nassau determining the most cost effective water service option for Aqua ratepayers."
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Town Government Gone Wild!
Attorney General Investigates Town Employees Raking In Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars
[And Its Not Even On Long Island!]
Over the years, The Community Alliance has brought you tales from the far side, almost beyond the realm of belief, of Town Sanitary District employees duping taxpayers out of millions, government workers taking six-figure salaries for no-show jobs, and even a Water District operating, on tax dollars, out of someone's kitchen. [Talk about throwing in the kitchen sink!]
Yes, there have been investigations, news stories, and even disturbing public reports on what amounts to public graft in local government, but what has come of it, particularly on our Long Island, where Special Taxing Districts continue to run amuck, on your dime (dollar)? Not all that much, we're afraid.
Okay. So here's a story that hits home. Maybe it even rings a bell. Though this one stems from greed and misplaced public trust on the west coast, from our vantage point, only the names and the locales have changed. The bilking of the taxpayer out of his hard-earned money continues on the east coast, unabated and, more often than not, unchallenged.
File this one under: It Can (And Does) Happen Here!
- - -
From CNN.com:
California AG sues over California town's municipal salaries
By the CNN Wire Staff
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
One official made $787,638 annually
Brown wants to reduce their pension benefits
He plans to widen the probe statewide
(CNN) -- California's attorney general sued eight former and current municipal officials in a small Los Angeles suburb who sparked national outrage for their ultra-high salaries, his office said Wednesday.
Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California filed the suit "to recover the excess salaries" that officials from the city of Bell awarded themselves. He is also pursuing a reduction of their pension benefits.
"I'm going to continue to do everything in my power to go after corrupt officials who, rather than doing the public's business, scheme behind closed doors to line their own pockets," Brown said.
"These officials must be forced to give up their ill-gotten gains, and we must enact strict reforms to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future."
Brown's lawsuit was filed against former city manager, Robert Rizzo; former assistant city manager, Angela Spaccia; former police chief, Randy Adams; council members Oscar Hernandez, Teresa Jacobo, and George Mirabel; and former council members Victor Bello and George Cole.
The suit charges include fraud, civil conspiracy, waste of public funds, and breach of fiduciary duty. It also alleges that the defendants deliberately misled the citizenry about the accurate amount of their compensation.
The suit is demanding that the people return all excessive compensation and it is asking the court to set "appropriate salary levels for pension purposes."
Rizzo's last annual base salary was $787,638, Adams' $457,000, and Spaccia's $336,000. Bell city council members were paid $96,000 a year before they took a recent cut. Cities of similar size pay their council members $4,800 a year.
Since 1993, the Bell city council raised Rizzo's salary 16 times, with an average increase of 14 percent a year. The city council raised his salary by 47 percent in 2005, and council members also awarded themselves salary increases of 16 percent a year since 2003.
Brown said Rizzo prepared a memo for the public that "showed council members were paid $673 per month and Rizzo was paid $15,478 per month. But he said council members actually were paid $7,666 per month, and Rizzo was paid $52,325 per month.
Brown plans to widen a statewide probe of public salaries and benefits, and he called for legislative reforms of salary and pension practice.
He is serving a subpoena on the city of Vernon, which is near Bell, "to obtain compensation records for city officials and employees."
"News articles have reported that one city official there received an annual salary of $785,000, and another received compensation totaling $1.6 million in a single year. Vernon, an industrial city near Bell, has a population of less than 100," the attorney general's office said.
[And Its Not Even On Long Island!]
Over the years, The Community Alliance has brought you tales from the far side, almost beyond the realm of belief, of Town Sanitary District employees duping taxpayers out of millions, government workers taking six-figure salaries for no-show jobs, and even a Water District operating, on tax dollars, out of someone's kitchen. [Talk about throwing in the kitchen sink!]
Yes, there have been investigations, news stories, and even disturbing public reports on what amounts to public graft in local government, but what has come of it, particularly on our Long Island, where Special Taxing Districts continue to run amuck, on your dime (dollar)? Not all that much, we're afraid.
Okay. So here's a story that hits home. Maybe it even rings a bell. Though this one stems from greed and misplaced public trust on the west coast, from our vantage point, only the names and the locales have changed. The bilking of the taxpayer out of his hard-earned money continues on the east coast, unabated and, more often than not, unchallenged.
File this one under: It Can (And Does) Happen Here!
- - -
From CNN.com:
California AG sues over California town's municipal salaries
By the CNN Wire Staff
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
One official made $787,638 annually
Brown wants to reduce their pension benefits
He plans to widen the probe statewide
(CNN) -- California's attorney general sued eight former and current municipal officials in a small Los Angeles suburb who sparked national outrage for their ultra-high salaries, his office said Wednesday.
Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California filed the suit "to recover the excess salaries" that officials from the city of Bell awarded themselves. He is also pursuing a reduction of their pension benefits.
"I'm going to continue to do everything in my power to go after corrupt officials who, rather than doing the public's business, scheme behind closed doors to line their own pockets," Brown said.
"These officials must be forced to give up their ill-gotten gains, and we must enact strict reforms to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future."
Brown's lawsuit was filed against former city manager, Robert Rizzo; former assistant city manager, Angela Spaccia; former police chief, Randy Adams; council members Oscar Hernandez, Teresa Jacobo, and George Mirabel; and former council members Victor Bello and George Cole.
The suit charges include fraud, civil conspiracy, waste of public funds, and breach of fiduciary duty. It also alleges that the defendants deliberately misled the citizenry about the accurate amount of their compensation.
The suit is demanding that the people return all excessive compensation and it is asking the court to set "appropriate salary levels for pension purposes."
Rizzo's last annual base salary was $787,638, Adams' $457,000, and Spaccia's $336,000. Bell city council members were paid $96,000 a year before they took a recent cut. Cities of similar size pay their council members $4,800 a year.
Since 1993, the Bell city council raised Rizzo's salary 16 times, with an average increase of 14 percent a year. The city council raised his salary by 47 percent in 2005, and council members also awarded themselves salary increases of 16 percent a year since 2003.
Brown said Rizzo prepared a memo for the public that "showed council members were paid $673 per month and Rizzo was paid $15,478 per month. But he said council members actually were paid $7,666 per month, and Rizzo was paid $52,325 per month.
Brown plans to widen a statewide probe of public salaries and benefits, and he called for legislative reforms of salary and pension practice.
He is serving a subpoena on the city of Vernon, which is near Bell, "to obtain compensation records for city officials and employees."
"News articles have reported that one city official there received an annual salary of $785,000, and another received compensation totaling $1.6 million in a single year. Vernon, an industrial city near Bell, has a population of less than 100," the attorney general's office said.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Enjoy Nassau County's Parks -- For A Fee
Proposed Fees Irk PARCnassau. You?
Our good friend, and guardian of Nassau County's public parks, Bruce Piel, chimes in on the proposed "user" fees.
...the proposed fee increases (that) will affect virtually all sports and other recreational uses of county parks. This was "slipped in" to the legislative committee on Public Works & Parks late Friday evening for consideration and a vote on September 13. This was deliberate to avoid scrutiny by the public or the legislators before today. This sort of nonsense is intolerable. Take the time to see how your use of athletic fields is affected and then contact your legislator immediately to stop this travesty. The administration's game plan is to get the increases pushed through the 4 committees and then presented for a final vote by he entire legislature next Monday (September 20) at 10 AM.
Protect your leagues and teams now, make the phone calls and make every effort to be at the legislature next Monday. Don't let them push this nonsense down our throats.
The legislators on the Public Works & Parks Committee are:
Kevan Abrams LD1, 571-6201; John Ciotti LD3, 571-6203; Joseph Scannel LD5,571-6305; Francis X. Becker LD6, 571-6206; Howard J. Kopel LD7, 571-6207; Vincent T. Muscarella LD8, 571-6208 and David Denenberg LD19 , 571-6219.
Please contacts these legislators today and request at least tabling the park fees legislation until both public officials and the public at large have had chance to read and understand it.
Bruce Piel
Chairman
Park Advocacy & Recreation Council of Nassau
246 Twin Lane East
Wantagh, NY 11793
(516) 783-8378
- - -
E-mail The Community Alliance at TheCommunityAlliance@yahoo.com for a copy of the proposed fee schedules. Then, stick in your two cents, before the government takes it away!
Follow The Community Alliance on Twitter. www.Twitter.com/CommunityAlli
Our good friend, and guardian of Nassau County's public parks, Bruce Piel, chimes in on the proposed "user" fees.
...the proposed fee increases (that) will affect virtually all sports and other recreational uses of county parks. This was "slipped in" to the legislative committee on Public Works & Parks late Friday evening for consideration and a vote on September 13. This was deliberate to avoid scrutiny by the public or the legislators before today. This sort of nonsense is intolerable. Take the time to see how your use of athletic fields is affected and then contact your legislator immediately to stop this travesty. The administration's game plan is to get the increases pushed through the 4 committees and then presented for a final vote by he entire legislature next Monday (September 20) at 10 AM.
Protect your leagues and teams now, make the phone calls and make every effort to be at the legislature next Monday. Don't let them push this nonsense down our throats.
The legislators on the Public Works & Parks Committee are:
Kevan Abrams LD1, 571-6201; John Ciotti LD3, 571-6203; Joseph Scannel LD5,571-6305; Francis X. Becker LD6, 571-6206; Howard J. Kopel LD7, 571-6207; Vincent T. Muscarella LD8, 571-6208 and David Denenberg LD19 , 571-6219.
Please contacts these legislators today and request at least tabling the park fees legislation until both public officials and the public at large have had chance to read and understand it.
Bruce Piel
Chairman
Park Advocacy & Recreation Council of Nassau
246 Twin Lane East
Wantagh, NY 11793
(516) 783-8378
- - -
E-mail The Community Alliance at TheCommunityAlliance@yahoo.com for a copy of the proposed fee schedules. Then, stick in your two cents, before the government takes it away!
Follow The Community Alliance on Twitter. www.Twitter.com/CommunityAlli
Monday, September 13, 2010
Somewhere Between Evolution And Revolution Lies. . .
. . .Re-Evolution Island
ev·o·lu·tion (ev-uh-loo-shuh n) noun
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2. a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
rev·o·lu·tion (re-və-ˈlü-shən) noun
1. a. A sudden, radical, or complete change.
b. A fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.
c. Activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation.
d. A fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm.
e. A changeover in use or preference especially in technology.
From Long Island's storied past to today's suburban sprawl to the vision of tomorrow's suburbia reinvented.
Some say change here on our island must be evolutionary. Slow, gradual, almost always imperceptible, and, too often, painstaking.
Others say Long Island cannot wait for evolution to take its course. A more revolutionary posture, from concept to design to implementation, must catapult our island from stagnation and decline to crowning glory as the very model for the new suburbia.
What say you?
The Community Alliance blog, itself transforming in both an evolutionary and revolutionary sense (blink and you may miss it ;-), now sets out to explore the very frontiers of Long Island's future.
Where no Town Supervisor or County Exec has dared to go? Perhaps.
More so, where you, and the collective, We, The People of Long Island, would like to see our Long Island, in five years, ten years, twenty-five years, and far beyond.
Our blog evolves yet again, taking a revolutionary spin, if you will, making you the blogger, and the blog a public forum where community groups, organizations, and John Q. Public can offer fresh perspectives on the many ways that we can shape tomorrow's Long Island, today.
Can we afford to simply sit back, waiting with mild anticipation or placid apathy, Long Island 2030 (in one incarnation or another) a speck on the distant horizon, as evolution (or de-evolution, as the case appears to have been) slowly defines the look of our island?
Must we take up arms (figuratively, of course), creating a more revolutionary environment for change on a Long Island that has grown, often haphazardly and with little forethought, at astronomical cost, from a farming community to a bedroom community to a burgeoning brownfield anxiously awaiting a course correction?
Or is there some middle ground we can all agree upon, and move forward, past the endless discourse, through the politics of dysfunction, beyond the indifference of planners, and despite the lethargy of the populace? A Re-Evolution Island, perhaps!
From whence Long Island has come is no secret. Where we stand today, amidst the idle chatter of Smart Growth, the decaying silence of "downtown," and the empassioned, if not too often hallow cries of sustainability, is obvious, for all who dare stroll down Main Street or take a ride along the LIE. Where we go tomorrow (which is only today, once removed), is up to YOU!
Okay. The Re-Evolution of Long Island is up to all of us! No one left sitting on the sidelines. No more mere spectators to an island's resurgence.
If you are reading this, you are summoned forthwith to participate in the greatest evolutionary change that any revolution has wrought. Now is the time. This is the place.
Ideas. Vision. Insight. Taking our island's tomorrows from drafting board to where shovel hits the street. Your Long Island. Our Long Island. Re-Evolution Island!
- - -
Write to The Community Alliance at TheCommunityAlliance@yahoo.com with your thoughts, commentary, and vision for the future of our Long Island. Send us your Guest Blogs for posting. Share your commitment to Long Island's future with friends, neighbors, and, yes, our elected representatives. Become a force to be listened to and reckoned with. A Re-Evolutionary force, capable, and ready, to change what is into what can be.
ev·o·lu·tion (ev-uh-loo-shuh n) noun
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2. a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
rev·o·lu·tion (re-və-ˈlü-shən) noun
1. a. A sudden, radical, or complete change.
b. A fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.
c. Activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation.
d. A fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm
e. A changeover in use or preference especially in technology
From Long Island's storied past to today's suburban sprawl to the vision of tomorrow's suburbia reinvented.
Some say change here on our island must be evolutionary. Slow, gradual, almost always imperceptible, and, too often, painstaking.
Others say Long Island cannot wait for evolution to take its course. A more revolutionary posture, from concept to design to implementation, must catapult our island from stagnation and decline to crowning glory as the very model for the new suburbia.
What say you?
The Community Alliance blog, itself transforming in both an evolutionary and revolutionary sense (blink and you may miss it ;-), now sets out to explore the very frontiers of Long Island's future.
Where no Town Supervisor or County Exec has dared to go? Perhaps.
More so, where you, and the collective, We, The People of Long Island, would like to see our Long Island, in five years, ten years, twenty-five years, and far beyond.
Our blog evolves yet again, taking a revolutionary spin, if you will, making you the blogger, and the blog a public forum where community groups, organizations, and John Q. Public can offer fresh perspectives on the many ways that we can shape tomorrow's Long Island, today.
Can we afford to simply sit back, waiting with mild anticipation or placid apathy, Long Island 2030 (in one incarnation or another) a speck on the distant horizon, as evolution (or de-evolution, as the case appears to have been) slowly defines the look of our island?
Must we take up arms (figuratively, of course), creating a more revolutionary environment for change on a Long Island that has grown, often haphazardly and with little forethought, at astronomical cost, from a farming community to a bedroom community to a burgeoning brownfield anxiously awaiting a course correction?
Or is there some middle ground we can all agree upon, and move forward, past the endless discourse, through the politics of dysfunction, beyond the indifference of planners, and despite the lethargy of the populace? A Re-Evolution Island, perhaps!
From whence Long Island has come is no secret. Where we stand today, amidst the idle chatter of Smart Growth, the decaying silence of "downtown," and the empassioned, if not too often hallow cries of sustainability, is obvious, for all who dare stroll down Main Street or take a ride along the LIE. Where we go tomorrow (which is only today, once removed), is up to YOU!
Okay. The Re-Evolution of Long Island is up to all of us! No one left sitting on the sidelines. No more mere spectators to an island's resurgence.
If you are reading this, you are summoned forthwith to participate in the greatest evolutionary change that any revolution has wrought. Now is the time. This is the place.
Ideas. Vision. Insight. Taking our island's tomorrows from drafting board to where shovel hits the street. Your Long Island. Our Long Island. Re-Evolution Island!
- - -
Write to The Community Alliance at TheCommunityAlliance@yahoo.com with your thoughts, commentary, and vision for the future of our Long Island. Send us your Guest Blogs for posting. Share your commitment to Long Island's future with friends, neighbors, and, yes, our elected representatives. Become a force to be listened to and reckoned with. A Re-Evolutionary force, capable, and ready, to change what is into what can be.
The Community Alliance
Where Long Island's Re-Evolution Begins
Follow The Re-Evolution on Twitter
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Town of Hempstead's Proposed Cell Tower Ordinance Warrants Support
Hempstead Proposes Tough New Law to Control Cell Towers, Hire Wireless Communications Expert
Making telecommunications giants meet the highest standard of proof in establishing the need for new cell towers as well as ensuring that approved wireless communications equipment is located at sites that minimize negative impacts on local communities are the motivation behind a new proposal by Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray. In addition, Murray announced at a Franklin Square press conference that the town has retained nationally renowned wireless telecommunications expert Richard Comi to review applications and provide objective testimony on wireless telecommunications applications that come before the Hempstead Board of Appeals. The Supervisor was joined by Councilmen James Darcy and Ed Ambrosino, Town Clerk Mark Bonilla, Receiver of Taxes Don Clavin and Mr. Comi. Also present were Nassau County Legislators John Ciotti and Vincent Muscarella and several members of the Franklin Square community who have successfully fought a proposal to locate a cell tower in their neighborhood.
"The new law that is being proposed will provide protections that neighbors deserve when confronted with proposals for new cell towers and antennae," stated the Supervisor. "Wireless communications providers will have to submit compelling evidence indicating an absolute need for new wireless equipment, and the town's new expert will give residents a voice with the same technical knowledge as the consultants hired by the telecommunications industry. Mr. Comi will ensure that cell companies provide accurate technical information to the town's board of appeals."
The town's proposal authorizes Hempstead to retain consultants like Mr. Comi to review and analyze the applications of wireless service providers. Further, the new legislation outlines documentation that applicants must provide as evidence in establishing an absolute need for the proposed wireless equipment. Among the required documentation are drive test or call test results that demonstrate gaps in service as well as a checklist to determine whether existing locations have been excluded from consideration. Maps detailing all structures within 1500 feet of a proposed location are also mandated.
A key goal of the town's proposed law is to encourage shared use or co-location of new antennae onto existing cell towers or other structures while discouraging the unnecessary construction of new towers. In support of that priority, applicants for new cell towers must furnish a written report to the town detailing meaningful efforts to co-locate. Cell companies requesting a new tower must also conduct widely advertised balloon tests which offer the public a representation of the visual impact of a newly proposed tower utilizing a large, brightly colored balloon at the proposed tower site. Written reports, replete with pictorial representations of the proposed tower must also be produced as well as a thorough discussion of steps the applicant would take to effectively minimize the visual intrusion of wireless structures as much as possible.
"Minimizing the number of cell towers in local communities is an important priority," said Ambrosino. "This legislation will help residents to receive more information and allow them to participate in cell tower public hearings in a meaningful way."
Establishing a priority agenda, outlining the town's preferences in the siting of wireless telecommunications equipment, is an important component of Hempstead's planned law. First priority would recommend co-locating equipment on existing structures on town-owned and other public property. The second most preferred option would be the co-location of equipment on other existing structures (towers) in the town. The third priority would be a new tower located on town-owned or other public properties. Other preferred options (in order of priority) include a new tower on industrial-zoned land, light manufacturing areas, other non-residential areas within the town. The least preferred option would be the location of a new tower on residentially zoned land.
"Putting forth a clearly defined priority list for the locating of wireless equipment will help promote their placement in areas that present the least impact on residential communities," stated Darcy.
Other highlights of the new legislation include the following:
* No new cell towers or antennae shall be located closer than 1500 feet to a residential home, house of worship, daycare center or school.
* Applicants proposing new cell towers must provide a report inventorying existing towers and other suitable structures within 2 miles of a proposed cell tower site.
* In justifying a request for a cell tower of any height, data must be provided to document the effectiveness of a tower at a lower total height at the same location.
"We are pleased to work together with the town on any measures that will protect residents from the intrusion of unwarranted cell towers in local neighborhoods," stated Ciotti.
"We have fought successfully against a cell tower that was not needed right here in Franklin Square and I support legislation that gives neighbors a greater voice in determining where cell towers are located," stated Muscarella.
The town's new proposed wireless communications law will also codify guidelines that support oversight in the placement of other wireless communications equipment to be installed within Hempstead Town.
"Hempstead Town will now have the most aggressive tools at its disposal in dealing with telecommunications giants," concluded Murray. "A new telecommunications law and the testimony of a telecommunications expert at public wireless communications hearings will protect residents and give them greater voice in the preserving the suburban character of our communities."
To view the proposed new ordinance, please visit http://ping.fm/21nMb
To offer comment, go to the Town's Helpline form. Complete and submit. http://ping.fm/R8Z82
Making telecommunications giants meet the highest standard of proof in establishing the need for new cell towers as well as ensuring that approved wireless communications equipment is located at sites that minimize negative impacts on local communities are the motivation behind a new proposal by Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray. In addition, Murray announced at a Franklin Square press conference that the town has retained nationally renowned wireless telecommunications expert Richard Comi to review applications and provide objective testimony on wireless telecommunications applications that come before the Hempstead Board of Appeals. The Supervisor was joined by Councilmen James Darcy and Ed Ambrosino, Town Clerk Mark Bonilla, Receiver of Taxes Don Clavin and Mr. Comi. Also present were Nassau County Legislators John Ciotti and Vincent Muscarella and several members of the Franklin Square community who have successfully fought a proposal to locate a cell tower in their neighborhood.
"The new law that is being proposed will provide protections that neighbors deserve when confronted with proposals for new cell towers and antennae," stated the Supervisor. "Wireless communications providers will have to submit compelling evidence indicating an absolute need for new wireless equipment, and the town's new expert will give residents a voice with the same technical knowledge as the consultants hired by the telecommunications industry. Mr. Comi will ensure that cell companies provide accurate technical information to the town's board of appeals."
The town's proposal authorizes Hempstead to retain consultants like Mr. Comi to review and analyze the applications of wireless service providers. Further, the new legislation outlines documentation that applicants must provide as evidence in establishing an absolute need for the proposed wireless equipment. Among the required documentation are drive test or call test results that demonstrate gaps in service as well as a checklist to determine whether existing locations have been excluded from consideration. Maps detailing all structures within 1500 feet of a proposed location are also mandated.
A key goal of the town's proposed law is to encourage shared use or co-location of new antennae onto existing cell towers or other structures while discouraging the unnecessary construction of new towers. In support of that priority, applicants for new cell towers must furnish a written report to the town detailing meaningful efforts to co-locate. Cell companies requesting a new tower must also conduct widely advertised balloon tests which offer the public a representation of the visual impact of a newly proposed tower utilizing a large, brightly colored balloon at the proposed tower site. Written reports, replete with pictorial representations of the proposed tower must also be produced as well as a thorough discussion of steps the applicant would take to effectively minimize the visual intrusion of wireless structures as much as possible.
"Minimizing the number of cell towers in local communities is an important priority," said Ambrosino. "This legislation will help residents to receive more information and allow them to participate in cell tower public hearings in a meaningful way."
Establishing a priority agenda, outlining the town's preferences in the siting of wireless telecommunications equipment, is an important component of Hempstead's planned law. First priority would recommend co-locating equipment on existing structures on town-owned and other public property. The second most preferred option would be the co-location of equipment on other existing structures (towers) in the town. The third priority would be a new tower located on town-owned or other public properties. Other preferred options (in order of priority) include a new tower on industrial-zoned land, light manufacturing areas, other non-residential areas within the town. The least preferred option would be the location of a new tower on residentially zoned land.
"Putting forth a clearly defined priority list for the locating of wireless equipment will help promote their placement in areas that present the least impact on residential communities," stated Darcy.
Other highlights of the new legislation include the following:
* No new cell towers or antennae shall be located closer than 1500 feet to a residential home, house of worship, daycare center or school.
* Applicants proposing new cell towers must provide a report inventorying existing towers and other suitable structures within 2 miles of a proposed cell tower site.
* In justifying a request for a cell tower of any height, data must be provided to document the effectiveness of a tower at a lower total height at the same location.
"We are pleased to work together with the town on any measures that will protect residents from the intrusion of unwarranted cell towers in local neighborhoods," stated Ciotti.
"We have fought successfully against a cell tower that was not needed right here in Franklin Square and I support legislation that gives neighbors a greater voice in determining where cell towers are located," stated Muscarella.
The town's new proposed wireless communications law will also codify guidelines that support oversight in the placement of other wireless communications equipment to be installed within Hempstead Town.
"Hempstead Town will now have the most aggressive tools at its disposal in dealing with telecommunications giants," concluded Murray. "A new telecommunications law and the testimony of a telecommunications expert at public wireless communications hearings will protect residents and give them greater voice in the preserving the suburban character of our communities."
To view the proposed new ordinance, please visit http://ping.fm/21nMb
To offer comment, go to the Town's Helpline form. Complete and submit. http://ping.fm/R8Z82
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)