"Affordable Housing Zones" Proposed

Schumer Talks Up "Generation Next" Housing

Speaking at a Long Island Housing Partnership forum, New York Senator Chuck Schumer proposed the creation of so-called "affordable housing zones," giving the opportunity for young Long Islanders to take up residence in or near the communities in which they grew up.

Saying that "No less than the future of Long Island's economy depends on it," Schumer touted a multi-billion dollar plan to establish "new housing zones in areas where the average price of a new home is more than six times the region's median income."

According to Newsday, which reported on the Schumer proposal, in addition to creating affordable housing zones on Long Island, the plan would:

- Allow businesses to pay up to $20,000 toward a new employee's down payment on a home. Half the amount would be returned to the business as a tax credit, with the rest deductible as a standard business expense;

- Give a $5,000 tax credit to single first-time homebuyers with incomes of up to $100,000 and to married couples with incomes of up to $150,000;

- Provide developers with HUD grants if they agree to build and maintain affordable housing for younger workers.

Schumer, long an advocate of affordable housing, recognizes the difficulty in passing measures through this Congress as would be necessary to establish and fund such ambitious initiatives as "Generation Next" housing. Indeed, for years the Senator has been urging action on the affordable housing front, calling the affordable housing crunch a "crisis" way back in 2000.

Still, the Senator insists that affordable housing is crucial to growing the economy of Long Island, which in recent years has been drained of it's young workforce.

We at The Community Alliance agree. Without affordable housing for "Generation Next," and with it, a workforce for the next generation, Long Island's future as a viable, sustainable community is bleak, indeed.

The best time to have addressed the affordable housing concerns was yesterday. The second best time is right now!
- - -
Click HERE to read the 2003 NYS AFL-CIO report, The Crisis of Affordable Housing for Long Island's Working People.

Check out The Campaign for Next Generation Housing.

Tell Me, Where Will The Children Live?

Campaign For Affordable Housing Gears Up On Long Island

You may have seen the recent TV spots, or heard the commercials on local radio. The premise, that the children of Long Islanders must leave not only the nest, but the island itself, in large part due to the lack of affordable housing, sets the stage not for a political campaign, but rather, for a public relations blitz aimed at educating the public and moving Albany off of square one on the affordable housing front.

While some -- particularly those in Albany who favor the benign neglect of the status quo -- may view the local Campaign for Affordable Housing as Long Island's perfect storm, the convergence of three powerful organizations -- the Long Island Association, the Long Island Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, and the Nassau/Suffolk Building and Construction Trades Council -- portends a significant movement form talking about affordable housing on Long Island to actually doing something about it.

Under the moniker of The Campaign For Next Generation Housing, the goals espoused are as follows:

- A series of media ads over the next several months encouraging Long Islanders to learn about Next Generation Housing and to better understand that it’s all about keeping our young people here on Long Island. [You will see TV commercials, you’ll hear radio commercials, and you will see ads in Newsday and other publications. All of those ads will direct you to the organization's website, www.nextgenerationhousing.com.]

- Meetings with civic leaders and boards of education members in each town on Long Island. Discussion of Long Island’s housing crisis with everyone who works to make their neighborhoods and school districts better places. Not to tell them what they should do, but to be sure they all understand what is happening to Long Island. To allow people in positions of influence on the Island to make informed decisions, and to assure that the information they have is complete and accurate.

- Presentations to local groups, such as Chamber of Commerce, PTA’s, Rotaries, Kiwanis, Lions, and other organizations. The organization will provide a speaker who can give group members a sharp, concise presentation about Long Island’s housing crisis, and what can be done about it. [If you are interested in having a presentation made to your organization, please click here.]

As part of its plan, the campaign supports legislation in Albany that advances the cause of affordable housing, with it's three component organizations cooperating on political support, including election strategy, endorsements and political fundraising -- points that have, in recent weeks, raised both eyebrows and ire among some incumbent legislators, particularly in the Republican-led Senate, which has dragged both feet and tail on measures designed to bring more affordable housing to the island. [SEE, Newsday editorial, The housing harangue.]

Residents -- who foot the bill for costs associated with the high costs of housing on Long Island -- are being asked to take an active role in the campaign [SEE, What You Can Do To Help], and, through the campaign's interactive interface, to let their voices be heard by public officials on the housing crisis and its ramifications.

The Community Alliance supports The Campaign For Next Generation Housing as well as the greater, broad-based Campaign For Affordable Housing, and urges everyone reading this blog to sign up and do your part to help make it possible -- and affordable -- for our children to stay on Long Island.

Click HERE to contact The Campaign For Next Generation Housing
- - -
Click HERE for Debunking The Myths About Affordable Housing

Click HERE to learn The Truth About Affordable Housing

Keeping Our Kids On Long Island. . .

. . .After They've Seen The Property Tax Bill

We've heard all the reasons -- many of them spot on -- for the so-called "brain drain" on Long Island.

High property taxes. Lack of affordable housing. No jobs. Poor public transit. Traffic.

Now what about the reasons to stay?

Well, recently, Nassau County Exec Tom Suozzi hosted a pow wow for Generation Next, asking those in their 20s and 30s what it would take to get them to stay -- or relocate to -- Long Island.

Suozzi touched on the old stand-bys -- "Cool Downtowns," the Nassau County Master Plan, the parks and beaches, and the fact that Nassau is but a stone's throw from NYC.

The attendees offered their views, conjuring up not a vision of a new suburbia, a recurring theme of the County Exec's administration, but rather, of an old Nassau, badly in need, as Suozzi himself put it, of re-imagining.

"Re-imagining" -- something that takes Disnyesque re-imagineers, we suppose -- isn't all that easy here on Long Island, where the vision of suburbia is all too often stuck in the 1950s "ideal", and NIMBY is the standard bearer of the naysayers, who look to thwart even the mere discussion of change, let alone progress.

No surprises as to the stumbling blocks that send our kids west, and keep them off the island. Still, they're worth rehashing, this in the hope that we could not only re-imagine, but redirect both mindset and resources toward alleviating the problems, lest Nassau County become a wasteland where only us oldtime suburbanites -- relics of the 50s, 60s, and 70s -- are left to grow poor and fade away behind those white picket fences.

Living in the basement isn't all its cracked up to be. Unless college grads and young, upwardly mobile professionals want to live in their old rooms in their parents' houses, or worse yet, in an illegal basement apartment, where do they go?

Housing prices are, for the most part, unaffordable, even in a down market, and assuming, for argument sake, one could afford a house, the property taxes are still out of sight.

Affordable rental units, notably in "downtown" areas, accessible to both "Main Street" and public transportation? Not so much here on Long Island, if at all.

Dude, where's my job? In this economy, if there are jobs -- jobs paying a living wage -- they are predominantly in the City. For young professionals trying to establish a foothold in their respective fields, the City offers opportunity, while, here on Long Island, prospects for employment -- in a job where there is growth potential -- are much more limited.

You can't get there from here -- or there. Public transportation (essentially, Long Island Bus), is a horror. Unreliable. Doesn't go where you need to be. Stuck in traffic, just like the automobile you would have taken -- and would have to take -- to get from here to there.

In the City, you can walk where you have to go, or take the subway, and be just blocks away. On Long Island, its the car, and congested roadways, to everywhere and anywhere.

As one young Long Islander told Suozzi, "Even if I want to take the railroad (LIRR), I have to ask my parents for a ride to the station."

Do we need light rail and other alternate modes of transportation in Nassau County? You betcha!

Can you walk to shopping, entertainment, or, for that matter, your friend's apartment? As they say in Brooklyn, fuggetaboutit!

The City, with all that has long been considered antithetical to suburban living -- including that dreaded high density in close quarters -- is a walkable, sustainable community, in every sense. Nassau County? Not so much.

You call this "downtown"? Most of what we characterize as "downtown" -- cool or otherwise -- here in suburbia is often a block or two of shops, half of them shuttered, en route to the mall.

Sorry. Manhattan is "cool." Downtown Brooklyn is "cool." Main Street in suburbia? Downright crummy, save a few locales, cited by Suozzi, as being Nassau's in-spots.

There's nothing to do on Long Island! Actually, there's plenty to do. Just check out one of the many LI-based websites, such as kioli.org (Keep It On Long Island), exploreli.com, or lifeonlongisland.com, and you'll see that there's rarely a dull moment, with a "to do" list sufficient to keep even the most energized twenty or thirty-something hopping.

Unfortunately, as with most places and things on Long Island, "what to do" is, typically, not just down the block or right around the corner, and, more often then not, you'll need a car to get there.

Yes, Long Island, in general, and Nassau County, in particular, have much to offer. Yet, to compete with the lure -- and, in certain instances, relative affordability of NYC, it will take a whole lot more than a "Tom Suozzi Wants YOU To Come Home To Nassau County" Facebook page to keep our kids in Nassau, and to bring back those who have left the suburban nest for the big, and not all that bad, City.

Of course, talking about it, putting all the issues on the table, open for debate, is a good start. Moving beyond the talk toward decisive action, actually making Nassau affordable, walkable, navigable, workable, liveable, and, yes, cool, is the next logical step.

Let's take that step together!
- - -
From the Manhasset Press:

Suozzi Wants Younger Generation to Stay in Nassau County
Deterrents Are Affordable Housing, High Property Taxes, Traffic Congestion

Nassau County Executive Thomas R. Suozzi held a forum with Nassau’s “Next Generation” of current and former residents between the ages of 20-35 to discuss the county’s future. Suozzi listened to the concerns of nearly 200 young professionals who enjoy living in Nassau County but are finding it difficult to stay or move here. Many grew up in Nassau County and either moved away or still live with their parents.

Nassau County Executive Thomas R. Suozzi held a forum with Nassau’s “Next Generation” of current and former residents between the ages of 20-35 who enjoy living in Nassau County but are finding it difficult to stay or move here. Many live with their parents.

“Young people are leaving Nassau County in droves, and we want to find out why. We want to know what it would take for these young professionals to stay in Nassau County, because it is a great place to live. We have great schools, great healthcare, low crime, low unemployment, open spaces and parks, north shore waterfronts and south shore ocean beaches, and we are a stone’s throw from New York City,” said County Executive Suozzi. “But we grew so much in the ‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s and that population has aged out and we need to make the county more attractive to young people.”

Those attending the forum participated in roundtable discussions about what they would like to see in Nassau County, and shared their concerns and ideas with the county executive. The main concern among the participants was finding affordable housing in Nassau County, as many of them said they still live at home with their parents. Suozzi explained that the “Cool Downtowns” initiative would address the problem of affordable housing. A Cool Downtown is located near a train station and other public transportation and has multistoried buildings with people living and working in rental apartments, restaurants, and shops. Examples of downtowns that are already “cool” are located near a train station. Great Neck, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, and Garden City were cited as examples of places that currently have these downtowns.

“A Cool Downtown would be the ideal place for a young professional to live. They could walk to local stores, and eat in local restaurants and wouldn’t have to use a car to get around. They would also be close to the train, with easy access to New York City and other places on Long Island. Right now, if you’re 20 to 30 years old, you’re not moving to Nassau County. You can’t find an apartment to rent, and you’re not going to buy a house in a community like Levittown, because the neighborhoods are full of families. It’s not going to be any fun. Cool Downtowns would change that.”

Suozzi also discussed Nassau County’s Master Plan, which addresses Nassau’s challenges of traffic congestion, high property taxes, and pockets of poverty. It provides guidance on how Nassau can become a national model for smart, environmentally responsible new suburban development as we move forward for the next 25 years.

“For Nassau County to be sustainable into the next generation and beyond, we must attract young college graduates and businesses to locate here. We need to create ‘cool downtowns’ in Nassau where commercial areas are located near transportation centers and where housing, mixed-use structures and local amenities can be sited to support walkable communities.”

The Community Alliance

Common Sense Solutions To Common Community Concerns

Write us at thecommunityalliance@yahoo.com with your comments, suggestions, and ideas. Guest blogposts are always welcome!

Suozzi's "New Suburbia" Gets A Forum

Suozzi Taps Wang-Reckson as $1.6 Billion Nassau Coliseum ‘New Suburbia’ Developer

Proposal Includes Renovated Coliseum, Extension of Islanders’ Lease, Minor League Baseball Stadium, Next-Generation Housing, and Transit Improvements

Mineola, NY- Nassau County Executive Thomas R. Suozzi announced that the proposal from the Lighthouse Development Group meets each of his seven core goals for the redevelopment of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Site, and lays out a plan that is consistent with his vision for “New Suburbia.

Among the highlights of the Lighthouse Development Group’s $1.6 billion proposal are: a $200 million renovation of the Nassau Coliseum; a commitment from the Islanders NHL team to stay until 2025; a canal lined with retail shops and mixed-use residential-commercial development; the creation of a pedestrian-friendly ‘Nassau Centre;’ an investment in a transportation system; the construction of a minor-league baseball stadium and the development of next generation housing.

“After a thorough, competitive and open review process, my evaluation team has chosen the Lighthouse Group’s proposal,” Suozzi said. “Their plan stood up against top-notch competition, and emerged as the best of the best. It matches the vision I’ve been talking about for ‘New Suburbia.’ We can look forward to a new minor-league ballpark, a renovated Coliseum, new housing and office space that will create excitement at the geographic heart of Nassau County and create an engine for economic growth. And we accomplish this at no cost to the taxpayers, while significantly increasing the tax base.”

The project is expected to generate approximately $160 million in net new taxes through 2025.
In February, Suozzi’s evaluation committee – Deputy County Executive Helena Williams, Counsel to the County Executive William J. Cunningham, III and Executive Commissioner of Planning Patricia Bourne – winnowed four proposals down to two. The committee decided that the Lighthouse Development Group best addressed each of the County Executive’s seven core goals in transforming the site into an attractive, vibrant, lucrative and multiple-use center. The Lighthouse proposal met or exceeded Suozzi’s core goals for the Coliseum site, including:

Renovating or replacing the current Coliseum building into a world-class sports and entertainment facility, at no cost to the county.

About $200 million is earmarked for a dramatic overhaul of the Coliseum, including two new buildings to be incorporated into the Coliseum’s existing structure. The new buildings will house a basketball court, additional ice rinks, a fitness center, new locker rooms and other sports facilities. The Coliseum will also have expanded seating capacity with an additional 2,500 seats, including ice-level luxury boxes.

Minor League Baseball Stadium The group also proposes to build – at no cost to the county – a new minor-league baseball stadium at the nearby Mitchel Field Athletic Complex, and to bring a minor league baseball team affiliated with the Atlantic League to the county. The proposed stadium will be subject to its own request-for-proposal and approval process.
Construction of structured parking adjacent to the Coliseum to free up land – currently used as parking lots – for other development. Some $120 million will go toward the construction of Coliseum parking decks.

Extending the Islanders lease beyond its 2015 expiration, or making a deal with a comparable sports franchise.The Lighthouse Group will extend the Islanders’ commitment to play professional hockey in Nassau County until 2025.

Creating a mixed-use commercial-residential development. Townhouses, apartment buildings and office buildings will be constructed around a picturesque canal, to create a pedestrian-friendly suburban center.

Creating next-generation housing. The Lighthouse Group will commit 20% of any new residential units to next-generation housing.

Expanding the tax base for Nassau County, the Town of Hempstead and area school districts. New retail businesses and office space, as well as new residential units, will significantly expand the county’s tax base, kick starting new growth that Nassau needs to offset escalating property taxes.

Creating a public transportation system to connect the Coliseum site with the greater area known as the Nassau County Hub.The Lighthouse Group has committed to spend $55 million on transportation improvements in the ‘Nassau Centre’ area, including $25 million toward transforming the Centre into a pedestrian-oriented suburban center. The group will also fund a bus-trolley system serving the Coliseum and its immediate surroundings, as well as bus service to connect with the LIRR.

The county’s request-for-proposals sought plans for the 77-acre Coliseum site, but the Lighthouse Group’s proposal includes plans for surrounding properties as well, resulting in a 150-acre vision. The Lighthouse Group owns properties adjacent to the 77-acre site, including the Marriott Hotel, Reckson Plaza and the Omni Office Complex. The proposal includes 6 million square feet of hotel, retail, office, residential and Coliseum space.

Additionally, an extra $5 million is included in the proposal for community facilities, including proposed sponsorship for a Long Island Sports Hall of Fame.

The Lighthouse Group’s control of adjacent properties, plus its ability to guarantee that the Islanders would continue to occupy the newly renovated Coliseum were factors in their selection, Suozzi said. “This proposal makes the best possible use of the Coliseum site,” Suozzi said. “As the nation’s oldest suburb, the county really has no room left to grow. It is vital that we come up with new, creative ways to increase our tax base. This plan does that, while making the Coliseum site and the Nassau Centre an exciting place to live, work and play.”

County officials now will work to reach a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Lighthouse Group that would set out the major terms of the deal and establish a period for lease negotiations. Once a MOA is reached, it will be submitted for approval to the Nassau County Legislature. The plan also will need approval from the Town of Hempstead, which controls zoning issues at the site.The county is hopeful that construction could begin at the site within two years.
- - -
Hmmm. Required approvals from the Nassau County Legislature AND the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead? Let the games begin!

With Peter Schmitt earlier saying that Suozzi's State of the County address left him "underwhelmed," you know that politics will take center stage in Mineola. Look for more trips to the penalty box at the County Seat than at the Coliseum.

And approval from the Zoning Board of the Town of Hempstead? The new-found amity between Tom Suozzi and Kate Murray aside, the clash between the Democrat controlled County and the redevelopment of the Hub.

Will the grandiose plans to re-energize the county's ailing and aged economy and infrastructure with mixed-use housing, retail and recreational space actually take flight at what was once Mitchel Field, or, like so many redevelopment plans of the past, simply fade from view, like Lindberg's Spirit of St. Louis as it ascended into the haze above the Hempstead Plains en route to Paris?

Will we tackle the problems of traffic, congestion, unbridled growth and overdevelopment along the Hempstead Turnpike corridor, or face the next generation of gridlock, increased pollution, density run amuck, and still further degradation of the water supply?

Let's not forget about NIMBY enthusiasts, who will be out in force declaring war against light rail, lighthouses, and any glimmer of light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. [Funny. Few NIMBYers were to be heard from during the "visioning" stage.]

And what of the taxpayer? Will this Nassau Centre really mean more money for our schools and less taken from the pockets of homeowners, or will we simply be creating more long-term debt and cost overruns -- along with anticipated projects that never get further than the drawing board -- feeding the already stretched taxpayer to the proverbial lions at a spanking new Coliseum.

We want nothing more than to see Tom Suozzi's vision of a New Suburbia move forward, and for that groundbreaking ceremony to be held within two years. Still, we must proceed with a cautious optimism in assessing the Wang proposal and in fine tuning it's details. Similarly, we must reconcile the projected expenditures with our ability to pick up the hefty tab -- both in today's dollar's, and tomorrow's.

We want to be absolutely certain that we can, 10 or even 20 years down the road, look back at the creation of this Nassau Centre and say, "The rebith of America's first suburb began here," and not, "It seemed like a good idea at the time!"

What do you think about the Wang/Reckson plan to redevelop Nassau's "Hub?" Inquiring minds want to know. E-mail The Community Alliance at info@thecommunityalliance.org. Guest blogs on this issue are welcome and invited!

The Value Of Rental Housing

Where Did You Live When You Were 25?

Civic Strategies, Inc., a strategic planning firm that focuses on public policy solutions for cities and regions, opines on the double-edged sword of rental apartments on Long Island. The organization, based in Atlanta, may not have the complete picture, as do those who live here, but even this broad overview paints a picture of concern for the future of America's oldest suburb.

Ask anyone who worries about the decline of older suburbs and she'll tell you that one of the greatest culprits is rental housing. Healthy suburbs are overwhelmingly owner-occupied, she'll say, and places that allow detached housing to become rental units and apartment complexes to move in are asking for trouble. But that may not always be the case.

Take New York's Long Island suburbs. On the surface, they're doing great. Only 20 percent of residents live in rental housing, compared to 33 percent nationally, and the value of owner-occupied housing is skyrocketing. Housing prices have doubled in the past six years, local real estate watchers say, and the average price of a single-family house last year was more than $390,000, twice the national average.

So what's wrong with this picture? Long Island is losing its young people who can't afford to buy a house and can't find an apartment to rent. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of 18- to 34-year-olds declined by 20 percent, the Chicago Tribune reported recently, causing leaders to worry about labor shortages and a shrinking tax base. "Our population is stagnant because there's no new housing. We're not growing," Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi told the Tribune. "We could face a tipping point where the high quality of life that we have in Long Island will come to resemble the death of the cities that we went through in the 1970s."

Actually, this is a common problem among older suburbs (the Silicon Valley near San Jose, Calif., and the Los Angeles suburb of Orange County also have sky-high prices and not enough apartments). So why not just build more apartments? Because residents hate the idea of renters in the suburbs and go ballistic over talk of "affordable housing," which they equate with welfare recipients. "If development is viewed as threatening those things people embrace as suburbia, those projects aren't going anywhere," one regional planner said. So leaders on Long Island use euphemisms like "workforce housing" and "next-generation housing" to sell residents on the idea of mixing in a few apartments when land is redeveloped.

Footnote: So what are rents like on Long Island? So high that some resident have illegally converted their basements into apartments, which they rent to college kids at Stony Brook University. One student told the Tribune such places can go for $750 a month. Most who rent have to bring in a roommate to afford it.

© Copyright 1998-2006, Civic Strategies, Inc.
- - -
Wow. $750 a month for a basement apartment (presumably illegal) in Stony Brook. Come out to Nassau County's west end, where a basement apartment in Elmont will fetch upwards of $1200. And the more people the landlord can squeeze into that basement -- and squeeze for tax-free rent money -- the better (for the landlord, that is).

Yes, we all know there's a problem here, and it is multi-faceted, to say the least. Soaring cost of single-family housing and related expenses (fed, in part, by the artificial hike in market value when a single-family house is marketed -- wink, wink -- as a multi-family home). Lack of affordable housing stock (inclusive of legal rentals) for so-called "workforce" and the "next generation." Erosion of tax base due to uncaptured income (illegal rent rolls not reported). Escalating costs, passed on to the taxpayers, of providing essential services (fire, police, sanitation, schools, water) to the not so invisible legions of illegal renters, from whom zero property tax is collected.

Add to the mix an unwillingness on the part of Long Islanders to build vertically, to increase density, and to demand strict compliance with and enforcement of the building and zoning codes, and we find ourselves in a serious quandary, indeed.

Illegal rental units have been described as a "scourge" upon our communities, and rightfully so. The lack of affordable housing -- whether through ownership or rental -- has reached a critical stage. Long Islanders are beginning to feel the economic pinch, as this aging suburb goes from melting pot to meltdown.

At The Community Alliance, we will continue to examine the many quality of life concerns that impact upon our communities, and to explore viable and feasible solutions to the problems that threaten the very fabric of the suburban patchwork quilt.

In addition to enforcement issues and getting a firm grip on how we raise revenues to pay for services from sanitation to schools, we must begin to look more closely at how we can redevelop our "Main Streets," "Downtowns," and "brownfields" so as to not only generate growth in the business sector, but moreover, to create, at the core of community, affordable residential living space that measurably increases available housing, while decreasing -- and, long term, eliminating -- the necessity that has created the mother of all insidious inventions, the illegal accessory apartment.

Where do we go from here? We'd like your opinions, suggestions and commentary. Write us at info@thecommunityalliance.org.

Who Needs Affordable Housing?

Draft Study Leaves Affordable Housing Blowing In The Wind

As recently reported in Newsday [Not Sold On Homes Plan], the Long Island Regional Planning Board has released a draft study which, according to housing advocates, underestimates – some say grossly so – Long Island’s need for affordable housing.

While Lee Koppelman, Executive Director of the Regional Planning Board, acknowledges the affordable housing shortage on Long Island, the draft report points to a decreasing population in many Long Island communities (obviously, the shadow population of illegal renters has been overlooked in its entirety) and, curiously, lower monthly costs of home ownership.

Whoa! Lower costs of home ownership? That’s where the Planning Board’s report turns from “draft” to “tornado,” a vacuum sucking all reason and reality from Long Island’s housing scene.

According to the report, in 1985, the monthly cost of home ownership was $2,830, compared with $2,388 in 2004. The Planning Board cites lower interest rates for this finding. [Yes, we're talking 1985 costs in 2004 dollars, but still, the numbers don't jive with the finding that the true costs of home ownership are less today than they were in 1985.]

While statistics can be made to show anything we’d like them to show, these figures alone are so skewed that they cannot be said to pass the straight face test. Is there anyone reading this – or anyone that any reader knows – who is paying less today for housing costs than they did in 1985? Maybe – just maybe – if we take property taxes out of the equation, and you refinanced when rates were rock bottom, you may have broken even. Even then. If you pay property taxes as part of your mortgage, you will find, more often than not, your monthly tax escrow to be greater than the principal and interest on your loan combined.

Let’s pull out those Tax Statements for 1985. Hmm. Combined Town, County and School tax - $4,246. Now, the Tax Statement for 2004 (drum roll, please) - $10,672. Yup, our housing costs have gone down.

Never met Lee Koppelman. We’re sure he’s a wonderful guy. Brilliant, in fact. But come on now, Lee. It doesn’t take an expert in the field of either planning or economics (or someone who plays such an expert on TV) to realize that housing costs on Long Island have skyrocketed since 1985, and real income has nowhere kept pace.

Even the Planning Board's own figures belie the study's conclusions. In 1994, the median price of a single family home in Nassau County was $176,000. In 2004, the median price was $427,000. How is it possible that monthly housing costs have gone down?

The Community Alliance has reviewed the July, 2005 Summary Presentation of the Housing Segment of the Long Island Regional Comprehesive Plan, as promulgated by the Planning Board, and to be fair, the study, even in its infancy, reaches toward numerous admirable goals.

We agree with the Board that "the key to building more affordable housing is higher density" - that balanced mix of attached and semi-attached homes; smaller single family houses amidst the McMansions; rentals and ownership properties interspersed with retail businesses in the "downtowns" of our communities.

Among the salient points advanced by the Planning Board that merit implementation are:

• Housing programs that target specific populations, including seniors, the young, seasonal workers, and middle-class professionals;
• Creation of a "Next Generation Housing Fund," to assist with down payment for home ownership; and
• Streamlining the approval process and removing unnecessary barriers for the construction of affordable housing.

The Community Alliance deems as unacceptable, however, the Board's proposal to turn illegal housing units into legal accessory dwelling units, an idea that would legitimatize the dangers - to life, limb and suburbia - of illegal apartments in single-family homes. Anyone who believes otherwise need only take a drive through Elmont!

As we’ve intimated before [okay, we’ve come right out and screamed it], there hasn’t been anything close to planned development on Long Island since Robert Moses built his causeway. Build what you want, as big as you like, the uglier the better – and if, by some odd quirk, there’s a rule that says you can’t do that, we’ll find a way to carve out an exception.

“Smart Growth” on Long Island it is not. On our island, “regional planning” has been and, in great measure, remains an oxymoron.

Studies are all well and good. Everyone should have a study commissioned once in his or her lifetime. A study on affordable housing on Long Island, however, must come out of the box with a basic premise – that there just is not enough of it!
---
For more information on “Smart Growth” initiatives, visit www.smartgrowth.org.

For more information on a "vision" of a Long Island where communities and neighborhoods have a true sense of place, visit www.visionlongisland.org.

To be a true rebel for the cause of community, visit www.thecommunityalliance.org and "sign up" as a "friend."

Long Islanders Favor Higher Density

Smart Growth Seeps Into Suburbia, But Apparently, Not In Hempstead Town

A recent study by the Long Island Index -- the folks who study things like this -- reveals that a majority of LIers favor higher density, particularly as part and parcel of the redevlopment of "downtown."

61% of those surveyed, in fact, think high-density housing in our downtown areas is a good thing.
And in a region where single-family houses were said to be sacrosanct, even the idea of the typical suburban scene -- a Levitt home on a 60' by 100' lot, surrounded by a white picket fence -- is giving way to that new suburban mindset of more rental units, more housing in downtown areas, and taller buildings along 'Main Street.'

In fact, the forward-looking trend, and not only among housing experts and Smart Growth advocates, is that, in order to maintain our suburban quality of life, and keep Long Island economically sustainable, there must be "...inclusionary zoning, which would require that a share of new housing construction be sold at prices that are affordable to low, moderate or middle-income individuals; incentives to municipalities to zone for higher density housing, a share of which would be for moderate/middle income households; and transit-oriented development, in which transportation agencies, housing agencies and municipalities cooperate to create new residential or mixed-use communities around train stations and other transit facilities."

Not new ideas, certainly, but surely those whose time have finally come, at least as far as Long Island homeowners are concerned.

Of course, not everyone is so inclined to move Long Island into the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

Take the Supervisor and Town Board in Hempstead Town (PLEASE!), where being stuck in the 1950s has become the favorite pasttime of local officials.

In the Town of Hempstead, density (other than as the cerebral affliction suffered by the members of the Town Board), is viewed entirely as a negative, even in instances where the community favors density as a tool for redevelopment.

Last Tuesday, for instance, the Town Board, in its infinite lack of wisdom, and stubborn adherence to the old and failed, turned down the request of the West Hempstead community for the private sale of a no-tell motel to a developer who would have built upscale apartment units (saying the proposal was "too dense"), in favor of the adoption of an "Urban" Renewal plan (we thought this was suburbia) that was scorned by local civic associations, community leaders, and Smart Growth advocates alike.

Leaving aside the very real question of "whatever happened to representative government?" [In Hempstead Town? Who's kidding whom?], there's the substantive issue of what is truly in the community's -- and Long Island's -- best interest.

Walter Ejnes, a longtime West Hempstead resident and a member of the West Hempstead Civic Association's Executive Board, expressed dismay over the Town Board's decision -- one which we would say was based on ignorance (both of the facts, and of the will of the people).

Said Ejnes:

"Talk about perfect timing. The unfortunate result of the town board clearly shows that our leaders are not only out of touch with the community's wishes, but also out of touch with the economic development experts on Long Isand. Many of you may have read or heard about the report that came out today on the Housing situation on LI. The report is prepared annually by the Long Island Index, which is made up of LI's top economists and economic development professionals.

"The 2008 report was released just this morning and the focus of this year's report is that Long Islander's want to see changes in the zoning laws to allow higher densities to allow for apartments. While we often talk about our young professionals, the most striking surprise was that the Baby Boomers showed the most support for this concept as they see apartments and rentals as a viable option to stay on LI. It makes sense as they could sell their homes, rent and avoid the high taxes that come with ownership."

Here is an excerpt from the Long Island Index report's recommendations:

Young residents share the goals of their parents’ generation; they hope to own a large single-family home in a suburban setting where homes are spaced apart and offer privacy. They also acknowledge that this goal will be hard to attain and may be willing to entertain some alternative routes to attain this goals, including life in an apartment or condo in a local downtown area. The young generation may leave or stay on Long Island; they were almost equally likely to think they might move locally or out of the area in the next five years. Much will depend on their financial ability to meet housing costs. Unfortunately, they are also especially pessimistic about Long Island’s future, a bad sign for the area’s future vibrancy. In contrast, there is evidence that older Long Islanders, likely empty nesters, are interested in downsizing, perhaps as a way to capitalize on the value of a large single family home.

Baby boomers and seniors express an interest in alternative housing and in living in walkable neighborhoods. A sizeable number of baby boomers can also imagine living in a condo or apartment downtown. This demonstrates a willingness to change. Unfortunately, baby boomers are also seriously contemplating leaving Long Island. This reflects a concern over high taxes and the possible departure of family members. But it also seems like a situation that could be addressed through local development and the creation of more affordable, alternative housing solutions that carry a lighter tax load. Baby boomers have equity in their homes and will spend that on housing somewhere. Why not on Long Island? These findings provide much fuel for thought about the future direction of local development.

Why not Long Island, indeed!

Clearly, Long Islanders are beginning to understand that affordable housing, increased density (particularly in or near downtown business districts), and keeping folks on the Island, rather than forcing them to move away by reason of high property taxes and low housing options, is our salvation, not suburbia's ruin.

Too bad that local officials the likes of Hempstead Town's Kate Murray just can't see the forest for the few trees we have left here.

Perhaps that's why America's largest township has been turned into America's most blighted township (with Hempstead Town having the blight studies to prove it), and why, when those few remaining trees do fall on Long Island, there may no longer be anyone around to hear them!
- - -
Click HERE to read the Newsday story, Long Islanders would trade houses for apartments.
- - -
From the Editorial page of Newsday:

Time is right to build up downtowns

The people are way ahead of the politicians, again.

A new survey by the Long Island Index shows that people are now more receptive to downtown living - including taller buildings and even multistory parking garages - as an alternative to sprawl. Yet most village mayors and town supervisors have failed to embrace the obvious: The only way we can grow is up.

Our traditional, single-family-home model of growth, one that now includes 85 percent of Long Islanders, is no longer sustainable. Housing costs are so high that young people are leaving at rates that will deprive us of the future workforce we need to keep our economy humming. Property taxes are through the roof. And we're running out of land.

"We have an ocean telling us to find some other way," said Ann Golob, the Index project director, at the report's unveiling yesterday at Farmingdale State College. And the former mayor of Greenport, David Kapell, added: "For a real solution to emerge, we need to think vertically in a big way." Unfortunately, few mayors - Paul Pontieri of Patchogue is a notable exception - see it that way.

Too many local politicians view density and height as the untouchable third rails of land-use planning, and there are some loud voices in the community that encourage that sort of fear-think. But the Index survey shows that half of Long Islanders now favor raising building heights in downtown from two to four stories, to allow for apartments above stores. That's a 10-point increase in that attitude since 2004.

It's clear: Young Long Islanders want vibrant downtowns with affordable rental units. If we don't listen and get it done, we're waving goodbye to our future.

Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.

"Nassau County Is In A State Of Repair"

Or Is It, Disrepair?

"Repair" signifies that things -- like roads along Main Street, the infrastructure that is the foundation of our local economy, the tax base, long-eroding, the deficit -- are getting fixed.

Unfortunately, there is little, beyond the hollow rhetoric from both sides of the aisle, to indicate that Nassau County is on the road to recovery, let alone that the road is in the process of being repaved.

County Executive Ed Mangano is quick to point out the problems (and to blame most if not all of them on his predecessor), but falls short of offering real solutions. [Someone needs to clue us in on the numbers, too. If Mangano, as per his TV spot, turned a $133 million deficit into a surplus, how is it that we now have a $176 million deficit in Nassau County? We need more smoke to cover the mirrors here!]

The loyal opposition, meanwhile, is swift with its condemnation, telling us what we do not need -- a casino, for instance -- but offering little  more than homage to what we do need -- next-generation housing, among them -- without providing a roadmap (potholes sold seperately) showing how to get there.

State and Nassau County Democratic Chair, Jay Jacobs, calls Mangano's governance, "bumbling." With hindsight, it becomes all too clear that leadership during the Democrats' tenure wasn't all that much better.

So what's the problem and who's to blame? The old borrow and spend, hallmarks of both sides of the political spectrum, the stuff that county, town and school districts alike are made of, creating huge deficits and, ultimately, gargantuan paybacks, as in taxes, fees and rate hikes.

Who's to blame? Not Ed Mangano (he said so himself). Not Jay Jacobs. Not the Dems or the GOP. Heck, they've simply tried to give us, their constituents, exactly what we want. More of this. More of that. And then a bit of these and those to go along with them.

Never mind the cost. We'll worry about that later.

Well, folks, "later" is suddenly upon us. [Actually, it was upon us more than a decade ago, when Nassau County, in boom times, was at the brink of the financial precipice. We changed administrations, but every one of us wanted the good times to continue to roll.]

We can't blame the elected. After all, they are merely a reflection of our own sordid desires, and our unwillingness to pay the pipers for the tunes we demanded they play. And imperfect as they are in implementing our wishes, our representatives, bumbling and blithering, term after term, have given us what we have asked for -- sort of. A great colossus of government-induced spending for which there appears no end (nor cap) in sight.

Whom did we expect to bear the burden of paying for 56 separate school districts in Nassau County alone? What about those 200-plus special taxing districts, each emptying our wallets into their coffers? In a good economy -- make that a great economy -- Nassau floundered. And now, with markets wallowing, fiscal cupboards bare, NIFA barking at our heels, and inflation on the horizon? Exactly what did we expect?

Generation Next is fleeing. Seniors are struggling. The middle class is shrinking. The infrastructure -- much of it still mired, by the inertia of local government, in the 1950s -- is crumbling.

The mindset of the electorate here on Long Island? Apparently, doing nothing remains a viable option.

Perhaps Ed Mangano said it best (though not quite eloquently): "We're doing what the people are looking for..."

The cartoon character, Pogo, may not have been entirely off the mark when he said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" Indeed, we have only ourselves to blame, really, for this awful mess we're in.
- - -
From the cyberpages of patch.com:



The Democratic Response:

Nassau Dem Chair Responds to State of the County

Nassau Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs offers the following response to the State of the County.

It was hard to watch County Executive Ed Mangano stand before every resident of Nassau County and twist the truth about the situation we're in.

Mangano campaigned on a promise to improve our county’s finances, but his tenure as county executive has been marked by incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility.

The economy is struggling. There’s no argument about that. Too many of our neighbors can’t find jobs. Too many of our kids are leaving Long Island to seek their fortunes elsewhere – and why should they stay here? Our county executive has done nothing to help our communities weather this storm.

Mangano and the Republican majority in the county legislature promised to fix our county’s broken property tax assessment system, which overcharges homeowners by a total of $100 million every year. Their idea of a fix, however, was to make schools responsible for providing refunds to homeowners who pay too much.

The recession has forced school districts across Nassau to cut programs, fire teachers and raise taxes. Now that Mangano has made them responsible for doling out property tax refunds, they will be forced to make more cuts and increase their share of your property tax bill.

I want to emphasize this point: Ed Mangano wants us to believe that his budget doesn’t raise taxes, but he isn't telling the truth.

Mangano has also levied a new tax on nonprofit organizations, although he insists the new tax is a “fee.” This new tax charges nonprofits like hospitals and universities for using the county’s sewer system. To pay it, these nonprofits will have to raise tuition rates and levy fees of their own. Whatever you call this new burden, it amounts to more money out of your pocket.

Mangano needs to be honest with the people of Nassau County. He hasn’t fixed our broken assessment system. He simply shifted the burden away from the county. He didn’t pass a no-tax budget. He is forcing other entities to charge you for the costs of his policies. Our county executive can't keep treating the county budget like a shell game.

Under Mangano’s bumbling tenure, the state has had to take over the county budget. Simply put, our current county executive isn’t up to the challenge of governing during these difficult times. We need leaders who will make smart cuts and pursue real reform of our county’s assessment system, rather than passing the cost of the problem onto our schools. We need leaders who will support smart growth.

We don’t need a casino. We don’t need the traffic it would bring. We need next-generation housing. We need places for our kids to move when they get their first jobs. We need places for young people to congregate and socialize and form the bonds that hold communities together. With well-designed neighborhoods come new residents, who pay taxes and help our county invest in its future. We need a place for a new generation of Long Islanders to settle and grow.

We’re all in this together. That’s why we have to be careful about the cuts and investments we make in hard times – and Ed Mangano isn’t thinking in anyone’s future but his own. That’s why he slashed funding to Long Island Bus. That’s why he is imposing a new tax on hospitals and colleges. That’s why he wants to build a casino instead of a neighborhood. These proposals all sound good the way he spins them, but underneath his rhetoric, they are bad policies that will leave Nassau worse off in the long run.

Jay Jacobs is the chairman of the Nassau County Democratic Committee as well as the New York State Democratic Committee.

The Tumbleweeds Loom Larger On Long Island's Horizon

"Exit" Poll Finds LI's "Under 40s" Primed To Flee

Maybe it's the lack of affordable housing, or the dearth of jobs that provide a living wage. Perhaps the over-the-top property taxes are the cue, or the diminishing return on one's investment. Could be the general decline in Long Island's quality of life that's driving Generation Next away from here, or the spector of "downtowns" that are perennially depressed, "Main Streets" that are little more than open sewers, and those lofty visions of the suburban dream that have faded into memory, leaving only a nightmarish presence as defined by the ugliness of the Turnpike and the aloofness of local government.

Whatever the reasons -- and they are, to be sure, many and varied -- the young are poised to leave Long Island, in droves, further eroding the tax base, devastating the local economy, and leaving behind those who, by dint of their stubbornness or foolishness, must stay behind to foot the bills.

We watch the tides roll in and roll out on our Long Island. Day after day. Year after year. What washes ashore, aside from the occasional body or discarded tampon, is a mass of toxic seaweed that threatens, in its wake, to overrun the beach head.

Further inland, at places like the Nassau Hub, the tumbleweed gather outside the Coliseum like so many Tribbles, unruly masses ready to roll down the Turnpike, smothering everything in their path.

Maybe it's not simply the taxes, the housing shortage, the egregious cost of living, the jobs, the sheer magnitude of the down and out in our towns and hamlets. Maybe it's that local government, rarely proactive, and, of recent vintage, barely able to react with even so much as a knee jerk, has all but abandoned efforts to renew, revitalize, re-energize, or so much as read the writing on the crumbling walls of blighted brownfields.

And when reports and studies issue declaring, with admonishment, "Long Island's young people are leaving," populace and politicos alike, as if amused by Henny Penny's cry of "the sky is falling," do little more than shrug.

Guess what? The sky is falling!

Where opportunity knocks, local officials hide under the bed, never answering the door. Where big ideas are proposed, our local politicos think small. In lieu of future design, there is the default of resignation. Actions supplanted by words delivered on colorful leaflets in residents' mailboxes. Master Plans shelved. Citizens' visioning dismissed.

Projects ill-conceived. Plans left to turn to dust on the drafting board. Proposals rejected. Promises and artists' renderings regurgitated, rehashed, and recycled, but nary a shovel taken to the street.

"A better burb is coming." Yes, and so is the Messiah.

Even where there is progress, it is, at best, nominal, coming too late and costing too much. The "one step forward, two steps back" approach to everything from reclaiming downtrodden downtowns to reducing property taxes that are out of control.

Sad, we think, where the only quantifiable measure of progress is a township's disingenuous claim of having advanced the cause of transit-oriented development, when, truth be told (though who will be left to tell it?), town government did absolutely everything within its power to derail redevelopment.

The folks at Long Island Index aren't telling us anything new, really. We've heard it all before. Last year. The year before that. A decade ago.

And maybe that's the problem. Nothing changes. Not for the better, anyway. Mired in the past. Clueless about the future. We refuse to adapt. We choose not to evolve. We have truly become the town where time stood still.
- - -
From Newsday:

Report says rentals are key to keeping LI's young

by PAUL LAROCCO / paul.larocco@newsday.com

Adapt or watch a generation of young professionals flee.

That's the message to municipalities from this year's Long Island Index report, which is to be released Thursday. It again focuses on underutilized downtowns. With few exceptions, the 13 towns, two cities and 22 villages that participated have been slow to embrace smart growth, the report concludes.

Outdated master plans and zoning codes hurt, but the report lays most blame on restrictions for developing high-density rental housing that typically anchors downtown redevelopment and attracts young adults.

Of the Long Island residents age 18 to 34 who participated in an Index survey, 64 percent said they plan to leave in the next five years. Three-quarters of the total 807 Long Island residents polled said the loss of younger residents is a serious problem, compared with 40 percent of those in suburban New Jersey who also participated in the 8th annual report, "Getting It Done: Aligning Long Island's Development Processes with Sustainable Economic Growth."

"All my nieces and nephews are moving away. And all my old friends, they're gone," said Mira Garland, 33, a Mastic stay-at-home mom and survey respondent. "They complain they can't afford to live here."

Nancy Rauch Douzinas, president of the Rauch foundation, a Garden City charity that funds various family and environment programs as well as the Long Island Index, said, "it's obvious we have not kept pace." Last year, the index identified 8,300 acres with development potential in 150 Long Island downtowns.

Hicksville was one such area. The Town of Oyster Bay, which includes the large hamlet, didn't participate in the index's land use planning survey, but town officials have opposed increased density.

"This bigger-is-better, or denser-is-better, approach, where one size fits all, we don't believe in that," Hal Mayer, Oyster Bay's environmental consultant to the supervisor, said Wednesday. "Each community knows what's best for itself."

The index acknowledged some progress. It cited Patchogue, Amityville and Mineola villages and Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Riverhead and Hempstead towns as trying to reshape their downtowns.

But only Hempstead, Long Island's most-populated town, has undertaken a transit-oriented development. The district around West Hempstead's LIRR station is to include a 150-unit apartment complex within walking distance of the station, a town spokesman said.

The index concluded other towns mostly ignore potential around the Long Island Rail Road, creating "isolated station(s) in a sea of parking."

The Huntington Town Board in September rejected the transit-oriented Avalon Bay housing development in Huntington Station. Critics claimed the project would have overburdened the community while supporters called it key to revitalization.

Dude, Where's My Affordable Housing?

Tell Me, Where Do The Children Stay?

From the untimely demise of Avalon Bay in Huntington, to the inordinate delay in building so-called transit-oriented rentals in places like West Hempstead, the dearth of housing opportunities for Generation Next (let alone, Generation Text) is, how can we say this nicely, forcing college grads and our young workforce off Long Island. At best, the lack of affordable (a relative term, given that $1900 a month for a one-bedroom apartment in western Nassau, adjacent to an LIRR station sans weekend service, is not our idea of "affordable") housing, for purchase or rental, is forcing our children to move back with mom and dad, or to seek uneasy (and potentially unsafe) refuge in illegal basement apartments.

Recent developments (or should we say, the lack thereof) highlight the dilemma. [READ Below.]

Blame it on generation after generation of NIMBYism, the detractors of density and development, the shortsighted myopia of Zoning Boards and Town Boards, the mismanagement of the MTA, or the general inertia that seems to run through the lifeblood of Long Islanders when it comes to getting just about anything accomplished, the future of Long Island -- our children -- is moving out and moving on.

Affordable housing is not a cure-all for the plethora of conditions that ail and debilitate our Long Island. It would, however, be a great shot in the arm!
- - -
From The Long Island Press:

Huntington Town Board Sinks AvalonBay Proposal
By Spencer Rumsey

The Huntington Town Board rejected a rezoning proposal Tuesday night in a 3-2 vote that would have created a “transit-oriented district” to allow a developer, AvalonBay Communities, to build 490 apartment units on 26 acres in Huntington Station.

Avalon Glen Cove North in Glen Cove. The Avalon Bay company wanted to build a similar development in Hungtington Station rejected the zoning needed to move the project forward Tuesday, Sept. 20.

The decision came after months of increasingly heated wrangling as opposition grew to the proposed apartment complex, and the issue became caught up in local town politics. The developer had promised to set aside at least 20 percent of the rentals for affordable housing and provide the Huntington school district with up to $1.5 million in mitigation costs to make up for an anticipated influx of new students. The item on the agenda drew hundreds of people.

Outside Town Hall protesters chanted that AvalonBay, a nationwide builder of high-end developments, was unfair to local builders by using contractors and workers from Connecticut and elsewhere. Inside Town Hall, the corridors were jammed, and voices were loud.

Opponents seemed to outnumber supporters, judging from the proliferation of their printed red-and-white signs proclaiming “Stop AvalonBay and Downsizing Huntington,” their white-washed Burger King crowns stamped with the phrase “Say no to AvalonBay,” and the many blue and red Conservative Society of America T-shirts.

The Town Board room itself was filled to capacity. The local fire marshall wouldn’t even allow AvalonBay’s attorney from the law firm Farrell Fritz to view the proceeding.

Noting the intense atmosphere, Supervisor Frank Petrone said, “Your passion speaks loud and clear.” He added, “This town could be better for all the energy this has produced.”

Councilwoman Glenda Jackson, a Democrat, noted that she’d been “appalled” at some of the “vicious comments” from opponents to the project, which she said were “over the top.”

She said that as a single parent who’d grown up in the town and had lived in Huntington Station, the project would go far in addressing the housing and economic needs of her community. But many of the opponents didn’t agree.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” Petrone said before the vote was cast, “you’ve shown leadership; don’t show dividedness.”

Under the terms of the rezoning proposal, the law needed a super majority to pass.

When Democratic Councilman Mark Cuthbertson followed Republican Councilman Mark Mayoka in opposing the measure, the crowd knew the law was toast.

Democratic Councilwoman Susan Berland, who’s made no secret of her political ambitions (such as for the supervisor job, some say), had previously announced her opposition to the zoning’s high density allowance (18 units per acre).

Cuthbertson cited the school board’s rejection of the Avalon project (after voting in favor of it last year), and said that “without their good faith” he couldn’t go forward.

In the end, two Democrats and one Republican defeated the measure, and only Supervisor Petrone and Councilwoman Jackson, both Democrats, were in favor.

After the vote, Berland told the Press that she still held out hope that AvalonBay would come back to the town with a proposal for much lower density, such as 14.5 units per acre. The site now allows for 109 single-family homes.

AvalonBay had said that without the higher density zoning it wouldn’t develop in Huntington.

Supporters of the project were disappointed, to say the least, but they were not surprised because the town board had been backpedaling for months.

“Their job is to lead,” said Lisa Tyson, executive director of the Long Island Progressive Coalition. “They reacted.”
- - -
From The New York Times:

Transit Cuts Bring Uncertainty
By MARCELLE S. FISCHLER

It was partly the Port Washington line of the Long Island Rail Road, with its direct, quick and frequent runs into Manhattan, that persuaded Scott McCabe, 28, a financial analyst working in Midtown Manhattan, to move to Port Washington from Hoboken, N.J.

Last June, he spent more than $500,000 on a four-bedroom split-level from which he could walk the mile to the station. “It’s a fantastic commute for me in terms of what our options were in the suburbs,” Mr. McCabe said.

But when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority cut off-peak service in half on the line last month, enacting schedule changes as part of budget-related cuts in Long Island Rail Road service approved in March, Mr. McCabe was concerned. Though he commutes during rush hour and was not affected, the reduction in nonpeak service to once an hour after 9 a.m. might have “put a little bit of a damper” on his decision to move, had he known it was being planned.

After all, homes in North Shore towns like Great Neck, Manhasset and Plandome along the Port Washington line carry a 15 to 30 percent premium over homes farther east and south, served by train lines that typically require a change in Jamaica, Queens.

Karen Morrison, an associate broker and manager of Accents on Real Estate in Port Washington, who is also president of the Port Washington/Manhasset Real Estate Board, described the rail line as “one of the key components to our town.”

“It’s a perfect setting if you like a small-town feeling with a 35-minute commute into Manhattan,” Ms. Morrison added. Traditionally, buyers “will pay more for less to be in these communities.”

That may change because of the transit cutbacks — which decrease midday service by 14 trains on weekdays and cut 32 trains over the weekend. Along with service cuts made elsewhere on the Island in May, the schedule alterations are part of the transportation authority’s effort to close a $900 million budget gap.

Ms. Morrison said she could well imagine a prospective buyer’s thinking, “If I am not getting that same service I was expecting, maybe I could find something less expensive in another area.”

But Susan Higgins, director of sales and an associate broker at Prudential Douglas Elliman in Manhasset, disagreed. Since the cuts are on off-peak trains, she asserted, “it’s an inconvenience for some people and they may have to alter their schedules around it.” But she said, “The draw to these communities will remain the same.”

While studies have not been done on the Island, Christopher Jones, the vice president for research of the Manhattan-based Regional Plan Association, said a study released in July looked at the effects of transit service improvements on property values in New Jersey. By inference, “it gives you an indication of how important transit service is to property values.” Over time, reduced service on both the railroad and Long Island Bus “will make communities a less desirable place to live, and that will translate into lower property values,” Mr. Jones said. Though peak-hour reductions would have a bigger impact, he added, “it doesn’t mean there is no impact when it is weekend and evening time. It is one of the amenities.”

Jan Wells, the associate director of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the M.T.A., a public watchdog group, said there was “always a direct connection between transportation services and real estate values.”

She said she was hoping the service cuts would be temporary, but “in the meantime anybody looking for property where transportation is important, they will look at service.”

Budget cuts have also affected service to the railroad’s Long Beach, Montauk, Ronkonkoma, Greenport and West Hempstead branches, as well as trains to the Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn. The cuts are estimated to save about $950,000 this year and $3.8 million annually starting in 2011, according to a statement from the authority.

Since some trains to Huntington and Ronkonkoma now have extra stops to accommodate those who rode trains that have been eliminated, commutes have become longer and trains are more crowded. And as Maureen Michaels, the chairwoman of the Long Island Rail Road Commuters Council, noted, “Commuters make choices about where they are going to live based on the frequency and scheduling of trains,” and the most recent cuts “are not sitting well with commuters.”

In West Hempstead, Maria Rigopoulos, vice president of Mill Creek Residential Trust, expects construction to start this fall on the Alexan@West Hempstead, a 150-unit transit-oriented development that Mill Creek is to put up next to the West Hempstead rail station. But the Alexan will not have quite as much transit as some potential residents might like. Weekend service to the West Hempstead stop also suffered a blow.

“It’s not ideal,” Ms. Rigopoulos said, “but the weekday commuters are more important to our development.” And since the apartments are not yet built, she said, tenants won’t be missing something they once had.

Besides, demand for rentals is strong. Rosalie Norton, the president of the West Hempstead Community Support Association, which fought vigorously to get the apartment complex approved on the site of the derelict Courtesy Hotel, said that market-rate rentals were scarce in the area and that the Alexan “fills a desperate need.”

Rates at the Alexan will range from $1,900 a month, for a one-bedroom, to $2,700 for a three-bedroom. In her view the lack of weekend train service will simply mean getting to “Valley Stream or Rockville Centre or Garden City to use one of those lines.”
- - -
Write to The Community Alliance at TheCommunityAlliance@yahoo.com

Join The Community Alliance on Twitter at www.twitter.com/CommunityAlli

Vote for The Community Alliance blog (Best LI-Based Website) on Best of Long Island 2011

If It Is Broke. . .

Why Ain't We Fixin' It?

You know that old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Meaning: It's working. Leave well enough alone.

Well, here on Long Island, things have been "broke" -- physically and fiscally -- for quite some time, and grumble as we may, seems we've been content to leave it alone rather than to even attempt a fix.

Infrastructure crumbling. "Downtowns" in the doldrums. Housing, even in a down market, unaffordable. Transportation system outmoded. Employment opportunities evaporating. Generation Next fleeing. Commercial centers, such as Nassau's hub, slowly becoming the Chernobyls of our island.

And those property taxes. New meaning to the chant of, We're Number 1! 

Yes, for too long, Nassau County had to play second fiddle to places like Westchester or Jersey. But now, we are firmly holding our own ('cause nobody else will touch it) in the highest property taxes in the nation category. Hooray for us!

Our prospects for unloading the burden? Not too promising, we're afraid. School taxes, which account for upwards of 60% of our property tax bills, are projected to continue to climb, while State Aid, in real dollars for our school districts (all 56 of them in Nassau, 127 island-wide) will likely fall.

School District administrators continue to rake in the big bucks. Teachers' Unions continue to demand more. Costs, from transportation to insurance, pensions to utilities, continue to skyrocket.

And here we remain, frozen in place, caught between the proverbial rock of wanting the best possible educational opportunities for our children, and the hard place of emptying our wallets to pay for what has too often become mediocrity and excess.

FixAlbany is little more than a special interest spin cycle. FixNewYork hangs its hat on that precarious 2% school tax cap, as if that was a cure-all. [Which part of "TAX INCREASE" don't we understand? Let's see. 2% per year. Ten years. Okay, you do the math...]

Consolidate school districts? Sure, but not ours.

Cap Superintendent salaries? All right. You go first.

Insist that Albany deliver on the guarantee of our State Constitution to provide a system of free public schools? Right. Freedom, even in our schools, is never free.

Do something to eliminate the inequities of State Aid, which favors upstate districts and shortchanges Long Island? Well, maybe next year.

Replace the regressive school property tax with a progressive income tax (or simply adjust the existing State income tax to earmark the dollars for our public schools)? Did someone say tax???

Tie the property tax to real income, rather than the artificial value of one's home? I'm still hearing the word tax...

Keep things the way they are, doing absolutely nothing, save talk a good game? Sounds like a plan to us!

Whether we're pining over school taxes, kvetching about special taxing districts, cursing the potholes or bemoaning the empty, dilapidated storefronts along "Main Street," other than paying hollow tribute to a bygone era (and paying that over the top tax bill), what are we really doing to correct our course, invest in our future, and right the mighty ship that once was the promise of suburbia?

Sure, they'll give us a farmer's market, or twelve, but with business districts little more than open sewers, housing, even in today's economy, out of reach, jobs nonexistent - and did we mention those outrageous property taxes - who's going to be left on Long Island to eat those delicious, organic, home-grown fruits and veggies?

Where development -- beyond the facetious ode to facade improvement by virtue of a wrought iron bench here, a planter there, and Victorian-style street lamps seemingly everywhere -- is no better than a four-letter word (with planning cum zoning rounding out the Scrabble board, letters all hoarded into one corner), just what are the prospects for a re-energized, reimagined, re-emergent Long Island?

Coliseum? Casino? Lighthouse Lite? Let's put it to a referendum, and then do nothing for the next ten years.

When talk -- or, worse still, Tweet -- supplants the very notion of action, and polls, surveys, conferences and endless visioning sessions have upended shovel to dirt, what is the hope for Long Island's future?

Believe it or not, we're optimists here at The Community Alliance. We truly believe that Long Island's best days, after far too many sleepless nights, are yet to appear on the horizon. Of course, we are realists, as well. Rather than to stand in place, immobilzed by fear, by inertia, by entrenched indifference, we need to begin to move forward. We need to take a long hard look at the big picture -- while taking into account the details -- and do more than merely consider our options. We need to take sustainable development, Smart Growth, and civic engagement well beyond the drawing board. Less talk. Much less. More doing. Much more.

It's broke, folks. Let's fix it!

The Morning After The Lighthouse Hearing

Legitimate Concerns And Unreasonable Delay

Traffic congestion, the likes of which we haven't seen since, well, the last time we drove down Merchants Concourse near Old Country Road.

One-bedroom apartments from $234,000 (with units priced at more than $1 million). Certainly no way to ease the housing crunch in Nassau County, and not an inducement to keep our college grads and young workforce on the island.

Charles Wang and Scott Rechler -- the main forces behind the Lighthouse Project -- woefully unprepared to answer the simplest questions posed by the Hempstead Town Board, whose concerns, from traffic, to housing, to jamming 20 pounds of bologna into a 10 pound bag, certainly had merit. [What? Wang and Rechler couldn't afford to hire Barry Nelson?]

Yes, the Lighthouse Project, as with any initiative of such magnitude, drew at least as much criticism as it did praise at the Town's public hearing.

Questions that beg for answers, on the one hand, and a demand that we find practical solutions, and move forward, on the other.

Traffic congestion? Absolutely. And where in Nassau County, from the main thoroughfares to the side streets clogged with parked cars, is there no snarled, bottle-necked, and slowed to a crawl traffic.

Until officialdom deems it essential, and the public is willing to eject itself from the driver's seat, there will be no viable mass transit alternatives (ala light rail), and the immovable roadways will persist.

Affordable housing? Clearly, a one-bedroom starting at $234,000 is nowhere near affordable. Sorry, Charlie (and Scott). This is not Manhattan.

Okay, you're in this to make money, and you will take what the market will bear -- and then some. Still, an affordable housing component is a must for a project of this scope and breadth. You owe at least that much to the core of people who have supported this project since Day One -- the young Islander fans who, if forced off Long island by out-of-reach housing, may just follow the hockey team to Kansas City, or wherever.

The environment? The impact on Long Island's water table. Run-off and waste finding its way to our storm sewers and leaching down to our aquifers. Geez. Since when does anyone on Long Island -- where we've been abusing our water supply for two generations -- give a hoot about that?

"Just Build it!," as supporters of the Lighthouse proclaim, is no more a panacea for Nassau's long-awaited and much needed renaissance, than "slow and steady, wait and see," as propounded by Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray, is a prelude to smart growth.

As for "Just Zone It!," another catch phrase thrown in the mix, well, why not? Seems that the Town's Zoning Board zones everything else -- or at least carves out an exception for it.

The Lighthouse Project needs to move forward, and well before we pass from the first decade of the 21st Century into the next.

That said, Nassau County, indeed, all of Long Island, and its taxpaying inhabitants, must not be so willing to move forward in haphazard haste, without regard to the consequences, lest this centerpiece of the New Suburbia envisioned by Tom Suozzi, be doomed to failure -- the brownfield of the next generation -- even before the first shovel hits dirt at the Coliseum.

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