1 Bedroom, Basement View. No Mexicans Need Apply.

Plan To Legalize Accessory Apartments For Legal Residents

Illegal accessory apartments in single family homes have long been a problem confronting the Towns and villages of Long Island. Dangerous conditions, presenting hazards to life and limb; overcrowding of schools, without additional property tax revenues; burdening of local services, such as sanitation, fire, and water, with no corresponding financial contribution from the renters. And the list of negatives goes on, from overcrowded streets teeming with cars to basement apartments -- below grade and under code -- without necessary access or egress.

Talk abounds over the possibility of legalizing accessory apartments, particularly in light of the extreme shortage of affordable housing options on Long Island.

In the Town of East Hampton, the prospect of creating legal accessory apartments in single-family houses adds a new twist: Legal apartments, yes, but not for illegal aliens. [SEE Newsday, Housing Plan Excludes Illegals.]

The East Hampton plan calls for the legalization of some 100 accessory apartments, each renting for approximately $900 to $1,000 per month. The catch: In order to rent, you must be documented!

Imagine the implementation of such a plan in, say, the Town of Hempstead, where officials can barely enforce existing ordinances governing illegal apartments (in Elmont, there are reported to be more than 3500 single-family homes that boast illegal accessory apartments, or multiples thereof, including basement or cellar units). "The Town can't even enforce the law against homeowners who rent out illegal basement apartments," said a prominent Elmont civic leader. "Now you want them to flush out illegal aliens?"

Giving legitimacy to illegal apartments -- even under limited circumstances, and with close scrutiny by local officials -- poses serious issues as to safety, health, code enforcement, and development of a method and a means for a revenue flow through which renters may be tapped to help defray the ever-escalating costs of local services. Now, local government -- and, by proxy, the homeowner -- is asked to take on the job of INS (now USCIS).

Enough is enough, we say. All of these illegals, crossing into the U.S. at will. "GO BACK TO CANADA," we say. Let's build that wall along our borders (and, while we're at it, construct rental apartments within it). Let's keep the illegals out of our country, out of our communities, and, most certainly, out of our heretofore single-family homes. After all, those cramped, airless, dark and damp illegal basement apartments should be reserved for those huddled masses of Americans yearning to rent on Long Island!

The real question, we suppose, is what impact, if any, would the legalization of accessory apartments -- with anticipated proliferation -- have upon the affordable housing scenario, the tax burden borne by the owners of single-family owned and occupied houses, and the quality of life in suburbia?

If history is a guide, the answer is, "not much," and, clearly, "not for the better!"
- - -
Click HERE to read a 1989 New York Times article, Suburbia is Subdividing The Single-Family House. [Subheading for 2006: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same!]

Click HERE to read 1989 New York Times article, Resticting Illegal Apartments.[The Town of Babylon legalized many accessory apartments, and here we are, some 17 years later, and the Town needs a Community Court just to keep up with purported violations, and the crisis in affordable housing is farther from resolution than ever.]

Take The Community Alliance e-Poll!

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

Yet Another Front Opens In War Against Illegal Apartments

The New York Times reports on new initiative in Farmingdale to tackle same old problem: Illegal Accessory Apartments

Village Moves to Deter Illegal Housing

By LINDA SASLOW

The signs that a house was being used by more than one family were clear to officials of the Village of Farmingdale: more than one doorbell, more than one electric or water meter, more than one mailbox or welcome mat. Now those signs mean the village can pursue the landlords for illegal occupancy.

Officials in Farmingdale estimated that their village of 8,500 was home to more than 100 illegally occupied houses, and they decided to clamp down. Last month, the trustees passed an illegal occupancy law that carries fines of up to $3,500 for landlords who disregard the village zoning code.

The law identified characteristics, like multiple doorbells or utility meters, that would allow officials to presume that a home was occupied by more than one family. If those characteristics are found, it is now the owner’s responsibility to explain why it looks as if more than one family lives there.

“This stiff penalty is necessary in order to take the profit out of the illegal use of the property,” said the village administrator, Dave Smollett. “Fines of a few hundred dollars didn’t deter the violators who have been draining the village with renters who are using our community services without paying property or school taxes.”

The Farmingdale law was modeled after a similar “presumption code” in Lynbrook that went into effect in 2004. Mike Ryder, the superintendent of buildings in Lynbrook, said that 45 cases had been prosecuted under the law, resulting in fines and changes by landlords to make houses comply with the village code.

The problem of illegal housing is not unique to these two small villages; it is a problem across Long Island, which has a shortage of affordable rental units. There are no accurate figures for the number of illegal apartments, but it has been estimated at tens of thousands.

Illegal occupancy falls into two main categories: accessory apartments, in which owners rent out part of their home to generate extra income, and overcrowded rentals, where a landlord packs many tenants — often illegal immigrants — into small spaces with unsafe conditions in what was designed as a single-family home.

Enforcement of illegal housing is up to individual towns and villages. Across the Island, efforts to restrict illegal living arrangements have included raids on homes, like those in Farmingville last summer, and new codes that forbid more than two or three unrelated people to live in the same house.

In the Town of Huntington, 10,000 families live in illegal apartments, said Susan Lagville, the executive director of Housing Help, a housing counseling agency.

Although Huntington has put a program in place to help homeowners comply with legal requirements for accessory apartments, it is often an expensive process, Ms. Lagville said.

“To create legal accessory apartments in some of the town’s older homes, owners have to make changes in their entire house to bring it up to date with all codes,” she said.

In Nassau County, former District Attorney Denis Dillon deemed the problem of illegal housing critical enough to commission a grand jury to conduct a study on the issue. Its report has not yet been released.

And Suffolk County recently enacted a measure to provide seed money to municipalities that agreed to adopt stricter codes on illegal housing, similar to those in Farmingdale and Lynbrook. The Town of Islip and the Villages of Patchogue and Brightwaters have inquired about adopting such a measure, said Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive.

The county measure “allows the burden to be shifted from the town to the landlord where there are obvious curbside indications of multifamily use,” Mr. Levy said.

“Since it’s often difficult for a municipality to get a search warrant, the policy relies on outside indicators without being necessary to get inside the premises,” he said. “Then it is up to the landlord to prove that he is in compliance with the law. We’re not saying that there shouldn’t be accessory apartments — just that they should be legal, with proper maintenance and repairs.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
- - -
The problem -- illegal accessory apartments in single-family homes -- has been with us for decades. Compounded by escalating housing costs, fewer housing starts, little in the way of "affordable" housing, and a major influx of new residents to Long Island (many of whom are themselves illegal), the crisis has reached epidemic proportions, threatening not only basic community services such as fire, water, sanitation and schools, but the very property tax base that is our island's lifeline.

Various solutions put into play -- including the enactment of local laws making it easier for municipalities to enforce the code and imposing stiffer penalties -- have done little to stem the tide.

Ordinances, similar to the law adopted in the Village of Farmingdale, have been on the books for some time in places like the villages of Lynbrook and New Hyde Park, and have become part of broader programs -- as in the Towns of Huntington and North Hempstead -- to both eradicate illegal housing and increase the availability of legal, affordable housing.

The impact of such Ordinances has been nominal, at best.

The Town of Hempstead, which probably has more illegal apartments per capita than anywhere on Long Island, upped the ante on fines and penalties, and gave Building Inspectors additional weapons to add to their arsenal, more than a year ago. Still, illegal accessory apartments -- many in basements and cellars -- continue to proliferate virtually at will, often posing a danger to their occupants, and a burden to the neighboring community and its taxpayers.

There has even been an attempt, ongoing as far as we know, to reclassify single family homes known to harbor illegal accessory apartments as commercial properties for property tax assessment purposes. While a good idea, in theory, the plan has yielded little result in practice, and the invasion of illegal rental apartments continues.

Clearly, whatever it is that our towns and villages are doing (or not doing) -- leaving aside very real issues of enforcement procedures and practices, the shortcomings of the courts, and the indifference of the general population -- the battle to stem the tide of illegal accessory apartments has officials and homeowners alike bogged down in the bunkers.

So what are our options? Continue to beef up local laws, imposing hefty fines, and hope against hope that illegal rentals will simply go away? Even all-out assaults have failed dismally in terms of remediation.

What is necessary is a comprehensive affordable housing plan for our Long Island, one that takes into consideration the full spectrum of issues that manifest themselves in the illegal apartment dilemma.

This includes, necessarily, if far from the suburban ideal, the legalization of such accessory apartments that meet or exceed local code provisions, and whose owners and/or occupants contribute, in real dollars, to the local tax burden; the elimination, through vigorous enforcement and the imposition of both civil and criminal penalties, of cellar apartments, which are illegal under almost every town/village code; the creation of "affordable" housing units -- including rental -- located in or in close proximity to the "downtown" business areas of towns, villages and hamlets (both incorporated and unincorporated), this as part and parcel of an overall, comprehensive strategic plan to revitalize these areas, many of which are now economically depressed and on the verge of becoming Long Island's next brownfields.

The ideas floating about in the perilous waters that surround the illegal rental/affordable housing debate are many and varied. Too often, these waters are muddied by side bars and nonsequitors that have little if anything to do with either the problem or the solution.

Now is the time to bring at least some of these ideas -- more than a handful of which have validity -- to the shore.

The Community Alliance calls upon community leaders and elected officials both to put practical, workable, and all-embracing solutions to the illegal rental/affordable housing crisis on the table.

Today is the time to take action. There simply is no tomorrow for any of us here on our Long Island!

POINT~COUNTERPOINT: On Legalizing Basement Apartments

Should Illegal Accessory Apartments Come Out Of The Cellar?

From the Herald Community Newspapers:

How the county exec can beat high property taxes
By Scott Brinton

As it turns out, we might have a new Nassau County executive. Last Friday, Republican challenger Ed Mangano led incumbent Democrat Tom Suozzi by nearly 500 votes. Paper ballots were yet to be counted, but according to election officials, Republicans ballots outnumbered Democratic ones. Translation: Suozzi might be out of a job. We’ll see in a couple of weeks, after the counting is complete.

Days after the election, Suozzi wrote an opinion piece in Newsday titled “Let the county executive run the schools.” His position was this: People are mad as hell about property taxes, and they voted against him to send a message to government. They want their property-tax increases stopped.

In Nassau County, the biggest portion of our property-tax bills goes to the schools — roughly 66 percent. Suozzi proposed — as he has for some time — that the schools be put under the county executive’s control. This way, he said, the county’s 58 school districts would unite under one system, eliminating 57 school superintendents. It would be similar, he said, to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s takeover of New York City schools.

Such talk, to my mind, was in part what got Suozzi in trouble in this election. People might rant and rave against high taxes, but for the most part, residents are satisfied with the quality of education our children are receiving. Suozzi himself often boasts that Nassau has among the best school districts in the country, with 10 of the nation’s Top 100 high schools. Generally speaking, county students test well above state averages, dropout rates are low and college acceptance rates are high. So why would we want to consolidate districts that are working well and replace them with an unknown system that could significantly alter the way in which our children are educated?

Under Suozzi’s proposed single-district system, the county could reduce funding to the schools whenever it ran out of money, which seems to be every eight years, resulting in teacher layoffs and reduced services. Particularly vulnerable to the budget ax would be elementary-school “specials,” such as computers and foreign languages, which are not state-mandated but are now offered in any number of districts.

Would we really want to live under a system in which, year in, year out, full-day kindergarten could be on the chopping block, or rationed only to underperforming schools? Would we really want to live under a system in which a county executive could fill his education department with patronage jobs held by appointees without degrees or backgrounds in teaching? I don’t think so.

Even amid economic crises, most Long Island school districts have traditionally passed their budgets. People are willing to support the schools because quality school districts support higher property values, and most people’s “wealth” is tied up in their home equity. Reduce people’s property values and that wealth evaporates, so most folks are protective of their schools — and their local control of them.

New York City was different. There the schools were a disaster. Martial law was needed.

Are there pockets of failure here? Absolutely. Should the state do more to prop up the weaker districts? Absolutely. Should we simply accept high property taxes? No. Suozzi has proposed — and Mangano has conceded — that districts should consolidate “backroom” services — legal, accounting and such. I agree. The potential savings are huge.

At the same time, the next county executive should look at imaginative ways to help homeowners afford their property taxes. For several years I have proposed that the county work with the towns to permit homeowners to legalize illegal basement apartments. If residents could rent out part of their homes, they would be able to better afford their taxes — legally — and people would be better able to move from community to community, so we’d probably have less of the self-segregation by income bracket and race that we’ve seen on Long Island since Levittown was built in 1947.

For sure, Nassau needs more rental properties. Only 18.6 percent of the county’s homes are rental units, according to the Long Island Association. Compare that with wealthy Westchester, where 36 percent are rentals.

Many middle-age residents with children need higher incomes to afford their property taxes, but are afraid to rent out their basements for fear of getting in trouble with the law. Young people need affordable housing, but too often can’t find any, so they move elsewhere. To me, so-called “accessory” apartments — that is, apartments within single-family homes — seem like a perfect match. I’ve asked Suozzi about the idea a number of times over the years. No response.

Meanwhile, the Town of Riverhead in Suffolk County recently legalized accessory apartments, so long as they conform to local building codes. “Beyond addressing the lack of cheaper housing, the accessory apartments ... are intended to help elderly and low-income homeowners meet their monthly costs,” Phil Cardinale, the Riverhead town supervisor, told The New York Times in 2008.

Hmmm. A system that allows people to keep local control of their schools and helps them afford their property taxes. Brilliant, simply brilliant. The next county executive, whoever he is, would be wise to at least consider it.

Scott Brinton is senior editor of the Bellmore and Merrick Heralds and an adjunct professor at the Hofstra University Graduate Journalism Program. Comments? SBrinton@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 203.
- - -
Legalizing Basement Apartments Not A “Perfect Match”

We all agree that property taxes in Nassau County are too high, and that the school portion, accounting for nearly 70% of that tax, is placing an undue, if not unbearable burden upon homeowners.

To ease that burden, and perhaps, to actually lower the property tax, a consolidation of "backroom" operations -- the administrative side of running a school district -- is most certainly in order. Whether or not to consolidate school districts under the control of the County Executive, as Tom Suozzi has suggested, is less clear (but surely worthy of consideration and debate), not so much as a matter of cost-savings (at $200,000+ a pop for Superintendents, and six-figures for a host of deputies and assistants, the savings over Nassau's 56 school districts would likely be substantial), but as to the possible impact on the quality of education, which is disparate from district to district.

As to legalizing illegal basement apartments in single-family homes, as Scott Brinton proposes -- not as a way to lower those unreasonably high property taxes, but rather, as a means to enable homeowners to pay them -- let's think this one through.

To begin with, basement apartments, although prolific, are illegal in every town on Long Island, and for good reason. Access and egress are often limited, making such apartments fire traps. Ventilation is often lacking, giving rise to problems ranging from increased incidence of asthma (especially among children), to the increased risk of carbon monoxide poisoning from furnaces and water heaters, typically located in the basement.

Basement apartments are often not up to code, with inadequate wiring, plumbing, and substandard construction, none of which is likely to improve through their legalization, particularly in towns where building departments lack either the will or the means to inspect, let alone, where appropriate, to summons and enforce.

Basement apartments have a tangible, negative impact on the tax base. Renters do not pay property taxes, and yet, the occupants of such apartments use essential services -- schools, water, sanitation, police, fire -- that must still be paid for, presumably by homeowners, through, you guessed it, increased property taxes.

If we are to legalize basement apartments, who will monitor that they are up to code and fit for habitation? What impact would such legalization have upon the homeowner/landord's assessment? [Surely, the assessment would rise, resulting in still higher property taxes.] Would fees for permits, use and occupancy, tantamount to a tax on homeowners who maintain accessory apartments, offset any income derived from the now legal apartment, defeating the incentive to legalize? [If homeowners face a tax increase, or other fees, to legalize, why would they not continue to simply fly under the radar?]

And what of the poor homeowner who chooses not to rent out his basement, cellar, or attic, instead maintaining a traditional single-family home rather than a boarding house? Is he to be penalized by still higher taxes, paying a premium because every other house on the block is now a multi-family dwelling, whose occupants (save the homeowner/landlord) pay no tax at all?

Yes, we need more rental units and affordable housing on Long Island. Yes, there is a place for legalized accessory apartments, such as will accommodate extended families. Yes, our property taxes are out of control, begging for a rational, pragmatic way to lower them, not for a dubious -- if inherently dangerous -- way to boost homeowners' income as a means to pay them.

Seth D. Bykofsky,
West Hempstead, New York

The writer is a past president of the West Hempstead Civic Association, and a co-founder of The Community Alliance, a quality of life watchdog group.

Fire In The Belly Of The Beast

Students At Risk In Illegal Basement Apartments

Illegal accessory apartments. Long a scourge in towns and hamlets across our island. A clear and present danger to their occupants. An onerous tax burden to law-abiding homeowners. A chronic problem for our schools. A major dtractor from our suburban quality of life. The raison d'etre for establishing The Community Alliance.

The battle to eradicate illegal rental apartments in single family homes, or at least to stem the tide of proliferation throughout Long Island's townships, waxes and wanes with public sentiment, and the pressures of other issues that crowd residents' plates.

We're up in arms, flailing away at elected officials, and then, just as suddenly, when the immediate furor of the front page news of twenty beds in a basement apartment or a family trapped below grade in a fire with no means of egress fades, the uproar subsides, and we go back into hibernation. [Much as we do, come to think of it, after every election cycle.]

The response from officialdom, be it to make it easier to identify and summons illegal accessory apartments -- codifying the "indicia", such as multiple utility meters or a half dozen mailboxes and door bells, and legislating "nail & mail" service upon errant homeowners -- has done little to hold back the influx of unlawful rentals, basement apartments being the norm (particularly in a bad economy) rather than an aberration.

The problem, as we've intimated all along, is multifaceted.

1. Inadequate enforcement. No law on the books will make a difference if it is overlooked, or only enforced by town building departments after the fact, as when a fire below brings word of an underground dwelling place to the surface.

2. Too few building inspectors. An excuse, rather than a reason. With all the people on payroll at the Town, surely there should not be a personnel issue.

3. Lack of affordable housing, particularly in the rental market. Single-family homes will barely make a dent in the dearth of affordable residences needed to house those who now seek refuge -- or an inexpensive roof overhead (typically not up to code) -- on Long Island. Multiple dwelling units, in and around "downtown," are critical, as is the need to increase density and, in some instances, go vertical.

4. A "that's just the way it is" attitude among residents. Indifference. Apathy. "There's nothing we can do," are the thorns in the side of progress, and certainly, a major roadblock to remedying the illegal accessory apartment crisis. A constant, pounding force exerted upon our elected representatives to tackle this pressing concern once and for all -- with more than just lip service or the occasional summons -- is required. The once-in-a-blue-moon moan, or the here-and-again din will simply not move the mountain.

And it's not just college students who are living in often substandard illegal rentals. It's our young workforce, mom, dad and the kids, and seniors forced from their homes by increasing taxes and diminshing incomes.

Long Islanders need to wake up to the fact that "nuisances" such as illegal accessory apartments are not only the fodder for more cars on our residential streets, more trash at the curb, over usage of our water supply, and too many kids in the classroom. Illegal accessory apartments are as much a part and parcel of the property tax dilemma as are school budgets, special districts, and too many governmental hands in our pockets.

Add to this the risk to both life and property, and illegal rentals are, indeed, the recipe for disaster.
- - -
From Newsday:

Hofstra students escape blaze in Uniondale house
by EDEN LAIKIN AND LAURA RIVERA / eden.laikin@newsday.com, laura.rivera@newsday.com

A fire in a Uniondale house occupied by several Hofstra University students prompted the Town of Hempstead to issue three summonses to the landlord for violations involving illegal use of a single-family house.

No one was hurt in Tuesday's fire, which was started by an unattended candle in the basement, a Uniondale fire official said.

But the blaze illuminated what fire officials and neighborhood residents call an ongoing problem: the influx of illegal student rentals in the area.

Hempstead building officials issued the court appearance tickets to Francisco Iannucci, who owns the Meadowbrook Road home, for code violations including creating separate living quarters with locks on bedroom doors and allowing tenants to sleep in the basement.

Iannucci could not be reached for comment.

Uniondale Assistant Fire Chief Howard Long said department members arrived shortly after the 8:40 a.m. call to find "a lot of smoke" in the basement and a "working fire about to take off."
He said one tenant living in the basement said she had left a lit candle on a table while she took a shower. The flame ignited "some contents on the table," Long said. Six people were exiting the house when firefighters arrived, he said, and three others had left earlier for classes.

Tenant Melissa Feil, 21, said she was roused from sleep in her second-floor room by wailing fire alarms. "We were definitely scared because everyone that lives in the house, we were all sleeping in our own bedrooms, so we didn't really know where it [the fire] was coming from," she said.

She said she rushed down the stairs to the first floor, where the smoke was thickening, then ran out of the house with some of her house mates.

Long said the fire was contained in the basement, but the upper floors were damaged by smoke.

Feil and another occupant, Casey, 22, who declined to give his last name, both seniors at Hofstra, said they've rented the two-story house for a year with three other friends, all seniors at the college. Hofstra officials said they're working to secure emergency housing for students who request it.

Uniondale civic activists say they've been complaining for years about absentee landlords buying houses in the area and renting out rooms to Hofstra students with what they say is little concern for the neighborhood.

"Why are we allowing our community to become a renter's paradise?" asked Melvyn Harris, president of the Nostrand Gardens Civic Association. "If you're going to rent out your house like that, how come you're not paying commercial taxes?"

Harris said he gets complaints from other residents every month about loud parties and underage drinking in the rental houses.

Town Councilwoman Dorothy Goosby said she has forwarded residents' complaints to town building officials about seven other student houses.

Whatever Happened To The "Quality Of Life Initiative?"

Tide May Ebb And Flow, But Quality Of Life Issues Remain Mired In The Backwash

It was in June of 2004, almost three years ago, that the Town of Hempstead, through one of its now famous Murraygrams, announced what it auspiciously called a Quality of Life Initiative. [Do not bother to search for the Quality of Life Initiative on the Town's website. Apparently, it long ago fell off the radar screen.]

Your typical 4-page glossy, complete with photos of the Town Supervisor, hyping what many had hoped would usher in an era of proactive governance on the part of the township.

Hope was, however, short-lived.

While telling community leaders that the mailing was "only the beginning," in the ensuing three years , little has ensued, let alone been accomplished -- even by way of the reactive, band-aid governance we've become accustomed to -- and the issues brought to the fore, through the efforts of The Community Alliance and other civic-minded groups -- have essentially fallen by the wayside.

Issues, be they related to illegal accessory apartments, the special taxing jurisdictions, school taxes, or other matters that impact upon our quality of life and our pocket book, seem to bubble up from the ground in an almost cyclical fashion.

Every few years we get a bug in our bonnet (you were thinking elsewhere, we know :-), and the volcano will blow its top on this crisis or that. The lava flows. Seismic activity reaches its peak. Officialdom monitors, moves slightly off center, offers temporary if but ephemeral relief, and then, no sooner than the lava reaches the sea and cools into hardened rock, retreats to the status quo.

We move on to the next issue, and the next, and the one after that, hardly taking notice that the issue before, and the one before that, had been conveniently swept under the floorboards at Town Hall. Mission Accomplished!

Yes, the more things change. . . For years we've been clamoring that the status quo is never good enough. We must expect more and demand better. And yet, the fallback is, more often than not, that tired, old, unwieldy status quo.

Apparently, for too many of us, the status quo -- and even the regular southward departure therefrom -- is a-okay.

Illegal basement apartments driving up property taxes, artificially inflating the value of single-family homes, and placing an untenable burden upon essential services? So what! The status quo has all but institutionalized a system that not only permits the dangerous, costly, and unlawful, but flaunts and favors it.

Special taxing districts, from sanitation and fire to water and sewer, making your wallet lighter? Yeah, so? We "enjoy" footing the bill for patronage fiefdoms -- or so they tell us. Geez. We'd gladly pay twice the going rate!

Suburbia lost? Quality of life a misnomer? Who really gives a hoot? Clearly, neither homeowner nor voter, for, year after year, moaning and groaning notwithstanding, we put up with more of the same, less in our pockets, and a suburban dream that has been all but shattered like fine crystal thrown against a brick wall.

The question is not so much, "How long will what pass for local government continue to do this to us," but rather, "How long will we, the people, continue to give local government the license to diminish the suburban dream to the nightmare it has now become."
- - -
Posted 6/30/04 at www.thecommunityalliance.org

Our Quality of Life
The Town's Response

Town Offers Quality of Life Initiative; Community Groups Demand More

In response to the overtures of The Community Alliance, aimed at eliminating unlawful accessory apartments, the Town of Hempstead has mailed a “Quality of Life Initiative” brochure to Town residents. Spotlighting areas of concern, including refuse collection, parking regulations and restrictions on multi-family use of single-family houses, Town Supervisor Kate Murray and Town Councilman Edward Ambrosino presented an overview of the rules and regulations now in effect.

Citing limited instances where accessory apartments in single family houses would be permitted (notably, mother/daughter and senior exception, both requiring permits from the Town), the brochure reminds residents that under no circumstances are cellar or basement apartments permitted under Town code.

“It is always appreciated when the Town Supervisor clues in residents as to their responsibilities as good citizens,” opined Seth D. Bykofsky, Co-Chair of The Community Alliance and Chair of the West Hempstead Civic Association’s (WHCA) Zoning Committee. “This is particularly so when it comes to the so-called ‘quality of life’ issues – garbage collection, swimming pool safety, on-street parking and, of course, the rental of accessory apartments.”

With respect to the latter, and the thrust of the recent Town mailing, Bykofsky had this to say: “While accurate, the Town’s missive was short on citing or even alluding to enforcement and woefully weak in stressing ‘zero-tolerance,’ particularly as concerns the cellar or basement apartment. What was needed in the initial assault was, in essence, a 5 ton bunker buster. Unfortunately, what we got from Town Hall was little more than a spit ball.”

Yossi Azose, Chair of the WHCA’s Code Enforcement Committee, echoed Bykofsky’s sentiment. “I was hoping (the Town) would emphasize that there was going to be a crackdown on illegal rentals, and that the Town was actually going to get tough on this issue. Instead, the brochure simply reiterates zoning laws of which all law-breaking landlords are already familiar, but know that they've been getting away with for so long. This will do very little to deter violators from continuing to break the law.”

The Town has reiterated its assurances that they are working with Albany on legislation which would put more teeth into the Town’s bite, beefing up enforcement (recently adding Building Inspectors to the force and staggering their hours so as to offer more appropriate coverage), revamping tracking software and cooperating with the County’s Tax Assessor, Harvey Levinson, relative to the Assessor’s plan to tax illegal accessory apartments as commercial properties.

Viewing the Town’s Quality of Life Initiative as an ongoing process, and the mailing to residents as a “valid first step with a positive message,” Bykofsky cautioned, “We intend to keep the fires burning under Town officials. We are going to keep the issue of illegal rental apartments in the news and before our neighbors and our elected representatives, and to forge ahead with our own grass-roots campaign to rid our communities of what is clearly the undoing of suburbia.”

Residents with concerns about quality of life issues, in general, and about illegal rental apartments, in particular, may contact The Community Alliance at info@thecommunityalliance.org.
- - -
Had enough of the status quo? Join and become involved in your local civic association, speak out at The Community Alliance blog (Guest Blogs most welcome), and feel free to send a message to Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray at katemurray@tohmail.org.

Hey, its your town, your money, your quality of life. Make it your vision of suburbia, and let's accomplish what we set out to do so many years ago -- TAKE BACK OUR TOWN!

Moratorium, Schmoratorium

Prospect Of Helter-Shelter Zoning, Enforcement Puts Damper On Hempstead Town's Building Moratorium

The cheers went up among residents of Hempstead Town when Supervisor Murray and the Town Board announced the passage of a six-month building moratorium on one and two-family homes.

The town attorney has been asked to quickly find solutions to residents' complaints that too many variances are approved allowing the building of oversized houses -- so-called McMansions -- on properties smaller than town code permits.

Aside from the fact that neither Town nor Town attorney ever moves "quickly," and a moratorium of "no more than six months" is hardly enough time to examine the problems, let alone to come up with practical solutions, there is the foreboding reality that, regardless of measures that may be codified by the Town Board, absent oversight by the Zoning Board and enforcement by the Building Department, nothing will ever change.

The Town of Hempstead is notorious for passing legislation that has either no legs, or is simply ignored, both by residents and Town officials.

Take, for instance, the illegal accessory apartment crisis -- one that first came to light in the 70s, and which the Town has promised to address ever since.

Just a few years ago, the Town, with enabling legislation from the State, enacted legislation designed (at least in theory) to weed out unlawful apartments in single-family homes.

There was the new "nail" provision as applies to service of the summons. Then there were amendments to the Building Code, allowing indica of illegality (i.e., multiple mailboxes or multiple utility meters) to serve as prima facie evidence of an illegal apartment.

Sounded good on paper. Truth is, without enforcement, all the new laws on the books did as little to stem the tide of illegal accessory apartments as the old laws, and today, the problem is worse, not better.

It has become customary at Hempstead Town Hall to maintain a Helter-Skelter approach to community issues. With respect to zoning, building code enforcement, and the housing crisis in Hempstead Town, call it Helter-Shelter!

A building moratorium with a view toward changing the law, and then applying (without variance) and enforcing it, is a good thing. A building moratorium just for the sake of having a six-month respite from zoning-gone-wild isn't worth the paper the legislation was written on.

"I am going to do everything in my power to ensure that overdevelopment does not turn the suburban dream into the urban nightmare," declared Hempstead Town Supervsor Kate Murray.

Kate, its already a nightmare in Hempstead Town. Time for the folks at Town Hall to wake up to that sad fact, and for residents to begin to take back their town!
- - -
On April 26, 2004, The Community Alliance sent the following letter to Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray concerning the illegal accessory apartment crisis:

. . .We all agree that the proliferation of illegal rental apartments is one of the greatest threats, if not the foremost affront to our quality of life here in the Town of Hempstead. From their negative impact on essential services such as police, fire and sanitation, to the overcrowding of our classrooms, illegal rentals burden our limited resources as well as our wallets. In the case of basement/cellar apartments, life itself is often put at risk and, in fact, has been tragically and senselessly lost - by fire, by carbon monoxide poisoning, by our collective neglect as a community. It is with the overriding concern for the welfare of our neighbors, the stability of our neighborhoods and the value of our houses, that we have sought your guidance, your assistance and your stewardship as the Supervisor of America’s largest township.

At our meeting of April 14, we agreed, at least in principle, that specific measures, defined and significant, would be required in order to educate the public, discourage deviation from the law and to identify, prosecute and punish violators. Toward that end, we have touched upon certain salient directives to be viewed as “marching orders” in the battle to take back community from the evils of urban sprawl. These include, as our initial assault, the following actions to be taken by the Town of Hempstead:

(1) The initiation of a dedicated public relations campaign, including mailings to every Town resident, same to detail (a) the law concerning the rental of accessory apartments, (b) the obligations of homeowners under the law, and (c) the methods by which, the steps taken and measures to be undertaken by the Town regarding enforcement of the law in order to assure compliance;

(2) The enactment and/or amendment by the Town Board, and implementation and enforcement by the Town’s departments and agencies, of such Ordinances and regulations as shall give the existing law "teeth." This shall include, among other things, (a) the establishment of penalties and fines for violation that exceed by far the cost of dong business (i.e., a fine calculated as a multiple of the monthly rent as charged and/or advertised, then multiplied by a factor. So, for instance, a "landlord" charging $1000/month in rent would pay a base fine of, say, $16,000 - the equivalent of 12 months rent plus 1/3 of the annual rent); (b) requiring the homeowner to restore the premises to remove all violations; (c) docketing and recording of fines as money judgments which would be attachable as a lien against the property; (d) holding the homeowner responsible for all costs associated with relocating any tenant required to vacate the premises; and (e) making it illegal for a public utility to install and/or maintain more than one meter on a single family house (as designated in the Certificate of Occupancy);

(3) The Town shall undertake, by all means necessary and with all deliberate speed, appropriate measures to enforce both existing and newly created Code provisions relating to and governing the rental of accessory apartments, making public all evidence of action taken to enforce, to prosecute and, where fines are imposed, to collect.

In view of the import of this concern, and the time already lost in pursuing a reasonable and prudent plan to solve the illegal rental problem – which can now be measured in years, if not decades – we are asking that you respond to our call to action within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, presenting a realistic game plan, subject to a defined timeline, so that, together, we can engage and defeat this notorious foe of our suburban way of life.

And what has been the response from Hempstead Town Hall? A single mailing, by way of Murraygram, announcing a Quality of Life "Initiative," and, frankly, not much else.

Call us skeptics or realists, but between us residents of Hempstead Town, we wouldn't expect too much in the way of protecting the suburban dream to come out of the building moratorium of 2007.

Realtors Now Liable For Illegal Rentals In Islip Town

Local Law Holds Realtors Accountable For Illegal Apartments

We all know the routine. Homeowner, with illegal basement apartment, retains Realtor to sell house. Realtor turns blind eye to kitchen, bath and living accomodations in the cellar, and, with a wink and a nod, moves the sale forward.

The same goes for so-called mother/daughter homes where the "daughter" unit is, without permit, utilized and leased, with the Realtor's tacit consent, as a rental unit to a non-family member.

Even the outright rental of basement apartments by Realtors -- as well as other areas of houses whose Certificates of Occupancy clearly state "one-family" -- without permit, in clear violation of local building codes, is the practice, not the breach.

Now, at least in Islip Town, Realtors will no longer be able to turn the other cheek, in essence, reaping a handsome commission from the sale and/or lease of an illegal accessory apartment. The Islip Town Board has enacted code provisions that hold the Realtor liable -- by means of the imposition of fines and jail time -- for offering for sale or lease premises that are openly and notoriously used as multi-unit dwellings in contravention of the law.

In short, instead of the oft unspoken, "we both know that cellar apartment is illegal -- wink, wink -- but you can up the asking price, make the house more desirable by providing an income-producing accessory apartment, and no one will be the wiser," if Realtors see something (and we all know an illegal apartment when we see one), they will have to say something -- or face possible monetary and penal sanctions.

Sure, Realtors don't like the new law. After all, it could cut into their commissions. Still, requiring Realtors to check for permits and C of O's, and to open their heretofore blind eyes to the obviously unlawful, is not so onerous a burden that Realtors will be running away from the sale.

At the very least, the law will keep most Realtors on the up and up, no longer willing accomplices in the proliferation of illegal accessory apartments.

A few years ago, when The Community Alliance was still the Tri-Community Alliance (Elmont, Franklin Square and West Hempstead), the push, along the same lines of the Islip Town Ordinance, was to have the New York Secretary of State -- responsible for the regulation and licensing of real estate brokers and agents -- hold Realtors responsible for the sale/lease of a premises that harbored an illegal accessory apartment; fines to be imposed for offenders, and tickets pulled for the most egregious abuses.

Not much happened up in Albany other than the typical banter from the usual suspects. Perhaps its time for the Secretary of State to take another, more serious look at this issue -- one that truly imperils suburbia as we know it -- and to take strong, remedial action (the objections of the Realtors' lobby notwithstanding).

In the meantime, Islip Town's more stringent Ordinance, following that of the Town of Riverhead, and similar statutes enacted in villages from Malverne to Farmingdale to Patchogue, is a good start -- at least on paper, with the prospect of observance by local Realtors and appropriate enforcement by the Town.

Hitting them where it hurts -- the "them" being both the homeowner who rents unlawfully and the Realtor who knowingly joins the homeowner, profiting from the ill-begotten gains -- coupled with strict and unrelenting enforcement, is one of the most effective ways to eradicate the scourge of illegal accessory apartments.

Other townships, including Hempstead Town, with the largest base of illegal accessory apartments on Long Island, should follow suit, doing everything possible [clearly, what has been done -- again, mainly on paper, actual enforcement being vitually nil -- not yielding much in the way of beneficial results] to stem the tide of illegal rentals, this while there remains something of suburbia to salvage.
- - -
Law holds Realtors responsible for illegal rentals
By Denise Bonilla
denise.bonilla@newsday.com

Real estate agents are up in arms over a change to the Islip town zoning law that, they say, holds them liable for code violations in properties they list, lease, rent or sell and threatens stiff fines and potential imprisonment.

A first offense can cost up to $2,000 and 15 days in jail according to the code, approved by the town board 5-0 on May 22. Three or more offenses in five years means up to a $5,000 fine.

Councilman Steven Flotteron, who says the change merely holds them responsible for illegal rentals, said it's an attempt to get a hold of a growing illegal housing market.

All town rentals are required to have an occupancy permit, which is good for two years and certifies the apartment is up to code. Under the changes, anyone who acts as an agent, broker or even posts fliers in supermarkets advertising a rental must make sure the property owner has a rental permit."All we're asking Realtors, if they're going to be listing, is to make a simple phone call [to the town] to make sure [property owners] have a rental permit," Flotteron said.

But agents said it's not that simple and plan to hold a protest Thursday at Islip Town Hall.

Long Island Board of Realtors president Linda Bonarelli said the language of the revised law requires them to act as building inspectors and enforce town code, which they are not trained to do, on both rental and sale properties.

"It places an unfair burden on Realtors," she said. "It's making us the code police."

Bonarelli said agents would have to ensure all listings are up to code.Flotteron disagreed, saying since the town rental statute was changed, the new law requires agents to only confirm owners have a rental permit."They're not expected to look at the electrical panel and these other things," Flotteron said. "We're just saying see if there's a permit. If they don't, then they're part of the problem."At issue is language in the ordinance that says agents who sell any "dwelling unit" must make sure it is in "full compliance with the Code of the Town of Islip."

Flotteron said the ordinance was modeled after Riverhead's town code, revised in January 2006. Riverhead Supervisor Phil Cardinale said there were no objections by agents there, and no agent convictions for listing illegal housing.

Carlos Arvelo, a Brentwood real estate agent, said the revised code will only hurt a struggling housing market and make owners hesitant to approach agents.

"If I lease a home today and there are no apartments in it but then they build one, why should I be liable for something I had nothing to do with?" he said.

Brentwood Fire Department Chief John Carney praised the new law. "I've had calls at houses, we brought the town in, they were issued summonses and then six months later the house is sold and they still have illegal occupancy," he said.

Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

Town of Hempstead Expands Law On Mother/Daughter Apartments

Easing Housing Crunch While Keeping Families Together

When it comes to enforcing the laws relating to accessory apartments in single-family homes -- in particular, the laxity of enforcement vis-a-vis illegal rental apartments, in basements and otherwise -- this blog has often chastised the Town of Hempstead.

The illegal accessory apartment, a danger to occupant and burden to taxpayer, continues to be a major plague upon America's largest township.

Still, every once in a great while, the Town of Hempstead offers up a pleasant -- and, less frequently, a community-minded surprise, as they have done recently in adopting a change in the Town Code that permits the use or rental of accessory apartments in single-family homes by siblings to siblings.

Could it be that Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray has a sister residing in an apartment in Murray's Levittown cape, and wants to make it all legal?

Who knows the machinations that lurk behind the legislation? All we can say is, in easing the housing burden that has forced too many families off of Long Island, and in affording sisters and brothers the opportunity to co-house alongside -- or, perhaps, down the block from -- mom and dad, Murray and the Hempstead Town Board have made the right move.

Now, about those illegal basement apartments and other unlawful accessories that continue to be rented outside the code?

Here, too, its time for the Town to act responsibly.
- - -
From The Town of Hempstead:

It's All in the Family: Murray and Hudes Expand "Mother-Daughter"Apartment Law to Include Siblings

Acknowledging the rising cost of living on Long Island and accommodating the wishes of many community residents, Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray and Councilman Gary Hudes, along with the entire town board, have passed legislation that effectively expands upon the town's provision for "mother-daughter" apartments in single-family homes. The new law will allow siblings to qualify for an exemption to alter a one-family home to accommodate two families. Moreover, siblings can now enjoy the same benefits that apply to parent child relationships in the establishment of an accessory apartment in a single-family home.

"Many families today want to stay together and remain in the same home while continuing to enjoy the suburban quality of life that our township affords," Supervisor Murray said. "Adjusting the 'mother-daughter' apartment law to reflect this reality will allow us to better serve the different needs of families throughout Hempstead Town."

The pre-existing law defined a mother-daughter residence as a one-family home constructed or altered to include a second kitchen for the sole use of the children or parents of the home's owner. Expanding the law to include siblings will help family members to stay with the people they love while easing the costs of owning and operating a home. Both the previous mother-daughter law and the new legislation apply only to single-family homes in unincorporated areas of the town. Incorporated villages are not subject to the legislation and control their own zoning regulations.

"Many families today are struggling to make ends meet," Councilman Hudes said. "Giving immediate family members the option to share a home may help both older and younger siblings alike ease the costs of living on Long Island.

"In addition to the mother-daughter residence law and the new sibling provisions, residents may only alter a one-family home to accommodate two families by obtaining a two-family senior residence permit. [Emphasis added.] By providing more opportunities for families to stay together, Murray and Hudes hope that young adults who might otherwise find the costs of owning a home to be prohibitive will be able to remain in their communities, while older family members may benefit from the assistance that younger siblings or children can provide in a shared residence.

"Many siblings grow up in the same home and highly value the bond they share with their immediate family members," Supervisor Murray concluded. "Once grown, siblings should still be able to keep a close-knit family in a shared home while maintaining the high quality of life that they have come to enjoy in Hempstead Town."

Survey On Local Efforts To Curb Illegal Apartments

Elected officials are telling us that things are getting better, that we’re gaining the upper hand on illegal accessory apartments. Others, mostly those in the trenches, say that, despite efforts to strengthen and plug loopholes in the law, the illegal apartment crisis is burgeoning.

We’d like to know how you perceive the situation in your hometown, and ask that you respond to this informal – and most unscientific – survey. You may withhold your name, if you’d like, but please tell us the locality (i.e., Town, village, etc.) in which you reside so that we may have a sense of place.

1. In your opinion, over the course of the past year, the illegal apartment situation in my town has:
(a) Improved;
(b) Gotten Worse;
(c) Remained the same;
(d) What illegal rental problem?

2. Local governments, be they the villages or the Towns, are responsible for enforcing the Building Codes that prohibit and restrict accessory apartments. In your opinion, over the course of the past year, has local government (please specify Town, village, etc.):
(a) Improved efforts to enforce the law;
(b) Paid lip service to the law, with no increase in enforcement;
(c) Done nothing to enforce the law;
(e) What law?

3. As concerns accountability, do you feel your elected officials have stepped up to the plate, doing what is required of them to stem the tide of illegal accessory apartments?
(a) Absolutely;
(b) Are you kidding?;
(c) They’ve done the bare minimum, and nothing more;
(d) What illegal rental problem?

4. In your opinion, what is required of government in order to eliminate, or at least limit, illegal rental apartments in your community?
(a) Enforcement of the law, with prosecution to the fullest extent;
(b) An increase in mailings and glossy brochures from elected officials;
(c) A bulldozer;
(d) More affordable housing for seniors, workforce and the middle class;
(e) Both (a) and (d) above.

Hey, these are loaded questions! Okay, we already know the answers. And by the way, so do you. Let’s here from you – by e-mail, smoke signal, at public forums and, mostly, at the polls that really count!

There's No Place Like Home

In recent months we have been hearing and reading about two pressing problems here on Long Island: The first, the proliferation of illegal accessory apartments (and in particular, cellar apartments), which pose a clear and present danger not only to our suburban quality of life but, more critical, especially for those who are the renters of such apartments, to health, safety and, in some instances, to life itself. The second, the lack of affordable housing, and the corresponding absence of any real plan to bring the availability and cost of housing in line with the needs of our communities. Illegal accessory apartments and the lack of affordable housing are not somebody else's problems. They are issues to be dealt with in our own backyards!

Here at The Community Alliance, we firmly believe that illegal multiple dwelling units in houses designated as single family residences must go. No ifs, ands or buts. We also believe, and so assert with no less vigor and certainty, that the renter of the illegal apartment cannot, should not and must not become either a burden to taxpayer and society or the innocent victim of a zealous righteousness to return suburbia to our Island. It is, after all, their Island as well.

In truth, the problems of illegal accessory apartments and the lack of affordable housing are not mutually exclusive. Both must be addressed with equal passion and sensitivity. Both impact on every resident, in every community, and must be part and parcel of every discussion, every proposal, and every concerted effort to gain the upper hand in our battle to restore and improve quality of life on the Island we call home. We look forward to working with residents on these critical issues, to continuing and encouraging a significant dialogue among the various civic and community groups and with Town, County and State officials, and to moving forward with an aggressive and comprehensive plan to eradicate illegal housing (which benefits only the pocketbook of the illegal landlord), while providing safe, comfortable and affordable housing for families, for workforce, for seniors here on our Island (which benefits us all).

Fire In The Hole

FIRE TRAPS 4 ELMONT FIREFIGHTERS IN ILLEGAL BASEMENT APARTMENT

Four members of Elmont Truck 2 found themselves trapped at the bottom of a stairwell when the mattress from a bed in an illegal basement apartment re-ignited as they were carrying it up the narrow stairway. The volunteers were responding to a call for a carbon monoxide alarm at 185 Lincoln Street in Elmont on November 16th.

"The mattress became a fireball," said Elmont Fire Chief Edward Lutz, "and my men were trapped at the bottom as the fire raged and began burning the walls, a bookshelf and clothing." With egress blocked, Andrew Conrad, Captain of Truck, 2, Lt. Brian Schriefer, Truck 2, Fire Fighter Kevin Pholl, and the Department's Assistant Chief Rob Chernow, had no way to escape.

When Lutz arrived on the scene, a young man reported that when he arrived home the alarm was going off and he smelled smoke. Upon opening the door, Lutz realized there was a fire in the basement. The four firefighters found a mattress that had ignited from a cell phone charger in the illegal studio apartment, and extinguished the flames. In their attempt to remove the smoldering mattress from the premises, their exit became blocked when it re-ignited and wedged in the stairwell.

"Fortunately they were all wearing protective gear including self contained breathing apparatus, or they might have died in the fire," said a Department Chief who was both relieved and angry. The four retreated to another part of the basement while Engine 2 shot water down the stairwell extinguishing the intense fire.

"This was a very close call for our guys," declared Lutz. "Illegal housing is going to kill someone," exclaimed this angry Chief. "If not one of our firefighters, then an innocent tenant." He went on to say he was "furious with the Town." "They have to do something about these illegal basement apartments. They are a serious threat to responders and tenants alike."

We've already had one fatality, do we need more for the Town to act? About 12 years ago, a tenant in an illegal basement apartment on Doughty Avenue perished in a fire. The man who handed his baby out the window tragically was himself unable to escape through that small window five feet or so above the basement floor, and rescuers were unable to pull him out.

Within the Town of Hempstead, Elmont is known to have the most illegal multiple dwellings. Firefighters, and other first responders are now risking their lives in an attempt to enter these dwellings. Citing other incidents, Chief Lutz said, "We enter a burning house and there all walls where there shouldn't be walls, and we can't even get from one part of the house to another." He went on to say that exits are blocked and they have found numerous beds lined up in what should be a single family home. "Everyone living in these conditions is at risk."

Death of four firefighters was narrowly avoided Wednesday, November 16, because the Chief and firefighters followed procedures and were wearing the appropriate protective gear. Chief Lutz, when he realized there was smoke, called for backup and the Engine Company was at the scene.

We're glad you had the proper equipment and that you're still here Andrew, Brian, Kevin and Rob, to continue to respond to the emergency calls from Elmont Fire District residents. But, the Fire Department and tenants alike need to know the Town of Hempstead cares about their safety. The Town needs to address the issue of dangerous illegal basement apartments; and they need to do it NOW!

Reprinted with permission from the Elmont Herald, Roy J. Mezzapelle, Publisher.

- - -

Illegal rental apartments in single family homes not only pose great risks to the health, safety and well-being of tenants, homeowners and firefighters, they also cause untold millions in loss to our property tax base. Your property taxes pay to pick up their garbage, provide water, police and fire service to illegally ocupied homes, and to educate children whose parents, as tenants in illegal apartments, pay no property taxes at all!

True, there is a critical shortage of affordable housing on Long Island, responsible, in part, for the proliferation of illegal accessory apartments. Another problem long-neglected by the Town of Hempstead, contributing to the taxpayers' ever-increasing burden. The critical needs of both the renter and the homeowner are not met, however, by the Town's construction of a mere 8 affordable housing units in Roosevelt (with another 11 planned for that community, and 3 more in Inwood), by continuing to blame the situation on the dreaded reassessment, or, as has become the custom at Town Hall, by ignoring the problem in its entirety, in the hope that it -- and we -- will simply go away.

Yes, Harvey Levinson may have lost the race for Town of Hempstead Supervisor, but his proposed 10-Point Plan to irradicate illegal rental apartments in single family homes should not be discarded with yesterday's Murraygrams. The Levinson Plan should be dusted off and revisited (or looked at for the first time by Town Hallers), tweaked as may be appropriate, and adopted/implemented by the Town of Hempstead.

Residents of Hempstead Town are encouraged to call Town Supervisor Kate Murray, and their respective Town Coucilmembers, at 516-489-5000, and tell them we need to slam the door shut on illegal accessory apartments.

Close Encounters of the Illegal Kind

PRIMARY DAY IN NEW YORK - - VOTE!

Addressing The Core Issues On Illegal Accessory Apartments

The following editorial first appeared in the Elmont Herald (Roy J. Mezzapelle, Publisher), and is well worth republishing here at The Community Alliance blog:

Illegal Housing & Illegal Immigration:Two Separate Issues

I feel it necessary to address a very important issue. Lately, especially since The New York Times article titled On Lucille Avenue, the Immigration Debate was published, I see more and more people blaming the illegal housing problem on illegal immigrants. This is simply not the case; and these two unrelated issues, when linked to each other, make it very difficult to address either one effectively.

As you are well aware, the illegal housing problem in Elmont, and throughout Long Island, is blamed on the lack of affordable housing, the lack of housing in general, and high property taxes. While these facts are certainly true, the root problem of illegal housing is a decades old problem that snowballed into the mess it is today by Town governments turning a blind-eye to it when it first became an issue.

In Elmont, with the exception of a few new houses being built on previously vacant land, the number of housing units will never grow in any great numbers because there is simply no room to build more homes. Our big issue is that our population in Elmont will grow by leaps and bounds, not from illegal immigration but from homeowners renting parts of their homes, usually illegally, to those who were born and raised on Long Island and can't afford to purchase a home, yet need or simply want to stay on Long Island.

As I have written in the past, while illegal immigrants certainly occupy illegal residences throughout Elmont, Long Island, and the Nation, these illegal immigrants by no means make up the majority of illegal renters. I've spoken with hundreds of people on this issue, and it seems that it is the middle-class American that makes up the majority of the illegal renters. Teachers, police officers, nurses, college students, and even red-blooded American families with honor-roll students are just some of the many people forced into illegal renting situations.

One misconception, probably brought about by the news media, is the notion that all illegal renters live in deplorable conditions. I've seen rental units in Elmont that would put some Garden City homes to shame. These, however, are the ones you don't see or hear about. What you see on the broadcast media is the non-English or broken-English speaking family, living in unlivable conditions, in over-crowded spaces. This is what perpetuates and leads us to believe that the illegal housing problem is solely an "illegal immigrant" issue.

Now before all of you think I'm getting soft on this issue, believe me I am not. Illegal is illegal; and whether it's immigration or housing, laws pertaining to both need to be enforced. If by enforcing the law it means the removal of family from an illegal apartment, or the deportation of an illegal immigrant from the country, so be it. The law is the law. We simply cannot afford to pay the bill for illegal activity any longer.

And hear this loud and clear, ILLEGAL RENTERS DO NOT PAY PROPERTY TAXES! The notion that a renter pays rent, and the landlord pays the taxes on the house, so therefore the renter pays property taxes, is simply not true.

Illegal housing is a local government issue and can be easily addressed with the laws currently in place; illegal immigration is a more complex issue, especially when it comes to enforcement.

EVERY illegal housing situation in Elmont can be corrected by the Town of Hempstead if they so chose. Unfortunately, and for unknown reasons, they choose to let the problem get worse, at our expense.

In an upcoming edition of the Elmont Herald (to be republished here at The Community Alliance blog) we will show how one local incorporated village has successfully implemented legislation, and enforced that legislation, to combat illegal housing within its borders, while the Town of Hempstead, with more money, personnel, and resources can't seem to, as my father used to say, "find its ass with both hands" on this issue. (My father was very quiet, but came out with some good one-liners when you least expected to hear them.)
- - -
Nassau County Assessor, Harvey Levinson, offers an update on his office's efforts to reclassify single-family homes with illegal accessory apartments as commercial properties for tax purposes. [SEE, Illegal Multi-Family Housing Initiatives.]

In view of the literally thousands of illegal apartments in single-family homes located in Nassau County -- primarily along the forgotten south shore, and within the borders of the Town of Hempstead, America's largest township -- one has to ask, "Why only 24 reclassifications to date from residential to commercial tax rolls?"

The simple answer, as Harvey Levinson points out, is that before the Assessor's office can act, the towns and villages -- in whose hands jurisdiction lies, and upon whose shoulders the apparently overwhelming (as in "why bother trying at all?") burden of enforcement falls -- must act to investigate, and bring to judgment, homeowners acting outside the law.

Granted, the courts -- ill-equipped and not inclined -- have failed us here, too (recall our longstanding request for the township to establish a community court to hold sway over quality of life issues, such as illegal accessory apartments), but the town has primary responsibility in applying and enforcing the code. To say that the Town of Hempstead has been lax and far from proactive on this front is nothing short of understatement.

As Harvey Levinson laments, “I am disappointed that two of the three towns have chosen to ignore my calls over the past two years for a coordinated approach to combating and finding ways to eliminate these firetraps.”

We, too, are disappointed in the inaction and malaise, particularly in America's largest township -- which brings us to the more complex, and most perplexing reason for the stalemate in the battle to eradicate illegal rental apartments: the willingness of law-abiding homeowners (taxpayers all) to put up with the Town's failure to act, in any meaningful way, to resolve this still growing scourge upon our communities.

Who's Looking Out For You, Revisited

Back To Basics At The Community Alliance

When The Community Alliance was first launched, what seems like light years ago, on the collective community plate were issues ranging from the proliferation of illegal accessory apartments to the lack of affordable housing, escalating property taxes to local government run amuck.

Well, well. It would seem that our plate remains full, many, if not most of our primal concerns here in suburbia unresolved.

Illegal rental apartments in the basements of single family homes continue to plague us, posing a threat to the life of the renter and to the stability of our tax base.

Affordable housing (the lack of which, in great measure, feeds the illegal accessory apartment crisis), is virtually nonexistent on Long Island, forcing college grads and our young workforce to seek more hospitable -- or at least less costly -- habitats elsewhere.

Property taxes, fueled by the many special taxing districts masquerading as local governments, are strangling homeowners, breaking the bank, forcing folks out of their homes, unchecked, uncapped, and going nowhere but up.

As for the dysfunction of local government, from Albany to Town Hall, well, need we say more than has already been posted on this blog.

So, if the many and varied negatives that impact upon our quality of life here in suburbia have yet to improve or abate, why bother?

Does the dialogue, that constant banter on what's wrong and what could be better, really matter?

Does keeping the issues, grand and small, front and center, serve a fruitful purpose?

Can change, evolutionary if not revolutionary, come by means of an ongoing wave of words, wearing away established mindsets and entrenched mores, as cascading waters wear away huge boulders?

Are we, in this seemingly endless quest to improve the quality of life in this suburban community we call home, making a difference, simply by advancing ideas and ideals, coaxing you, along the way, to get involved, make a stand, and take action?

The answers to all these queries, we believe, quite verily, is a resounding YES!

It would be easy to throw up our hands, toss in the towel, and simply walk away, resigning ourselves to accept a community of lowered expectations and passionless mediocrity. To accept what is, and what has been for far too long, rather than to strive for what could be.

Then again, no one said life would be easy.

Quality of life, whether here in suburbia or in the context of urbanity next door, requires of us a certain vigilance, a defiant voice that will neither be stifled nor silenced, a commitment to the future of community which we hold so dearly in trust, and the courage and fortitude to persevere, despite what appears to be the glacial movement from where were stand to where we want to go.

Perhaps, every once in a while, we need to remind ourselves of the basics.

Cover those garbage cans before placing them at the curb. Remove your cars from the street for street cleaning and snow removal. Keep sidewalks and common areas clean and clear. Be kind to thy neighbor (even if you don't necessarily love him ;-).

And then, having taken those small steps, we can begin to tackle the bigger issues -- illegal accessory apartments, affordable housing, property taxes, dysfunctional government, to name but a few (next week, global warming, nuclear proliferation, health care, and the economy, stupid) -- together, as a united community in solidarity for the betterment of Long Island.

Along the way, on this wonderful journey, the seeds we've planted -- in the blogosphere and elsewhere -- will sprout.

Whether those seeds produce beautiful flowers and green, life-sustaining foliage, or stink weed and strangling vines, is entirely up to you. Of course, we will be here to help tend those gardens, reminding you, as if you thought we wouldn't, that, as communities, we reap what we sow.
- - -
From The Community Alliance website (circa 2004):

Who's Looking Out For You?

Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News spinmeister of “No Spin Zone” fame, recently penned a bestseller entitled, Who’s Looking Out for You? [Surely, O’Reilly is looking out for us, all the way to the bank!]

Elected officials would have us think that they’re looking out for us. Most, in fact, are watching, rather than looking. Watching to see if we can differentiate the promise from the deed. Watching to see if we are watching them. Watching to see if, the next time around, we even bother to vote.
Big Brother is watching, of course. Query as to whether, in so observing our actions and trying to control our every move, he is looking out for us?

Who, then, is looking out for us? Who out there is concerned about our well-being, our quality of life, our very tomorrows. Yes, there is Mom, always looking out for us, comforting us and, within her best measured abilities, guiding, providing and living up to the promise. But who else truly cares about the future of your schools, the vitality of your “downtown,” the value of your stakehold in your community? We hope, most sincerely, that those we elect - from the White House to the State House, from the Town Board to the School Board - do care, do share our values and our concerns, do want, ever so desperately, to look out for each and every one of us.

Hope notwithstanding, we are sometimes left to wonder.

The Community Alliance, an umbrella group representing nearly forty civic and community organizations from Elmont to Wantagh, is taking up the many causes of community that squarely come within the ambit of “quality of life.” From tackling tough issues that impact on every aspect of our quality of life, such as the proliferation of illegal accessory apartments, to keeping an eye on the mundane, like whether that mechanical sweeper ever visited your street to gather up last winter’s sand, The Community Alliance is looking out for you.

No, we’re not Mom. We can’t comfort you when you fall and skin your knee. We won’t whip up a meal to satiate the palate or tuck you in at night. [We could, however, just help you sleep a little better!] We can’t hold your hand as you cross the street (although we will go the extra mile to make that street safer), and while we will offer an attentive ear, we will not, as Mom so often does, clean up your room for you.

And let us reassure those who see The Community Alliance as the posse (white cowboy hats or black - you decide) riding into town under the hot noon sun. We are not Big Brother. Yes, we are concerned about the safety and security of residents – both in and outside of their homes. Yes, we believe that the laws designed to protect us must be enforced – by the authorities empowered to enforce them. Yes, we will continue the fight to eradicate the illegal rental apartment, with all of its negative implications for our collective quality of life. We will advise. We will suggest. We will educate and inform. The rest, as they say, is up to you!

For you are The Community Alliance! Republicans and Democrats. Liberals and Conservatives. Independents and “Blanks.” The non-partisan (or better put, the multi-partisan) approach to rebuilding and re-energizing our villages and hamlets. Whether you hail from Franklin Square or Bellmore; call “home” Merrick or East Meadow; you share that common hometown fervor. The problems and disquietudes of Levittown and Uniondale are, quite literally, those of Floral Park, Westbury, Oceanside and Valley Stream. Our passions are the same, and you, dear neighbors, are community’s best hope.

Attempts to divide us as they will (and they will) by school districts, by water districts, by sanitary districts (among countless others), our shared interests eclipse our provincial differences, and our cause majure – collectively as civic associations and individually as residents – is identical: community!

At The Community Alliance, it is our intent to lay aside the petty; to downplay the divisive; to instill that hope of suburbia that brought most of us out to Long Island in the first place. Yes, at The Community Alliance, we want you to know that we are looking out for you – realizing, as we do, that, as a community, we must all look out for one another!
- - -
What quality of life issues are important to you and concern you most? E-mail us at thecommunityalliance@yahoo.com.

The Community Alliance

Common Sense Solutions To Common Community Concerns