Findings And Recommendations of Commission On Local Government Efficiency Due Today
Its not just tax day, fellow Americans. This is the day -- April 15 -- when, pursuant to Executive Order of former Governor Eliot Spitzer, the NYS Commission On Local Government Efficiency & Competitiveness (yes, we know. It remains an oxymoron) is to render its final report and issue full recommendations on what to do about New York's more than 4200 special taxing districts.
The Community Alliance will publish the Commission's report, in its entirety, as soon as it is made available, right here on this blog.
Whatever the Commission's recommendations, don't expect overnight change or swift action on the part of the NYS Legislature.
After all, not a single one of the Commission's preliminary recommendations, as presented to the Legislature by way of incorporation into this year's proposed budget, made it to the final budget placed on Governor Paterson's desk for signature. [Click HERE for the Herald Community Newspapers' article, STATE BUDGET: No Action On Special Districts.]
Read through the Commission's mandate, republished below, and then, stay tuned...
Oh, and by the way, you have until 11:59 PM to postmark your tax returns!
- - -
No. 11
E X E C U T I V E O R D E R
ESTABLISHING THE NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND COMPETITIVENESS
WHEREAS, New York’s local governments are established and operate under New York’s Constitution, statutes and regulations and receive financial and governance support from the State; and
WHEREAS, local governments, including counties, towns, cities, villages and special purpose districts, such as school and fire districts, provide many of the public services which determine whether New York’s residents and businesses live and conduct commerce safely, healthily, productively and happily; and
WHEREAS, New York’s local governments, including more than 4200 taxing jurisdictions, have evolved over centuries, and in many cases reflect circumstances, population concentrations and needs which have changed significantly or no longer exist; and
WHEREAS, the sheer number of such taxing jurisdictions and their overlapping and multi-layered nature cause public services to be excessively expensive, and provided in a manner that is inefficient and reduces the competitiveness of New York’s localities and the job and business opportunities for New Yorkers; and
WHEREAS, many New Yorkers are unaware of the boundaries and very existence of many taxing jurisdictions and special districts, and this results in an extraordinarily low level of participation in many local government elections; and
WHEREAS, the opportunities for smart growth and regionalization of the delivery of certain public services such as public transportation, waste management, information technology and water supply are often inhibited by New York’s fragmented local government structure; and
WHEREAS, New York’s local tax burden is the highest in the United States and negatively impacts competitiveness and the quality of life; and
WHEREAS, New York’s laws, regulations and programs have been only minimally effective in assisting local governments to partner in the efficient delivery of public services, to merge, consolidate or regionalize local government, to adopt smart growth practices, and otherwise improve the living environment for New Yorkers; and 2
WHEREAS, a comprehensive analysis is needed:
(1) to identify the barriers which inhibit more efficient local government, the merger, consolidation or regionalization of local government, partnering among local governments to more efficiently provide public services, adoption of smart growth practices, and the procurement and construction of regional transportation and other infrastructure which improves the efficiency, competitiveness and quality of life of New York’s localities; and
(2) to guide the formulation and development of tools to assist local governments to pursue and achieve these objectives;
NOW THERFORE, I, Eliot Spitzer, Governor of the State Of New York, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the State of New York do hereby order as follows:
1. There is hereby established the New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness ("Commission").
2. The Commission shall consist of fifteen members appointed by the Governor, including one member appointed upon the recommendation of the Comptroller, one upon the recommendation of the Speaker of the Assembly, one upon the recommendation of the Majority Leader of the Senate, one upon the recommendation of the Minority Leader of the Assembly, one upon the recommendation of the Minority Leader of the Senate, at least one individual representing a member of the New York State Association of Counties, at least one individual representing a member of the New York State Association of Towns, and at least one individual representing a member of the New York Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials.
3. The Governor shall select a chair of the Commission from among the members. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, and all recommendations of the Commission shall require approval of a majority of the total members of the Commission.
4. The Governor shall appoint an Executive Director of the Commission, who shall be an employee of one of the executive branch agencies herein directed by the Governor to render assistance to the Commission.
5. The Commission shall conduct a review and analysis of New York’s local government structure and operations, and to the maximum extent possible shall consider, and where appropriate incorporate, the expertise and learning of prior commissions, studies and academic institutions engaged in local government studies, and state agencies with responsibility for assisting local government, including but not limited to the Department of State, the Office of Real Property Services, the Urban Development Corporation, the Department of Economic Development, the Division of the Budget, the Governor’s Office of Regulatory Reform, the Office of State Comptroller and the State Education Department.
6. The Commission shall make recommendations on ways to consolidate and eliminate taxing jurisdictions, special districts, and other local government entities where doing so would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of local government. 3
7. The Commission’s review shall include an analysis of:
(a) the number and types of local government jurisdictions in New York State, the basis for their creation, and the opportunities and barriers to their restructuring, merger, consolidation or partnership to deliver public services;
(b) the nature and extent of services delivered by various types of local governments;
(c) the services which lend themselves most logically, efficiently and easily to merger, consolidation or partnership initiatives;
(d) opportunities and barriers to the regionalization of local government functions and services and the extent to which "smart growth" practices can improve the performance of local government and the delivery of public services and enhance New York’s competitiveness;
(e) the procedures for and effectiveness of local government elections, including the percentage of eligible and registered voters who participate in such elections, and the utilization of common election dates and procedures by local governments which serve a substantially common electorate;
(f) the degree to which local government electorates are presented periodically with the option of dissolving the local government or reaffirming the local government’s continuation; and
(g) the effectiveness of existing state laws and programs designed to assist local government efficiency, consolidation, merger, partnership in government operations and service delivery, smart growth, and the procurement and construction of regional transportation and other instrumentalities and infrastructure.
8. In undertaking this review and analysis the Commission may request documents, conduct public hearings, take the testimony of witnesses in the form and manner which it deems most efficient, and take all other actions necessary to carry out its functions.
9. The Commission shall make recommendations which it deems necessary or advisable for:
(a) strengthening and streamlining the structure and operations of local governments;
(b) reducing the costs of and improving the effectiveness of local government operations and services;
(c) facilitating the merger, consolidation and partnering in the delivery of services by and between local governments;
(d) promoting and facilitating regional government and the regionalized delivery of public services; and
(e) reforming election laws and procedures to increase and maximize the awareness of local governments among the electorate and maximize participation in local government elections and proceedings.
10. The Commission shall issue a report of its findings and recommendations on or before April 15, 2008. The report shall be submitted to the Governor, the Comptroller, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Minority Leader of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Assembly.
11. No member of the Commission shall be disqualified from holding any public office or employment, nor shall he or she forfeit any such office or employment by virtue of his or her appointment hereunder. Members of the Commission shall receive no compensation for their services but shall be allowed their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their functions hereunder. All members of the Commission shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor and vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as original appointments.
12. Every agency department, office, division or public authority of this state shall cooperate with the Commission and furnish such information and assistance as the Commission determines is reasonably necessary to accomplish its purpose.
GIVEN under my hand and the Privy Seal
of the State this ____________ day of
April in the year two thousand seven.
BY THE GOVERNOR
Secretary to the Governor
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Should We Legalize Illegal Accessory Apartments?
Yes. No. Maybe. All Of The Above.
Illegal accessory apartments. Long the bane of suburbia, except to the growing number of owners of single-family homes who have seen fit to supplement incomes -- and, in many ways, change the landscape of Long Island -- by adding additional kitchens and baths to their homes, and renting out attics, basements, garages, and second floors.
As we've argued over the years [indeed, as an initial platform for The Community Alliance], illegal accessory apartments not only clog up suburban streets with cars and, in many instances, pose a safety hazard for renters and homeowners alike, they often place an undue -- and costly -- burden upon local services, from sanitation to schools; services that are paid for by law-abiding property owners through an increase in the property tax brought on by the artificial increase in property values where single-family homes become defacto two-family homes.
And yet, despite efforts to reclassify single-family homes as multiple dwellings for tax purposes, and promises of greater enforcement -- presumably enabled by new laws on the already stretched books that allow for "nail and mail" service and the counting of utility meters as "indicia" of illegal apartments -- the unlawful units (and there are thousands of them in our townships) not only persist, they proliferate.
For all of our objections to density and growth, here we are, increasing density in our suburban oasis perhaps ten-fold, if not vertically in our attics, then subteranoeously in cellars and basements.
If the illegal accessory apartment is more difficult to eradicate than a drug-resistant staph infection, why not simply legalize it, charge a permit fee that would supplement local services such as school districts, and call it a day?
After all, we already have legal Mother-Daughter apartments, and seniors who are homeowners can lawfully rent out apartments in their single-family homes. [Both situations require permits -- which many do not bother to apply for -- but why not open the door to every homeowner?]
Would this not be a source of revenue, a stream that now escapes local government, rental income only going so far as the greedy landlord's pocket?
And what about Generation Next? Exactly where will our children live (other than in our basements)?
Is legalizing a practical solution -- or at least a part of the solution -- to the lack of affordable housing? [A chicken in every pot, and an accessory apartment in every single-family house.]
"If we're already doing it anyway..."
Then again, are we only deluding ourselves into believing that those who rent illegally, and reap the profits therefrom, will own up to their deeds by securing expensive permits?
Would homeowners turned landlords consider this but another unfair tax -- call it "congestion home ownership" -- upon their precious right to the free alienation of their property?
And who's kidding whom about enforcement, either on the collection end, or in seeking out and bringing to justice the homeowner who will, the availability of lawful means aside, continue to rent illegally?
As reported in The New York Times, some towns have already made the move toward legalizing the accessory apartment, at least on a more or less limited basis.
Results and opinions vary, and concerns over the propriety and utility of such a move have been raised.
Still, the debate at this juncture is warranted, and, in the hope of reaching common ground, with accommodation satisfactory to all, we put the question out there to the readers of this blog -- Should we legalize Illegal accessory apartments?
With little actually happening on the illegal rental front, the least we can do at this point is to stir the pot, and get the discussion going.
E-mail us with your thoughts, comments, and suggestions at thecommunityalliance@yahoo.com.
- - -
From The New York Times:
In the Region Long Island
Legalizing In-Home Apartments
By VALERIE COTSALAS
ONE of the biggest obstacles to creating affordable housing across Long Island has been residents’ aversion to the imposing size of concentrated dwellings like multistory apartment buildings and attached-home communities.
Last month, the town of Riverhead found a way to increase the number of affordable homes while avoiding the size issue altogether. Its board passed a law that legalizes the creation of apartments in single-family homes, so long as they conform to local building codes.
The law allows the apartments within a house, or in a detached garage, and applications must be approved by a review board. The homeowner must live either in the main part of the house or in the apartment.
Beyond addressing the lack of cheaper housing, the accessory apartments, as these converted properties are called, are intended to help elderly and low-income homeowners meet their monthly costs, said Phil Cardinale, the town supervisor. As an afterthought, he added, the board agreed to waive fines for homeowners who have illegal apartments in their homes, as long as they bring the units up to code.
The need for the apartments is acute. Only 18.6 percent of the housing stock in Suffolk and 18.1 percent in Nassau are rental apartments, according to a report issued by Pearl M. Kamer, chief economist for the Long Island Association, a business and civic organization. That is about half of the 36 percent in Westchester County and lower than other similar counties in the metropolitan area, according to the report.
But laws like the one in Riverhead, which have also been enacted in Babylon and Huntington farther west, fall short of providing incentives to homeowners to create apartments in their homes, said Peter Elkowitz, persident of the Long Island Housing Partnership, a nonprofit housing organization. Aside from the cost of building an apartment to code, property tax assessments often increase when a rental apartment is added.
“In other parts of the world,” Mr. Elkowitz said, “they encourage people with a tax benefit if they bring their apartments up to code. I haven’t heard of one anywhere in the U.S.; in order to keep an elderly parent living in the home in New York, you are usually penalized for it because it increases taxes on that accessory apartment.”
Rental income could also make some elderly residents ineligible for programs that grant them property tax abatements if their incomes are below a set threshold, according to Laverne Tennenberg, the chairwoman of the Riverhead board of assessors.
Related issues yet to be determined in Riverhead include how much garbage collection fees for homes with accessory apartments will increase the property tax bill, Ms. Tennenberg said.
Across the Island, as in Riverhead, many low-income communities have met the need for affordable housing with illegal apartments in single-family homes. Some convert a basement into an apartment, even though it has no outside exit; others build partitions in the house.
One reason that such apartments haven’t been legalized in more communities is local residents’ opposition to increasing numbers of illegal immigrants.
The immigrants, mainly Hispanic laborers performing low-paying jobs shunned by local residents, have intensified demand for inexpensive rentals, said Lee E. Koppelman, director of the Center for Regional Policy Studies at Stony Brook University. (Mr. Koppelman spent 40 years as director of the Long Island Planning Board.)
Some property owners have capitalized on the demand, renting out single-family homes to 20 or more people. This means workers “are just basically renting mattress space on the floor,” Mr. Koppelman said. Opposing rental apartments, he added, “is kind of code for, ‘If we have renters, we might have those people in the neighborhood,’ ” meaning illegal immigrants and minorities.
In March, a fire above an auto repair shop in a commercial zone of the village of Hempstead displaced three families living in illegal apartments on the upper floors. At another building fire in the village a week earlier, firefighters found one-bedroom apartments crowded with several immigrant families, said Wayne J. Hall, the village mayor.
The village passed a law in August cracking down on illegal apartments and has issued 150 summonses so far to homeowners whose homes display evidence of illegal apartments, including multiple utility boxes and several satellite dishes on the roof, Mr. Hall said.
Harvey B. Levinson, the Nassau County assessor, called the phenomenon “an enormous problem in communities where the home prices are at the low end of the spectrum, like Elmont, West Hempstead, Levittown, Hicksville and the village of Hempstead.” Short of cracking down on the owners of these properties, he added, there is not much that local government can do.
He also asserted that even if many towns were to adopt laws like the one in Riverhead, with a provision for illegal apartments to be brought up to code without a fine, there was little hope that people would apply to do so. That is because most illegal apartments are in basements, he pointed out, explaining that “you usually can’t make them legal” because they have no separate exit in case of fire.
If a makeshift apartment is convertible, the cost of bringing it up to code can also be an obstacle. “There really isn’t enough incentive if someone is doing it illegally at the present time,” said Mr. Koppelman.
There has been a general failure in Long Island towns to shut down illegal apartments, he added.
“If they do enforce the law and put people on the sidewalk, they also have to be prepared to provide substitute housing.”
But given the potential pitfalls, it is uncertain just how many people will take advantage of the new law in Riverhead.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Illegal accessory apartments. Long the bane of suburbia, except to the growing number of owners of single-family homes who have seen fit to supplement incomes -- and, in many ways, change the landscape of Long Island -- by adding additional kitchens and baths to their homes, and renting out attics, basements, garages, and second floors.
As we've argued over the years [indeed, as an initial platform for The Community Alliance], illegal accessory apartments not only clog up suburban streets with cars and, in many instances, pose a safety hazard for renters and homeowners alike, they often place an undue -- and costly -- burden upon local services, from sanitation to schools; services that are paid for by law-abiding property owners through an increase in the property tax brought on by the artificial increase in property values where single-family homes become defacto two-family homes.
And yet, despite efforts to reclassify single-family homes as multiple dwellings for tax purposes, and promises of greater enforcement -- presumably enabled by new laws on the already stretched books that allow for "nail and mail" service and the counting of utility meters as "indicia" of illegal apartments -- the unlawful units (and there are thousands of them in our townships) not only persist, they proliferate.
For all of our objections to density and growth, here we are, increasing density in our suburban oasis perhaps ten-fold, if not vertically in our attics, then subteranoeously in cellars and basements.
If the illegal accessory apartment is more difficult to eradicate than a drug-resistant staph infection, why not simply legalize it, charge a permit fee that would supplement local services such as school districts, and call it a day?
After all, we already have legal Mother-Daughter apartments, and seniors who are homeowners can lawfully rent out apartments in their single-family homes. [Both situations require permits -- which many do not bother to apply for -- but why not open the door to every homeowner?]
Would this not be a source of revenue, a stream that now escapes local government, rental income only going so far as the greedy landlord's pocket?
And what about Generation Next? Exactly where will our children live (other than in our basements)?
Is legalizing a practical solution -- or at least a part of the solution -- to the lack of affordable housing? [A chicken in every pot, and an accessory apartment in every single-family house.]
"If we're already doing it anyway..."
Then again, are we only deluding ourselves into believing that those who rent illegally, and reap the profits therefrom, will own up to their deeds by securing expensive permits?
Would homeowners turned landlords consider this but another unfair tax -- call it "congestion home ownership" -- upon their precious right to the free alienation of their property?
And who's kidding whom about enforcement, either on the collection end, or in seeking out and bringing to justice the homeowner who will, the availability of lawful means aside, continue to rent illegally?
As reported in The New York Times, some towns have already made the move toward legalizing the accessory apartment, at least on a more or less limited basis.
Results and opinions vary, and concerns over the propriety and utility of such a move have been raised.
Still, the debate at this juncture is warranted, and, in the hope of reaching common ground, with accommodation satisfactory to all, we put the question out there to the readers of this blog -- Should we legalize Illegal accessory apartments?
With little actually happening on the illegal rental front, the least we can do at this point is to stir the pot, and get the discussion going.
E-mail us with your thoughts, comments, and suggestions at thecommunityalliance@yahoo.com.
- - -
From The New York Times:
In the Region Long Island
Legalizing In-Home Apartments
By VALERIE COTSALAS
ONE of the biggest obstacles to creating affordable housing across Long Island has been residents’ aversion to the imposing size of concentrated dwellings like multistory apartment buildings and attached-home communities.
Last month, the town of Riverhead found a way to increase the number of affordable homes while avoiding the size issue altogether. Its board passed a law that legalizes the creation of apartments in single-family homes, so long as they conform to local building codes.
The law allows the apartments within a house, or in a detached garage, and applications must be approved by a review board. The homeowner must live either in the main part of the house or in the apartment.
Beyond addressing the lack of cheaper housing, the accessory apartments, as these converted properties are called, are intended to help elderly and low-income homeowners meet their monthly costs, said Phil Cardinale, the town supervisor. As an afterthought, he added, the board agreed to waive fines for homeowners who have illegal apartments in their homes, as long as they bring the units up to code.
The need for the apartments is acute. Only 18.6 percent of the housing stock in Suffolk and 18.1 percent in Nassau are rental apartments, according to a report issued by Pearl M. Kamer, chief economist for the Long Island Association, a business and civic organization. That is about half of the 36 percent in Westchester County and lower than other similar counties in the metropolitan area, according to the report.
But laws like the one in Riverhead, which have also been enacted in Babylon and Huntington farther west, fall short of providing incentives to homeowners to create apartments in their homes, said Peter Elkowitz, persident of the Long Island Housing Partnership, a nonprofit housing organization. Aside from the cost of building an apartment to code, property tax assessments often increase when a rental apartment is added.
“In other parts of the world,” Mr. Elkowitz said, “they encourage people with a tax benefit if they bring their apartments up to code. I haven’t heard of one anywhere in the U.S.; in order to keep an elderly parent living in the home in New York, you are usually penalized for it because it increases taxes on that accessory apartment.”
Rental income could also make some elderly residents ineligible for programs that grant them property tax abatements if their incomes are below a set threshold, according to Laverne Tennenberg, the chairwoman of the Riverhead board of assessors.
Related issues yet to be determined in Riverhead include how much garbage collection fees for homes with accessory apartments will increase the property tax bill, Ms. Tennenberg said.
Across the Island, as in Riverhead, many low-income communities have met the need for affordable housing with illegal apartments in single-family homes. Some convert a basement into an apartment, even though it has no outside exit; others build partitions in the house.
One reason that such apartments haven’t been legalized in more communities is local residents’ opposition to increasing numbers of illegal immigrants.
The immigrants, mainly Hispanic laborers performing low-paying jobs shunned by local residents, have intensified demand for inexpensive rentals, said Lee E. Koppelman, director of the Center for Regional Policy Studies at Stony Brook University. (Mr. Koppelman spent 40 years as director of the Long Island Planning Board.)
Some property owners have capitalized on the demand, renting out single-family homes to 20 or more people. This means workers “are just basically renting mattress space on the floor,” Mr. Koppelman said. Opposing rental apartments, he added, “is kind of code for, ‘If we have renters, we might have those people in the neighborhood,’ ” meaning illegal immigrants and minorities.
In March, a fire above an auto repair shop in a commercial zone of the village of Hempstead displaced three families living in illegal apartments on the upper floors. At another building fire in the village a week earlier, firefighters found one-bedroom apartments crowded with several immigrant families, said Wayne J. Hall, the village mayor.
The village passed a law in August cracking down on illegal apartments and has issued 150 summonses so far to homeowners whose homes display evidence of illegal apartments, including multiple utility boxes and several satellite dishes on the roof, Mr. Hall said.
Harvey B. Levinson, the Nassau County assessor, called the phenomenon “an enormous problem in communities where the home prices are at the low end of the spectrum, like Elmont, West Hempstead, Levittown, Hicksville and the village of Hempstead.” Short of cracking down on the owners of these properties, he added, there is not much that local government can do.
He also asserted that even if many towns were to adopt laws like the one in Riverhead, with a provision for illegal apartments to be brought up to code without a fine, there was little hope that people would apply to do so. That is because most illegal apartments are in basements, he pointed out, explaining that “you usually can’t make them legal” because they have no separate exit in case of fire.
If a makeshift apartment is convertible, the cost of bringing it up to code can also be an obstacle. “There really isn’t enough incentive if someone is doing it illegally at the present time,” said Mr. Koppelman.
There has been a general failure in Long Island towns to shut down illegal apartments, he added.
“If they do enforce the law and put people on the sidewalk, they also have to be prepared to provide substitute housing.”
But given the potential pitfalls, it is uncertain just how many people will take advantage of the new law in Riverhead.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Friday, April 11, 2008
NYS Commission On Property Tax Relief Meets In Syracuse
Here's The Scoop From The Home Of The Magnificent New York State Fair
Summary of the Seventh Commission Meeting
April 10, 2008
12:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Syracuse City Hall
All Commission Members and four Special Advisors were present at today’s Commission meeting held in the Syracuse City Council Chamber. Sixty audience members filled the Chamber, with some relegated to standing room only.
Bea González, President of the Syracuse City Council, led the Pledge of Allegiance and welcomed the Commission to the City Council Chamber.
After introducing the Commission members, Commission Chairman Tom Suozzi noted that Governor Paterson has made property tax relief a priority of his administration. Chairman Suozzi discussed the importance of wide-ranging testimony as the Commission develops recommendations to address the statewide property tax issues – while balancing the co-equal priority of maintaining quality schools. He said the Commission has traveled state-wide and has heard from a broad spectrum of interests, organizations and individuals.
Frank Mauro, Executive Director of the Fiscal Policy Institute (a research organization that focuses on tax, budget, and economic policy issues in New York State), presented his organization’s research and findings to the Commission. Among his recommendations was replacing the existing STAR Rebate Program with a “circuit breaker.” (Circuit breakers are employed in several states to provide property tax relief via income tax credits. Based on homeowners’ income, a certain percent of any property taxes paid over a percentage of owners’ income are credited back to the taxpayer via the income tax credit.)
William Duncombe, Professor of Public Administration at Syracuse University, testified to the Commission in regard to policy aspects of the STAR Program and some of the potential relief measures the Commission may consider. He advocated: 1) reforming STAR, 2) providing a circuit breaker for lower-income renters and homeowners, 3) increasing State Foundation Aid for Public Education, especially for high need school districts, and 4) including an override provision if a cap on property taxes was implemented.
Joseph Mareanne, Onondaga County Chief Fiscal Officer, delivered testimony on behalf of County Executive Joanne Mahoney. The testimony called for a State takeover of Medicaid, a cap on assessments for senior homeowners, and a review of public school financing and expenditures.
Syracuse Commissioner of Assessment John Gamage spoke on behalf of Mayor Matthew Driscoll and discussed STAR and other aspects of property tax administration.
Bill Meyer, Chairman of the Onondaga County Legislature, discussed the high property tax burden, and also recommended a State Medicaid takeover and mandate reform.
Additional local officials testifying included:
· Dick Gladu, Hague Town Board Member
· Thomas Seals, Syracuse City Councilman
· Linda Yancey, Assessor for the Town of Forestport
Mike Masse, Fayetteville-Manlius School Board Member and Treasurer of the New York State School Boards Association, said that the 2008-09 State Budget (finalized the day before this Commission meeting) was “good news” for New York’s public schools, but did not sufficiently address inequities between high wealth and low wealth school districts.
Testifying with a similar message, Larry Cummings, Executive Director of the Central New York State School Board Association, discussed perceived inequities of the current Public School Aid methodology. He shared findings regarding “low wealth districts/high need school districts” compared to “high wealth/low needs districts” and cases where the latter have received larger State Aid increases than the former. He noted that a property tax cap would “widen the gap” between the low wealth and high wealth school districts. Rick Timbs, Executive Director of the Statewide School Finance Consortium, amplified on the testimony of Mr. Cummings.
Daniel Lowengard, Superintendent of the Syracuse City School District, called for a transition of school funding from the property tax to the income tax and suggested that, if even if mandates were removed, many school districts would continue to provide similar services.
Jessica Cohen, Superintendent of the Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES, offered testimony about the efficiencies that BOCES had already demonstrated, and how much potential there was for more “functional consolidation”. She elaborated on a particularly fruitful effort by her BOCES to consolidate around the purchasing of energy – which she indicated had relevance statewide.
Larry Kiley, Executive Director of the Rural Schools Association of New York State, spoke about the particular constraints faced by his members, frequently very small and poor rural districts. He indicated that his members frequently were so strapped that they could only offer the barest minimum of state-mandated programs, and he urged the Commission to consider the impact that its recommendations would have on his districts.
Additional public school representatives testifying before the Commission today included:
C. Thomas Daly, Cooperative Organization for Public Education
Margaret Diehl, Parents for Public Schools
Randy Kerr, Newark Valley School Board Member
David Duerr, Executive Vice President of the Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce, offered the Chamber’s strong support for efforts to mitigate the property tax burden, and urged the Commission to consider the link between its efforts and economic development.
Mark Spadafore, Syracuse Alliance for a New Economy, also spoke to this issue.
Larry Hart, representing the Central New York Property Tax Alliance, noted that his organization is interested in “a total revision of this archaic, severely flawed system of taxation,” but advocated for immediate relief via the circuit breaker bill proposed by Senator Elizabeth Little and Assemblywoman Sandra Galef.
Further testimony was provided by Phil Dann representing the Central New York Property Tax Relief Association. Eight additional taxpayers testified, most discussing their property tax burdens and calling for property tax relief.
Upcoming Dates
The next Commission meeting will be held in Albany on April 23. The goal of the Commission is to release its Preliminary Report on May 22.
Summary of the Seventh Commission Meeting
April 10, 2008
12:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Syracuse City Hall
All Commission Members and four Special Advisors were present at today’s Commission meeting held in the Syracuse City Council Chamber. Sixty audience members filled the Chamber, with some relegated to standing room only.
Bea González, President of the Syracuse City Council, led the Pledge of Allegiance and welcomed the Commission to the City Council Chamber.
After introducing the Commission members, Commission Chairman Tom Suozzi noted that Governor Paterson has made property tax relief a priority of his administration. Chairman Suozzi discussed the importance of wide-ranging testimony as the Commission develops recommendations to address the statewide property tax issues – while balancing the co-equal priority of maintaining quality schools. He said the Commission has traveled state-wide and has heard from a broad spectrum of interests, organizations and individuals.
Frank Mauro, Executive Director of the Fiscal Policy Institute (a research organization that focuses on tax, budget, and economic policy issues in New York State), presented his organization’s research and findings to the Commission. Among his recommendations was replacing the existing STAR Rebate Program with a “circuit breaker.” (Circuit breakers are employed in several states to provide property tax relief via income tax credits. Based on homeowners’ income, a certain percent of any property taxes paid over a percentage of owners’ income are credited back to the taxpayer via the income tax credit.)
William Duncombe, Professor of Public Administration at Syracuse University, testified to the Commission in regard to policy aspects of the STAR Program and some of the potential relief measures the Commission may consider. He advocated: 1) reforming STAR, 2) providing a circuit breaker for lower-income renters and homeowners, 3) increasing State Foundation Aid for Public Education, especially for high need school districts, and 4) including an override provision if a cap on property taxes was implemented.
Joseph Mareanne, Onondaga County Chief Fiscal Officer, delivered testimony on behalf of County Executive Joanne Mahoney. The testimony called for a State takeover of Medicaid, a cap on assessments for senior homeowners, and a review of public school financing and expenditures.
Syracuse Commissioner of Assessment John Gamage spoke on behalf of Mayor Matthew Driscoll and discussed STAR and other aspects of property tax administration.
Bill Meyer, Chairman of the Onondaga County Legislature, discussed the high property tax burden, and also recommended a State Medicaid takeover and mandate reform.
Additional local officials testifying included:
· Dick Gladu, Hague Town Board Member
· Thomas Seals, Syracuse City Councilman
· Linda Yancey, Assessor for the Town of Forestport
Mike Masse, Fayetteville-Manlius School Board Member and Treasurer of the New York State School Boards Association, said that the 2008-09 State Budget (finalized the day before this Commission meeting) was “good news” for New York’s public schools, but did not sufficiently address inequities between high wealth and low wealth school districts.
Testifying with a similar message, Larry Cummings, Executive Director of the Central New York State School Board Association, discussed perceived inequities of the current Public School Aid methodology. He shared findings regarding “low wealth districts/high need school districts” compared to “high wealth/low needs districts” and cases where the latter have received larger State Aid increases than the former. He noted that a property tax cap would “widen the gap” between the low wealth and high wealth school districts. Rick Timbs, Executive Director of the Statewide School Finance Consortium, amplified on the testimony of Mr. Cummings.
Daniel Lowengard, Superintendent of the Syracuse City School District, called for a transition of school funding from the property tax to the income tax and suggested that, if even if mandates were removed, many school districts would continue to provide similar services.
Jessica Cohen, Superintendent of the Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES, offered testimony about the efficiencies that BOCES had already demonstrated, and how much potential there was for more “functional consolidation”. She elaborated on a particularly fruitful effort by her BOCES to consolidate around the purchasing of energy – which she indicated had relevance statewide.
Larry Kiley, Executive Director of the Rural Schools Association of New York State, spoke about the particular constraints faced by his members, frequently very small and poor rural districts. He indicated that his members frequently were so strapped that they could only offer the barest minimum of state-mandated programs, and he urged the Commission to consider the impact that its recommendations would have on his districts.
Additional public school representatives testifying before the Commission today included:
C. Thomas Daly, Cooperative Organization for Public Education
Margaret Diehl, Parents for Public Schools
Randy Kerr, Newark Valley School Board Member
David Duerr, Executive Vice President of the Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce, offered the Chamber’s strong support for efforts to mitigate the property tax burden, and urged the Commission to consider the link between its efforts and economic development.
Mark Spadafore, Syracuse Alliance for a New Economy, also spoke to this issue.
Larry Hart, representing the Central New York Property Tax Alliance, noted that his organization is interested in “a total revision of this archaic, severely flawed system of taxation,” but advocated for immediate relief via the circuit breaker bill proposed by Senator Elizabeth Little and Assemblywoman Sandra Galef.
Further testimony was provided by Phil Dann representing the Central New York Property Tax Relief Association. Eight additional taxpayers testified, most discussing their property tax burdens and calling for property tax relief.
Upcoming Dates
The next Commission meeting will be held in Albany on April 23. The goal of the Commission is to release its Preliminary Report on May 22.
Roll Out The Pork Barrel
Pet Projects Abound In Albany's Budget
Just when you thought it was safe to assume that our State Legislators were actually keeping an eye on your tax dollars (and why in the world would you ever think that?), a review of New York's recently passed budget reveals plenty to squeal about.
How about $2500 for a Brooklyn cricket league? [Elmont should have at least made a pitch.] Or $15,000 for a Long Island synchronized swim team? [As if any two LIers can do the same thing at the same time!]
Maybe $98,000 for onion research at Cornell University doesn't bring tears to your eyes, but even with New York's Project Sunlight opening the books, is anyone really looking?
At a time when our State Legislature needs to be trimming the pork, so that we can spend what little money we do have wisely and effectively, it seems there's just as much bacon to go around as ever.
Then again, who's to complain about $200 million of your hard-earned money going for things like a doll and toy museum or the American Association for the Improvement of Boxing?
It is, after all, an election year!
- - -
From the New York Post:
$$ FOR GAYS & DOLLS
By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent
April 11, 2008 -- ALBANY - Among the hundreds of dubious pork-barrel projects larded into the just-completed state budget is a group devoted to quilt-making, a doll museum and a "gay day" in the Catskills, The Post has learned.
There's also cash for synchronized swimmers, rowers in Syracuse and onion research at Cornell University.
It's all part of $200 million for local pork projects that have been stuffed into the state spending plan and unearthed in a review by The Post.
The lawmakers who sought funding for each project are not identified but will be made public later in the year.
"This stuff shouldn't be funded even in a good year," complained E.J. McMahon, director of the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy.
"It's outrageous and it shows why people are upset and annoyed at government," added Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long.
Among those receiving taxpayer funds is the New York chapter of Women of Color Quilters Network, which got $5,000.
On its Web site, the organization describes itself as a nonprofit group founded in 1985 by quilt artist Carolyn Mazloomi "to foster and preserve the art of quilt-making among women of color."
Another is The Day to be Gay Foundation in Sullivan County, which according to its Web site holds an annual festival to "facilitate community cohesion and, most importantly, to raise money from the gay and lesbian community to support charities in the Catskills, Hudson Valley and Poconos regions." It received $1,000 in taxpayer largesse.
The Syracuse Chargers Rowing Club will get $150,000, the Long Island synchronized swim team $15,000, and Cornell University $98,000 for "onion research."
The Doll and Toy Museum of New York City will receive $2,500, the Big Apple Circus $30,000, and the New York City Mountain Bike Association $7,500.
Among the sports grants, the Brooklyn Cricket League will receive $2,500, Figure Skating in Harlem $3,000, and the American Association for the Improvement of Boxing $3,500.
Music groups also benefit from the new budget, including the Folk Music Society of New York ($2,000) and Jazzmobile Inc. ($3,000).
One group, with the tantalizing name of Men of Exquisite Taste, will receive $5,000. It's unclear just what the organization does.
"All the pork money is a way to buy various blocks of votes," Long said.
"There is not a core public purpose for any of the stuff we're discussing," McMahon said.
While the budget specifies where the money is going, there is no clue as to which lawmakers sponsored the projects or exactly what the funding is for, said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group.
Knowing such things would not only shed light on the process but also help to show whether there are any conflicts of interest, he and others said.
Assembly spokesman Dan Weiller said that in the coming weeks, his house will release the complete details on the pork spending, while Senate spokesman Mark Hansen said the information will come when the money actually is paid.
Many lawmakers - and those who receive the money - defend pork spending as needed assistance for valuable organizations and projects.
But Long and McMahon question how lawmakers can set aside $200 million for pork while raising taxes and fees by $1.5 billion and increasing spending by 4.9 percent at a time when the economy is souring.
"It's not sustainable," McMahon said. "They're spending at almost twice the rate of inflation in an economy that is shrinking. The thing is running on fumes."
State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, a Democrat, also expressed concerns about too much spending in tough economic times, warning state leaders to "keep an eraser handy."
Gov. Paterson, who took office March 17 after Eliot Spitzer resigned, said he'll seek as much as $12 billion in cuts next year.
But Long argued that the new governor should have started from scratch and sought major cuts this year.
"To say he was going to straighten it out next year when he had the power to do it this year is inexcusable," Long said.
kenneth.lovett@nypost.com
- - -
Hmmm. Millions for quilters, rowers, and boxers, but not one red cent for bloggers. Get us our State Legislators on the line!
Just when you thought it was safe to assume that our State Legislators were actually keeping an eye on your tax dollars (and why in the world would you ever think that?), a review of New York's recently passed budget reveals plenty to squeal about.How about $2500 for a Brooklyn cricket league? [Elmont should have at least made a pitch.] Or $15,000 for a Long Island synchronized swim team? [As if any two LIers can do the same thing at the same time!]
Maybe $98,000 for onion research at Cornell University doesn't bring tears to your eyes, but even with New York's Project Sunlight opening the books, is anyone really looking?
At a time when our State Legislature needs to be trimming the pork, so that we can spend what little money we do have wisely and effectively, it seems there's just as much bacon to go around as ever.
Then again, who's to complain about $200 million of your hard-earned money going for things like a doll and toy museum or the American Association for the Improvement of Boxing?
It is, after all, an election year!
- - -
From the New York Post:
$$ FOR GAYS & DOLLS
By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent
April 11, 2008 -- ALBANY - Among the hundreds of dubious pork-barrel projects larded into the just-completed state budget is a group devoted to quilt-making, a doll museum and a "gay day" in the Catskills, The Post has learned.
There's also cash for synchronized swimmers, rowers in Syracuse and onion research at Cornell University.
It's all part of $200 million for local pork projects that have been stuffed into the state spending plan and unearthed in a review by The Post.
The lawmakers who sought funding for each project are not identified but will be made public later in the year.
"This stuff shouldn't be funded even in a good year," complained E.J. McMahon, director of the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy.
"It's outrageous and it shows why people are upset and annoyed at government," added Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long.
Among those receiving taxpayer funds is the New York chapter of Women of Color Quilters Network, which got $5,000.
On its Web site, the organization describes itself as a nonprofit group founded in 1985 by quilt artist Carolyn Mazloomi "to foster and preserve the art of quilt-making among women of color."
Another is The Day to be Gay Foundation in Sullivan County, which according to its Web site holds an annual festival to "facilitate community cohesion and, most importantly, to raise money from the gay and lesbian community to support charities in the Catskills, Hudson Valley and Poconos regions." It received $1,000 in taxpayer largesse.
The Syracuse Chargers Rowing Club will get $150,000, the Long Island synchronized swim team $15,000, and Cornell University $98,000 for "onion research."
The Doll and Toy Museum of New York City will receive $2,500, the Big Apple Circus $30,000, and the New York City Mountain Bike Association $7,500.
Among the sports grants, the Brooklyn Cricket League will receive $2,500, Figure Skating in Harlem $3,000, and the American Association for the Improvement of Boxing $3,500.
Music groups also benefit from the new budget, including the Folk Music Society of New York ($2,000) and Jazzmobile Inc. ($3,000).
One group, with the tantalizing name of Men of Exquisite Taste, will receive $5,000. It's unclear just what the organization does.
"All the pork money is a way to buy various blocks of votes," Long said.
"There is not a core public purpose for any of the stuff we're discussing," McMahon said.
While the budget specifies where the money is going, there is no clue as to which lawmakers sponsored the projects or exactly what the funding is for, said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group.
Knowing such things would not only shed light on the process but also help to show whether there are any conflicts of interest, he and others said.
Assembly spokesman Dan Weiller said that in the coming weeks, his house will release the complete details on the pork spending, while Senate spokesman Mark Hansen said the information will come when the money actually is paid.
Many lawmakers - and those who receive the money - defend pork spending as needed assistance for valuable organizations and projects.
But Long and McMahon question how lawmakers can set aside $200 million for pork while raising taxes and fees by $1.5 billion and increasing spending by 4.9 percent at a time when the economy is souring.
"It's not sustainable," McMahon said. "They're spending at almost twice the rate of inflation in an economy that is shrinking. The thing is running on fumes."
State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, a Democrat, also expressed concerns about too much spending in tough economic times, warning state leaders to "keep an eraser handy."
Gov. Paterson, who took office March 17 after Eliot Spitzer resigned, said he'll seek as much as $12 billion in cuts next year.
But Long argued that the new governor should have started from scratch and sought major cuts this year.
"To say he was going to straighten it out next year when he had the power to do it this year is inexcusable," Long said.
kenneth.lovett@nypost.com
- - -
Hmmm. Millions for quilters, rowers, and boxers, but not one red cent for bloggers. Get us our State Legislators on the line!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Paterson Pulls Plug On Broadwater
Shell Game Appears Dead In Water
As expected, NY Governor David Paterson said NO to Braodwater, acknowledging the need to increase access to and lower the price of natural gas, but balancing this against the equally compelling cause of preserving the Sound and protecting Long Island.
In applauding the Governor's courageous decision to put the interests of the people before the profits of energy moguls, we still must keep in mind that -- proclivities to say "no" to almost everything, including wind turbines and solar power -- aside, there remains a crisis of consumption that threatens Long Island and beyond.
We have to come to grips, and develop a workable plan, to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, as well as our thirst for gas itself, and use good old American know-how (the kind this nation was founded upon) to come up with alternative energy sources that will be cost-efficient, environmentally friendly, and forward-looking. Energy for a 21st century America.
Meanwhile, Broadwater, sinking fast and holding on to an anchor, can appeal to the feds for relief.
Barring a reprieve from Dick Cheney & Friends, however, this deal should be allowed to sink to the bottom of Long Island Sound, never to be raised in these waters again.
Our thanks to Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and to all of you who, through your telephone calls, letters, and e-mails, led the challenge to Broadwater, and helped to save our Sound.
- - -
From Newsday:
Paterson nixes Broadwater plan for Long Island Sound
By Tom Incantalupo
tom.incantalupo@newsday.com
Gov. David Paterson made it official Thursday afternoon, denying the neccessary state approval for the Broadwater liquefied natural gas project proposed for Long Island Sound.
Speaking at a news conference at Sunken Meadow State Park, Paterson, who inherited the thorny Broadwater issue when he took over for Gov. Eliot Spitzer, said the facility would not guarrantee low cost natural gas to Long Island. He said it would disrupt commercial and recreational fishing and would, in essence, turn over a section of the sound to a private company at the exclusion of the general public.
Calling energy "our new currency," Paterson spent much of his speech talking about energy alternatives could be developed to replace whatever capacity Broadwater would have provided.
Paterson spoke to a cheering crowd of activists and legislators gathered on the park's boardwalk.
But Broadwater Energy, the joint Shell and TransCanada joint venture proposing the 1,200-by-200-foot floating liquid natural gas processing plant, said earlier Thursday it wasn't giving up -- at least not yet. John Hritcko, senior vice president and regional project director, said in a statement, "The regulatory process provides Broadwater a number of options going forward and we intend to fully review the decision and findings, then evaluate the project's next steps."Those options including appealing the state's rejection to the U.S. Department of Commerce, and going to court.
Broadwater has contended that Long Island and the rest of the region will need the billion cubic feet of natural gas the plan would produce. But Kevin Law, President and chief executive officer of the Long Island Power Authority, said the Island's principal electricity supplier wasn't counting on it.
"Broadwater was never the be-all and end-all for Long Island's energy future," he said, adding that he supports Paterson's decision. He said, however, that altenatives like added pipeline capacity or a liquid natural gas terminal in a different location should be explored.
Project opponents on both sides of the Sound were reveling in a victory Thursday. "I would say this is the end," said Connecticut State Senator Leonard Fasano, (R- North Haven), who head a governor's task force in that study to study the Broadwater proposal.Paterson introduced other speakers who applauded his decision. Congressman Tim Bishop (D-Southampton) praised the Governor for "saving" Long Island Sound. Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy thanked Patterson for listening about the need to "prevent the industrialization of Long Island Sound."
Levy said he wasn't opposed to natural gas barges in all locations, just the Sound. Sen. Carl Marcellino (R-Syosset) ageed with the denial of Broadwater and said there was a critical need for a national and local energy policy.
Others were less sanguine. Matthew T. Crosson, president of the Long Island Association, the island's largest business group and a conditional supporter of Broadwater, said, "As proposed, the Broadwater project would have disproportionately burdened Long Island without producing a corresponding benefit to the region...[However] it is now incumbent upon Governor Paterson to clearly state how New York will help Long Island meet its energy needs in practical, low-cost ways that can be achieved in the near future."
Paterson's long-awaited announcement ended weeks of speculation about the new governor's stand on one of the most controversial Long Island projects since the Shoreham nuclear power plant two decades ago.Broadwater Energy had hoped to have the facility in operation in 2011, taking on super-cold liquified natural gas from tankers, heating it to return it to a gaseous state, then shipping west via a new 25 mile-long pipeline to have been laid on the sound floor. That pipeline would have connected with an existing one that runs across the Sound from Connecticut to Northport.
Paterson had been working against a deadline of Saturday by which the state's Department of State had to decide whether to grant a permit for the regassification plant, which Broadwater Energy has contended would increase gas supplies for the region's growing needs and help control price increases.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously voted in Washington, D.C, last month to approve the project, which would have been sited about nine miles north of Wading River. It issued 80 stipulations that the project's designers must take to reduce the environmental and safety impacts of what would be the nation's first floating liquefied natural gas processing plant.
The State of Connecticut, which has opposed the project from the start, last week formally asked the federal energy to reconsider its approval. Connecticut officials also vowed to fight in federal court if their request is rejected.
A consultant's report released in July by the Long Island Power Authority said the billion cubic feet of additional gas from Broadwater would have saved New Yorkers a total of $14.8 billion in natural gas and electricity costs between 2010 when the facility would begin operating and 2020. The report did not promise rates lower than they are now, however -- only lower than what they would have been without Broadwater -- about 17 percent lower in the case of natural gas.
Broadwater opponents conceded the need for more energy but contend that a site in the Atlantic ocean and further from land is preferable to Broadwater's mid-Sound site.
In fact, ExxonMobil and a private investor group each have proposed liquid natural gas terminals in the Atlantic -- east of New Jersey and south of Long Island. Both projects are pending federal approvals.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
As expected, NY Governor David Paterson said NO to Braodwater, acknowledging the need to increase access to and lower the price of natural gas, but balancing this against the equally compelling cause of preserving the Sound and protecting Long Island.
In applauding the Governor's courageous decision to put the interests of the people before the profits of energy moguls, we still must keep in mind that -- proclivities to say "no" to almost everything, including wind turbines and solar power -- aside, there remains a crisis of consumption that threatens Long Island and beyond.
We have to come to grips, and develop a workable plan, to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, as well as our thirst for gas itself, and use good old American know-how (the kind this nation was founded upon) to come up with alternative energy sources that will be cost-efficient, environmentally friendly, and forward-looking. Energy for a 21st century America.
Meanwhile, Broadwater, sinking fast and holding on to an anchor, can appeal to the feds for relief.
Barring a reprieve from Dick Cheney & Friends, however, this deal should be allowed to sink to the bottom of Long Island Sound, never to be raised in these waters again.
Our thanks to Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and to all of you who, through your telephone calls, letters, and e-mails, led the challenge to Broadwater, and helped to save our Sound.
- - -
From Newsday:
Paterson nixes Broadwater plan for Long Island Sound
By Tom Incantalupo
tom.incantalupo@newsday.com
Gov. David Paterson made it official Thursday afternoon, denying the neccessary state approval for the Broadwater liquefied natural gas project proposed for Long Island Sound.
Speaking at a news conference at Sunken Meadow State Park, Paterson, who inherited the thorny Broadwater issue when he took over for Gov. Eliot Spitzer, said the facility would not guarrantee low cost natural gas to Long Island. He said it would disrupt commercial and recreational fishing and would, in essence, turn over a section of the sound to a private company at the exclusion of the general public.
Calling energy "our new currency," Paterson spent much of his speech talking about energy alternatives could be developed to replace whatever capacity Broadwater would have provided.
Paterson spoke to a cheering crowd of activists and legislators gathered on the park's boardwalk.
But Broadwater Energy, the joint Shell and TransCanada joint venture proposing the 1,200-by-200-foot floating liquid natural gas processing plant, said earlier Thursday it wasn't giving up -- at least not yet. John Hritcko, senior vice president and regional project director, said in a statement, "The regulatory process provides Broadwater a number of options going forward and we intend to fully review the decision and findings, then evaluate the project's next steps."Those options including appealing the state's rejection to the U.S. Department of Commerce, and going to court.
Broadwater has contended that Long Island and the rest of the region will need the billion cubic feet of natural gas the plan would produce. But Kevin Law, President and chief executive officer of the Long Island Power Authority, said the Island's principal electricity supplier wasn't counting on it.
"Broadwater was never the be-all and end-all for Long Island's energy future," he said, adding that he supports Paterson's decision. He said, however, that altenatives like added pipeline capacity or a liquid natural gas terminal in a different location should be explored.
Project opponents on both sides of the Sound were reveling in a victory Thursday. "I would say this is the end," said Connecticut State Senator Leonard Fasano, (R- North Haven), who head a governor's task force in that study to study the Broadwater proposal.Paterson introduced other speakers who applauded his decision. Congressman Tim Bishop (D-Southampton) praised the Governor for "saving" Long Island Sound. Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy thanked Patterson for listening about the need to "prevent the industrialization of Long Island Sound."
Levy said he wasn't opposed to natural gas barges in all locations, just the Sound. Sen. Carl Marcellino (R-Syosset) ageed with the denial of Broadwater and said there was a critical need for a national and local energy policy.
Others were less sanguine. Matthew T. Crosson, president of the Long Island Association, the island's largest business group and a conditional supporter of Broadwater, said, "As proposed, the Broadwater project would have disproportionately burdened Long Island without producing a corresponding benefit to the region...[However] it is now incumbent upon Governor Paterson to clearly state how New York will help Long Island meet its energy needs in practical, low-cost ways that can be achieved in the near future."
Paterson's long-awaited announcement ended weeks of speculation about the new governor's stand on one of the most controversial Long Island projects since the Shoreham nuclear power plant two decades ago.Broadwater Energy had hoped to have the facility in operation in 2011, taking on super-cold liquified natural gas from tankers, heating it to return it to a gaseous state, then shipping west via a new 25 mile-long pipeline to have been laid on the sound floor. That pipeline would have connected with an existing one that runs across the Sound from Connecticut to Northport.
Paterson had been working against a deadline of Saturday by which the state's Department of State had to decide whether to grant a permit for the regassification plant, which Broadwater Energy has contended would increase gas supplies for the region's growing needs and help control price increases.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously voted in Washington, D.C, last month to approve the project, which would have been sited about nine miles north of Wading River. It issued 80 stipulations that the project's designers must take to reduce the environmental and safety impacts of what would be the nation's first floating liquefied natural gas processing plant.
The State of Connecticut, which has opposed the project from the start, last week formally asked the federal energy to reconsider its approval. Connecticut officials also vowed to fight in federal court if their request is rejected.
A consultant's report released in July by the Long Island Power Authority said the billion cubic feet of additional gas from Broadwater would have saved New Yorkers a total of $14.8 billion in natural gas and electricity costs between 2010 when the facility would begin operating and 2020. The report did not promise rates lower than they are now, however -- only lower than what they would have been without Broadwater -- about 17 percent lower in the case of natural gas.
Broadwater opponents conceded the need for more energy but contend that a site in the Atlantic ocean and further from land is preferable to Broadwater's mid-Sound site.
In fact, ExxonMobil and a private investor group each have proposed liquid natural gas terminals in the Atlantic -- east of New Jersey and south of Long Island. Both projects are pending federal approvals.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Governor Paterson To Oppose Broadwater?
We Certainly Hope So!
New York's Governor, David Paterson, is expected to make an announcement today vis-a-vis New York's position on the proposed Liquid Natural Gas facility (Broadwater) in Long Island Sound.
In the words of of a source close to Paterson, "The governor believes we must protect Long Island Sound while also responsibly and aggressively planning to meet our energy demands. He doesn't accept the premise that you have to sacrifice one to achieve the other."
Stay tuned. . .
New York's Governor, David Paterson, is expected to make an announcement today vis-a-vis New York's position on the proposed Liquid Natural Gas facility (Broadwater) in Long Island Sound.
In the words of of a source close to Paterson, "The governor believes we must protect Long Island Sound while also responsibly and aggressively planning to meet our energy demands. He doesn't accept the premise that you have to sacrifice one to achieve the other."
Stay tuned. . .
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Long Island Needs A Plan
And Legislators With The Moxie To See It Through
The last time there was any real planning on Long Island -- with somewhat skewed apologies to Lee Koppelman -- was when Levitt & Sons set out to build America's first suburban community.
Now, the Long Island Regional Planning Board (the first thing they need to "build" is a website) -- which planned much, but was able to implement little, mainly owing to bloated county bureacracies and opbstreperous town zoning boards that stymied even the best laid plans -- has plans for a Master Plan (yes, another Master Plan), one that will see Long Island through the next generation, and beyond.
The Plan will likely be fashioned on New York City's bold and visionary PlaNYC, an ambitious initiative that grows the city responsibly over the course of the next thirty years.
NYC's comprehensive blueprint covers everything from land, water and energy use to transportation, air quality, and climate change, promoting what is best in today's Big Apple, and envisioning what it will take to make Gotham a "model city of the 21st century."
Of course, a plan is only as good as the people who are willing and able to put it into action.
As concerns PlaNYC, of which congestion pricing was a not insignificant component, we have seen what inaction can do to snarl not only traffic, but the progress of a city -- and a region -- toward modernity.
If a regional Master Plan -- should we live to see one -- is going to benefit Long Island (as, surely, a prudent and well-implemented plan would), then we will need the elected and the appointed -- from Albany to town hall -- to hunker down and ante up, siezed of vision, of courage, of imagination, of independence, and, most certainly, of guts.
What we have seen, over the past half century of Long Island's lifetime, is a timidity on the part of local planning boards to plan, an avoidance on the part of legislators to act -- or at least to act in the best interests of their constituents -- and a brazen "who gives a damn" on the part of local zoning boards, which have given us unchecked overdevelopment, making Long Island the very model of everything than is wrong with suburban sprawl.
One need only to venture out on the major byways and thoroughfares of Long Island to see that they didn't get it right, and to spend some time at town hall -- where blight studies and "urban" renewal plans are all the rage -- to understand that they still don't get it.
Formulating that bluprint for Long Island's 21st century will require fortitude and forthrightness on the part of planners and legislators alike, and persistence from you and I, as involved citizens, to make sure that planning, and the development that must follow on its heels, is not only done, but done properly, without inordinate delay or watered-down half measures.
Let's get to it!
- - -
From the Editorial Pages of Newsday:
Editorial: LI needs new planning blueprint
Long Island can't go on like this: choking traffic, little mass transit, lack of affordable housing, threats to open space, unbearable property tax burdens and a sputtering economy - to name a few of our problems. We need a smart plan to recommend specific actions, and we need the commitment of our public officials to carry it out.
The Long Island Regional Planning Board took a first step yesterday toward that kind of plan. It looked westward to New York City, whose PlaNYC is a model of both crunching the numbers and laying out doable recommendations.The consulting firm that had a lot to do with creating that plan is McKinsey & Co. And Long Island's planning board served notice yesterday that it intends to hire McKinsey to create a blueprint for sustainability here - unless another firm offers a better proposal. Local not-for-profits have offered $500,000 toward the eventual $1.5 million to $2 million cost of the study if McKinsey does it.
To be a success, any plan must have strong action recommendations, plus staunch political backing.
A word of warning: One of the 127 initiatives in PlaNYC was congestion pricing, which timid Albany lawmakers have just killed. The lesson is not that we don't need a plan, but that even the best blueprints need courageous politicians.
Whatever McKinsey recommends, if the top leaders of the two counties don't fight for the tough changes this study is likely to urge, we'll be stuck in the same sad rut.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
The last time there was any real planning on Long Island -- with somewhat skewed apologies to Lee Koppelman -- was when Levitt & Sons set out to build America's first suburban community.
Now, the Long Island Regional Planning Board (the first thing they need to "build" is a website) -- which planned much, but was able to implement little, mainly owing to bloated county bureacracies and opbstreperous town zoning boards that stymied even the best laid plans -- has plans for a Master Plan (yes, another Master Plan), one that will see Long Island through the next generation, and beyond.
The Plan will likely be fashioned on New York City's bold and visionary PlaNYC, an ambitious initiative that grows the city responsibly over the course of the next thirty years.
NYC's comprehensive blueprint covers everything from land, water and energy use to transportation, air quality, and climate change, promoting what is best in today's Big Apple, and envisioning what it will take to make Gotham a "model city of the 21st century."
Of course, a plan is only as good as the people who are willing and able to put it into action.
As concerns PlaNYC, of which congestion pricing was a not insignificant component, we have seen what inaction can do to snarl not only traffic, but the progress of a city -- and a region -- toward modernity.
If a regional Master Plan -- should we live to see one -- is going to benefit Long Island (as, surely, a prudent and well-implemented plan would), then we will need the elected and the appointed -- from Albany to town hall -- to hunker down and ante up, siezed of vision, of courage, of imagination, of independence, and, most certainly, of guts.
What we have seen, over the past half century of Long Island's lifetime, is a timidity on the part of local planning boards to plan, an avoidance on the part of legislators to act -- or at least to act in the best interests of their constituents -- and a brazen "who gives a damn" on the part of local zoning boards, which have given us unchecked overdevelopment, making Long Island the very model of everything than is wrong with suburban sprawl.
One need only to venture out on the major byways and thoroughfares of Long Island to see that they didn't get it right, and to spend some time at town hall -- where blight studies and "urban" renewal plans are all the rage -- to understand that they still don't get it.
Formulating that bluprint for Long Island's 21st century will require fortitude and forthrightness on the part of planners and legislators alike, and persistence from you and I, as involved citizens, to make sure that planning, and the development that must follow on its heels, is not only done, but done properly, without inordinate delay or watered-down half measures.
Let's get to it!
- - -
From the Editorial Pages of Newsday:
Editorial: LI needs new planning blueprint
Long Island can't go on like this: choking traffic, little mass transit, lack of affordable housing, threats to open space, unbearable property tax burdens and a sputtering economy - to name a few of our problems. We need a smart plan to recommend specific actions, and we need the commitment of our public officials to carry it out.
The Long Island Regional Planning Board took a first step yesterday toward that kind of plan. It looked westward to New York City, whose PlaNYC is a model of both crunching the numbers and laying out doable recommendations.The consulting firm that had a lot to do with creating that plan is McKinsey & Co. And Long Island's planning board served notice yesterday that it intends to hire McKinsey to create a blueprint for sustainability here - unless another firm offers a better proposal. Local not-for-profits have offered $500,000 toward the eventual $1.5 million to $2 million cost of the study if McKinsey does it.
To be a success, any plan must have strong action recommendations, plus staunch political backing.
A word of warning: One of the 127 initiatives in PlaNYC was congestion pricing, which timid Albany lawmakers have just killed. The lesson is not that we don't need a plan, but that even the best blueprints need courageous politicians.
Whatever McKinsey recommends, if the top leaders of the two counties don't fight for the tough changes this study is likely to urge, we'll be stuck in the same sad rut.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Reassessing The Assessment Of The Assessor
Levinson Challenges Own Assessment Based On "Mathematical Error"
This may not be a case of the chickens coming home to roost (in a hen house that is over-assessed, no less), but the fact that Nassau County Assessor Harvey Levinson had to challenge the assessment of his own condo, doesn't speak much (or maybe it speaks volumes) for the integrity and accuracy of Nassau's assessment system.
Surely, Harvey Levinson is not alone in filing a challenge to the assessment of his property. Thousands of Nassau County residents -- including this blogger -- "grieve" their assessments annually, some successfully, others, not.
The fact that Harvey's challenge is based on what he himself calls, "a clerical error that raised his apartment's assessment by 75 percent," gives credence to the longstanding argument that the process is flawed, and the Assessor's concession that assessed values are based on a "complex mathematical formula" is reason enough to consider scrapping a system that has proven itself -- through no fault of Mr. Levinson, mind you -- both unfair and inequitable.
While we maintain complete confidence in Harvey Levinson as Assessor, and have no qualms about his filing of a challenge -- as is every property owner's right -- the problem we have is with a system of assessment that is outmoded, cumbersome, and, apparently, so complex that even the folks running the show have trouble figuring out the appropriate values.
For goodness sake. In determining the value of, say, a single-family house, would not, in the realm of reason, actual values based on recent sales of comparable houses in the same neighborhood suffice, if not be more accurate than crunching numbers (whatever numbers they may be) by some complex, incomprehensible empirical formula?
One would think.
Of course, rather than address the underlying problem, and work toward a feasible solution, here we go again with the finger pointing and the political posturing.
Mr. Levinson may well be retiring to Florida in 2009. We wish him only the best. For the rest of us, however, destined to maintain that homestead on Long Island for more than the next two years, there is little solace in knowing that while we can challenge a broken system, there are no real plans in the hopper that look to fix it.
We suppose that leaves Nassau County's homeowners paying more for houses that, on the market, are valued less.
"Pay more, get less." Isn't that what Harvey Levinson objected to in the first place?
- - -
Nassau tax assessor challenges levy on his own condo
BY CELESTE HADRICK
celeste.hadrick@newsday.com
Nassau Assessor Harvey Levinson, who vigorously defends the accuracy of the countywide property tax assessment system he oversees, has challenged the assessment on his own Garden City condominium.
In a handwritten grievance signed by him and his wife, Levinson is asking the county's Assessment Review Commission to reduce the value of his fourth-floor apartment in the exclusive Wyndham West complex.
Levinson has requested the $502,080 value set by his office for his two-bedroom unit be reduced to $300,770 -- while other two-bedroom Wyndham apartments are currently for sale at prices ranging from $849,000 to more than $1.2 million, according to the Multiple Listing Service of Long Island.
If approved for the full amount, the reduction is estimated by the county to remove $1,700 from Levinson's $13,000 tax bill for 2009-2010, excluding village taxes.
Levinson, who collects a $72,000 annual state pension for his 27 years as a county prosecutor on top of his $166,300 salary, said he was simply correcting a clerical error that raised his apartment's assessment by 75 percent. He explained that a complex mathematical formula determines condominium values, not comparable sales, which are used to assess single-family homes.
Furthermore, Levinson said, he expects to sell the condominium and move to Florida by the time the first school tax bill is generated in October 2009.
"When this reduction kicks in, I won't be in this piece of property," said Levinson, 68, who predicted he will retire before his term expires in December 2009. "The new owner will get the benefit."
But both Democrats and Republicans yesterday expressed shock that Levinson filed his own grievance in a county that consistently generates the most tax challenges in the state: About 135,000 grievances were filed this year, and about 139,000 were filed last year, officials said.
"Even if he has a technical argument to make, it does not inspire much confidence that the assessor is challenging his own assessment," County Executive Thomas Suozzi said of his fellow Democrat's actions.
Legislative Minority Leader Peter Schmitt (R-Massapequa) called for the resignation of Levinson, who raised assessments this year despite the weakening real estate market. "At the same time that he's placing all those burdens on the residents of Nassau County, he moves to alleviate and reduce his own tax burden," he said.
Fred Perry, a Dix Hills attorney who challenges assessments on behalf of thousands of Nassau homeowners each year, said Levinson has the right to protest, but should also worry about "an appearance of impropriety" because the Assessment Review Commission works so closely with Levinson's department.
Commission Chairman John Peguillan said Levinson will be treated as any other taxpayer.
Levinson said he would not have challenged his assessment if it wasn't a mathematically based error.
He said state law requires condominiums four stories or higher to be valued at what an investor would pay for the property if run as a rental apartment building. Each unit is assessed at a percentage determined by the builder of the total building value, he said.
Levinson said his office discovered in January that 1,600 condominiums in the county, including his own, were overvalued because their tax burden wasn't taken into account. While the Board of Assessors immediately filed a petition with the review commission to correct the errors, Levinson decided to file on his own.
"The simplest thing for me to do was to have left my value in the list," Levinson said. "It would have gone unnoticed. It wouldn't have opened up this debate. I wanted to be open about this."
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
This may not be a case of the chickens coming home to roost (in a hen house that is over-assessed, no less), but the fact that Nassau County Assessor Harvey Levinson had to challenge the assessment of his own condo, doesn't speak much (or maybe it speaks volumes) for the integrity and accuracy of Nassau's assessment system.
Surely, Harvey Levinson is not alone in filing a challenge to the assessment of his property. Thousands of Nassau County residents -- including this blogger -- "grieve" their assessments annually, some successfully, others, not.
The fact that Harvey's challenge is based on what he himself calls, "a clerical error that raised his apartment's assessment by 75 percent," gives credence to the longstanding argument that the process is flawed, and the Assessor's concession that assessed values are based on a "complex mathematical formula" is reason enough to consider scrapping a system that has proven itself -- through no fault of Mr. Levinson, mind you -- both unfair and inequitable.
While we maintain complete confidence in Harvey Levinson as Assessor, and have no qualms about his filing of a challenge -- as is every property owner's right -- the problem we have is with a system of assessment that is outmoded, cumbersome, and, apparently, so complex that even the folks running the show have trouble figuring out the appropriate values.
For goodness sake. In determining the value of, say, a single-family house, would not, in the realm of reason, actual values based on recent sales of comparable houses in the same neighborhood suffice, if not be more accurate than crunching numbers (whatever numbers they may be) by some complex, incomprehensible empirical formula?
One would think.
Of course, rather than address the underlying problem, and work toward a feasible solution, here we go again with the finger pointing and the political posturing.
Mr. Levinson may well be retiring to Florida in 2009. We wish him only the best. For the rest of us, however, destined to maintain that homestead on Long Island for more than the next two years, there is little solace in knowing that while we can challenge a broken system, there are no real plans in the hopper that look to fix it.
We suppose that leaves Nassau County's homeowners paying more for houses that, on the market, are valued less.
"Pay more, get less." Isn't that what Harvey Levinson objected to in the first place?
- - -
Nassau tax assessor challenges levy on his own condo
BY CELESTE HADRICK
celeste.hadrick@newsday.com
Nassau Assessor Harvey Levinson, who vigorously defends the accuracy of the countywide property tax assessment system he oversees, has challenged the assessment on his own Garden City condominium.
In a handwritten grievance signed by him and his wife, Levinson is asking the county's Assessment Review Commission to reduce the value of his fourth-floor apartment in the exclusive Wyndham West complex.
Levinson has requested the $502,080 value set by his office for his two-bedroom unit be reduced to $300,770 -- while other two-bedroom Wyndham apartments are currently for sale at prices ranging from $849,000 to more than $1.2 million, according to the Multiple Listing Service of Long Island.
If approved for the full amount, the reduction is estimated by the county to remove $1,700 from Levinson's $13,000 tax bill for 2009-2010, excluding village taxes.
Levinson, who collects a $72,000 annual state pension for his 27 years as a county prosecutor on top of his $166,300 salary, said he was simply correcting a clerical error that raised his apartment's assessment by 75 percent. He explained that a complex mathematical formula determines condominium values, not comparable sales, which are used to assess single-family homes.
Furthermore, Levinson said, he expects to sell the condominium and move to Florida by the time the first school tax bill is generated in October 2009.
"When this reduction kicks in, I won't be in this piece of property," said Levinson, 68, who predicted he will retire before his term expires in December 2009. "The new owner will get the benefit."
But both Democrats and Republicans yesterday expressed shock that Levinson filed his own grievance in a county that consistently generates the most tax challenges in the state: About 135,000 grievances were filed this year, and about 139,000 were filed last year, officials said.
"Even if he has a technical argument to make, it does not inspire much confidence that the assessor is challenging his own assessment," County Executive Thomas Suozzi said of his fellow Democrat's actions.
Legislative Minority Leader Peter Schmitt (R-Massapequa) called for the resignation of Levinson, who raised assessments this year despite the weakening real estate market. "At the same time that he's placing all those burdens on the residents of Nassau County, he moves to alleviate and reduce his own tax burden," he said.
Fred Perry, a Dix Hills attorney who challenges assessments on behalf of thousands of Nassau homeowners each year, said Levinson has the right to protest, but should also worry about "an appearance of impropriety" because the Assessment Review Commission works so closely with Levinson's department.
Commission Chairman John Peguillan said Levinson will be treated as any other taxpayer.
Levinson said he would not have challenged his assessment if it wasn't a mathematically based error.
He said state law requires condominiums four stories or higher to be valued at what an investor would pay for the property if run as a rental apartment building. Each unit is assessed at a percentage determined by the builder of the total building value, he said.
Levinson said his office discovered in January that 1,600 condominiums in the county, including his own, were overvalued because their tax burden wasn't taken into account. While the Board of Assessors immediately filed a petition with the review commission to correct the errors, Levinson decided to file on his own.
"The simplest thing for me to do was to have left my value in the list," Levinson said. "It would have gone unnoticed. It wouldn't have opened up this debate. I wanted to be open about this."
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
And They're Off!
Fair Is Fair At Belmont Park
There will be a Belmont Fair this year, after all. That is, provided that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead gives its seal of approval to a compromise reached between the neighboring Elmont community and the fair vendor.
Kudos to Elmont East Civic Club President Pat Nicolosi for keeping the folks who run the fair -- including NYRA, Belmont's operator -- accountable for security and public safety.
Now let's get out to Belmont and have some fun!
- - -
Compromise clears way for Belmont Fair
BY WILLIAM MURPHY
william.murphy@newsday.com
The Belmont Fair might be able to open this weekend -- a week late, truncated, and with heightened security -- under terms of a court stipulation entered Tuesday.
Reithoffer Shows of Gibsonton, Fla. was denied a permit for the fair last week by the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals after Nassau County Police Insp. Frank Kirby testified that it posed a danger to the public because of rowdy behavior last year.
The operator puts on the fair in the "backyard" section of Belmont Park that it leases for $275,000 from the New York Racing Association, which has been criticized by area residents for not paying enough attention to the surrounding community of Elmont.
The stipulation, entered into before Justice Ute Wolff Lally of State Supreme Court in Mineola, must still be approved by the Board of Appeals before the fair can open Friday.
The fair, on the Grounds of Belmont Park, had originally been scheduled to run from noon to 11 p.m. from Thursday through Sunday for the month of April. The fair operator agreed in the stipulation to cancel Thursday events and limit the hours to 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Friday, 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturday and Sundays.
The stipulation also requires Reithoffer to hire 35 uniformed security guards, requires NYRA to provide additional security and mandates that all customers pass through metal detectors at a single entrance.
Police can shut down the fair at any point if it finds violations, the stipulation said."The conditions are in the stipulation and I'm confident the police will enforce it. I'm sure of that," Pat Nicolosi, president of the Elmont East Civic Association said.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
There will be a Belmont Fair this year, after all. That is, provided that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead gives its seal of approval to a compromise reached between the neighboring Elmont community and the fair vendor.
Kudos to Elmont East Civic Club President Pat Nicolosi for keeping the folks who run the fair -- including NYRA, Belmont's operator -- accountable for security and public safety.
Now let's get out to Belmont and have some fun!
- - -
Compromise clears way for Belmont Fair
BY WILLIAM MURPHY
william.murphy@newsday.com
The Belmont Fair might be able to open this weekend -- a week late, truncated, and with heightened security -- under terms of a court stipulation entered Tuesday.
Reithoffer Shows of Gibsonton, Fla. was denied a permit for the fair last week by the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals after Nassau County Police Insp. Frank Kirby testified that it posed a danger to the public because of rowdy behavior last year.
The operator puts on the fair in the "backyard" section of Belmont Park that it leases for $275,000 from the New York Racing Association, which has been criticized by area residents for not paying enough attention to the surrounding community of Elmont.
The stipulation, entered into before Justice Ute Wolff Lally of State Supreme Court in Mineola, must still be approved by the Board of Appeals before the fair can open Friday.
The fair, on the Grounds of Belmont Park, had originally been scheduled to run from noon to 11 p.m. from Thursday through Sunday for the month of April. The fair operator agreed in the stipulation to cancel Thursday events and limit the hours to 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Friday, 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturday and Sundays.
The stipulation also requires Reithoffer to hire 35 uniformed security guards, requires NYRA to provide additional security and mandates that all customers pass through metal detectors at a single entrance.
Police can shut down the fair at any point if it finds violations, the stipulation said."The conditions are in the stipulation and I'm confident the police will enforce it. I'm sure of that," Pat Nicolosi, president of the Elmont East Civic Association said.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Alfano, Skelos Score Big For Belmont Host Communities
SKELOS AND ALFANO ANNOUNCE DEAL TO PROVIDE STATE AID TO ELMONT, FLORAL PARK AND OTHER BELMONT HOST COMMUNITIES
New York State Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) and Assemblyman Thomas Alfano (R-Franklin Square) today announced that a provision will be included in the 2008-09 New York State budget providing $5 million in host community aid to Elmont, Floral Park and the other Belmont Park host communities.
“This money will help reduce taxes, improve our schools and promote economic development and community revitalization,” said Senator Skelos. “This was a long, tough process to ensure that the Belmont Park communities were treated fairly. I’m grateful that the community stood by us during this fight and this victory clearly demonstrates that the fight was worth it.”
“Our next job is to promote economic development, create jobs and bring new business to the Elmont and Floral Park communities,” said Assemblyman Alfano. “By expanding the tax base and having this funding available, we’ve set the stage for making Belmont a destination point and an economic engine for Elmont.”
Under the terms of the agreement, Elmont, Floral Park, Bellerose Terrace, Bellerose Village, South Floral Park and Nassau County will eligible to apply to New York State for compensation necessary to reimburse property taxpayers for costs associated with Belmont Park Racetrack. Applications will be considered by the franchise oversight board and grants must be designed to reduce or eliminate this additional property tax burden. Such expenses may include police, fire and other public safety costs, the improvement and beautification of nearby roadways and the added costs borne by local school districts.
This $5 million appropriation will become available as soon as the state franchise oversight board approves $50 million in real estate development projects at Belmont Park. Similar host community aid allotments for Saratoga, Yonkers and, upon the opening of a video lottery terminal (“VLTs”) parlor at Aqueduct, are included in the budget on an annual basis. Economic development at Belmont Park is specifically included within the new franchise agreement the New York Racing Association (“NYRA”) executed with the state in February. Pursuant to that agreement, the franchise oversight board can terminate NYRA’s franchise to operate the state’s thoroughbred racetracks if it fails to meet certain performance standards.
“Property tax relief, economic development and jobs go hand-in-hand,” said Senator Skelos. “Assemblyman Alfano and I won’t rest until real economic development occurs at Belmont Park. We will continue fighting for the area to ensure that we create new opportunities for those who live in the Belmont Park communities.”
While Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has refused to authorized VLTs at Belmont Park, Senator Skelos and Assemblyman Alfano fought to provide host community aid for the Belmont Park communities through the state budget. Until Senator Skelos and Assemblyman Alfano successfully included this funding within the state budget, only those areas with VLT parlors had been eligible for host community aid.
“This victory shows the importance of persistence and demonstrates why you should never throw in the towel,” said Assemblyman Alfano. “When some said it wasn’t possible to deliver this funding for Elmont, Floral Park and the other communities near the racetrack, Senator Skelos and I kept fighting and the people won.”
New York State Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) and Assemblyman Thomas Alfano (R-Franklin Square) today announced that a provision will be included in the 2008-09 New York State budget providing $5 million in host community aid to Elmont, Floral Park and the other Belmont Park host communities.
“This money will help reduce taxes, improve our schools and promote economic development and community revitalization,” said Senator Skelos. “This was a long, tough process to ensure that the Belmont Park communities were treated fairly. I’m grateful that the community stood by us during this fight and this victory clearly demonstrates that the fight was worth it.”
“Our next job is to promote economic development, create jobs and bring new business to the Elmont and Floral Park communities,” said Assemblyman Alfano. “By expanding the tax base and having this funding available, we’ve set the stage for making Belmont a destination point and an economic engine for Elmont.”
Under the terms of the agreement, Elmont, Floral Park, Bellerose Terrace, Bellerose Village, South Floral Park and Nassau County will eligible to apply to New York State for compensation necessary to reimburse property taxpayers for costs associated with Belmont Park Racetrack. Applications will be considered by the franchise oversight board and grants must be designed to reduce or eliminate this additional property tax burden. Such expenses may include police, fire and other public safety costs, the improvement and beautification of nearby roadways and the added costs borne by local school districts.
This $5 million appropriation will become available as soon as the state franchise oversight board approves $50 million in real estate development projects at Belmont Park. Similar host community aid allotments for Saratoga, Yonkers and, upon the opening of a video lottery terminal (“VLTs”) parlor at Aqueduct, are included in the budget on an annual basis. Economic development at Belmont Park is specifically included within the new franchise agreement the New York Racing Association (“NYRA”) executed with the state in February. Pursuant to that agreement, the franchise oversight board can terminate NYRA’s franchise to operate the state’s thoroughbred racetracks if it fails to meet certain performance standards.
“Property tax relief, economic development and jobs go hand-in-hand,” said Senator Skelos. “Assemblyman Alfano and I won’t rest until real economic development occurs at Belmont Park. We will continue fighting for the area to ensure that we create new opportunities for those who live in the Belmont Park communities.”
While Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has refused to authorized VLTs at Belmont Park, Senator Skelos and Assemblyman Alfano fought to provide host community aid for the Belmont Park communities through the state budget. Until Senator Skelos and Assemblyman Alfano successfully included this funding within the state budget, only those areas with VLT parlors had been eligible for host community aid.
“This victory shows the importance of persistence and demonstrates why you should never throw in the towel,” said Assemblyman Alfano. “When some said it wasn’t possible to deliver this funding for Elmont, Floral Park and the other communities near the racetrack, Senator Skelos and I kept fighting and the people won.”
The Community Alliance Blog Blogs Out
"Hello, We Must Be Going. We Came To Say, 'We Cannot Stay,' We Must Be Going..."
After nearly four years, and 772 what we believe have been somewhat meaningful blogposts, The Community Alliance blog is, in the parlance of M*A*S*H*, bugging out.
Not that it hasn't been one heck of a ride -- some have referred to it as a "long, strange trip" -- but given what we, as community advocates, have set out to do, and what, collectively, we have failed to accomplish, perhaps it is time to devote our passion, our energies, and our talents elsewhere (the Russian front has been suggested as a good place to start).
Would that we could attest to even minor victories along the way. Oh sure, we got "nail and mail," but if anyone believes a dent has been made in banishing illegal apartments from our midst, along with the burdens and hazards that accompany them, we've got a Sanitary District to sell you.
Affordable housing? Zippo.
Rejuvenated "Downtowns" and revived "Main Streets?" Nah.
Putting the kibosh on the property tax and excoriating the special taxing districts into extinction? Not quite.
Taking back our town? Maybe its better if we let them keep it.
Not that it hasn't been fun. For the most part, it has been a blast.
Not that we won't miss the almost daily opportunity to lambast the elected, the anointed, and the inane. We will.
Not that we wouldn't have minded -- indeed, welcomed -- greater participation (a guest blog, now and again, just to let us know you're still breathing) from you folks in the Peanut Gallery. We would, but, like so many of us who wear our passion for community on our sleeves -- as much a scarlet letter as a badge of courage -- you're frustrated, tired, and simply trying to survive the day-to-day.
Back in 1899, a clerk in the U.S. Patent Office opined, "Everything that can be invented already has been."
So, too, would it be not only inappropriate, but downright foolish for us to say, "Everything that can be said, written, or, for that matter, blogged about community -- its ups, its downs, its shortfalls, and its successes -- has been committed to the airwaves, to paper, or to cyberspace."
Nonsense.
It is, for each of us, to keep the pressure on government -- and upon ourselves -- to create a more sustainable way of life, not only here on Long Island, but globally.
It is, for each of us, our duty, to continue to speak out, whenever and wherever, on behalf of those who have no voice, and as advocates of those whose voices have been or would be silenced.
It is, for each of us, as activists committed to the future of every hamlet, village, and unincorporated area (what the hell is an "unincorporated area", anyway?) to stay involved, to man the barricades, and, yes, to continue to fight Town Hall with everything we've got.
Assuring our quality of life, and that of our children, requires our vigilance and our vigor. Community, demands it.
The Community Alliance blog will continue its rant for several weeks more [after all, we'd be remiss if we didn't bring you the annual rite of spring we call A Passover Story].
After that, perhaps a venting here, a stoke of the fires there, and then, who knows where we'll next find our way into your community.
Of this, however, you can be certain:
Wherever there is a community cause to be fought, The Community Alliance will be there;
Wherever there is an impediment to the quality of life to which we aspire, The Community Alliance will be there;
Wherever there is an injustice, an elected official who turns a deaf ear, or a bowl of chocolate covered pretzels, you can be sure, The Community Alliance will be there.
This blogger often wondered, "What would be our parting words as we took our leave from the blogoshpere?"
Well, pondering long and hard, and realizing that this cessation of the blog is not the end of the journey, but merely a new beginning, we shall hold off on the epilogue, and, instead, offer up the words of Walt Kelly:
"Specializations and markings of individuals everywhere abound in such profusion that major idiosyncrasies can be properly ascribed to the mass. Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.
"There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
"Forward!"
It has been a privilege, an honor, and an experience that will always serve as an inspiration to this community advocate and, hopefully, to others as well.
Yours in community.
- - -
On second thought. . . ;-)
- - -
Comments? Opinions? Musings? Anything?
Last call to make your case for a better community on The Community Alliance blog. Write us at thecommunityalliance@yahoo.com.
After nearly four years, and 772 what we believe have been somewhat meaningful blogposts, The Community Alliance blog is, in the parlance of M*A*S*H*, bugging out.
Not that it hasn't been one heck of a ride -- some have referred to it as a "long, strange trip" -- but given what we, as community advocates, have set out to do, and what, collectively, we have failed to accomplish, perhaps it is time to devote our passion, our energies, and our talents elsewhere (the Russian front has been suggested as a good place to start).
Would that we could attest to even minor victories along the way. Oh sure, we got "nail and mail," but if anyone believes a dent has been made in banishing illegal apartments from our midst, along with the burdens and hazards that accompany them, we've got a Sanitary District to sell you.
Affordable housing? Zippo.
Rejuvenated "Downtowns" and revived "Main Streets?" Nah.
Putting the kibosh on the property tax and excoriating the special taxing districts into extinction? Not quite.
Taking back our town? Maybe its better if we let them keep it.
Not that it hasn't been fun. For the most part, it has been a blast.
Not that we won't miss the almost daily opportunity to lambast the elected, the anointed, and the inane. We will.
Not that we wouldn't have minded -- indeed, welcomed -- greater participation (a guest blog, now and again, just to let us know you're still breathing) from you folks in the Peanut Gallery. We would, but, like so many of us who wear our passion for community on our sleeves -- as much a scarlet letter as a badge of courage -- you're frustrated, tired, and simply trying to survive the day-to-day.
Back in 1899, a clerk in the U.S. Patent Office opined, "Everything that can be invented already has been."
So, too, would it be not only inappropriate, but downright foolish for us to say, "Everything that can be said, written, or, for that matter, blogged about community -- its ups, its downs, its shortfalls, and its successes -- has been committed to the airwaves, to paper, or to cyberspace."
Nonsense.
It is, for each of us, to keep the pressure on government -- and upon ourselves -- to create a more sustainable way of life, not only here on Long Island, but globally.
It is, for each of us, our duty, to continue to speak out, whenever and wherever, on behalf of those who have no voice, and as advocates of those whose voices have been or would be silenced.
It is, for each of us, as activists committed to the future of every hamlet, village, and unincorporated area (what the hell is an "unincorporated area", anyway?) to stay involved, to man the barricades, and, yes, to continue to fight Town Hall with everything we've got.
Assuring our quality of life, and that of our children, requires our vigilance and our vigor. Community, demands it.
The Community Alliance blog will continue its rant for several weeks more [after all, we'd be remiss if we didn't bring you the annual rite of spring we call A Passover Story].
After that, perhaps a venting here, a stoke of the fires there, and then, who knows where we'll next find our way into your community.
Of this, however, you can be certain:
Wherever there is a community cause to be fought, The Community Alliance will be there;
Wherever there is an impediment to the quality of life to which we aspire, The Community Alliance will be there;
Wherever there is an injustice, an elected official who turns a deaf ear, or a bowl of chocolate covered pretzels, you can be sure, The Community Alliance will be there.
This blogger often wondered, "What would be our parting words as we took our leave from the blogoshpere?"
Well, pondering long and hard, and realizing that this cessation of the blog is not the end of the journey, but merely a new beginning, we shall hold off on the epilogue, and, instead, offer up the words of Walt Kelly:
"Specializations and markings of individuals everywhere abound in such profusion that major idiosyncrasies can be properly ascribed to the mass. Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.
"There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
"Forward!"
It has been a privilege, an honor, and an experience that will always serve as an inspiration to this community advocate and, hopefully, to others as well.
Yours in community.
- - -
On second thought. . . ;-)
- - -
Comments? Opinions? Musings? Anything?
Last call to make your case for a better community on The Community Alliance blog. Write us at thecommunityalliance@yahoo.com.
Myopia Is An Island
The Machine That Helped Create Suburbia Will, In The End, Destroy Community
Congestion pricing, as a means of reducing traffic, clearing the air, and raising much-needed revenues for mass transit, died in Albany last night.
No surprises. Never mind that congestion pricing works. Let it work somewhere else!
Sheldon Silver, the one man show that thinks and speaks for the Assembly, wouldn't let the issue -- a matter of home rule, really, but who cares what they want back home? -- come to the floor for a vote.
Democrats opposed it. [So much for their concerns about the environment.] Republicans opposed it. [Where were the advocates of mass transit as an alternative to reliance on the automobile?] Suburbanites -- and even those in the outer boroughs -- opposed it, calling congestion pricing no more than a regressive tax (which, in essence, it is), unable, or simply unwilling, to see short-term pain (at $8 a pop) as long-term-gain (millions, initially, and billions, ultimately, for public transportation, cleaner air, and a more sustainable city).
Environmental groups (damn liberals) and mass transit advocates (never learned how to drive) favored congestion pricing. Maybe they saw the forest for the trees. Or perhaps they saw a future, where the streets are impassable, the parking impossible, and the air unbreakable -- a landscape upon which there will be no trees.
Long Islanders, for their part, were either critical of the plan -- as they are of most initiatives calling for even the slightest change to the status quo -- or ambivalent -- as they often are when they are not saying no to everything else.
You can't even blame what happened in Albany -- or what did not happen -- on legislative dysfunction alone, or on an autocracy where three men (four, if the Senate's Minority Leader is invited into the room) decide all. After all, the sense among the general populace was that the price to be paid -- and the hassle of leaving the car at home -- was simply too high.
Legislators heard the voices of the people. Sure, NOW they listen to their constituents!
Look, none of us -- this blogger included -- likes to pay more or to be inconvenienced, but it is woefully -- and dangerously -- shortsighted to do nothing, and, in the not so long run, decidedly more costly.
And its not only the environment and mass transit that are the losers in this game. True, today the feds begin handing out that $450+ million in mass transit money to other metropolitan regions, as New York's carbon footprint grows larger and more encompassing. Suffer not only the city, however, but that very sense of community that was the consummate vision of suburbia.
Instead of raging against the machine -- in this case, the car, the idol (idle?) of the suburbs -- we've embraced it (and let those tree huggers go to hell).
The almighty automobile, creator of suburban life; enabler of a day at the beach and an evening at the mall.
Suburbanites -- and Long Islanders in particular -- love their cars. Everyone in the family has one. Sometimes two or three.
To banish the automobile would be akin to pulling out our hearts, for if we can't drive there, we needn't go there.
Take the train? A bus? Call for light rail? Are you crazy?
No, we'd rather burn that fossil fuel, no matter how many dollars per gallon, feeding our addiction to automania as we line the pockets of terrorist-friendly foreign potentates.
We don't want to be among the masses, elbow to elbow with our fellow suburbanites. Such proximity may give rise, after all, to discourse, or, perish the thought, actual give and take with our neighbors.
Uh, uh. Give us the insular isolation of the automobile, where we feel empowered by that V-8 under the hood, and safe from the world at large behind a ton of steel and impenetrable safety glass.
Like the old Simon & Garfunkel tune, we are a rock, we are an island. We touch no one, and no one touches us.
Instead of raging against this machine that pumps every last dollar out of our wallets, puts huge holes in the ozone layer, and segregates us -- literally -- from humanity itself, we embrace the automobile, clinging to it as a Polio victim would to an iron lung.
What makes community community is the ability to interact, to exchange thoughts (other than road rage), to develop a bond that can only be shared by neighbors.
The automobile, for all of its virtues, has taken all of this away. We are left alone -- as hermit crabs on the sandy beach -- to "enjoy" the solitude.
Change, although inevitable, comes slowly, if at all, to our Long Island.
We are resistant, adopting as our credo, "Just Say No!" to anything which might have the potential to usher in progress. Nancy Reagan would be proud.
It is a resounding NO to congestion pricing. So what if its been a boon to other urban centers, such as most of western Europe. NO.
It is NO to consolidation of water districts, school districts, or dare we say, fire districts that cover areas no larger than a single square mile. If one can do it well, many, if inherently more wasteful and unwieldy, can certainly do it better -- or, at least, at greater cost to the taxpayer.
It is NO to reasonable measures that would lower the property tax, end the proliferation of illegal accessory apartments, and bring affordable workforce housing to downtown.
NO. NO. NO. Whatever it may be, count on LIers to be against it.
While even the lowly virus changes, altering its form, adapting to survive, here on Long Island, we are of the mindset that form triumphs over substance, and that change or transformation, of any kind, can't possibly be for the better.
Best to put off the challenges -- to defeat them by avoidance -- rather than to meet them head on.
No, the problem, whether on the matter of congestion pricing, or any other concern that impacts upon our quality of life, is not solely one of legislative dysfunction -- or hubris. Our failures to gain any significant ground, seemingly in any area of community resolve, is not entirely the result of the foibles of others.
As the comic strip character Pogo put it, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Pogo was right on the money. We wonder what he would say about congestion pricing.
Congestion pricing, as a means of reducing traffic, clearing the air, and raising much-needed revenues for mass transit, died in Albany last night.
No surprises. Never mind that congestion pricing works. Let it work somewhere else!
Sheldon Silver, the one man show that thinks and speaks for the Assembly, wouldn't let the issue -- a matter of home rule, really, but who cares what they want back home? -- come to the floor for a vote.
Democrats opposed it. [So much for their concerns about the environment.] Republicans opposed it. [Where were the advocates of mass transit as an alternative to reliance on the automobile?] Suburbanites -- and even those in the outer boroughs -- opposed it, calling congestion pricing no more than a regressive tax (which, in essence, it is), unable, or simply unwilling, to see short-term pain (at $8 a pop) as long-term-gain (millions, initially, and billions, ultimately, for public transportation, cleaner air, and a more sustainable city).
Environmental groups (damn liberals) and mass transit advocates (never learned how to drive) favored congestion pricing. Maybe they saw the forest for the trees. Or perhaps they saw a future, where the streets are impassable, the parking impossible, and the air unbreakable -- a landscape upon which there will be no trees.
Long Islanders, for their part, were either critical of the plan -- as they are of most initiatives calling for even the slightest change to the status quo -- or ambivalent -- as they often are when they are not saying no to everything else.
You can't even blame what happened in Albany -- or what did not happen -- on legislative dysfunction alone, or on an autocracy where three men (four, if the Senate's Minority Leader is invited into the room) decide all. After all, the sense among the general populace was that the price to be paid -- and the hassle of leaving the car at home -- was simply too high.
Legislators heard the voices of the people. Sure, NOW they listen to their constituents!
Look, none of us -- this blogger included -- likes to pay more or to be inconvenienced, but it is woefully -- and dangerously -- shortsighted to do nothing, and, in the not so long run, decidedly more costly.
And its not only the environment and mass transit that are the losers in this game. True, today the feds begin handing out that $450+ million in mass transit money to other metropolitan regions, as New York's carbon footprint grows larger and more encompassing. Suffer not only the city, however, but that very sense of community that was the consummate vision of suburbia.
Instead of raging against the machine -- in this case, the car, the idol (idle?) of the suburbs -- we've embraced it (and let those tree huggers go to hell).
The almighty automobile, creator of suburban life; enabler of a day at the beach and an evening at the mall.
Suburbanites -- and Long Islanders in particular -- love their cars. Everyone in the family has one. Sometimes two or three.
To banish the automobile would be akin to pulling out our hearts, for if we can't drive there, we needn't go there.
Take the train? A bus? Call for light rail? Are you crazy?
No, we'd rather burn that fossil fuel, no matter how many dollars per gallon, feeding our addiction to automania as we line the pockets of terrorist-friendly foreign potentates.
We don't want to be among the masses, elbow to elbow with our fellow suburbanites. Such proximity may give rise, after all, to discourse, or, perish the thought, actual give and take with our neighbors.
Uh, uh. Give us the insular isolation of the automobile, where we feel empowered by that V-8 under the hood, and safe from the world at large behind a ton of steel and impenetrable safety glass.
Like the old Simon & Garfunkel tune, we are a rock, we are an island. We touch no one, and no one touches us.
Instead of raging against this machine that pumps every last dollar out of our wallets, puts huge holes in the ozone layer, and segregates us -- literally -- from humanity itself, we embrace the automobile, clinging to it as a Polio victim would to an iron lung.
What makes community community is the ability to interact, to exchange thoughts (other than road rage), to develop a bond that can only be shared by neighbors.
The automobile, for all of its virtues, has taken all of this away. We are left alone -- as hermit crabs on the sandy beach -- to "enjoy" the solitude.
Change, although inevitable, comes slowly, if at all, to our Long Island.
We are resistant, adopting as our credo, "Just Say No!" to anything which might have the potential to usher in progress. Nancy Reagan would be proud.
It is a resounding NO to congestion pricing. So what if its been a boon to other urban centers, such as most of western Europe. NO.
It is NO to consolidation of water districts, school districts, or dare we say, fire districts that cover areas no larger than a single square mile. If one can do it well, many, if inherently more wasteful and unwieldy, can certainly do it better -- or, at least, at greater cost to the taxpayer.
It is NO to reasonable measures that would lower the property tax, end the proliferation of illegal accessory apartments, and bring affordable workforce housing to downtown.
NO. NO. NO. Whatever it may be, count on LIers to be against it.
While even the lowly virus changes, altering its form, adapting to survive, here on Long Island, we are of the mindset that form triumphs over substance, and that change or transformation, of any kind, can't possibly be for the better.
Best to put off the challenges -- to defeat them by avoidance -- rather than to meet them head on.
No, the problem, whether on the matter of congestion pricing, or any other concern that impacts upon our quality of life, is not solely one of legislative dysfunction -- or hubris. Our failures to gain any significant ground, seemingly in any area of community resolve, is not entirely the result of the foibles of others.
As the comic strip character Pogo put it, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Pogo was right on the money. We wonder what he would say about congestion pricing.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Broadwater May Save You $300 A Year. . .
. . .But It Will Cost You Your Peace Of Mind And Our Long Island Sound
A MESSAGE FROM OUR FRIENDS AT CITIZENS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT:
CITIZENS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENTACTION ALERT!
Tell the New York Secretary of State to SAY NO TO BROADWATER!!
Your Phone Call is Urgently Needed- the State’s Decision is Due Out Any Day Now– Please Call Her Now!!!!!
Secretary of State Lorraine Cortès-Vàzquez in New York City at 212-417-5803 and in Albany 518-474-4752.
Shell Oil is once again running a massive radio and TV ad campaign to promote Broadwater. New York State’s decision is due any day now. Don’t let Big Oil have more influence than the public- Call Secretary Lorraine Cortès-Vàzquez TODAY!
We’re in the final days of a long and difficult campaign. We have to keep the momentum moving.
The future of Long Island Sound will be determined by New York State in a few short days.
Governor Paterson and Secretary of State Lorraine Cortès-Vàzquez have until April 11th to make their decision on Broadwater and decide whether or not they support Big Oil’s interests or the Public’s interests. The decision can come any day now, so please tell the Secretary of State today to listen to the public and stop Broadwater!
Broadwater Energy, a joint venture between Shell Oil and TransCanada, is proposing to build an industrial Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) barge in the open waters of Long Island Sound, approximately 9 miles from Rocky Point.
How you can help!
Call Secretary of State Lorraine Cortès-Vàzquez in New York City at 212-417-5803 and Albany 518-474-4752. Please, if possible, call during regular business hours to speak directly with a representative. Tell her:
Your name, address, and town/city;
To “Say No to Broadwater"; choose an alternative outside of the LI Sound;
You are counting on her to stand up for the public’s interests - not Big Energy’s interests;
Why Long Island Sound is important to you, your family, and your community;
Why you believe the Sound is an extraordinary water body and should be protected for the public and not handed over to Shell Oil.
Please send a quick email to newhaven@citizenscampaign.org or to farmingdale@citizenscampaign.org with any response you receive from the Secretary of State’s office. It helps us track progress on the issue.
The only way we can win on this issue is if the State of New York hears from the public loud and clear.
Thank you for your action. Together we make a difference.
Sincerely,
YOUR FRIENDS AT CCE
A MESSAGE FROM OUR FRIENDS AT CITIZENS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT:
CITIZENS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENTACTION ALERT!
Tell the New York Secretary of State to SAY NO TO BROADWATER!!
Your Phone Call is Urgently Needed- the State’s Decision is Due Out Any Day Now– Please Call Her Now!!!!!
Secretary of State Lorraine Cortès-Vàzquez in New York City at 212-417-5803 and in Albany 518-474-4752.
Shell Oil is once again running a massive radio and TV ad campaign to promote Broadwater. New York State’s decision is due any day now. Don’t let Big Oil have more influence than the public- Call Secretary Lorraine Cortès-Vàzquez TODAY!
We’re in the final days of a long and difficult campaign. We have to keep the momentum moving.
The future of Long Island Sound will be determined by New York State in a few short days.
Governor Paterson and Secretary of State Lorraine Cortès-Vàzquez have until April 11th to make their decision on Broadwater and decide whether or not they support Big Oil’s interests or the Public’s interests. The decision can come any day now, so please tell the Secretary of State today to listen to the public and stop Broadwater!
Broadwater Energy, a joint venture between Shell Oil and TransCanada, is proposing to build an industrial Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) barge in the open waters of Long Island Sound, approximately 9 miles from Rocky Point.
How you can help!
Call Secretary of State Lorraine Cortès-Vàzquez in New York City at 212-417-5803 and Albany 518-474-4752. Please, if possible, call during regular business hours to speak directly with a representative. Tell her:
Your name, address, and town/city;
To “Say No to Broadwater"; choose an alternative outside of the LI Sound;
You are counting on her to stand up for the public’s interests - not Big Energy’s interests;
Why Long Island Sound is important to you, your family, and your community;
Why you believe the Sound is an extraordinary water body and should be protected for the public and not handed over to Shell Oil.
Please send a quick email to newhaven@citizenscampaign.org or to farmingdale@citizenscampaign.org with any response you receive from the Secretary of State’s office. It helps us track progress on the issue.
The only way we can win on this issue is if the State of New York hears from the public loud and clear.
Thank you for your action. Together we make a difference.
Sincerely,
YOUR FRIENDS AT CCE
What? A Town Park In Disrepair?
This One's In Merrick. Others May Be In Your Own Back Yard!
For years we've been hearing about Nassau County's parks -- particularly the so-called "passive parks," which account for the majority of neighborhood parks -- being in disrepair, the victims of neglect and mismanagement.
But a Town of Hempstead (which prides itself on the beauty of its parks and beaches) park in dire need of improvement, and a community up in arms at the Town's failure to respond to the outcry?
We are aghast and agog. Mostly agog.
Do photojournalists not cover Merrick's Julian Lane Park as they do East Rockaway's Bay Park?
Where is Tony Santino -- he of that "foul aroma of government that refuses to address the concerns of the residents it represents" -- when it comes to the concerns of the residents of South Merrick? [Oh, that's Angie Cullen's district. Sorry.]
Residents of South Merrick want a park like the one in South Bellmore? [Hmm. Doesn't Councilman Gary Hudes hail from Bellmore?]
Children are peeing in the bushes at Julian Lane Park? [Don't they know that this community park is not the Town of Hempstead's toilet?]
"The sandbox hasn't been cleaned in 30 years..." So what? Town Hall hasn't been cleaned in more than 100 years. Patience, dear friends. Patience.
Could it be that residents of South Merrick -- akin to their neighbors in Elmont, West Hempstead, Uniondale, Seaford (oh, just pick an unincorporated area of the township) -- are being ignored by Town of Hempstead officials (or, as one resident put it, "slighted")?
Gee, what would make anyone think that?
Amidst the almost mindless (and clearly planted) chorus of "Thank you, Kate Murray" and "Thank you, Tony Santino," disingenuous and misplaced, all, are the cries of outraged residents -- from Elmont, in the west, to Wantagh, in the east -- begging for something remotely resembling representative government.
Of course, not everyone believes that improvements -- or even basic maintenance -- are in order, whether in Merrick's Julian Lane Park or elsewhere in the unincorporated hitherlands of America's largest township.
"My backyard faces the park," said one adjoining Merrick homeowner, "and I think Julian Lane Park is fine the way it is."
Then there was the recent comment -- on this very blog -- regarding our post lambasting Councilman Santino and Supervisor Murray for "hearing voices" at Bay Park, while turning a deaf ear in other communities.
Or could it be that elected officials only listen to residents from the hamlets in which these officials reside?
Take heart, good citizens of South Merrick. You are not alone. Residents from Elmont to Wantagh, East Meadow to West Hempstead, are making noise at Town Hall, and few of them -- other than those on payroll, or woefully out of touch with the reality of a township that has gone from suburb to brownfield-- are saying, "thank you."
Oh, sure. You can find a fella in Elmont who is thankful for the blight that is the old Argo, or a prostitute or twelve in West Hempstead who is grateful to Kate Murray for keeping the Courtesy hotel open for business, but as for the rest of us, we expect more from our town than glass in the sandbox and urine in the bushes.
Keep up the fight, South Merrick! You too, members of the South Merrick Community Civic Association.
You CAN fight Town Hall, and you must.
And remember, whether that fight is in South Merrick or West Hempstead, East Meadow or the western fringes of Elmont, we're all in this fight together!
- - -
From The Merrick Herald:
Emotions run high at playground meeting
By Laura Lane
The room was filled to capacity and many residents stood in the doorway at a recent South Merrick Community Civic Association meeting that was held to discuss proposed upgrades to Julian Lane Park.
Robert Ward, the district supervisor for the Town of Hempstead Department of Parks & Recreation, was invited to the meeting to answer residents' questions about the town park.
Jodi Turk, one of the chairs of the civic group's park committee, opened the meeting by expressing the community's concerns about the park. "I'm a mom like everyone else here, and I sit at the park and complain like we all do," Turk said. "The sandbox hasn't been cleaned in 30 years, there's glass in it [and] the playground isn't safe.
"Turk and several other residents said they'd like two climbing structures, one for younger children and one for older children, to ensure that children play safely. Right now, there is one climbing structure for younger children.
Turk also pointed out that the fence was in disrepair, with holes with rusty metal. She and several residents were upset by an anti-Semitic symbol that they said hadn't been removed from the jungle gym since the summer.
"I'm going to get the JDL [Jewish Defense League] and Newsday down here if it's not cleaned up by this weekend," said Bill Vilkas. "There is no excuse; whatever it costs, it has to be taken off."
Visibly upset, Ward told Vilkas that he didn't know of the swastika and promised to have it removed immediately. "Some other repairs need to be fixed now," Sarah Greenstein said. "How about if I go there with my tool box and send my bill to the town." Ward suggested that she not do that, adding that certain issues could be dealt with now by the town -- those that presented dangerous conditions. "I can take care of the emergency repairs, like cleaning the sandbox and fixing the fence," Ward said. "But we can't make major changes without approval of town hall."
Apart from the repairs, many residents said they believed that south Merrick should have a revitalized park like they've seen in south Bellmore at East Bay Park. Many seemed to believe that south Merrick was being slighted by the town, and they were angry.
"We should be able to go in our backyard, not have to go to Bellmore's park," said Turk. "We've been neglected. Closed garbage cans are a simple solution. At Julian Lane, the children go to the bathroom in the bushes and in the sandbox; everyone knows that."
Turk and others want the town to install a bathroom in the park and have it monitored by a park worker. But not everyone agreed.
"My backyard faces the park, and I think Julian Lane Park is fine the way it is," said Geri Silverman. "I don't want bathrooms there."
Ward said that major capital improvements, like adding a bathroom, are not in the town's budget for this year or next year. "The next capital improvement bill isn't due until 2011. The money that's been set aside for now is going to the infrastructure, like work on the golf course and repairs in the parks," he said. Ward encouraged residents to approach the town as a civic group, not as individuals, suggesting that there is more power in numbers. When Nassau County Legislator Dave Denenberg, a Democrat from Merrick, arrived at the meeting, he also made suggestions on how residents can better empower themselves before the town.
"I recommend that you don't stop," Denenberg said. "South Bellmore didn't stop. Bring this kind of attendance to a town board meeting and keep showing up until it's part of the town budget. Start out with 40 people, and then five at every meeting, and keep asking them to put Julian Lane Park on the list. And everyone should send a letter to [Supervisor] Kate Murray and [Councilwoman] Angie Cullen."
Denenberg said he'd check to see if community revitalization funds could be used to help. "But I can't take county funds for town parks," Denenberg cautioned. "County capital funds have to be used for county property."
Comments about this story? Llane@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 236.
©Herald Community 2008
- - -
Feeling ignored in Franklin Square or maligned in Merrick? Contact The Community Alliance at thecommunityalliance@yahoo.com.
We're listening, and we are here to help you get the job done.
After all, quality of life on our Long Island is EVERYONE'S concern!
For years we've been hearing about Nassau County's parks -- particularly the so-called "passive parks," which account for the majority of neighborhood parks -- being in disrepair, the victims of neglect and mismanagement.
But a Town of Hempstead (which prides itself on the beauty of its parks and beaches) park in dire need of improvement, and a community up in arms at the Town's failure to respond to the outcry?
We are aghast and agog. Mostly agog.
Do photojournalists not cover Merrick's Julian Lane Park as they do East Rockaway's Bay Park?
Where is Tony Santino -- he of that "foul aroma of government that refuses to address the concerns of the residents it represents" -- when it comes to the concerns of the residents of South Merrick? [Oh, that's Angie Cullen's district. Sorry.]
Residents of South Merrick want a park like the one in South Bellmore? [Hmm. Doesn't Councilman Gary Hudes hail from Bellmore?]
Children are peeing in the bushes at Julian Lane Park? [Don't they know that this community park is not the Town of Hempstead's toilet?]
"The sandbox hasn't been cleaned in 30 years..." So what? Town Hall hasn't been cleaned in more than 100 years. Patience, dear friends. Patience.
Could it be that residents of South Merrick -- akin to their neighbors in Elmont, West Hempstead, Uniondale, Seaford (oh, just pick an unincorporated area of the township) -- are being ignored by Town of Hempstead officials (or, as one resident put it, "slighted")?
Gee, what would make anyone think that?
Amidst the almost mindless (and clearly planted) chorus of "Thank you, Kate Murray" and "Thank you, Tony Santino," disingenuous and misplaced, all, are the cries of outraged residents -- from Elmont, in the west, to Wantagh, in the east -- begging for something remotely resembling representative government.
Of course, not everyone believes that improvements -- or even basic maintenance -- are in order, whether in Merrick's Julian Lane Park or elsewhere in the unincorporated hitherlands of America's largest township.
"My backyard faces the park," said one adjoining Merrick homeowner, "and I think Julian Lane Park is fine the way it is."
Then there was the recent comment -- on this very blog -- regarding our post lambasting Councilman Santino and Supervisor Murray for "hearing voices" at Bay Park, while turning a deaf ear in other communities.
Or could it be that elected officials only listen to residents from the hamlets in which these officials reside?
Take heart, good citizens of South Merrick. You are not alone. Residents from Elmont to Wantagh, East Meadow to West Hempstead, are making noise at Town Hall, and few of them -- other than those on payroll, or woefully out of touch with the reality of a township that has gone from suburb to brownfield-- are saying, "thank you."
Oh, sure. You can find a fella in Elmont who is thankful for the blight that is the old Argo, or a prostitute or twelve in West Hempstead who is grateful to Kate Murray for keeping the Courtesy hotel open for business, but as for the rest of us, we expect more from our town than glass in the sandbox and urine in the bushes.
Keep up the fight, South Merrick! You too, members of the South Merrick Community Civic Association.
You CAN fight Town Hall, and you must.
And remember, whether that fight is in South Merrick or West Hempstead, East Meadow or the western fringes of Elmont, we're all in this fight together!
- - -
From The Merrick Herald:
Emotions run high at playground meeting
By Laura Lane
The room was filled to capacity and many residents stood in the doorway at a recent South Merrick Community Civic Association meeting that was held to discuss proposed upgrades to Julian Lane Park.
Robert Ward, the district supervisor for the Town of Hempstead Department of Parks & Recreation, was invited to the meeting to answer residents' questions about the town park.
Jodi Turk, one of the chairs of the civic group's park committee, opened the meeting by expressing the community's concerns about the park. "I'm a mom like everyone else here, and I sit at the park and complain like we all do," Turk said. "The sandbox hasn't been cleaned in 30 years, there's glass in it [and] the playground isn't safe.
"Turk and several other residents said they'd like two climbing structures, one for younger children and one for older children, to ensure that children play safely. Right now, there is one climbing structure for younger children.
Turk also pointed out that the fence was in disrepair, with holes with rusty metal. She and several residents were upset by an anti-Semitic symbol that they said hadn't been removed from the jungle gym since the summer.
"I'm going to get the JDL [Jewish Defense League] and Newsday down here if it's not cleaned up by this weekend," said Bill Vilkas. "There is no excuse; whatever it costs, it has to be taken off."
Visibly upset, Ward told Vilkas that he didn't know of the swastika and promised to have it removed immediately. "Some other repairs need to be fixed now," Sarah Greenstein said. "How about if I go there with my tool box and send my bill to the town." Ward suggested that she not do that, adding that certain issues could be dealt with now by the town -- those that presented dangerous conditions. "I can take care of the emergency repairs, like cleaning the sandbox and fixing the fence," Ward said. "But we can't make major changes without approval of town hall."
Apart from the repairs, many residents said they believed that south Merrick should have a revitalized park like they've seen in south Bellmore at East Bay Park. Many seemed to believe that south Merrick was being slighted by the town, and they were angry.
"We should be able to go in our backyard, not have to go to Bellmore's park," said Turk. "We've been neglected. Closed garbage cans are a simple solution. At Julian Lane, the children go to the bathroom in the bushes and in the sandbox; everyone knows that."
Turk and others want the town to install a bathroom in the park and have it monitored by a park worker. But not everyone agreed.
"My backyard faces the park, and I think Julian Lane Park is fine the way it is," said Geri Silverman. "I don't want bathrooms there."
Ward said that major capital improvements, like adding a bathroom, are not in the town's budget for this year or next year. "The next capital improvement bill isn't due until 2011. The money that's been set aside for now is going to the infrastructure, like work on the golf course and repairs in the parks," he said. Ward encouraged residents to approach the town as a civic group, not as individuals, suggesting that there is more power in numbers. When Nassau County Legislator Dave Denenberg, a Democrat from Merrick, arrived at the meeting, he also made suggestions on how residents can better empower themselves before the town.
"I recommend that you don't stop," Denenberg said. "South Bellmore didn't stop. Bring this kind of attendance to a town board meeting and keep showing up until it's part of the town budget. Start out with 40 people, and then five at every meeting, and keep asking them to put Julian Lane Park on the list. And everyone should send a letter to [Supervisor] Kate Murray and [Councilwoman] Angie Cullen."
Denenberg said he'd check to see if community revitalization funds could be used to help. "But I can't take county funds for town parks," Denenberg cautioned. "County capital funds have to be used for county property."
Comments about this story? Llane@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 236.
©Herald Community 2008
- - -
Feeling ignored in Franklin Square or maligned in Merrick? Contact The Community Alliance at thecommunityalliance@yahoo.com.
We're listening, and we are here to help you get the job done.
After all, quality of life on our Long Island is EVERYONE'S concern!
The Greening Of Hempstead Town
Not Exactly Kermit D. Frog, But Kate Murray Hopes Its Easy Being Green
When it comes to "green" in the Town of Hempstead, most residents conjur up visions of taxpayer dollars maintaining a cadre of patronage positions, and greenbacks lining the pockets of special district commissioners.
And letting the sun shine in hasn't exactly been the motto of a town government that's ministered under one-party rule since the Chicago Cubs last won the World Series.
But its all about "green" -- as in eco-friendly -- and reliance upon the power of the sun, as the Town of Hempstead, leading by example (at least in this instance), does its part to become more environmentally conscious and more energy efficient.
No, they're not using all that hot air generated by the Town Board, Zoning Board, and the Office of Misinformation [if they could harness that, we could light the entire town through the next millenium]. And, face it, the efforts don't really amount to all that much in the global scheme of things, but solar panels on the roof of Hempstead Town Hall, electric cars instead of gas-guzzlers, and other measures championed by Supervisor Murray, do, indeed, signal an auspicious start.
Granted, solar energy lighting the Supervisor's office and an adjoining conference room won't nearly reduce the carbon footprint created by the Covanta plume that hovers above Nassau County's tallest structure, nor will a fleet of electric cars displace the emissions from dozens of SUVs idling by as they shuttle Supervisors of Town of Hempstead Sanitary District 6 to and fro, but every little bit helps.
Whether its "green" houses, "green" schools, or "green" businesses, each small step taken to reduce carbon emissions, our reliance on fossil fuels, and the impact of global warming, is a giant leap in making Mother Earth a healthier, happier, more liveable and, ultimately, sustainable planet.
The Town of Hempstead and Supervisor Kate Murray are to be commended for making smart energy and a strong environmental policy a top priority for America's largest township, as should Levittown -- home to Supervisor Murray and America's first suburb -- which looks to become the nation's first "green" suburb.
Now, its up to each of us to do our part.
From replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents, to driving less and walking more, it is truly the little things that will make the biggest difference.
- - -
Sun Is Part of the Plan for Greener Hempstead
By MATT MABE
HEMPSTEAD
THE Town of Hempstead deploys park officials in a fleet of electric cars to patrol its beaches and parks. A windmill atop a landfill-turned-recreation area circulates water in a nearby pond. The town is even testing hybrid garbage trucks to reduce their exhaust.
“We want to go entirely green here,” said Kate Murray, the town supervisor.
But the most ambitious of Ms. Murray’s environmental plans sits right above her head: 256 shiny blue panels on the town hall’s roof. They make up a 40-kilowatt photovoltaic — solar energy — system to power her office and a conference room next door.
In January 2006, the town began using solar systems to deliver electricity to some of its buildings, using state subsidies to cover most of the equipment and installation costs. But while town government views itself as a leader in reducing pollution, some experts say solar technology is still largely inefficient and not worth the cost to taxpayers.
A recent audit by the state comptroller’s office commended Hempstead for putting the system in place. It said the town should save $419,000 in energy costs over the estimated 50-year life of the panels. Hempstead paid a quarter of the $336,000 price tag, with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority covering the difference.
But Howard C. Hayden, a retired physics professor at the University of Connecticut who has specialized in alternative energy methods, is skeptical about the broader use of solar energy because he says its cost inefficiency does not justify the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for it. “It’s a scam,” said Dr. Hayden, the author of “The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World,” “and the public will be victimized financially and intellectually.”
It will take more than 40 years to pay for the equipment and its installation, the audit report notes. And Hempstead will have to raise its own money to wire further government buildings.
Town officials said, however, that while protecting taxpayers’ pocketbooks is important, they did not undertake the project for cost savings alone. “Our first and foremost goal is to reduce our carbon footprint and keep our planet clean,” said Michael Deery, a town spokesman.
The audit says the system at town hall will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1,250 tons over a half-century — the equivalent of what 220 cars would produce over the same period.
Ms. Murray, who said her commitment to the environment is her highest priority, is buoyed by the audit’s findings. The town has held several seminars on solar energy to explain to residents how it can benefit their homes and businesses and how rebates can help defray the costs.
Peter Ray, 64, who lives in Levittown, attended one of the seminars and was persuaded to buy the technology for his home. He said he installed a $54,000 system, 60 percent of which the Long Island Power Authority and the state subsidized. “I would recommend it to anybody,” said Mr. Ray, who said he expected a return on the investment from saved energy costs in three and a half years.
According to the United States Department of Energy, renewable sources — like water, wind and sun — accounted for only 7 percent of total national energy consumption in 2006. The reason is the cost of making the technology efficient, Dr. Hayden said. (The national average retail price of electricity is about 10.5 cents a kilowatt-hour, while energy from solar cells costs 18 to 40 cents a kilowatt-hour.) “They are trying to be leaders,” he said of Hempstead officials, “but they are going to lead us down a very expensive path.”
Nevertheless, William Reynolds, a spokesman for the state comptroller’s office, said, “We cannot downgrade the importance of being able to reduce emissions produced by burning fossil fuels.”
Whether private citizens choose to switch to solar or not, Ms. Murray is determined for her government to set an example.
“As focused as we have been on efforts to go green, we have been just as aggressive in pursuing the grants to pay for them,” she said. “We’re pretty successful in everything we ask for.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
When it comes to "green" in the Town of Hempstead, most residents conjur up visions of taxpayer dollars maintaining a cadre of patronage positions, and greenbacks lining the pockets of special district commissioners.
And letting the sun shine in hasn't exactly been the motto of a town government that's ministered under one-party rule since the Chicago Cubs last won the World Series.
But its all about "green" -- as in eco-friendly -- and reliance upon the power of the sun, as the Town of Hempstead, leading by example (at least in this instance), does its part to become more environmentally conscious and more energy efficient.
No, they're not using all that hot air generated by the Town Board, Zoning Board, and the Office of Misinformation [if they could harness that, we could light the entire town through the next millenium]. And, face it, the efforts don't really amount to all that much in the global scheme of things, but solar panels on the roof of Hempstead Town Hall, electric cars instead of gas-guzzlers, and other measures championed by Supervisor Murray, do, indeed, signal an auspicious start.
Granted, solar energy lighting the Supervisor's office and an adjoining conference room won't nearly reduce the carbon footprint created by the Covanta plume that hovers above Nassau County's tallest structure, nor will a fleet of electric cars displace the emissions from dozens of SUVs idling by as they shuttle Supervisors of Town of Hempstead Sanitary District 6 to and fro, but every little bit helps.
Whether its "green" houses, "green" schools, or "green" businesses, each small step taken to reduce carbon emissions, our reliance on fossil fuels, and the impact of global warming, is a giant leap in making Mother Earth a healthier, happier, more liveable and, ultimately, sustainable planet.
The Town of Hempstead and Supervisor Kate Murray are to be commended for making smart energy and a strong environmental policy a top priority for America's largest township, as should Levittown -- home to Supervisor Murray and America's first suburb -- which looks to become the nation's first "green" suburb.
Now, its up to each of us to do our part.
From replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents, to driving less and walking more, it is truly the little things that will make the biggest difference.
- - -
Sun Is Part of the Plan for Greener Hempstead
By MATT MABE
HEMPSTEAD
THE Town of Hempstead deploys park officials in a fleet of electric cars to patrol its beaches and parks. A windmill atop a landfill-turned-recreation area circulates water in a nearby pond. The town is even testing hybrid garbage trucks to reduce their exhaust.
“We want to go entirely green here,” said Kate Murray, the town supervisor.
But the most ambitious of Ms. Murray’s environmental plans sits right above her head: 256 shiny blue panels on the town hall’s roof. They make up a 40-kilowatt photovoltaic — solar energy — system to power her office and a conference room next door.
In January 2006, the town began using solar systems to deliver electricity to some of its buildings, using state subsidies to cover most of the equipment and installation costs. But while town government views itself as a leader in reducing pollution, some experts say solar technology is still largely inefficient and not worth the cost to taxpayers.
A recent audit by the state comptroller’s office commended Hempstead for putting the system in place. It said the town should save $419,000 in energy costs over the estimated 50-year life of the panels. Hempstead paid a quarter of the $336,000 price tag, with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority covering the difference.
But Howard C. Hayden, a retired physics professor at the University of Connecticut who has specialized in alternative energy methods, is skeptical about the broader use of solar energy because he says its cost inefficiency does not justify the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for it. “It’s a scam,” said Dr. Hayden, the author of “The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World,” “and the public will be victimized financially and intellectually.”
It will take more than 40 years to pay for the equipment and its installation, the audit report notes. And Hempstead will have to raise its own money to wire further government buildings.
Town officials said, however, that while protecting taxpayers’ pocketbooks is important, they did not undertake the project for cost savings alone. “Our first and foremost goal is to reduce our carbon footprint and keep our planet clean,” said Michael Deery, a town spokesman.
The audit says the system at town hall will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1,250 tons over a half-century — the equivalent of what 220 cars would produce over the same period.
Ms. Murray, who said her commitment to the environment is her highest priority, is buoyed by the audit’s findings. The town has held several seminars on solar energy to explain to residents how it can benefit their homes and businesses and how rebates can help defray the costs.
Peter Ray, 64, who lives in Levittown, attended one of the seminars and was persuaded to buy the technology for his home. He said he installed a $54,000 system, 60 percent of which the Long Island Power Authority and the state subsidized. “I would recommend it to anybody,” said Mr. Ray, who said he expected a return on the investment from saved energy costs in three and a half years.
According to the United States Department of Energy, renewable sources — like water, wind and sun — accounted for only 7 percent of total national energy consumption in 2006. The reason is the cost of making the technology efficient, Dr. Hayden said. (The national average retail price of electricity is about 10.5 cents a kilowatt-hour, while energy from solar cells costs 18 to 40 cents a kilowatt-hour.) “They are trying to be leaders,” he said of Hempstead officials, “but they are going to lead us down a very expensive path.”
Nevertheless, William Reynolds, a spokesman for the state comptroller’s office, said, “We cannot downgrade the importance of being able to reduce emissions produced by burning fossil fuels.”
Whether private citizens choose to switch to solar or not, Ms. Murray is determined for her government to set an example.
“As focused as we have been on efforts to go green, we have been just as aggressive in pursuing the grants to pay for them,” she said. “We’re pretty successful in everything we ask for.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
The Late Great Belmont Un-Fair
No Fair This Year As Community Halts Madness At The Gate
The Belmont Fair -- a vestige of more bucolic times at Belmont Park in Elmont is, alas, no more. Well, at least for this year.
After many years of unrest and unruliness [must be those agitators and interlopers brought in from Levittown] the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, at the request of the Elmont community, and with the support of the 5th Precinct of the Nassau County Police Department, wisely pulled the plug on this year's side show.
Over the years, the Belmont Fair, once the venue of family fun and frolic, had been turned over to the hoodlums and hooligans, a blemish upon the park and the Elmont community, and a danger to those who attended the fair, not to pick a pocket or to be the victim of an assault, but rather, as a respite from that real world just outside the park and along the Turnpike, where, without admission charge -- and sans cotton candy -- you can have your pocket picked and be mugged at your leisure.
Its a shame that the Belmont Fair had to be axed, perhaps to become just a memory of a kinder, gentler time -- a time when Belmont Park was a green oasis, and not a used car lot cum asphalt jungle.
If the Elmont community has its say, better days lie ahead for historic Belmont Park, home of the last leg of the Triple Crown, and the once illustrious Belmont Fair.
For now, however, the midway has gone dark, and there will be no racing today.
- - -
Community opposition closes Belmont Park fair
BY WILLIAM MURPHY
william.murphy@newsday.com
The 100-foot-tall Giant Wheel and other major attractions that bring in tens of thousands of people sat idle at Belmont Park on Friday after police and community opposition forced the cancellation of the monthlong Belmont Fair in Elmont.
The fair was to have begun Thursday and run on four-day weekends through April 25.The long-running annual fair has had its share of problems with rowdy crowds. It was canceled in 2006 after complaints about unruly crowds, and the rowdiness erupted again last year when the fair resumed, Nassau County Police Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey said.
Although the fair operator was supposed to provide security last year inside Belmont Park, the 35 employees designated for security duties also were ride operators, Mulvey said. "There was, in effect, no security," he said.
"There were other problems. They were supposed to close at 11 p.m., but they'd drag their feet until midnight, 12:30," he said. He said he did not have all the specifics on the event for last year, but there was an arrest for weapons possession and trouble with crowd control.
In 2005, two officers from the Fifth Precinct were hospitalized after a melee broke out while they were trying to restore order, he said.
Bracing for possible trouble this year, Mulvey said he assigned four uniformed officers, four undercover officers and two mounted officers on overtime Thursday night. Mulvey made the assignments even though the county is not technically responsible for security within Belmont Park, which is run by the New York Racing Association.
A spokesman for the association, John Lee, declined to say how much revenue NYRA expected to get from the fair operator, Reithoffer Shows. The company did not return several messages left at its offices in Gibsonton, Fla. The voice mail for the main telephone line was full and not accepting messages.
The fair did not open as scheduled Thursday because the Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead refused on Wednesday to issue a permit requested by NYRA, Mulvey and the board secretary, Joseph Pellegrini, said. Mulvey said the commanding officer of the Fifth Precinct, Insp. Frank Kirby, cited the past troubles when he testified before the board and asked that the permit not be granted.
Pat Nicolosi, president of the Elmont East Civic Association, said the racing association has been a bad neighbor for years. Nicolosi said he told association officials at a meeting this week: "You're supposed to be the new NYRA, but you're up to your old tricks."Lee said NYRA was working to improve relations with the community.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
- - -
In related news: Senator Dean Skelos Seeks Aid For Belmont's Neighbors
The Belmont Fair -- a vestige of more bucolic times at Belmont Park in Elmont is, alas, no more. Well, at least for this year.
After many years of unrest and unruliness [must be those agitators and interlopers brought in from Levittown] the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, at the request of the Elmont community, and with the support of the 5th Precinct of the Nassau County Police Department, wisely pulled the plug on this year's side show.
Over the years, the Belmont Fair, once the venue of family fun and frolic, had been turned over to the hoodlums and hooligans, a blemish upon the park and the Elmont community, and a danger to those who attended the fair, not to pick a pocket or to be the victim of an assault, but rather, as a respite from that real world just outside the park and along the Turnpike, where, without admission charge -- and sans cotton candy -- you can have your pocket picked and be mugged at your leisure.
Its a shame that the Belmont Fair had to be axed, perhaps to become just a memory of a kinder, gentler time -- a time when Belmont Park was a green oasis, and not a used car lot cum asphalt jungle.
If the Elmont community has its say, better days lie ahead for historic Belmont Park, home of the last leg of the Triple Crown, and the once illustrious Belmont Fair.
For now, however, the midway has gone dark, and there will be no racing today.
- - -
Community opposition closes Belmont Park fair
BY WILLIAM MURPHY
william.murphy@newsday.com
The 100-foot-tall Giant Wheel and other major attractions that bring in tens of thousands of people sat idle at Belmont Park on Friday after police and community opposition forced the cancellation of the monthlong Belmont Fair in Elmont.
The fair was to have begun Thursday and run on four-day weekends through April 25.The long-running annual fair has had its share of problems with rowdy crowds. It was canceled in 2006 after complaints about unruly crowds, and the rowdiness erupted again last year when the fair resumed, Nassau County Police Commissioner Lawrence Mulvey said.
Although the fair operator was supposed to provide security last year inside Belmont Park, the 35 employees designated for security duties also were ride operators, Mulvey said. "There was, in effect, no security," he said.
"There were other problems. They were supposed to close at 11 p.m., but they'd drag their feet until midnight, 12:30," he said. He said he did not have all the specifics on the event for last year, but there was an arrest for weapons possession and trouble with crowd control.
In 2005, two officers from the Fifth Precinct were hospitalized after a melee broke out while they were trying to restore order, he said.
Bracing for possible trouble this year, Mulvey said he assigned four uniformed officers, four undercover officers and two mounted officers on overtime Thursday night. Mulvey made the assignments even though the county is not technically responsible for security within Belmont Park, which is run by the New York Racing Association.
A spokesman for the association, John Lee, declined to say how much revenue NYRA expected to get from the fair operator, Reithoffer Shows. The company did not return several messages left at its offices in Gibsonton, Fla. The voice mail for the main telephone line was full and not accepting messages.
The fair did not open as scheduled Thursday because the Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead refused on Wednesday to issue a permit requested by NYRA, Mulvey and the board secretary, Joseph Pellegrini, said. Mulvey said the commanding officer of the Fifth Precinct, Insp. Frank Kirby, cited the past troubles when he testified before the board and asked that the permit not be granted.
Pat Nicolosi, president of the Elmont East Civic Association, said the racing association has been a bad neighbor for years. Nicolosi said he told association officials at a meeting this week: "You're supposed to be the new NYRA, but you're up to your old tricks."Lee said NYRA was working to improve relations with the community.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
- - -
In related news: Senator Dean Skelos Seeks Aid For Belmont's Neighbors
Friday, April 04, 2008
News From The NYS Commission On Property Tax Relief
Hot Off The Presses From Buffalo
Colleagues and Interested Parties,
On April 2, the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief held its sixth meeting in Buffalo. All Commission Members and Advisors were present, as were approximately 60 audience members.
Two remaining meetings are planned prior to the May 22nd release of the Commission's Preliminary Report:
*April 10, 1 p.m at the Syracuse City Hall
*April 23 in Albany (location and time tbd)
Commission staff is in the process of expanding the information and materials available from our website. Please check back often for testimonies from the meetings, white papers and additional documentation - www.cptr.state.ny.us.
The Commission will be providing periodic updates on meetings, testimony, news, our website and other related information via this email list. If you would prefer not to be included on this list, you can remove yourself by visiting http://www.cptr.state.ny.us/nysCPTR_joinEmail.html.
Thank you for your interest in the work of the Commission.
John C. Reid
Executive Director, New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief
80 South Swan St, 29th Floor
Albany, New York 12210
518-486-4238
- - -
Meeting Summary
Sixth Commission Meeting
April 2, 2008 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Buffalo
The Sixth Meeting of the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief was held at the new Health Now/Blue Cross/Blue Shield facility in downtown Buffalo. All Commission Members and Advisors were present, as were approximately 60 audience members.
Commission Members heard from sixteen speakers today, most of who represented the school and local government communities.
Chairman Tom Suozzi opened the meeting by discussing the charges given to the Commission to address high property taxes statewide. Three of New York’s southern suburban counties – Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk - are among the highest taxed (per household) counties in the nation. Several of New York’s upstate counties (Wayne, Niagara, Monroe and Erie at the top of the list) have the highest tax rates in the nation.
Speaking on behalf of Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, Janet Penksa (Commissioner of Administration, Finance, Policy and Urban Affairs) described the importance and variability of State Aid, the impact of mandates on city finances and the need for New York State to work with the city to develop additional revenue streams. (Similar to Rochester, where the most recent Commission meeting was held, Buffalo is one of the “Big Five” City School Districts in which education is funded through the city budget.)
Lynn Marinelli, Chair of the Erie County Legislature, also spoke of the need to address expenses and mandates. She asked that the State “impose a moratorium on unfunded mandates and cease and desist all cost shifts.” Ms. Marinelli stressed the effects that mandated costs have on property taxes and economic development.
Niagara County Legislator Andrea McNulty spoke of Medicaid as the single largest cost that counties bear, comprising two-thirds of the county property tax burden in Niagara. She also spoke of the need for schools to pursue cost savings through consolidation and service sharing opportunities.
Andrew Rudnick, President and CEO of the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, presenting on behalf of the business community, spoke of the disincentives that high property taxes represent for both businesses and individuals to stay and locate in New York State. He spoke in favor of a property tax cap and other relief measures.
Donald Ogilvie, Superintendent of Erie 1 BOCES, advocated for school districts to pursue additional efficiency and effectiveness measures. As one example, he spoke of the school and municipal energy co-operative that is providing low cost energy for many of the school districts and municipalities within Erie, Chautauqua and St. Lawrence counties. He suggested that efficiency measures and other cost and spending reforms be pursued prior to a tax cap being enacted.
Robert Bennett, Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents, who wasn't originally scheduled to testify (and testified last) said that the Board of Regents had contracted to do a study (underway now) regarding school district structure. He specifically noted that the study does not assume that "the current structure is the right structure." He went on to provide an extensive list of school district and administrative functions where regionalism/shared services might be appropriate. He ended with a strong pro-regional message, asking the question, "What if we had 62 school districts with more county involvement?"
Additional speakers (roughly in order of testimony) included:
David Smaczniak, Member, West Seneca School Board
Terry Keeley, Supervisor, Town of Portville
Joe Tette, Business Administrator, Wilson Central School District
Ramona Popowich, President, Williamsville School Board
Ernest Cowel, Watchdogs of the Southern Tier
James Anderson, Regional Board Chair, Citizens Action of Western New York
Satish Mohan, Supervisor, Town of Amherst
Maria White, Majority Leader, Erie County Legislature
Roger Cook, Issues Committee, Working Families Party of New York – Western NY Chapter
Ellen Kennedy, Board President, Citizens Action of New York
Prior to the May 22nd release of its Preliminary Report, the Commission will meet in Syracuse (April 10) and Albany (April 23). Additionally, roundtables with Commission staff continue to be held statewide.
Colleagues and Interested Parties,
On April 2, the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief held its sixth meeting in Buffalo. All Commission Members and Advisors were present, as were approximately 60 audience members.
Two remaining meetings are planned prior to the May 22nd release of the Commission's Preliminary Report:
*April 10, 1 p.m at the Syracuse City Hall
*April 23 in Albany (location and time tbd)
Commission staff is in the process of expanding the information and materials available from our website. Please check back often for testimonies from the meetings, white papers and additional documentation - www.cptr.state.ny.us.
The Commission will be providing periodic updates on meetings, testimony, news, our website and other related information via this email list. If you would prefer not to be included on this list, you can remove yourself by visiting http://www.cptr.state.ny.us/nysCPTR_joinEmail.html.
Thank you for your interest in the work of the Commission.
John C. Reid
Executive Director, New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief
80 South Swan St, 29th Floor
Albany, New York 12210
518-486-4238
- - -
Meeting Summary
Sixth Commission Meeting
April 2, 2008 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Buffalo
The Sixth Meeting of the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief was held at the new Health Now/Blue Cross/Blue Shield facility in downtown Buffalo. All Commission Members and Advisors were present, as were approximately 60 audience members.
Commission Members heard from sixteen speakers today, most of who represented the school and local government communities.
Chairman Tom Suozzi opened the meeting by discussing the charges given to the Commission to address high property taxes statewide. Three of New York’s southern suburban counties – Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk - are among the highest taxed (per household) counties in the nation. Several of New York’s upstate counties (Wayne, Niagara, Monroe and Erie at the top of the list) have the highest tax rates in the nation.
Speaking on behalf of Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, Janet Penksa (Commissioner of Administration, Finance, Policy and Urban Affairs) described the importance and variability of State Aid, the impact of mandates on city finances and the need for New York State to work with the city to develop additional revenue streams. (Similar to Rochester, where the most recent Commission meeting was held, Buffalo is one of the “Big Five” City School Districts in which education is funded through the city budget.)
Lynn Marinelli, Chair of the Erie County Legislature, also spoke of the need to address expenses and mandates. She asked that the State “impose a moratorium on unfunded mandates and cease and desist all cost shifts.” Ms. Marinelli stressed the effects that mandated costs have on property taxes and economic development.
Niagara County Legislator Andrea McNulty spoke of Medicaid as the single largest cost that counties bear, comprising two-thirds of the county property tax burden in Niagara. She also spoke of the need for schools to pursue cost savings through consolidation and service sharing opportunities.
Andrew Rudnick, President and CEO of the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, presenting on behalf of the business community, spoke of the disincentives that high property taxes represent for both businesses and individuals to stay and locate in New York State. He spoke in favor of a property tax cap and other relief measures.
Donald Ogilvie, Superintendent of Erie 1 BOCES, advocated for school districts to pursue additional efficiency and effectiveness measures. As one example, he spoke of the school and municipal energy co-operative that is providing low cost energy for many of the school districts and municipalities within Erie, Chautauqua and St. Lawrence counties. He suggested that efficiency measures and other cost and spending reforms be pursued prior to a tax cap being enacted.
Robert Bennett, Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents, who wasn't originally scheduled to testify (and testified last) said that the Board of Regents had contracted to do a study (underway now) regarding school district structure. He specifically noted that the study does not assume that "the current structure is the right structure." He went on to provide an extensive list of school district and administrative functions where regionalism/shared services might be appropriate. He ended with a strong pro-regional message, asking the question, "What if we had 62 school districts with more county involvement?"
Additional speakers (roughly in order of testimony) included:
David Smaczniak, Member, West Seneca School Board
Terry Keeley, Supervisor, Town of Portville
Joe Tette, Business Administrator, Wilson Central School District
Ramona Popowich, President, Williamsville School Board
Ernest Cowel, Watchdogs of the Southern Tier
James Anderson, Regional Board Chair, Citizens Action of Western New York
Satish Mohan, Supervisor, Town of Amherst
Maria White, Majority Leader, Erie County Legislature
Roger Cook, Issues Committee, Working Families Party of New York – Western NY Chapter
Ellen Kennedy, Board President, Citizens Action of New York
Prior to the May 22nd release of its Preliminary Report, the Commission will meet in Syracuse (April 10) and Albany (April 23). Additionally, roundtables with Commission staff continue to be held statewide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)