UGS Archive--2007
UG Spectator articles published in 2007
Donations and seasons greetings 12-18-07
During this holiday season, as the end of the tax year approaches, those who wish to make charitable contributions face difficult choices. There are so many causes to choose from and it's hard to know merely from a name whether or not a charity is legit.
Some guidance can be obtained from the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP), a private organization that assigns grades to charities based on their transparency and the percentage of their funds used for charitable purposes rather than administrative expenses or reserves. AIP's list of top-rated charities can be found here.
We plan to contribute to one of the top listed organizations that assists disabled veterans and hope readers will consider this cause among their donations. Many other well-known organizations are also on this list and are deserving of consideration. Charities not on AIP's top list are also listed elsewhere on their website and many of them may still be meritorious though not fully conforming to AIP's ideal practices. Those that were willing to reveal their financials have an open-book symbol next to their names.
Local charities that have come to our attention include the Great Neck Student Aid Fund, Inc., P.O. Box 1067, Great Neck, NY 11023-1067, which helps needy Great Neck kids pay for their first year of college, and the Great Neck Breast Cancer Coalition (see link). We are not aware of any ratings for these organizations, but they appear to be backed by reputable members of the GN community.
We may have more news coverage before the year is out, but at this time we'd like to extend seasons greetings to all our readers. It's been a rewarding year and we look forward to continuing in 2008. Wishing everyone a happy holiday and a hopeful new year.
Consolidation and the coming crunch (cont.) 12-14-07
Following up on Nassau County's developing fiscal crunch, Newsday now reports that County Executive Tom Suozzi will sell $75 million in long-term bonds, mostly to cover rebates due to tax assessment appeals. This could go as high as $200 million under existing authorization. While still a long way from the $1 billion of debt taken on by the former Gulotta administration to cover tax rebates, the decision was criticized as a similar practice by the board that oversees the County's finances.
As we reported only two weeks ago (see article), the fiscal crunch was supposed to have been solved, for the moment at least, by the liquidation of a contingency fund. Now it seems this was insufficient. Although the need for new revenues has grown more acute, Suozzi has so far resisted raising taxes or freezing the constant reassessments that lead to so much unpredictability in the County's finances.
Meanwhile, his claim that he is promoting consolidation of local government to save us money rather than to expand the County's tax base, wears ever thinner. Stay tuned folks.
Water board put to vote 12-11-07
No--we're not referring to a controversial interrogation technique. The relatively benign entity that administers our local water supply, known as the Manhasset Lakeville Water District, is having an election today. The commissioner who is elected will also preside over the Manhasset Lakeville Fire District. Several dozen other special districts around Nassau County are also having elections today, most of them uncontested. To hear some leading voices describe them, however, these entities might as well be on the suspect list at the Hague.
County Executive Tom Suozzi has described the system as "broken" and urged the taxpayers to get out and vote in these elections to make the districts accountable. Newsday has run articles detailing the alleged abuses by special district commissioners, such as taking $100 per diems for attending meetings and having too many cars. While we take no issue with their premise that government should be transparent and efficient, it seems that they are chasing mice while ignoring elephants.
It should be noted that special districts--like villages and other municipal corporations--must have their budgets approved by their towns, which can and should root out clear abuses. Moreover, review of a property tax bill would reveal that special district spending barely rises to 10% of the total. Therefore, even the most severe economizing by these entities could not realistically alter the total tax bill by more than 1% or 2%. About two-thirds of property taxes go for schools, yet increasing school budgets are almost always approved by the voters. Also, taxes paid for police are the biggest items in the remaining one-third, yet the exorbitant salaries paid to Nassau's finest are seldom discussed.
In the case of Manhasset Lakeville, we are having a rare contested election today, though there has been no campaigning to our knowledge. The Great Neck News has profiled the two candidates for Commissioner--both of them poured cold water on the idea that consolidation of districts would cut taxes.
Kaiman's wager on GN schools TV may soon be tested REVISED 12-09-07
When North Hempstead Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman was negotiating a cable TV franchise agreement with Verizon earlier this year, GN School Superintendant Dr. Ronald Friedman pleaded with him to require Verizon to carry the GN school channel to homes in the unincorporated areas of the school district. Cablevision had long provided this service on Channel 75 for the 60% of the district's homes within incorporated villages, but had declined to extend this service to the unincorporated areas. Now, through Verizon, there was an opportunity to gain access to the remaining 40% of homes and implement new TV-based educational programs for the entire district.
Mr. Kaiman decided not to press for this as a formal requirement in the franchise agreement, but instead signed a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Verizon which he said should provide a "comfort level" that the GN schools programming would be carried through "regionalization." This would involve dividing the Town's new educational channel so that GN programs would be carried to GN homes at the same time that homes in other areas would receive their own local programs on the same channel.
The MOU (see article) does not obligate Verizon to take any action until at least 22 villages in the Town have concluded cable franchise agreements with them that have been confirmed by the New York Public Service Commission. At that point, Verizon must conduct their own study of whether regionalization would be "technically feasible and commercially reasonable" and only upon their own positive finding would they be obligated to implement this in a commercially reasonable manner. Presumably, the Town would then grant the GN school system the access it seeks within the GN region of the channel.
Mr. Kaiman's wager that this will all work out in the end may soon be put to the test. As reported in The Great Neck News, a consortium of 15 villages in Great Neck and nearby areas will have a public hearing later this month on their own proposed cable franchise agreement with Verizon. If the agreement is signed, the total number of villages to have reached agreements with Verizon will have exceeded 22 and confirmation from the Public Service Commission would likely come soon thereafter, thereby triggering Verizon's obligation to conduct the study.
In a few months, we may know whether UG and other unincorporated areas of Great Neck will finally receive the educational programming that our incorporated neighbors have been receiving all along. Of course, if Verizon determines that regionalization cannot be implemented in a commercially reasonable manner, who can say whether some additional compensation might not make things more commercially reasonable? If so, who will pay for it? Stay tuned folks.
Consolidation and the coming crunch REVISED 12-01-07
Added 12-01-07: Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi held a public meeting in Uniondale last Tuesday with 250 members of the Nassau Library System (NLS). As with officials of special districts for water, parks, etc. the librarians questioned whether much money could be saved from existing operations since library taxes are already minimal. In response to Suozzi's denial of any intent to close libraries, one NLS official was quoted by Long Island Press as saying, "How can [savings] be accomplished without closing buildings?" Another library official said, "When libraries are subject to any elected official other than the public, one thing that happens is they become the first thing to be cut [when budgets are tight]."
Meanwhile the County's fiscal crunch has been temporarily postponed by a decision taken to use a contingency fund to cover the shortfall in tax revenues. Now, all should be well this round, as long as no contingencies arise.
Original Story 11-30-07: As reported in recent months, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi has been making waves declaring which local institutions he does or doesn't want to take over in the name of consolidation. For a while, there were fears that he had set his sights on the Great Neck Park District. Then, as opposition to this grew, he announced that he didn't want Great Neck's parks, but he did want its sewers (see article). This month it seems that libraries have been in the crosshairs.
Articles in local journals indicate that opposition to library consolidation has been building. One such article in the Baldwin Herald quotes Suozzi's top aide, Arda Nazarian, as saying "There's a lot of misinformation out there, a lot of panic and concern." She continued, "We're at the early stages of studying all of this; it needs to be quantified and analyzed. There will be local input before any decisions are made." In response to fears that consolidation would mean cutbacks in library hours and locations she stated that Suozzi has been "very clear that if you can't leave the service level the same or improve it, then it doesn't make sense to proceed."
We doubt if Ms. Nazarian's promise of "local input before any decisions are made" will reassure anyone, as her statement suggests that the final decisions will be made by bureaucrats while residents will only have "input" rather than a binding referendum. We also view as meaningless her assurance that consolidation will only be undertaken if service levels can be maintained, as no one knows in advance how deep the service cuts will be when a fiscal crunch hits.
In fact, it appears that we are entering a crunch period right now. Numerous reports indicate that the County is receiving less revenue from Sales Tax than expected and will have to make up for this through budget cuts and/or property tax increases. If our local library system were consolidated with the County at this time, we might initially save about $40 from the annual property taxes of a typical GN household, but then discover that unforeseen problems require trimming of hours or locations after all--decisions made by bureaucrats in Mineola rather than local trustees. No wonder they don't want to put this to a vote.
GN South High School makes the grade 11-30-07
U.S. News & World Report has just issued its first national ranking of public high schools (see article). Ranking #43 out of over 18,000 public high schools reviewed in 40 states, and the highest on Long Island, is Great Neck South.
Closer analysis of the schools on the Top 100 list indicates that many have selective admission which naturally skews upwards the achievements of their students. Renowned selective high schools such as Stuyvesant (#15) and Bronx Science (#20) hold the highest rankings in New York State. Among open enrollment schools, GN South is about the 15th highest nationwide and the 3rd highest in New York State after Edgemont in Scarsdale and Horace Greeley in Chappaqua. Also making the national list from Long Island are Jericho (#58), Cold Spring Harbor (#71) and Manhasset (#78).
BZA grants variance over objection of UG community REVISED 11-24-07
Added 11-24-07: We contacted Mr. Bullion for his comment on the BZA's decision. He stated that, "The BZA turned a deaf ear to an entire community." He also feels the UG Board "should have been more proactive" though the Board's lawyer presented the case "very effectively." Having reviewed the BZA's file including the transcript of the hearing, we concur with his remarks.
Original Story 11-21-07: Nearly five months after hearing a variance application for inadequate off-street parking and access aisle at the commercial building on Northern Blvd. at Sussex Rd. (see article), the Town of North Hempstead's Board of Zoning & Appeals (BZA) decided last week to grant the application, clearing the way for construction of a second story on part of the building. What makes this decision noteworthy is that the BZA gave precedence to the wishes of the property owner, a company owned by a prominent local businessman, over those of the UG community.
Unlike other UG commercial properties fronting on Northern Blvd., this one has a curb-cut that allows passage from the rear of the lot onto a residential UG street, i.e., Sussex. Richard Bullion, who lives across the street from the curb-cut, presented the BZA with a petition he had circulated calling for elimination of the curb-cut as a condition for granting the variance. The BZA was ultimately presented with signatures on the petition from 113 of UG's 213 households. The Board of the UG Property Owners Association also appeared at the BZA hearing through its counsel, Richard Gabriele, in opposition to the variance application.
Several nearby residents told the BZA that trucks often use the curb-cut rather than the entrance on Northern Blvd., spreading noise and fumes to the nearby homes. They also said that a bank and retail store at the site attracted overflow parking onto Sussex through the curb-cut and that local parking regulations were seldom if ever enforced. More construction on the site, they maintained, would only increase these burdens on the community. The UG Board's attorney informed the BZA that the curb-cut was in fact contrary to the Town's zoning code (which limits a Northern Blvd. property to a single entrance) as were several other conditions at the site such as inadequate buffer between the commercial and residential areas.
The property owner maintained that there is adequate parking on the other side of the lot on Northern where he owns the adjacent lot. He would not agree to sealing off of the curb-cut because it would have a "negative impact on internal traffic flow and circulation" and would make some spots a "dead end." In other words, cars parking in the rear of the lot near Sussex would have to go around the building to exit onto Northern Blvd. instead of the more convenient egress onto Sussex.
Without explaining its reasoning, the BZA simply ordered that the variance application be granted subject to certain requirements, mostly of an aesthetic nature. The decision also ordered the applicant to "cooperate" with the UG Property Owners Association "to regulate parking on Sussex Road in a manner deemed appropriate by the Town Board." While allowing the variance, the BZA also let stand the non-conforming curb-cut, in effect refusing to grant the trade-off urged by the UG community.
Former liaison to UG, Rafe Lieber--rising star for the Democrats 11-17-07
Rafe Lieber--a 32 year old native son of Great Neck--has become the guy local Democrats turn to when they need to have a job done. As of the beginning of this year, he was the Director of the Office of Inter-municipal Cooperation for the Town of North Hempstead, a post that coordinates services among villages, special districts and the Town. Then, newly elected State Senator Craig Johnson made him Chief of Staff of his local office. Last week, the Village of Great Neck Plaza--the main downtown area of Great Neck--named him to fill a vacant seat on the village board, a post he will hold concurrently with his job for Sen. Johnson. He told us recently that he expects to run to hold this job when it comes up for election next March.
We got to know Rafe two years ago at the height of UG's incorporation controversy--which we had the pleasure of instigating. At that time, while serving as the Town's Director of Legislative Affairs, he was named by Town Supervisor Kaiman as his personal liaison to the UG Board. Over the next half year, Rafe regularly attended UG Board meetings and was in constant touch with us in an effort to address the issues that had led to the incorporation effort. We would say that the Town has largely reverted to form since then, but for a time with Rafe as an honest and hard-working interlocutor, there was some improvement in the Town's performance.
We caught up with Rafe recently and inquired about his work for Sen. Johnson. He advised us that Sen. Johnson brought in $25 million in State school aid for his district, the most for any Senator on Long Island, and he has recently been named the ranking member of the State Senate Committee on Local Government while also serving as a member of Gov. Spitzer's Commission on Local Government Efficiency & Competitiveness. He dismisses recent Republican attacks on Sen. Johnson as a "smear campaign" and confirms that Sen. Johnson will run for re-election on his record "proudly" next year.
On the subject of consolidation of local government--an issue on which Sen. Johnson is a key player--Rafe advises that Sen. Johnson believes it is "vitally important" that Long Island's service levels be maintained and improved and that so far "there has been no evidence that taxpayers will save a significant amount of money if districts are consolidated." He is also concerned that if the county took over special districts for water or libraries, for example, difficult fiscal times for the county could lead to cut-backs in those services, whereas now "every dollar collected for special district services goes to pay for those services. That cannot be guaranteed if a larger government takes over these operations."
Well--that sounds awfully similar to what we've been saying on this website recently about the consolidation campaign and it also bears striking similarity to the argument we made for incorporation of UG as a village two years ago, but we'll leave the latter point aside for another day. What comes next for Rafe--perhaps Town Councilman, Mayor of Great Neck Plaza or Town Supervisor a little further down the line--only time will tell. For now, we'd like our readers to know that UG has a friend in Rafe Lieber, who has been marinated in our local issues more than any other public official around. He loves his career in public service and he's here to stay, so remember that name.
Foreclosure wave misses Great Neck 11-11-07
LI Newsday has an in-depth report today on the wave of foreclosures, particularly among sub-prime mortgages (see report). A map accompanying the report provides data on each Long Island community. It indicates that Brentwood--a community of comparable population to Great Neck--had the most foreclosure notices with 227 in the first half of 2007 and that 55% of its loans in 2006 were sub-prime.
Data obtained from the map indicates that Great Neck had a total of 20 foreclosure notices in the first half of 2007, up from 10 in the first half of 2005. This represents an increase in foreclosures on about 0.1% of Great Neck's total housing stock, an amount of questionable statistical significance. Russell Gardens had the highest share of sub-prime loans within Great Neck in 2006 at 11%, but had no foreclosure notices in the first half of 2007.
In sum, the foreclosure wave has not appeared much, if at all, in Great Neck. Given the small percentage of sub-prime loans in Great Neck, it seems unlikely that we will be seeing many GN properties on the block as a result of this phenomenon.
UG Board tries for early collection 11-09-07
It's been some time since the UG Board appeared on radar, yet they still register a mysterious blip on occasion. Such was the case yesterday when we received an invoice for our 2008 annual charges nearly two months earlier than usual. We expect that some people will pay up sooner, but others will put the bills in the drawer until they are actually due and some will forget about them entirely. In the end, we wonder whether Association collection efforts will be improved or worsened.
We are also concerned that these 2008 revenues will be deposited now, making the Association's 2007 financial statements appear rosier than they truly are. We hope the UG Board will deposit the payments for 2008 after Jan. 1 or that they will at least identify such revenues separately on the 2007 financial statements. Any intermixing of these revenues with 2007 financials without explanation would only further mystify the public.
North Hempstead Democrats Elected REVISED 11-07-07
The Democratic slate of candidates for the Town of North Hempstead won a clean sweep in the elections held yesterday, holding onto all three town-wide positions and all three seats on the Town Board that were at stake. Despite the recent scandal in the Town Building Department, Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman and his team were returned to office by 3 to 2 margins. Though still a large victory in electoral terms, it was somewhat below the nearly 2 to 1 margin that he and his slate received in 2005.
In the voting for the Great Neck seat in the Nassau County Legislature, Democrat Judi Bosworth defeated Republican Harry DeMell by a greater than 2 to 1 margin. At this point, it appears that the Democrats will hang onto their 10-9 majority in the County Legislature, though one race where they are claiming victory involves a razor thin margin and may be subject to a recount or legal challenge.
As in prior elections, North Hempstead residents voted solidly for the Democrats, whereas in Oyster Bay and Hempstead the Republicans won by similar lopsided margins. With all three towns put together, Nassau County is almost evenly divided between registered Democrats and Republicans and the voting patterns of its residents seem to dovetail quite closely to their party registrations in most cases.
We are trying to obtain the results from the voting machine at Russell Gardens Village Hall that was assigned to residents of UG and some neighboring blocks outside UG. While far from perfect, this should provide some indication of how UG voters cast their votes and we hope to provide this information as soon as it becomes available.
EDITORIAL: Our choices on Election Day 10-24-07
TOWN SUPERVISOR
Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman has a mixed record for University Gardens. We give him credit for having paid more attention to UG than his predecessors, but this has typically been on low cost matters or with spare resources. When real money or resources have been needed, Mr. Kaiman has almost always had higher priorities, while UG has almost always been near the bottom of his list. Considering that UG is a high property value community which pays a disproportionately large share of the taxes that fund Mr. Kaiman's activities, the inequity of the situation should be obvious.
One of the most egregious examples was the absence of Town snow plows from our streets through most of the blizzard of February 12, 2006. Mr. Kaiman claimed later at a UG community meeting that this was because a single truck had broken down. In fact, he had an entire fleet of trucks that was busy most everywhere else in the Town, while UG residents were stranded in their homes that day.
Worse still has been the series of broken promises to maintain UG's tree canopy. Last year, the UG Board agreed with Mr. Kaiman to each pay half of a $20,000 contract with a private company to have UG's trees pruned. This followed a series of forgotten promises by the Town to do the job in prior years. The Town received UG's contribution but never came up with its half of the funds and only solicited a $10,000 contract. The contractor selected, Colgan Tree & Landscape Service Inc., promptly made a $500 contribution to Mr. Kaiman's campaign a few days after bidding on the UG contract, according to state records.
After exposure of that broken promise, Mr. Kaiman announced in February of this year that the Town would hire a contractor for UG--this time for $50,000. We have seen no evidence that this latest promise has been fulfilled any more than the earlier ones, and even this amount would still only cover a portion of the needed work. The Colgan company also did a study and report on UG's trees for the Town, but the Town Attorney refused to release it to us. We suggest that UG voters think long and hard about why a tree report is considered a secret by the Kaiman administration.
Although the facts are not yet fully in, UG voters should also consider that a major corruption scandal has been unfolding at the Town's Building Department, including the indictment of Mr. Kaiman's former Building Commissioner. This follows a report in Newsday earlier this year on a "pay to play" culture in which many companies that do business with the Town coincidentally make contributions to the Kaiman campaign.
In sum, our community has little to show for Mr. Kaiman's four years in office. In addition to the swirl of ethical questions about his administration, he has breached faith with our community once too often.
We say: Enough! It's time for UG residents to vote in protest for his opponent--a political unknown named John Carway--even if it runs against their normal political grain. If there is a bump in the numbers at our local precinct, we think Mr. Kaiman and other pols will get the message that our phenomenally patient community actually does have some limits after all.
COUNTY LEGISLATOR
After many years on the Great Neck School Board including service as its president and in other forms of community service, Judi Bosworth has established outstanding credentials to serve as our representative in the County Legislature. We believe that every bit of her understanding of what makes Great Neck tick will be needed in the coming battles over consolidation.
Leaders in her own party are the prime movers in the campaign to consolidate our local government, starting with Governor Eliot Spitzer--self-described as a "steamroller." We don't think Mr. Spitzer's paving services should be used to flatten Great Neck's superior institutions and we don't think Ms. Bosworth does either. We trust that her commitment to Great Neck takes precedence over the politics of the moment.
While we didn't agree with all of Ms. Bosworth's answers to our questions in the prior posts, she showed a deeper understanding of the issues and a greater sensitivity to the pitfalls of the consolidation campaign than her opponent Harry DeMell. Mr. DeMell seeks economy in government, which is certainly laudable. But economy alone should not override the wishes of residents who pay for their own local services and who know best what they themselves value.
Reasonable efforts to economize are always welcome, but we are concerned that the consolidators could squeeze too hard to produce some meager savings. If the results are penny-wise and pound-foolish, it will not have been worth it, yet once local control is surrendered it won't be coming back. We think Ms. Bosworth is well aware of these issues and is the better candidate to safeguard Great Neck's interests.
What the candidates didn't say 10-22-07
We are grateful to the candidates for County Legislator for taking the time to explore the issues with us in the preceding post. Although Ms. Bosworth provided a more detailed exposition, the general ideas of both candidates seemed similar to us on most points, with some differences of emphasis. In addition to what they said, however, we also found what they didn't say quite revealing.
Among the questions we asked was whether a proposal to consolidate a district should be subject to a referendum of its residents. Mr. DeMell seemed intent on pursuing consolidation and would only allow that some plans "might require community participation." Ms. Bosworth, while open to consolidation, seemed somewhat less set on it and stated that residents should have an "integral part" in making any such decision. We note that neither candidate gave an unequivocal "yes" to our question.
Why is this of such great concern? Imagine, for example, that Tom Suozzi's consultant concludes that 10% could be cut from the cost of the Great Neck library system if it were consolidated with a new County system. Drawbacks that we could foresee include large numbers of non-GN residents crowding into GN libraries, reduction in hours, closing of branch locations and cancellation of facility improvement plans. All of this could be the tradeoff for saving about $40 a year off the taxes of an average GN household. Can you contain your enthusiasm? If GN voters wish to avoid scenarios like this for their libraries, parks, schools, etc. they must insist on their absolute right to put any proposal for consolidation to a vote by the residents of the affected district. If not, these decisions will be made and imposed by others.
Aside from the supposed savings from consolidation, we note that both candidates favor development as part of a revenue raising strategy. This may be reasonable in some cases, but let's think this through for a moment. The total value of all real property in Nassau County is $235 billion according to the Assessor's office. Therefore, it would take $2.35 billion of new construction to add 1% to the tax base and so reduce the property taxes of the average resident by 1%--assuming the pols don't divert the additional revenues to new spending. Several major projects that would take years to complete might barely rise to this level. In other words, development could only contribute to solving the tax problem at a glacial pace.
On the other hand, considering that Nassau County has almost no vacant land remaining, development can mean only one thing in most cases--increased intensity of existing land use. Neither candidate responded to our question whether they knew of any impending project in Great Neck. If any such project comes our way, we wonder how enthusiastic our public will be when there is even more crowding and traffic and no change of any significance in their taxes.
Similarly, both candidates look to more aid from higher levels of government to defray our school taxes. While any such aid is welcome, we're only talking about $8 million out of $170 million, based on the numbers provided by Ms. Bosworth. Even if state aid could be boosted to $10 million, it would only defray an additional 1% of the school budget.
We note that neither candidate spoke about the one thing that is achievable and could make a substantial difference: fiscal restraint. The public workforce and their pay and benefits is where the majority of our property tax dollars go. Consequently, just a slight application of the brakes in this area could save an amount that dwarfs any likely benefits from development or state aid.
So folks, we salute the candidates as public-spirited neighbors with good intentions and some good ideas. They've made efforts to spell out their views on the issues we've raised. But, we would have liked to hear about the unspoken points too.
Q & A with the candidates for County Legislator 10-17-07
One of our most important local electoral contests has Democrat Judi Bosworth vying with Republican Harry DeMell for the seat in the Nassau County Legislature being vacated by longtime incumbent Lisanne Altmann (D-Great Neck). We sent a list of ten questions to the candidates to elicit their views on some of the major issues and we thank them both for their responses (Ms. Bosworth's answers to questions 2 and 10 are abridged due to space considerations):
1. What are your credentials for the office of Nassau County Legislator?
DeMell: As a resident of University Gardens I am deeply committed to the preservation of our community. I bring more than 30 years practicing visa, immigration and nationality law to the county at a time when these issues are becoming increasingly important in housing, education, hiring and intergovernmental enforcement. I would be the only county legislator with these credentials.
Bosworth: I have spent my entire adult life dedicated to public service. I was a New York City school teacher. As a PTA president, a School Board Trustee and a Board Member of numerous community based organizations, I have spent my 27 years in this community working to improve our quality of life. I served as an elected Trustee of the Great Neck School Board for 16 years serving as its President, Vice President and Liaison to the Great Neck Senior Center. While serving on the board, I dealt with many of the same issues which our County Legislature tackles. I helped to construct a budget of over $170 million dollars, making decisions on spending priorities, educational policy, personnel, environmental issues and labor relations. I was also our former Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli’s Special Projects Coordinator, organizing many of the events that provided important constituent services to our community. I serve on the board of numerous community based organizations, including the Great Neck-Manhasset Community Child Care Partnership, United Community Fund of Great Neck and North New Hyde Park, and the Great Neck Art Center among others.
2. What are the key things on your agenda?
DeMell: I am committed to smart sizing government. There are too many layers of government in Nassau. I would vote to eliminate either the town council or the county legislature (my job) in an effort to consolidate functions. I would exclude from this effort schools and libraries at least for now.
I would seek a tax moratorium at least until we see what happens with the drop in real estate prices. It would be irresponsible to further complicate and raise taxes until this housing price drop settles.
Bosworth:
Education – Our nationally renowned schools are one of the reasons that people are drawn to this community, but we must be mindful of our rising property taxes of which school tax is a major part. We should look to creating additional revenue by expanding our economic base and advocating for a greater share of education funding from State and Federal governments.
Constituent Services – If I am fortunate enough to be elected, I want people to know where to find me, how to reach me and to know that their concerns will be addressed in a caring and responsive way. I pledge to be a legislator with a door that is always open and would act as a facilitator for residents who don’t know which official or office in government to reach out to.
Nassau County as a Destination – Making Nassau a destination location will be a critical piece of the plan to grow our tax base, as we have many world class entertainment facilities, museums, arts centers, etc. that can draw people from outside the county. This plan must also account for public transportation, housing for first responders, workforce and the next generation and planning to preserve the county’s character and environment.
3. The county has engaged private consultants to design a consolidation plan for certain functions of local government, i.e., library, school business functions, parks/roads, sewers, water and sanitation. Do you support the idea of the county getting involved in library and/or school functions? Which, if any, of the functions being studied should be consolidated in your view?
DeMell: See above.
Bosworth: Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi is asking the right questions. We need to find innovative solutions to address the growing tax burden facing our residents. Before we move forward, we must know if consolidation will result in a significant cost savings and if it will affect the quality of services provided. I strongly support inter-municipal cooperation between the various levels of local government through cooperative agreements and/or shared services. We need to work together to give each resident the best value for their tax dollar spent. We need to investigate cooperative partnerships that will be able to provide better services at lower costs. Our community is fortunate to have great mayors and trustees who devote countless hours to providing the services that protect the quality of our life. That value cannot be underestimated.
Although I do not believe that school districts should be consolidated, I do think that the consolidation of school administrative services should be considered. School districts are ever mindful of their fiduciary responsibilities and are seeking ways, through cooperative bidding, to be as cost effective as possible. We can always do more and need to explore all options.
4. Should any consolidation plan be subject to a referendum of the residents who would be giving up local control or should it be mandated from above?
DeMell: There is an expression that "the devil is in the details". While I generally believe in consolidation we have to look at each plan separately. I would support some and not others and some might require community participation. I am inclined to support government consolidation so long as it is real and responsible.
Bosworth: I believe that the residents must be a part of the decision to consolidate. It is their tax dollars that are being spent on these services, and they are the ones who will be affected by the possibility of service reduction. They must be an integral part of deciding which services, if any, should be consolidated.
5. Do you advocate any other structural changes in our local government? For example, should villages be consolidated into the towns? Should the towns be broken up into villages?
DeMell: See above. I repeat again: The devil is in the details.
Bosworth: This should be subject to the same cost benefit analysis and community input as the other consolidation proposals.
6. How would you contain or reduce property taxes? Would the needed savings come from consolidation of local government, limiting salaries/benefits of county workers, workforce reductions, increased state aid, or other sources?
DeMell: Some tax savings would result from consolidation. The largest part of our tax hit is the school tax. We need to look outside of Nassau for assistance in this area.
Bosworth: Since school taxes are the largest portion of our property tax bill, I would advocate strongly for an increase in State Aid. In 1989-90, there was a mid-year budget cut, so that Great Neck’s State Aid was slashed from eight million dollars to four million dollars. In the ensuing years, with all the talk about increased state aid, we have finally reached that eight million dollar mark in aid from the state. In other words, in the last 17 years our state aid has gone from a marked decrease back to what we were getting all those years ago. The state needs to be a more active partner in education funding in the way that it was intended to be.
The Federal Government also needs to step up. No Child Left Behind was passed with bi-partisan support because the mandates inherent in the law were supposed to be funded by the Federal government. This has not been the case.
Governments need to be looking for economies of scale. Cooperative bidding for services can save money. Intergovernmental cooperation should be a goal. If the Town or County can pave a road more inexpensively than a village can, they should be called upon to do so, thus saving the taxpayer that expense.
7. Do you support changing the current system of annual property reassessments? If so, do you support the proposal to freeze reassessments for five years or some other alternative?
DeMell: In this time of falling home prices I support an assessment moratorium until the dust settles and we see what happens to home prices.
Bosworth: I do not support freezing reassessments. Leading anyone in the direction of believing freezing assessments in some way freezes property tax is misleading. Reassessment does not generate extra money for the County. The budget determines the amount of money that needs to be raised, whether assessments are frozen or not. In fact, if a home owner improves or adds to his property, he will not have to pay any additional property tax if assessments are frozen.
8. Do you support the proposal to change the school tax from a property-based tax to an income-based tax?
DeMell: No.
Bosworth: We need to be looking at creative ways to fund schools so that our property owners are not burdened as much as they are. My concern about an income-based tax is that it does not provide a consistent source of funding for our school budgets, which is imperative if schools are going to plan in any cohesive way. People’s income can change or residents can claim their primary residence in another state, thereby affecting the tax that they pay. Property is something that is there in the most concrete way and thereby provides funding that is dependable. We need to consider all options in the hopes that those who can not afford the rising property taxes are afforded some relief.
9. Do you support the proposal of County Executive Suozzi to upgrade the tax base through focused development projects? Do you know of any such project being proposed in or near Great Neck and, if so, what is your position on it?
DeMell: In order to upgrade our tax base we need to have more commercial activity in the Hub area. There is absolutely no other way to significantly increase our tax base without squeezing the middle class and discouraging residence in Nassau.
Bosworth: I feel that focused development projects are essential to making sure that we grow our tax base and continue to develop our local economy. It is very important that these projects are developed in a way which preserves the character of our communities, while providing business opportunities and the potential for next generation and fire fighter housing. Community input is vital.
10. What is your position on the smoking ban in restaurants, the Social Host Law and other such behavioral laws? Do you advocate any modification of these laws and/or enactment of other such laws?
DeMell: There are too many laws trying to legislate too many things. Not every perceived wrong needs to be addressed by legislation. We need to get back to personal responsibility.
Bosworth: Without addressing any specific law, I generally do not believe that morality can be legislated. However, there are circumstances where one person’s actions affect others. We need to look at these laws on a case by base basis and consider their repercussions carefully before enacting them.
The Social Host Law now holds adults accountable for serving alcohol to anyone under the legal drinking age in their homes or if they knowingly allow minors to consume alcoholic beverages in their home and don’t take steps to stop it. The Social Host Law is a step to help keep our children out of harm’s way. Drinking under the age of 21 is illegal and adults need to take the responsibility for this.
There have been studies underscoring the deleterious effect of second-hand smoke. I support the smoking ban in restaurants.
Nassau DA: North Hempstead Building Dept. had "for sale sign" 10-15-07
After a 16-month investigation, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice has announced a 29-count indictment of former Town of North Hempstead Building Commissioner David Wasserman. Also indicted were his former deputy and two building inspectors. Rice accused Wasserman and his former underlings of having "put a for sale sign" on the Town's Building Department out of personal greed.
According to LI Newsday, one of the building inspectors was also indicted on charges of abusing his position to obtain a $900 campaign contribution from someone with business before the Building Department (see article). It was not immediately clear from the article whether the inspector was an independent political activist or was acting at the behest of Wasserman or other higher-ups, nor did it mention which campaign received the contribution.
During our time on the UG Board, we had a meeting with Wasserman and Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman just before Thanksgiving 2005. The immediate issue was our request for changes to the zoning code to cool down the rampant sub-division activity in our community. We're happy to report that no gratuities were solicited, nor were any offered. In fact, a set of zoning changes devised by Wasserman was put on the Town Board's agenda the next week and was adopted into law in January 2006.
Whatever else Wasserman may have been up to, the truth is that many people viewed him as the brightest bulb in the chandelier at Town Hall. And whatever additional information emerges in the coming days, the truth is that he and the Town Supervisor did render some assistance to this community on that occasion. So we are saddened to hear about this turn of events.
Spate of rear sliding door burglaries hits UG 10-12-07
Back in May, we reported on a burglary that hit a UG residence on Somerset North through the rear sliding door. Then we heard of a burglary in August on Merrivale and another burglary through a rear sliding door on Hampton in September.
We were sitting at our computer this evening preparing this post to urge everyone to install a "Charley bar" on their rear sliding doors when the bell rang. At our front door was one of Nassau's finest who advised us that there had just been yet another burglary on Hampton a few minutes earlier. In response to our inquiry as to how entry was gained, the officer stated that it was--you guessed it--through the rear sliding door.
In addition to other security precautions, we really urge everyone to have a Charley bar installed on their rear sliding doors. Though nothing is foolproof, this is a good, inexpensive and low-tech way of improving home security: the bar flips down to act as a brace between the sliding door and the door jamb making it difficult for an intruder to force the door to slide open. The end of the bar should fit into a small saddle with little holes above the bar so that a pin can slide through to block the bar from popping up. We had a locksmith install one at our home some years ago for less than $100.
The officer advised us that crimes of this type are often committed by a single individual--frequently a recently released convict--who zeroes in on a particular neighborhood and commits a series of similar crimes until he is either caught or eventually moves on. Anyone with information is urged to call the Sixth Precinct (516-573-6600).
Building Dept. slows down 10-11-07
LI Newsday reports that the Town of North Hempstead Building Department, shaken by investigations, has been operating in a go-slow, by-the-book mode during the past year. The result is huge backlogs that prevent timely work.
The article reports that numerous cease-and-desist orders have been issued by the Building Department to ongoing construction projects while interpretations of the rules are sorted out. As we reported recently (see article), one such example is in UG where a project that was already long delayed for other reasons was delayed for another year by this new problem. The LI Newsday article quotes Town of North Hempstead Supervisor Jon Kaiman as stating "We have been strictly interpreting the codes . . ."
Although Mr. Kaiman's reelection in November appears a near certainty, the woes of his Building Department have become a campaign issue. His opponent, John Carway, has issued a press release slamming his administration's handling of this matter and calling for a list of reforms. He also claims that a federal investigation has been launched in addition to the reported local investigations.
The ICE-man cometh REVISED 10-10-07
Update (10-10-07): LI Newsday reports that the recent ICE raids have netted over 200 persons in New York City and Long Island among 1,313 arrested in raids around the country in Operation Community Shield. Although this operation was directed at alien members of gangs, most of those detained were "gang associates," i.e., those who associate with gang members or give them food, transportation or lodging.
Update (10-02-07): County Executive Tom Suozzi has protested some of the recent ICE raids in Nassau County in a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.
Original Story (9-27-07): Great Neck is a community with a high percentage of immigrants and--judging from the large numbers of workers coming out of the trains and buses every morning--is also a large employer of immigrants. Some may well be lawfully present in the country, but we venture to guess that a high percentage are, shall we say, still working on getting their papers.
In years gone by, few employers gave a second thought to an alien employee's legal status in the country. In fact, until the late 1980s, the hiring of an undocumented alien was not even a violation for the employer. So casual was the prevailing attitude that the nation was shocked when two of Bill Clinton's nominations for Attorney General crashed and burned over this issue. Although immigration purity had now become required for the nation's top law enforcement official, the powers that be still left the rest of us alone for the most part.
In the post-9/11 world, things have changed. A few years ago, the government was reorganized to place a large grab-bag of agencies under the new Department of Homeland Security. This included the former Immigration & Naturalization Service which was broken up into various components, with its enforcement side regrouped under a new agency called Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE for short.
Unlike their predecessors, the ICE-men (and there are ICE-women too!) do not pull their punches. The occasional immigration raids of years gone by have given way to much more aggressive busts against companies that engage in wholesale violations.
Now, for the first time, we are hearing reports of ICE sweeps against individual suburban homes and communities. Sometimes this involves ambushing persons of interest en route to work and other times it involves following them to work and then confronting their employers. Reports of such activities in Nassau communities have been persistent in recent days.
We don't mean to alarm anyone. So far, at least, we haven't heard of any ICE visits to Great Neck, but as with most enforcement matters it's hit and miss. Please be aware.
Great Neck won't be hosting Mahmoud 9-23-07
There has been an uproar lately about the planned public appearances of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while he is in town for the UN General Assembly. He is now en route after having reviewed a military parade in Teheran yesterday featuring missiles with slogans like "Death to USA" and "Eliminate Israel" painted on their sides.
The powers that be have denied his request to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, but our alma mater Columbia University has invited him to speak tomorrow. We recall that Henry Kissinger was once disinvited by Columbia because some faculty members didn't like his policies, but in the case of the Iranian leader what's not to like?
Columbia President Lee Bollinger has justified his decision by announcing that he's going to ask some really tough questions after the speech. Similarly, Christiane Amanpour on CNN, 60 Minutes on CBS and probably other media will be giving the Iranian leader a public platform. Like Bollinger, no doubt, they will all insist that they are serving the public's need for information and will ask super tough questions to make sure that their interviews are not used for propaganda.
Great Neck is a community that has some interest in things Iranian and we were wondering if any local groups were hosting the Iranian leader. Great Neck's Iranian community doesn't seem to have any events scheduled for the leader of their former homeland. There is also the anti-nuclear group SANE which held a "Hiroshima Day 2007" rally last month under the slogans "From Hiroshima to the Middle East" and "Hands Off Iran" (see flyer)--no sign out there that they'll be hosting any such meeting. We also checked around for other public announcements and the like, but came up empty-handed.
Alas, Great Neck residents craving "information" will have to tune in to the public media. We considered inviting Mahmoud to Great Neck on our own, but we didn't think there was much to talk about anyway.
Spitzer releases list of consolidation projects 9-21-07
In a speech to county officials yesterday, NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced the release of a list of 150 economizing initiatives around the state. The list grew out of a solicitation for proposals that Spitzer issued to local governments shortly after taking office in January. These proposals were then submitted to the Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness that Spitzer appointed in April.
The Commission is the state's chief vehicle for pursuing Spitzer's agenda of consolidating local government and has been charged with delivering a report of its findings by April 2008. The list, mostly involving consolidation projects, has been posted on the Commission's website.
The items under Nassau County are quoted as follows:
Readers will note that this list tracks in a somewhat more detailed way the identical list of consolidation areas being studied by the county through its own consultants, as quoted in the preceding article. This gives rise to the impression that the Commission is largely a bandwagon to give the state's seal of approval to whatever consolidation initiatives local officials believe they can successfully pursue. Whether the Commission has sufficient time and resources to formulate its own proposals at the local level remains to be seen.
Tom Suozzi doesn't want your park after all 9-13-07
According to today's Great Neck Record, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi has declared that towns and villages run local parks more cost effectively than the county. Then, after declaring emphatically, "Nassau County does not want Great Neck's parks" he said, "But I do want your sewers."
Suozzi has now joined County Comptroller Howard Weitzman and North Hempstead Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman in disavowing any intent to consolidate the Great Neck Park District (GNPD). The disavowals are coming so emphatically as to make one wonder why the issue arose at all.
Just to refresh everyone's memory, as we reported three months ago, Suozzi announced a request for proposals from private consultants to design a consolidation plan for the county. This was to cover "services currently provided by governmental entities and private companies in the following areas: Libraries, School Business Functions, Parks, Road Maintenance, Sanitation/Solid Waste Disposal and Water Supply."
Clearly, the GNPD and possibly even UG's private park fell within the scope of the proposed report. But, as we've been reporting, the wagons have been circled to protect the GNPD, leaving Suozzi and the consolidators to settle for sewers at this point. Moreover, there's no indication that the scope of the consolidation study has been changed; the final report may yet call for the consolidation of the GNPD or other local parks, under the county or the town or in some other arrangement.
Good faith terrorism informants to be protected in NY courts 9-11-07
NY Governor Eliot Spitzer signed into law yesterday, with immediate effect, the Freedom to Report Terrorism Act. The new law shields from civil and criminal liability in NY courts persons who report allegedly suspicious behavior, if they act in good faith and with reasonable belief that the behavior is indicative of or in furtherance of a crime or an act of terrorism. As stated by the Governor in his press release: "People acting in good faith to assist law enforcement officials in preventing terrorism should not have to worry about the threat of legal action. In the fight against terrorism, we need to encourage, not discourage, New Yorkers to do their part."
According to the new law, an accused person could still bring a lawsuit alleging that an informant did not act in good faith or with reasonable belief. Therefore, the new law does not provide absolute immunity from legal action, but does tip the scale somewhat in favor of someone who errs on the side of caution in reporting suspicious behavior.
GNVOA to oppose consolidation efforts 9-10-07
Saddle Rock Mayor Leonard Samansky, recently elected as President of the Great Neck Village Officials Association (GNVOA), has thrown down the gauntlet at those who would impose consolidation on Great Neck. Speaking at the annual GNVOA dinner, Samansky is quoted in a headline article in the August 24, 2007 edition of The Great Neck News as declaring Great Neck "a model to be followed, not interfered with for the sake of political rhetoric or scoring points for the mere purpose of shifting our tax dollars to other entities at the expense of service and taxpayer control." He further declared that "we must work together to protect our school and library systems as well as our recreation facilities, including our Great Neck Parks."
The article notes that North Hempstead Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman and Nassau County Comptroller Howard Weitzman have both come out in favor of the Great Neck Park District (GNPD). We surmise from this that they have read the handwriting on the wall which states that any GN politician who attempts to consolidate the GNPD could see his political career end abruptly.
The article also quotes County Board of Assessors Chairman, Harvey Levinson (a resident of Garden City), as calling for dissolution of all commissioner-operated districts. Notwithstanding his strong advocacy of consolidation, Levinson is quoted as citing incorporated villages as "a model of efficiency by the way that they deliver public services and the way that the tax burdens for these services are divided." This suggests to us that another great sacred cow--villages--is also being exempted from consolidation, perhaps because villages really are so efficient and perhaps because the consolidators know that this is another battle that they cannot win--at least not at this point.
NY roads have two safety hotspots near UG 9-08-07
According to today's LI Newsday, a study by the NY State Department of Transportation has identified 363 hotspots along the 724 miles of state roads on Long Island with accident rates above those of comparable state roads. Of these, two are on Northern Blvd. near UG.
Within the top quarter of the 363 hotspots is a segment of Northern Blvd. stretching from Sussex Rd. in UG across the Lakeville Rd. intersection to Spinney Hill Dr., with 68 "reportable" accidents (involving death, injury or $1,000 of damage) during 2004-5, when only 22 would have been expected on comparable state roads. Another hotspot runs along Northern Blvd. from the city line to Iris Ln. (near UG's Hereford Rd. entrance), with 56 reportable accidents when only 26 would have been expected.
A word from the old country 9-01-07
We're delighted to announce that our readership reached an all-time high of 188 ip addresses during the past month, even as our frequency of posting has taken a dip recently. We suspect that a fair number of non-UG readers have been tuning in for our coverage on topics that are not limited to UG, and we hope that they will continue to visit.
Our coverage of the local scene has been put on hold for the moment as we are currently on a family Eurotrip. This time we're in the Baltic region to search out places from whence our forebears departed a century ago and to otherwise seek out traces of Jewish history there. Readers who have seen the film Everything is Illuminated will understand the inspiration for this expedition.
Word has it that our great grandpa Harry Perlman came from a little village named Varena, somewhere in Lithuania. As the story goes, he decided that the eight years of involuntary service he had just spent in the army of his majesty the Czar was quite enough. So, while on summer furlough, he decided to make a run for it and take his chances in a new land called Brooklyn. He then went on to a career as a garment worker and a baker, reportedly mastering the art of the hand-made bagel.
We managed to locate Harry's home village. Truth be told, it wasn't much to look at, and the curious villagers probably found us at least as interesting as we found them. We didn't receive much illumination from this particular experience, though it was still interesting to see where he had come from.
We also visited places with names like Riga, Vilnius, Cracow, and Oswiecim, and a drab section of Warsaw with a street named Mila in it. We're glad to have seen these places up close, but in the end we agree with Emma Lazarus that these ancient lands can keep their storied pomp. We're glad Harry caught that boat for the U.S.A. and that our home today is in Great Neck. Looking forward to reporting again on our local scene in the coming days.
Nightmare on Somerset Dr. S. may soon end 8-20-07
When Gat Lee purchased a vacant lot on Somerset Drive South back in 2003, he could never have imagined that construction would still be going on there in 2007. Yet, one obstacle after another has delayed completion of the project and left an eyesore for the neighbors to endure.
The first came during the excavation phase in 2004. His rear neighbor on Rutland Road claimed ownership of a patch in the backyard through the legal doctrine of adverse possession based on a long period of use of the land by the prior occupant of the Rutland property. This was finally settled in 2006 when Mr. Lee agreed to cede the land.
This settlement meant that the property now had a somewhat different shape and size than was originally the case when construction plans were approved by the UG Board and the Town of North Hempstead's Building Department. This necessitated revising the construction plans and obtaining new approvals.
Construction finally moved along later in 2006, but then another bolt came from the blue. After a shake-up in the Town's Building Department, a stricter reading of the zoning code came to be applied leading to another work stoppage. Mr. Lee submitted revisions yet again and has recently received approvals for his slightly scaled-down plans.
Ever the optimist, Mr. Lee hopes to finish up by the end of the year. We wish him well and hope he succeeds in meeting this goal.
Social Host Law followup 8-10-07
We opined last month that the new Social Host Law holding homeowners liable for underage drinking on their property is scary and vague. Shortly thereafter, the Great Neck Record featured a front-page photo of the signing of this law by County Executive Tom Suozzi, after a unanimous, bi-partisan vote in favor of it by the County Legislature. Seeing this, we wondered if our criticism had been misplaced since, after all, it was unanimous--right?
After some further reflection, we have come to the conclusion that this law is still scary and vague, and we should also add shoddily drafted. For example, we assume the County Legislature did not intend to criminalize foods or other items with incidental alcoholic content, but this law includes any consumable item--liquid and solid alike--that contains alcohol, with the exception of confectionary. So--who knows--perhaps the next time you serve veal marsala to an underage guest you may be guilty.
It appears that the legislators were going for the gold when drafting this law. The NY Penal Law defines "knowingly" as "aware" but the Social Host Law defines "knowingly" as "aware of, or having reason to be aware of, the consumption of alcohol by a minor." By this standard, a person who has done absolutely nothing could be charged if he had "reason to be aware" that underage consumption was taking place on his property.
What is "reason to be aware?" It seems it could be anything a cop says it is. The very first person charged under this law--a sober 19 year old in Kings Point--found out the hard way when he was charged due to the presence of drunken teen visitors on his lawn. According to LI Newsday, his mother says that the teens imbibed before arriving uninvited at their home, but the cop on the scene ruled otherwise.
Another problem of vagueness arises as to the liability of absent parents for the actions of their 18 - 20 year old kids. Both the Great Neck Record and the New York Post have flatly asserted in their coverage that absent parents will not be charged, but we see nothing in this law that guarantees this in the case of absent parents who have "reason to be aware." So, the next time you're out of town and a neighbor calls your cell phone to warn you that he thinks your kid is drinking beer with his friends in your backyard, what's your next move going to be? Do you:
a. race home to Great Neck to enforce the Social Host Law;
b. call your kid and tell him to card each of the guests or expel them all;
c. call the police to get yourself off the hook, but risk getting your kid cited; or
d. do nothing, secure in the belief that the Great Neck Record and New York Post must be right?
We dislike laws that reflect shoddy drafting and/or political grandstanding rather than sound public policy. We won't be surprised if this law receives some judicial modification if the County Legislature doesn't fix it first. Meanwhile, be prepared for that knock at your door, since you may be guilty without knowing it.
Verizon TV followup REVISED 8-09-07
Update (8-09-07):
We have been contacted by a fourth UG resident who signed up for Verizon FiOS TV. He has had FiOS phone and internet for the past year and reports that both delivered "spectacular" signal without interruption. After adding FiOS TV and making it a three-service bundle, he reports that his HD is better than before and he has increased the speed of his internet while paying the same, due to the discount pricing of the bundle.
Original Story (8-07-07):
We and two other UG residents with whom we've been comparing notes have had Verizon FiOS (fiber-optic) TV service installed in our homes recently. Two of us had Cablevision TV previously and one had an antenna. Our trio of UG pioneers is uniformly happy with the results, though some caveats are in order.
When cancelling our prior service with Cablevision, we were dragged into a long discussion with their phone rep who seemed to have ready responses--some arguably valid--to our points. While Verizon uses fiber optics, he insisted that Cablevision has upgraded its internet service and modems. As for the price differential, he offered to approximately match for two years the three-service bundle (TV, internet and phone) that Verizon is offering for one year. When we objected that Cablevision's VoIP telephone service goes down whenever their internet service has an interruption, he insisted this was true of Verizon as well.
In fact, we have had Verizon FiOS phone and internet services since last year and can't recall a single interruption of the signal. Their router that supplies internet signal to several computers in our home has occasionally frozen and required re-booting, but this has had no effect on our phone service. As an added advantage, the FiOS optical modem comes with a battery backup that keeps plain old phone service going for several hours during a blackout. The downside is that this battery may not last through a long blackout, but we didn't consider this a strong enough reason to stick with our prior phone service.
In the end, we signed up for Verizon's three-service FiOS bundle ($95 base per month) plus a lot of extras. With two phone lines, high-speed internet, premium movie channels, four standard boxes and two High Definition (HD) boxes (one with Digital Video Recorder)--our total bill including tax should come out to about $200 per month. In addition to saving some money and upgrading our service, we are also getting more channels and have options for additional specialty and foreign channels for additional fees.
The two members of our UG trio who previously had Cablevision find that reception on a standard box is at least as good or possibly better than before. Needless to say, the UG resident who just went from antenna reception to FiOS has had an improvement. We all agree that Verizon HD looks great. The only glitch so far is that sometimes audio doesn't load properly-- turning the box off and on solves the problem. One of our trio asked for a $3 per month cable card instead of a $10 per month HD box, but found that this has some limitations. The Verizon remote controls also require a firmer touch than most other remotes.
The bottom line, with caveats, glitches and all is that Verizon is offering a very good service at a competitive price. Cablevision is clearly trying to fend off the challenge, but only time will tell whether their reception, reliability, content and pricing are sufficiently competitive to hang onto their market share. In the end, the consumer should benefit from the competition.
Consolidation in the spotlight 8-03-07
Readers who have followed our coverage of the campaign to consolidate local government for the supposed purpose of cutting property taxes would find it worthwhile to get the current issue of the Great Neck Record. In several articles relating to the hearings of the NY State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness, a number of points emerge:
- The major component of property taxes is school tax, and most school tax money goes for salaries.
- Only a tiny percentage of the cost of a school district goes for administration--something that could hypothetically be reduced by consolidation, but is probably too small to be worth the effort.
- The Wicks Law governing public construction contracting rules adds 30% to the cost of projects--a significant cost unrelated to the consolidation issue.
- Long Island's water supply is already one of the least expensive in the country and its many water districts employ a total of only 257 persons--implying that there's not much room for cutting.
- County Comptroller Howard Weitzman, a Commission member and a key proponent of the consolidation effort, acknowledged the concerns of GN Park District residents that this highly-prized special district might be consolidated and stated "Clearly, I would be opposed to any such attempt."
- State Senator Craig Johnson, another Commission member, noted that in some cases residents are willing to fund "a level of service and a feeling of comfort" they obtain through the services of special districts--finally indicating some recognition by the pols that they shouldn't consolidate a district against the wishes of its residents who pay the bills.
In sum, the complex reality behind the high cost of local government is emerging. The main cost of local government is high salaries, not duplicated administration. Some districts are highly efficient and some aren't. In some cases, residents may want to spend more money for the services provided by a special district than some bureaucrats think is the right amount. The pols are beginning to realize that in such cases the districts have to be given a pass--at least for now.
In related news, County Executive Tom Suozzi has announced the winners of his competition to design a consolidation plan for the County. A total of $550,000 will be paid to a group of entities including the Center for Governmental Research, Hofstra University and Malcolm Pimie, a private engineering consulting company. As we have noted previously, this effort essentially parallels the work of the Commission, at least as to any proposed consolidation within Nassau County.
Why undertake this effort when NY State has the final authority? Our theory is that the consolidation effort has little to do with tax-cutting and everything to do with a revenue grab by larger units of government from higher property-value communities. All the more reason to be prepared with glossy consulting reports to be used in lobbying Albany next year when the plunder from the consolidation campaign is apportioned out.
West Nile at the gates 7-26-07
The Nassau County Health Department reports that West Nile Virus (WNV) has been isolated from a mosquito pool in the County for the first time this year. The WNV was found in Jericho, about 10 miles east of here. Pointing out that WNV is primarily carried by the "house mosquito" which usually stays within 200 feet of its breeding place, the Health Dept. urges homeowners to take basic precautions. Their full statement can be read here. LI Newsday reports that WNV was also isolated recently in Flushing.
Consolidation hearing 7-25-07
As reported in LI Newsday, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy testified yesterday at a hearing of the New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness. The latter was established recently by NY Governor Spitzer to promote consolidation of local government. Suozzi reiterated his proposal to consolidate election days for special districts, as reported in our prior article. Levy called on Albany to provide the special districts with financial incentives to cooperate in the consolidation process.
The article states that Suozzi and Levy called for school districts to "merge business office, security, transportation and maintenance departments. But both said there is no political will to consolidate the districts themselves." Jim Kaden, president of the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association, responded that the high level of school taxes is attributable to the state's failure to pay its "fair share" in aid and not to wasteful spending.
Suozzi is reported saying that he wished to "explore" a central Nassau library district and that he wanted to take over sewer districts because "I'm very good at sewers". As we reported several months ago (see article), the Great Neck Water Pollution Control District has a different position.
Consolidating special district elections
. . . but evading the real issue 7-24-07
Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi is proposing that all special district elections be held either on Election Day in November or on the same day in May when school district elections are held. Currently, each district sets its own election date leading to extremely low voter turnout. Mr. Suozzi's press release yesterday explained that this change was needed to improve voter participation and accountability to the electorate by the districts. It also further explained that: "Hundreds of special districts in Nassau levied more than $489,000,000 in taxes in 2007, and were responsible for nearly ten percent of all of Nassau’s property taxes."
We take no exception to this effort to make government more accountable, but the real issue is the consolidation campaign that Mr. Suozzi and other pols have been waging. We do not know what he expects to save from consolidation and it appears that he doesn't either, as he has solicited proposals for a consulting report to provide this analysis. As our readers know, the County has a purse of up to $750,000 lined up for the lucky consulting firm whose proposal is selected.
Our modest analysis comes for free. Since special districts account for 10% of all property taxes and assuming that consolidation would reduce their cost by a generous estimate of 20%, this would imply that 2% could be saved from a homeowner's total property tax bill. For an average homeowner who pays let's say $10,000 per year in total property taxes, this would mean a total savings of $200.
However, we cannot pass Go and collect our $200 so quickly. Aside from the expenditures by the County and NY State on consulting reports and hearings, plenty more will be expended on legal, accounting and other transitional expenses before the consolidation process is completed. Aside from the negligible net savings that remain and the trauma the consolidation campaign causes to the body politic, it also appears likely that there will be consequences for public services. Notwithstanding the best efforts of the consultants, these cannot be fully assessed until the process is accomplished.
This leads to our conclusion that the true goal of the campaign to consolidate special districts is to redistribute control and revenue from local units of government to bigger units. This leads to our second conclusion that, if the pols want to have a modest tax savings to show for all their efforts, they will have to go after the school districts and villages--where most of the property tax money goes.
If the public controversies over the GN Park District and the Manhasset-Lakeville Water District seem acrimonious, wait until the consolidators try to get their hands on the revenues of a village or a school district. Stay tuned for the fireworks to come folks.
Verizon franchise: good for Town; iffy for UG 7-20-07
We have received a copy of the Cable Franchise Agreement between the Town of North Hempstead and Verizon New York Inc. through the NY Freedom of Information Law. Accompanying the Agreement was an additional document entitled Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of North Hempstead and Verizon New York Inc.(the MOU). Our conclusion is that the interests of the Town administration are well served by the Agreement, but the interests of residents of UG and other unincorporated areas of Great Neck have taken a back seat in the MOU.
Under the Agreement, the Town stands to earn at least 5% of Verizon's gross revenues, including subscriber fees and commercial fees paid by the Home Shopping Network and the like. The Town will also receive grants totaling $1.15 million from Verizon over the next three years to support the three or four "PEG" (Public, Education and Government) channels that Verizon will provide and Verizon will provide two access points (studios) for the Town to pipe its PEG programming into the system. We understand that one of these points will be in New Cassel where the Town has a show-piece development project. In addition to being a money-maker, the Agreement will enhance the communications reach of the Town administration, as its PEG programming will be carried to both villages and unincorporated areas within the Town and possibly beyond.
Unfortunately, this Agreement does nothing to ensure that Verizon will provide PEG access for GN Schools programming to reach GN's unincorporated areas (see earlier posts 4-16-07 and 4-20-07). GN Schools Superintendant Dr. Ronald Friedman appeared at the Town Board hearing on the Agreement in April to plead for inclusion of such provision. After some initial resistance, Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman eventually undertook to insert language "that gives us comfort level that we are paving the way for the unincorporated areas to have access to school district programming." The result is the MOU which states in its first clause ". . . this MOU shall not be construed to be a part of that certain cable franchise agreement by and between the Town and Verizon . . ."
According to the MOU, Verizon is obligated to conduct a study of "regionalization" and to implement it if it finds it technically feasible and commercially reasonable. This would allow GN Schools programming to be received in GN and the programming of other school districts to be received in their areas on the same channel. However, Verizon is not obligated to conduct the study until it has concluded franchise agreements with at least 22 of the 30 villages in the Town. Moreover, the determinations of feasibility and reasonability are left entirely in Verizon's hands.
In sum, while the new Verizon service itself may well be of benefit to UG residents, the terms of the Agreement reflect other interests. It does not appear likely that UG will be receiving GN Schools programming anytime soon, if ever.
Government in action REVISED 7-17-07
It seems that the summer heat brings out the creative side of our local officials. Here are a few new measures ranging from scary to silly:
- County Executive Tom Suozzi has today signed Local Law No. 13-2007 (the "Social Host Law") which makes criminals out of homeowners (or anyone at least age 18 in control of a house) who allow the consumption of alcohol on their property by someone under 21 years of age or fail to prevent it by seizing the drink, ejecting the minor or calling the police or someone with authority over the minor. Unlike some Social Host ordinances that have been adopted elsewhere in the country, Nassau's is not limited to parties and the degree of knowledge that inculpates a homeowner is rather low and vague. Thus, even if your kid is sitting in the backyard with a friend who brought over his own can of beer, you could still be liable if you had "reason to be aware" of the unlawful consumption taking place on your property. Exceptions are made for religious observances or when a parent or guardian is present and permits the consumption by his own child.
Penalties range from $250 for a first offense up to $1,000 and/or up to a year in prison for a third offense. It appears that this could apply equally to both co-owners of a property if both had "reason to be aware." Thanks to this law it may be safer not to leave your college kid alone at home when you go on vacation, as you and your spouse and/or your child could be facing time in the hoosegow by the time you return. Talk about Risky Business!
- The Town of North Hempstead is considering a five-year phase-in of property taxes for newly constructed homes purchased by "qualified" first-time homebuyers by 2010. We wonder who figured out that a tax incentive is needed when developers are already constructing wherever they can.
- The Town used to mail out each semi-annual property tax bill when payment was due, but in recent years they have been mailing the first and second bills for the year together. Saving on postage, however, has created another problem as some homeowners forget about paying the second bill. The Town's new solution is to mail out postcards to remind people to pay the second bill that was sent to them six months earlier. The only problem with that solution, of course, is that it costs postage. Some day soon, we believe, an enterprising bureaucrat will get a promotion for eliminating the reminder postcards and mailing out each bill when payment comes due.
Verizon TV reaches UG REVISED 7-17-07
Verizon FiOS (fiber-optic) TV service has become available in UG, breaking the long-time monopoly held by Cablevision. The FiOS TV website indicates that the service is being offered individually or as part of a package with internet and phone. Our preliminary impression is that Verizon is competing aggressively both in terms of price and specialty programming.
So far, we have heard from one UG household that has already had the new service installed--they may well be the first in GN at large. They report that reception is as good or possibly a bit better than before on their regular TV sets and that they get more channels for less money. Since HD boxes are rather costly, they have used a less costly cable card instead. They report that after extensive work by Verizon's support staff, a cable card is now being used for their plasma TV set with spectacular results.
We plan to install Verizon FiOS TV service at our home and will report on our own experience shortly. Readers who wish to share their experience with the new service are welcome to write to us or to post their comments on the Bulletin Board.
The offering of this service in UG indicates that the negotiations on a cable TV franchise agreement between Verizon and the Town of North Hempstead--which we reported on in April--have been concluded. We have requested a copy of the agreement from the Town under the Freedom of Information Law and have heard from them that it will be released to us. We hope to report on this shortly.
GN Park District--followup 7-01-07
In its lead story today, Long Island Newsday has profiled the Great Neck Park District with the headline "Great Neck park district carries $11M pricetag" (see article). The article notes that the GNPD is envied by officials of other park districts and acknowledges that its residents "revel" in its extraordinary amenities. Success like this would seem to be unassailable, but the article focuses instead on the pay and perks afforded to the GNPD's employees which exceed those given to employees of other park systems.
The article tries hard to imply that the GNPD is unaccountable to the public and operates without supervision, yet it acknowledges that its budget must be approved by the Town of North Hempstead. It also fails to mention that its commissioners are elected and that the public is free to elect cost-cutting commissioners if it is unhappy with current costs.
It appears to us that the forces of consolidation simply can't tolerate an extraordinarily successful local district which is supported by its residents, as this undercuts the very premise of their campaign. If they can find any questionable perk or expense, they will trumpet this as a horrible abuse to justify their unwanted intervention. The bottom line is that a rich district like the GNPD is simply too ripe for plunder for the consolidators to keep their hands off.
As we have noted in the preceding article, the GNPD commissioners clearly realize this and are going out proactively to explain to their public what they stand to lose. It appears to us that UG and other parts of GN would do well to follow their example, particularly as relates to the big budget GN library and school systems.
GN Park District gears up for battle
...and why it matters for UG REVISED 6-22-07
Two weeks ago, we reported that County Executive Tom Suozzi was soliciting proposals to consolidate local government in the name of reducing property taxes. We commented then that residents of UG and GN in general would have to either accept big changes or prepare to fight (see prior article).
The GN Park District has apparently come to the same conclusion. According to yesterday's Great Neck Record (see article), they "decided to make their own clarion call instead of waiting passively and defensively. They are taking an active stance in preparing to fight for local control of the Great Neck park system."
Speaking at a special meeting convened a week ago, the Chairperson of the Park District is reported to have questioned whether consolidation of the Park District would have much effect in reducing property taxes. One of the Commissioners, pointing out the ease of contacting Park District officials, asked "would you rather have some bureaucrat in Mineola making decisions?" He further challenged those assembled to visit Manhasset Valley Park to see the "shambles" that the County had made of it.
Aware of the severe reaction their campaign is provoking, various County officials are apparently trying to issue assurances that their consolidation proposals will be voluntary and not compulsory. Today's issue of The Great Neck News quoted a senior advisor to Mr. Suozzi as stating that if a given village, district or entity does not agree with a proposed step and they "opt not to do it, that's their choice." County Comptroller Howard Weitzman was also quoted saying "There is no such thing as mandated consolidation on the table right now."
This sounds to us like a tacit admission that the pols have mandatory consolidation plans up their sleeves for later, in case the voluntary ones aren't adopted sooner. Clearly, the GN Park District is not willing to wait around to find out, and is already getting the public mobilized now.
Since UG is not a part of the Park District and already enjoys the supposed benefits of consolidation as an unincorporated area, readers may wonder how this issue affects them. In fact, many aspects of life in UG are under some form of local control, either by UG directly or as part of GN, including school, sanitation, park, library, water, sewer and fire. The issue faced by the GN Park District is essentially the same one that could affect UG residents in all these other spheres. Therefore, it appears that UG has a large stake in this issue after all.
The way it was (and is)
6-19-07
While sorting through some archives recently, we came across the minutes of annual UG Property Owners Assn. meetings held years ago. Two of them seemed particularly poignant and have been posted here (Jan. 1994 and Jan. 1996).
Readers should note the discussion of the hazardous condition of UG's roads during the winter of 1994 which led residents to discuss the possibility of incorporating the community. The then-president reported to the community that he had spoken with the Town Supervisor and learned that the Town had curtailed snow plowing services for budgetary reasons. Nevertheless, his solution was to urge the community to "bombard" the Town with complaints.
The minutes of the 1996 meeting indicate that snow plowing remained poor and residents were again exhorted to complain to the Town. Renewed discussion of the possibility of incorporation was summarily dismissed on grounds that it was financially infeasible, as snow plowing would cost $40,000 to $50,000 per year. The meeting also included a petition from UG residents to the Town calling for pruning of our street trees. As readers know, the Town has been gearing up its response on that issue ever since.
BZA upholds construction bar for narrow UG lot
6-15-07
In the first test case for an important new zoning ordinance, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) voted unanimously last week to deny an application for a variance that would have cleared the way for construction of a home on a narrow lot on Hampton Road. The ordinance bars construction on a lot that is less than 100 feet wide unless it is at least as wide as the average width of neighboring lots within 200 feet. The lot in question is 73 feet wide whereas the average width of its neighbors exceeds 100 feet.
The lot was originally the vacant side-lawn of a property that was approved for subdivision by the Nassau County Planning Commission (NCPC) in December 2005 on condition that new deeds be filed for the two resultant lots within six months. The owner then signed a contract to sell the larger resultant lot with an original house on it later that month, but retained the lot in question. The new zoning ordinance was adopted on January 3, 2006, effectively barring construction on the lot unless a variance could be obtained. The deeds for the two lots were then filed in late January 2006.
At the BZA hearing on this case in March 2007 (see prior article) and in subsequent pleadings, the attorney for the applicant argued that the decision of the NCPC effectively created the lot in December 2005 and that the lot retained its construction rights even after the new zoning ordinance was adopted. UG Property Owners Assn. attorney Richard Gabriele--who appeared in opposition to the application--argued that the NCPC merely authorized the creation of the sub-divided lot subject to the filing of a deed within a certain time limit, as a condition subsequent. Mr. Gabriele argued, therefore, that this lot was only created when the deed was filed in late January 2006--after the new zoning ordinance had been adopted. He further argued that even if the lot did indeed exist as of December 2005, it still did not retain its prior construction rights after the new zoning ordinance altered those rights.
The BZA ruled that the subdivision did not take place until the deed was filed and that the new lot width ordinance was applicable. Their decision noted that the width of the lot was far below the average width of the neighboring lots and was among the lowest in the neighborhood; therefore, they found that construction on the lot would be harmful to the block and to the community. While recognizing the hardship to the applicant if he could not build on the lot, they noted that he had already reaped an ample profit on the sale of the larger lot and house. Therefore, on balance, they concluded that the potential harm to the community of a variance and the precedent this would set in other similar variance cases warranted denial of the application.
Know your lifeguard
6-12-07
Long Island Newsday reported today that a registered sex offender was discovered to be working as a seasonal lifeguard at a Town of North Hempstead pool in the Manorhaven section of Port Washington. Reportedly, the Town did an initial background check on this employee in 2003 when he was first hired, but didn't do any follow-ups or check the sex offender registry after hire.
In 2005, the lifeguard was convicted of a sexual charge involving a minor and has been required to register every year since then. It is not clear from the article how the Town finally became aware of this, but it reports that the lifeguard was reassigned to duties away from unsupervised contact with children two weeks ago and then resigned. A Town official is quoted promising to do regular checking from now on.
Three years ago, the UG board started having applicants for positions at the UG club complete a background questionnaire that included questions about sexual and child abuse offenses. It also required the applicant to consent to having a background investigation conducted and to advise the board of any subsequent material events. This may have seemed a bit heavy handed to some at the time, but in light of today's report it now appears to have been just right.
The questionnaire is still posted on the official UGPOA website and we hope the current board is actually using it and doing appropriate checks. Not that we suspect the current staff, who appear to be a fine group, but just in case.
Suozzi solicits consolidation proposals
Editorial: UG & GN--accept big changes or prepare to fight
6-6-07
After not issuing a press release in over a month, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi came back with a roar yesterday. Armed with a $500,000 allocation from the County Legislature and another $250,000 from a private foundation, he announced a competition for consulting firms to submit proposals to consolidate services currently provided by governmental entities and private companies in the following areas: Libraries, School Business Functions, Parks, Road Maintenance, Sanitation/Solid Waste Disposal and Water Supply.
According to LI Newsday, Suozzi clarified that he only proposed to consolidate the "business functions" of schools because actual consolidation of school districts was not politically feasible. As in his State of the County address a few months ago, Suozzi hedged his big government plans by claiming that he also wants to “preserve home rule and local zoning control .... maintain close-to-home government and protect the suburban character of our communities and neighborhoods.”
Editorial: As we have stressed in prior articles, the real meaning of consolidation is that local tax bases reserved for special functions will be redistributed by pols singing the swan song of tax reduction. Their real plan is to use these revenues to support big government and nullify home rule, notwithstanding Suozzi's oxymoronic call for maintaining home rule while gutting out its substance. It sounds to us like he would fully consolidate school districts too, if he thought he could get away with it.
The implications for UG and GN at large are quite negative. Towns and villages that now decide when they wish to pave their roads or how they wish to run their park systems--such as the GN Park District--could be stripped of this power and the tax bases that support them. The GN library system, now under the GN School District, could be "consolidated" with other library systems. Perhaps most worrisome, the proposal to consolidate school "business functions" sounds like an effort to financially consolidate school districts and their tax bases while leaving their nominally separate structures in place as a sop to home rule.
We are not against all consolidation. When local communities and districts voluntarily cooperate and consolidate certain functions on a case-by-case basis, that seems a good thing to us. But, Suozzi et. al. are talking about something compulsory that substitutes the judgment of big units of government for the judgment of local people in their own communities. The bottom line is that many of the local institutions that make GN a special place and the local tax bases that support these institutions could be stripped away. Either accept the big changes that are in the works or prepare to fight.
Police nab 3 suspects in UG crime spree
6-4-07
A few days ago we posted a report from a neighbor that his vehicle had been stolen during the early hours of the morning (see prior article). We have now received additional reports indicating that this was not an isolated incident and was, in fact, part of a crime spree by an organized group. The reports indicate that as many as 10 vehicles belonging to UG residents were either vandalized or stolen in a sudden onslaught that morning.
A spokesman for the Nassau County Police advised us on the phone that 3 suspects in these incidents have been arrested. They believe the suspects are responsible for 40 specific acts of theft or vandalism in UG and other communities.
We repeat our prior suggestion to garage cars overnight and urge residents to take additional precautions. Residents aware of any information that could assist in the investigation may also wish to contact the 6th Precinct (516-573-6600).
We will report additional information as it becomes available.
Construction next to Sussex entrance proposed
Men's World project gets green light
6-2-07
An application for a zoning variance has been filed by the owner of the commercial property on Northern Blvd. next to the Sussex Road entrance to the community. The owner proposes to add a second story to the existing structure, but requires a variance due to inadequate off-street parking and access isle. The owner contends that parking space is sufficient when taken in combination with parking at its adjacent property on Northern Blvd., on the other side of the UG-Lake Success boundary line. The case will be heard by the Town's Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on June 20.
Meanwhile, the variance application for insufficient parking filed by the new owner of the former Men's World property on Northern Blvd. at Wensley Dr. has been granted by the BZA (see prior article). This approval is subject to stringent conditions demanded by the UG Property Owners Association to maintain the low traffic character of the site. The variance is limited to the operation of a facial plastic and reconstructive surgery center by the owner; no other medical practice or other sub-tenant may operate from the building. A new fence dividing the rear of this property from the adjacent residences on Somerset Drive North will be built. These requirements will be recorded as a declaration of restrictions on the property.
Car stolen from UG driveway
5-31-07
A UG resident has reported to us that his new Lexis was stolen during the night from the driveway of his home on Merrivale Road. The resident last saw the vehicle there at about 1 a.m., but by 7 a.m. this morning it was gone.
A few years ago, there was the case of another upscale vehicle parked overnight in the driveway of a UG home. In the morning, the car was missing its tires.
The conclusion we draw is that thieves can work stealthily right under the noses of their victims. Residents may wish to consider parking their cars in the garage at night.
GN man nabbed in UG burglary
REVISED 5-31-07
According to yesterday's LI Newsday, Nassau County Police have arrested a resident of Talbot Dr. in the nearby Wilshire section of Great Neck as a suspect in two recent burglaries. One of the crimes was committed on April 29 in University Gardens. Reportedly, police identified the suspect through an ad for a stolen computer on Craigslist. A police spokesman we contacted declined to provide specific details about the location of the crime in order to protect the victim's privacy. When we asked if it was in the vicinity of Hereford Road he confirmed that it was around that area.
Today's Great Neck Record reports that a burglary occurred on "Summerset (sic) Drive North, University Gardens" at 1:25 a.m. on April 29. The report states that entry was gained through a "rear sliding glass door" and that cash was taken. We assume this is the same crime that was reported in LI Newsday.
Editorial: UG sanitation exemplifies the overall problem
5-29-07
Back in March, we were informed by a representative of Winter Bros.--UG's new sanitation company--that on weeks with a Monday holiday, pickups would shift to a Tues.-Thurs.-Sat. schedule (prior article). Memorial Day behind us, we anxiously awaited our Tuesday pickup; we even contacted the Winter Bros. office and confirmed that the trucks would be coming later today. Upon returning home this evening, however, we discovered that nothing had been done.
UGPOA President Sy Coopersmith may have had a good idea in asking Winter Bros. for a discount as an interim solution while considering the Town's garbage district as a possible longterm solution, as stated in the board's recent publication. But, much as we too want better rates, we place an equal or greater premium on adequate and reliable service. Having to wait for a pickup from Friday all the way through a holiday weekend until the following Wednesday seems unreasonable. Yet, this is the sort of weak service UG residents have grown accustomed to while paying about double the market rate paid in nearby communities for better service.
The solution, we believe, is to have our community united behind a single entity with the power to contract on our behalf. If the Town is relied upon for this purpose, there must be verification that their garbage district doesn't save a few dollars in exchange for even worse service and sluggish bureaucratic oversight. If the Town consents, UG could form its own self-governing garbage district and set its own performance requirements before opening the contract for bids. Finally, UG could consider the village option, which would enable our local council to address our sanitation and other services according to our own needs without asking anyone else for permission.
One way or another, this community can and should do better than its present muddling along with respect to sanitation as well as its other municipal services.
Community party kicks off pool season
5-27-07
The annual UG community party at the start of the pool season was held today at the club area. Several dozen residents enjoyed the free lunch and a chance to shmooze with their neighbors under clear skies. All in all, it was a pleasant if somewhat subdued event.
While there we tried to clarify the guest ticket policy. It appears that residents who buy a discounted pack of 20 guest tickets for $100 will not be able to transfer or return their unused tickets. However, they may be able to use them in future seasons if the present system is continued. That's the way the thinking seems to be going at the moment, but don't quote us. Also, please note that the pool staff prefers a check rather than cash.
Town Watch - Part II
5-25-07
Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman was the focus of an article in yesterday's Long Island Newsday concerning the relatively large sums his re-election campaign has received from contractors and developers doing business with the Town. See article. Although nothing unlawful is alleged, the article cites concerns about a culture of "pay to play" in which persons may believe they need to make contributions to get contracts.
The article refers to several developers involved in the Town's showcase project in New Cassel who have made substantial contributions. One of them, Raj Batheja, who contributed $4,000, may not have followed proper procedures in the excavation of a building which could be in danger of sinking into the New Cassel mire. It remains to be seen what role Town building inspectors played in this debacle.
As discussed in our prior post, the Town Board held a special meeting this week to authorize the hiring of new oversight personnel for the Building Department. This should help them get ahead of the public relations curve, especially if more bad news comes down the pipeline from the Nassau County District Attorney who has been investigating the Building Department over the past year.
Questions about the practices of the Town and its contractors may also reach down to the local UG level. We searched NY Board of Elections records and found that a $500 contribution was made to Friends of Jon Kaiman on August 16, 2006 by Colgan Tree and Landscape Service Inc. The latter had submitted a proposal to the Town for providing tree services to UG on August 11, 2006 according to Town records in our possession. These records show that the company was paid $10,000 last October with funds that had been gifted to the Town by the UG board.
We also note that Meadow Carting made a $4,250 donation to the Kaiman campaign. This company currently services many of the Town's sanitation districts, including the Great Neck Refuse & Garbage District. The possibility of UG joining this district is currently under consideration.
This is not to say that these companies don't do a fine job or that they wouldn't have been engaged by the Town anyway without their contributions. Appearances, however, could be better.
Town Watch
5-23-07
The North Hempstead Town Board met in special session yesterday to vote on a measure proposing the hiring of new oversight personnel for the Town's scandal-plagued Building Department. It was not immediately clear why this matter has suddenly become so acute as to warrant a special session of the Town Board. Long Island Newsday reported last night that Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman acknowledged that the system was broken and that the new hirings were needed to help fix it. The measure was approved.
During the past year, the Nassau County District Attorney has been investigating allegations of corruption in the approval of construction projects in the Town. Records have been reported subpoenaed from numerous Town officials. On a recent visit to the Town's Building Department, we heard first-hand about the scene there as an employee was led away in handcuffs.
Aside from the embarrassment to the Town administration and the current work delays at the Building Department, this matter also has ramifications for the consolidation campaign we have been covering. Both Mr. Kaiman, in his State of the Town address, and Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, in his State of the County address, implied that smaller units of government were more prone to corruption than larger consolidated units. It is not clear how the present scandal can be reconciled with this theory.
Board Watch
5-20-07
The UG board has distributed another issue of its Voice of the Gardens newsletter. We found the prior issue to be devoid of substance and long on graphics and self-congratulation. Mercifully, the new issue is free of the latter and actually conveys some substance, albeit incompletely. Here are some of the details missing in the coverage:
Health Department updates West Nile info
REVISED 5-17-07
The Nassau County Health Department has issued updates in recent days concerning West Nile Virus. They request that sightings of dead birds--a possible indication of West Nile activity--be reported to the toll-free state hot line at: 1-866-537-2473 or Mosquito Surveillance at: 572-1211. A mosquito problem, stagnant water or drainage problem can be reported to Mosquito Control at: 572-1166.
We called the Health Department to inquire further. The responder advised that helicopter spraying was focused on South Shore marshes but that treatment of other areas is being conducted on a case by case basis driven by complaints from the public.
The Health Department advises that the primary carrier of West Nile Virus in Nassau County is the “house mosquito” and that adults of this variety normally stay within 200 feet of their breeding site. They urge residents to take the following precautions:
Consolidation Wars: a district strikes back
REVISED 5-17-07
Well folks, you read it here first. The consolidation wars we have been warning about are now starting to erupt. Expect more over the coming year as hearings are held, officials wrangle and the public reacts when favored local districts are pressured.
In a mailing to residents received a few days ago, the Manhasset-Lakeville Water District (UG's water supplier) has come out swinging against the consolidation campaign. The MLWD newsletter hotly disputes the very notion that Nassau County's high property taxes are caused by the existence of special districts, as has been alleged by a series of top officials. The newsletter points out that the average resident pays 63% of property taxes for schools, 32% for other Town and County functions and only 3% for water. It also points out that special districts are not unaccountable entities as has been portrayed in the press, but are actually under the supervision of the Town.
In a stinging rebuke to the County, the newsletter states that "The real "smoke and mirrors" game is being played at the County Assessor's office. Increased market values, complemented by decreased assessed valuations, are used along with varying tax rates, to calculate our property taxes. As local residents and taxpayers, we share in the same frustration and financial burdens created by the County's reassessment program and resulting higher taxes."
[Long Island Newsday reported yesterday that several County legislators launched a similar attack on County Assessor Harvey Levinson. One legislator called on him to freeze reassessments for five years. Another called the reassessment program and the huge number of tax appeals a "boondoggle." Levinson responded that the solution is to freeze taxes, not reassessments. He also pointed out that many County residents will be paying six to nine percent increases in school taxes, alluding to the passage of higher school budgets throughout the County the prior day.]
The newsletter continues with essentially the same points we have been making in our prior articles on this subject: "Currently, every tax and revenue dollar collected by your District stays within your District. All sources of revenue are used to finance our daily operating expenses and the capital improvements necessary to provide our residents with a pure wholesome water supply. If local control is lost, your water taxes and metered sales revenues could be used to finance other County expenses. Water remains the least expensive utility in Nassau County today. It doesn't take much imagination to see our County politicians increasing water rates to finance their budget. The County is always looking for ways to generate more revenue. Let's make sure your water supply doesn't become one of them."
Similarly, we have advocated the incorporation of UG as a village to ensure that every dollar arising from UG for certain local services would be used for UG, rather than being reallocated for other purposes by Town politicians, as at present. The advocates of consolidation claim to be cutting costs, when it appears to us that they are simply accessing new sources of revenue for general purposes. In the case of UG, they have already accessed them and are reluctant to let go.
As we've said before: stay tuned for the fireworks. The heated UG community debate on incorporation of two years ago is about to be replayed on a County-wide level.
County to transfer parks, roads and $3 million to Town 5-5-07
On March 29, 2007, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and Town of North Hempstead Supervisor Jon Kaiman announced a plan to transfer 9 parks, 12 roads and $3 million from the County to the Town. The cash payment is earmarked for repairs that the Town will have to undertake on these new acquisitions. County Executive Suozzi cited this plan as "a model for how the county can work together with local towns and villages for the benefit of all taxpayers.”
This brings to mind the community's meeting on the proposal to incorporate UG as a village back in May 2005. The key evidence presented by opponents of the proposal was a letter from an auditor for the Town claiming that transfer of roads from Town to village would require reimbursing the Town for roadwork undertaken sixteen years earlier--plus appreciation! This claim for $1+ million panicked many of those assembled and effectively ended consideration of the proposal. Readers may now wish to judge how that claim squares with reality, where higher levels of government actually pay lower levels of government to take roads and parks off their hands.
New links on website 5-2-07
To improve the functionality of this website as a local information resource, sections for Great Neck and Long Island have been added to our Hot Links section on the left margin. We have also added links to live traffic cameras at key points in New York City and Long Island. Whereas we previously had links for emailing to officials, we now have links to their homepages and to our various levels of government. Additional links will be added from time to time; readers' suggestions are welcome (email to: perlmanlaw@aol.com).
Parallel consolidation plans to be developed 4-27-07
NY Governor Eliot Spitzer this week issued Executive Order 11 establishing the New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness. This order requires the Commission to deliver a report by April 15, 2008 that will recommend actions to "consolidate and eliminate taxing jurisdictions, special districts, and other local government entities where doing so would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of local government."
This follows the recent announcement of a parallel effort by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi. As we reported (see prior article), Suozzi called for the allocation of $500,000 to develop a similar blueprint for consolidation within the county.
It appears that the two studies could produce inconsistent findings about our local scene. If so, we wonder which agenda the pols will pursue and if we can look forward to a battle royal over who gets to continue and who gets to be "consolidated." Stay tuned for the fireworks over the next year folks.
We also cannot help but notice that the two studies will overlap with one another, wasting considerable taxpayer funds in the process, much like the fragmented and overlapping districts this effort is supposed to eliminate. To paraphrase an old saying: who will consolidate the consolidators?
Town Board authorizes Verizon TV deal
Kaiman relents on GN Schools TV 4-20-07
In a unanimous vote on April 17, the North Hempstead Town Board authorized Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman to enter into a 15-year cable TV franchise agreement with Verizon. Barring a last minute hitch, this will finally bring competition to the cable TV market in the Town after decades of monopoly by Cablevision.
As we reported in our prior post, Mr. Kaiman had initially demurred from the request of Dr. Ronald Friedman, Superintendant of Great Neck Public Schools, to ensure that Verizon will broadcast the school district's educational programming to its unincorporated areas. Instead, Mr. Kaiman declared that he wanted the Town's many school districts to share a single educational channel, a plan that would have inevitably limited the time available for the programming of each school district. Meanwhile, the incorporated areas of Great Neck--outside Mr. Kaiman's franchise jurisdiction--receive full Great Neck Schools programming on Channel 75.
Mr. Kaiman took quite an unusual pounding in the Great Neck press over this issue during the past week. The Great Neck News reported last week that he responded to Dr. Friedman "testily" at the Town Board meeting on April 10. The Great Neck Record reported this week that Dr. Friedman had written a letter on this matter to Supervisor Kaiman in December 2006, but that he never received an answer. It also reported that Dr. Friedman was never alerted to the Town Board's hearing on this subject last week and that he only heard about it through "happenstance."
It appears that Mr. Kaiman spent a good part of the past week trying to undo the damage from his prior brush-off of Dr. Friedman. According to this week's issue of The Great Neck News, Mr. Kaiman has now declared that he will endeavor to put language in the final agreement with Verizon "that gives us comfort level that we are paving the way for the unincorporated areas to have access to school district programming." This is now supposed to be accomplished through "regionalization" which would allow one channel to be split up to show different programming in different locations. This would permit different school districts to use the Town's educational channel at the same time, each in its own area.
Although this hardly seems ironclad, Mr. Kaiman is now commited to making an effort to arrange this with Verizon. Whether the effort actually succeeds remains to be seen, but it appears a near certainty that the Verizon deal will soon be a reality.
Verizon TV may soon reach UG
...but a new controversy looms 4-16-07
A few months ago, we started getting Verizon Fios phone and internet services at our home. When we asked them to add TV into a discounted three-service package, however, we learned that this would not be possible because there is no franchise agreement between Verizon and the Town of North Hempstead. As a result, we continue to pay full-price for separate TV service from Cablevision, the only enfranchised cable TV carrier in UG.
Unlike villages that have the authority to enter into their own franchise agreements, UG is an unincorporated area and must depend on the Town to negotiate such agreements. Fortunately, a cable TV franchise agreement between the Town and Verizon now appears to be in the works according to an article in the April 13, 2007 edition of The Great Neck News. Key points gained by the Town in the negotiations include a requirement that Verizon build a studio in New Cassel and deliver the Town's TV programming to locations outside the Town.
Whatever value those concessions may have for the average UG resident, the conclusion of an agreement with Verizon should bring the benefits of competition to the cable TV market. However, it appears that this is giving rise to a new controversy that relates to the broader issue of consolidation of local government that we have highlighted recently.
According to the article, Great Neck Public Schools Superintendant Dr. Ronald Friedman appeared at the Town Board hearing on this subject on April 10 to request that the franchise agreement require Verizon to broadcast the school district's TV programming to its unincorporated areas. Cablevision currently delivers this programming to the incorporated villages within the district, but reportedly cannot do so for the unincorporated areas due to technical limitations in their system. Apparently, Verizon would have to allocate a separate channel to the school district for this purpose.
Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman is quoted in the article as responding "testily" to Dr. Friedman, "You would want us to negotiate a contract exclusively for the benefit of the Great Neck Public Schools. We are negotiating an educational channel that school districts could share, a channel seen town-wide. We never intended to carve out tens or hundreds."
Mr. Kaiman's position on this issue seems to derive from his effort to consolidate units of local government under the Town's aegis, rather than from any technical limitation preventing allocation of a separate channel for the Great Neck School District. A Verizon representative is quoted in the article as stating that providing additional channels would not pose a problem for his company.
UG residents in the news 4-16-07
Twice within the past week, the New York Times has given coverage to UG residents as social trend-setters.
On April 10, former UG board member and founder of this website John Campbell and his wife Amy were in the spotlight as retirees with new agendas, having moved recently to Asheville, North Carolina. The Campbells continue to own their UG property and visit the community from time to time. See article.
Then on April 12, current UG board president Sy Coopersmith and his daughter Andie were profiled in an article and photograph. Dr. Coopersmith was cited as an example of a "Start-Over Dad" (SOD) having had a child at a relatively old age. The article noted that a number of well-known personalities have recently joined the SOD ranks. See article.
All in all, 15 minutes of fame x 2 = a lot of coverage for a small community.
2007 rules set for the Club 4-11-07
The UG Board has distributed a 2007 Club Registration packet which largely retains the same or similar rules from prior years, but has a few significant changes:
The key issue in running the Club is determining the tradeoff between user fee revenue and community participation. Last year, the membership fee of $125 set by the prior board generated $21,000 from the 67% of the community that joined. In earlier years, a membership fee of $475 generated $40,000, but only 40% of the community joined. This year's fee of $250 represents an attempt to strike another balance. In any case, user fees only bring in a portion of the true cost of running the facility, with half or more being paid through general Association revenues.
The other major issue is guest policy. In earlier years, membership at $475 included the right to bring in extended nonresident family members including grandchildren. This provision was popular with some seniors, but compelled members who did not have extended family guests to subsidize the arrangement. The prior board eliminated extended family rights from the $125 membership package, but retained it as an option for an additional $250. Only a few residents exercised this option, preferring instead to pay individual guest fees for their occasional family visitors. The present board has apparently eliminated this option and opted for a book of guest passes that comes to $5 per admission, regardless of the status of the guest as family or friend.
Thus far, the perfect membership fee and guest policy have not been devised, and the changes for this season also come with their own set of issues. In particular, it is unclear whether guest passes are transferable from one member to another. If so, it could create an unseemly secondary market; if not, we wonder how this could be enforced or if unused passes are returnable. A six-guest limitation seems reasonable but unenforceable, since additional guests could be invited in by a member's friends. As to the May 18 deadline, we wonder if the board will really deny membership to a resident who registers on May 19.
UG Board dusts off website 4-6-07
Although it's doubtful that many people check the official Association website any longer, we occasionally take a look over there to see if anyone is home. Though the Bulletin Board and News sections of the website were removed a year ago, it seems the UG Board still maintains the website as a directory.
Though the bottom of the home page indicates that the site has not been updated since February 15, 2006, The Pool & Tennis Club section indicates that an update was conducted on March 30, 2007 and the Club Rules for 2007 are being updated. The Newsletter section does not include any UG newsletters for the past year, and the Budget section has a slot for 2007, but the current budget has not been posted thus far.
Still, there is one substantial change. To our surprise, the Board page has apparently announced a shuffling of positions among the directors to anyone who happens to stumble upon this information:
We note that a year after leaving office, we were finally added to the hall of fame of past presidents listed below the current board members. Sic transit gloria. For reasons unknown, our listing does not include an asterisk indicating that the past president continues to live in the community. Hmmmm.
It takes a village (at least on April Fool's Day) 4-1-07
In a stunning about-face, the board of the UG Property Owners Assn. met in emergency session during the wee hours of this morning and voted to declare UG a village, effective immediately. One board member told us that this will be officially announced to the community in a newsletter to be issued in June, but another said that the newsletter probably won't be ready until August. For the time being, here's what they had to say off-the-record:
"Despite our prior statements that all is well and that we deeply love our Town and its personnel--including those who get shmeered at Christmas and even those who get shmeered all year long until they get hauled off in handcuffs--we are still nobody's fools. We see the eroded condition of our roads, our checkerboard sidewalks, the lack of proper pruning and maintenance of our tree canopy, the stream of broken promises from Town officials, the shaky zoning provisions that are supposed to protect us from predatory developers, our over-priced sanitation services and the poor return we get on our tax dollar. We see how the Town has paid for its high-profile Visioning projects on the backs of UG tax-payers while ignoring our basic needs and putting us on the bottom of its priority lists. This suddenly became as clear as day for us and we refused to tolerate it for one more minute. So we convened a meeting and changed course."
We were on the verge of applauding this breathtaking move, but were seized by a few nagging doubts. "Isn't there a legal procedure for becoming a village?" we asked. "Legal shmeegal," replied one of the board members, "if we say so, then it's legal enough for us."
"But isn't it true," we continued, "that many board members don't even show up for meetings any longer, that the board has largely disbanded our official community media, burned down our treasury, and left the remainder of our Association a vestige of its former self? How could dry bones like these suddenly spring to life and become a functioning village?"
The other board member answered our question with another question: "Have you seen the movie 300?" he asked. After pondering this riddle, we pictured a handful of muscular Spartans in leather speedos carrying the weight of battle for their whole country. Then we realized that, by the same token, a few hard-working board members could carry the weight of the whole community, if only the board actually had a few real workers--a big "if," but still worth considering.
"Well okay," we said, "but what about opposition from Town Supervisor Kaiman?" "Not to worry" replied the board member. "We have close personal and political ties with the Town that will take care of everything. Just to straighten out his legacy, Kaiman wants to send in the sidewalk crew again this year, this time to do the dark squares sandwiched between the light ones that they did last year. He also wants to send in a tree pruning crew to pose for the Town's TV station. Then he promises to take his hand out of our pocket and vamoose, on condition that we won't make him attend any more UG Assn. meetings."
"It sounds like you guys have it all figured out," we said, "and a well-run village is at hand." "Not so fast" replied the board member. "This is our position only for today. The other 364 days of the year we take the opposite position." And so ends our April Fool's fable.
New sanitation bills arrive 3-30-07
We reported recently on UG's new sanitation company, Winter Bros. Recycling Corp., based on a conversation we had with their contact person, Rachel (631-491-4923). Among the points we reported was that Winter Bros. would credit payments made by UG residents to Waste Management in March and that service rates and terms would remain the same.
Our first Winter Bros. bill that arrived yesterday did not seem to reflect these two points, so we called Rachel to see what happened. She reports that the bill went out before a reconciliation was done with payments to Waste Management in March--information that she now has available. So, we only owed $45.06 for April; our $43.25 payment to Waste Management for March has been credited.
As to the slight increase in charges from March to April, she explained that the company's "environmental fee" fluctuates a bit. The fee for April is $2.18. She reaffirmed that the company's plan is to continue with the same basic services and terms as before.
Consolidation campaign ramps up 3-27-07
As we reported recently, the campaign to consolidate municipal corporations is now underway. A major increase in tempo was signaled by County Executive Tom Suozzi in his State of the County address on March 13, in which he declared that "we must consolidate local government and expand our tax base" to address high property taxes, which he termed "our most serious problem."
Announcing his "2020 Vision," Suozzi declared that the county will embark on an "aggressive new effort to consolidate our over-400 separate governments to reduce costs and improve service." This will be combined with efforts to expand the tax base through development in 10 targeted locations. The goal will be that by the year 2020, property taxes will no longer be the top issue in Nassau County. He then called for a $500,000 allocation to develop a blueprint of proposed steps so that we could say "it will save you this much money and your services will be this much better."
Early in the address, Suozzi described special districts as corrupt, inefficient and unaccountable even when they hold elections, but later in the address, he acknowledged that many such districts do a good job and that he only wanted them to be more efficient. Similarly, while he called for consolidation, he also stated that he wanted to preserve home rule and local zoning control to preserve our suburban character. Which of these two alternate versions of reality he really believes in is somewhat unclear to us.
In our view, most people don't care too much about sewer, sanitation, water or even fire districts, but do care greatly about their villages and school districts. Yet, the latter are where the major funds are expended and we question whether the consolidation campaign will have much effect without including them. This gives rise to our suspicion that the other shoe has not yet dropped. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
Winter Bros. takes over UG sanitation 3-19-07
Earlier this month, we received a notice that stated, "As you are aware, on January 29, 2007, Winter Bros. Recycling Corp. acquired the Long Island assets of Waste Management of New York LLC, and we are now your provider for waste management services." Well, actually, we weren't aware of this and continued to see Waste Management trucks in the community. This morning, however, we noticed Winter Bros. trucks outside, so we contacted their office (631-491-4923) and were introduced to Rachel, a pleasant lady who will be their main contact for UG service and billing issues. A few noteworthy points emerged:
In addition to this info, a bit of on-line research indicates that Winter Bros. is a family business based on Long Island, unlike Waste Management which is a national company. Hopefully, this means that they will place a high priority on servicing their new routes. Our initial contact with their office sounded encouraging, but only time will tell.
It is unclear how this will impact on the proposal to have University Gardens join the Great Neck Refuse & Sanitation District. If UG residents are satisfied with the new service, they may prefer to leave well enough alone and not switch to yet another new arrangement. On the other hand, if service from the new company proves unsatisfactory, or if prices are raised beyond their current high levels, there would be greater incentive to join the sanitation district.
Zoning test case heard by BZA 3-07-07
A variance application for a UG property that tested a new zoning ordinance was heard today by the Town of North Hempstead's Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). After a lengthy and contentious hearing, decision was reserved pending review of additional briefs from the applicant and the UG Property Owners Assn., which opposed the application.
The new ordinance, adopted by the Town Board in January 2006, requires that a lot under 100 feet in width within an R-A zone (UG's classification) must be at least as wide as the average width of neighboring lots within 200 feet along the same blockfront before a building permit can be issued. In the present case, the neighboring lots have an average width over 100 feet, whereas the lot in question is 73 feet wide along Hampton Rd.
The applicant appeared with a team of advisors including an attorney, architect and urban planner. His attorney argued essentially that the lot in question was grandfathered under the pre-existing zoning code because a sub-division was approved for the property in December 2005, just before the new zoning ordinance was adopted. One sub-divided lot with the original house was sold shortly thereafter and the applicant kept the other. The urban planner argued that other narrow lots exist within UG--therefore, the lot in question was not out of character with the community.
UG Assn. attorney Richard Gabriele argued essentially that properties do not retain earlier building rights when zoning codes change, regardless of when a subdivision may have been granted. UG resident Jacob Majnemer told the BZA that narrow subdivisions were a bane of the community that the Town Board had wanted to stamp out and that the BZA should not open the door to easy variances. We also spoke to rebut the applicant's urban planner, pointing out that the average UG lot is over 100 feet wide, whereas the applicant's lot is among the narrowest in the community.
The BZA members indicated in their comments that the wide gap between the average of the neighboring lots and the lot in question weighed heavily in their deliberations. One member also cast doubt on the grandfathered rights claimed by the applicant's attorney. However, the applicant seemed to gain some sympathy for his argument that he signed a contract of sale for the original house just before the new zoning ordinance was adopted and was unable to get the buyer to purchase the other lot. This left him with an empty lot that cannot be built upon or sold for much unless it can receive a building permit.
It appears that the BZA is being called upon to exercise Solomonic judgment in a case with equities on all sides. However, in case they rule against the applicant, his counsel indicated that Article 78 proceedings may be on his agenda. This would involve a formal appeal through the state court system arguing that the BZA had abused its administrative discretion in denying the variance.
DEC settlement averts major penalties 3-04-07
A few weeks ago, we reported (see prior article) on the passage of a resolution by the Town Board consenting to unspecified allegations by the NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC). We were concerned that costly liability might be on the way with repercussions for the Town's public service budget. We have now received the consent orders and can report that it won't be costly--this time.
The Town maintains hazardous chemical storage facilities in Westbury and New Hyde Park, apparently for chlorine used in its nearby swimming pools. The Town had previously registered these facilities in accordance with Sec. 40-0107 of New York's Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), but for reasons unknown, failed to renew the registrations since mid-summer 2005. ECL Sec. 40-0117 states: "It shall be unlawful to operate, maintain or close a storage facility other than in compliance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to this article." In other words, these facilities have been run unlawfully by the Town during the past 18 months.
The failure to register could have led to fines of up to $25,000 per day for each facility. At full force, a year of such penalties could have equalled the better part of the Town's budget. However, under the settlement, the Town will only pay token fines of $300 per facility and will register them. Failure to comply within 30 days will lead to imposition of those hefty fines.
We question whether a mere clerical failure could have persisted unnoticed for 18 months or if something else was going on. We also wonder if there are other environmental wild-cards out there and, if so, whether the Town will get off so easily next time.
This incident also brings to mind the announcement in the UG board's newsletter last spring that we were about to save thousands of dollars for the UG pool by purchasing chlorine through the Town's bulk buying program. Well--we never heard much about those fabulous savings after that, but it would be interesting if it turned out that the Town was running its chlorine emporium through these unlawful storage facilities.
Annual Meeting: it finally happened 2-28-07
After a last-minute cancellation at the beginning of this month and rescheduling to a date nearly two weeks beyond the legal deadline, the annual meeting of the UG Property Owners Assn. finally happened last night. According to reports reaching us, the meeting was sparsely attended. We asked Association President Sy Coopersmith whether a quorum of 25 properties was present. He responded that the meeting was "formally convened."
The long awaited financial report of the Association's CPA was finally made public last night. It reveals that cash on hand declined from $154,936 at the end of 2005 to $45,935 at the end of 2006. The report evidences that a balanced budget was originally planned by the prior board, but that the current board spent about $100,000 off-budget. Most of the listed spending was elective and some was rather plainly unnecessary, including a $10,000 payment to the Town for tree services that are supposed to be covered through our taxes (see below) and re-painting of the pool-house one year after this had already been done. A hefty $16,652 in capital spending was listed in the report as unspecified "other."
Although the community's cash balances are now quite low, a balanced budget is planned for 2007, notwithstanding the raising of fees this year. This means that cash reserves are not being built back up. It is also noteworthy that the board had criticized the $55,667 in pool payroll expenses incurred by the prior board in 2005, but spent $1,500 more than this on pool payroll in 2006. The low club fee established by the prior board had also been critiqued by the present board, but their budget for 2007 includes only a modest increase.
One bright spot was the board's announcement that it was going to intervene through counsel to oppose a variance application that would allow construction on a narrow subdivided lot on Hampton Road (see previous article). Coming on the heels of another recent intervention in a zoning matter, it appears that the board is becoming more comfortable with its role as overseer of the neighborhood and not merely as a pool club operator. We approve, though, in our view, they have a long way to go.
Also making a brief appearance, we are told, was Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman, who was accompanied by his regular liaison to our community, Rafe Lieber. The good news from the Town was that $50,000 has now been promised toward the pruning of UG's tree canopy. Coming on the heels of the forgotten $10,000 in promised matching funds that we exposed last year (see previous article), this sort of promise should be approached with extreme caution. However, even we sometimes allow optimism to triumph over experience and will be on the watch for evidence that this promise is completely fulfilled this year. A board worth its salt should do likewise.
Consolidation: the game is afoot 2-28-07
As we discussed in the preceding article, a campaign is getting underway to take over or consolidate municipal corporations throughout the Town for the supposed benefit of their residents. We have never heard any calls for this from the residents themselves, but our Governor, County Executive and Town Supervisor all maintain that this must be done to improve efficiency and reduce taxes. We believe that their path to this goal will be paved with the carnage from hundreds of turf battles and we question whether this will add up to anything more than a zero sum game in the final analysis.
A great deal is at stake. The suburban way of life, as it has been known for the past century, allows individual communities to make their own decisions on many fundamental local issues. On the other hand, increased urbanization and governmental expense are driving the bureaucrats to seek consolidation of hundreds of communities and special districts under one roof.
As reported in the local press this past week, the opening broadside of the campaign was fired by the Nassau County Comptroller's Office in an audit report that criticized the Great Neck Water Pollution Control District. This obscure entity proved to be the mouse that roared in its spirited response, pointing out that the County engages in many of the same practices that it criticized in the audit and challenging the County to conduct a similar study of the efficiency of its own water pollution control services.
We doubt whether the County or the Town will be rushing to accept such challenges, as rigorous studies of governmental efficiency could backfire on them. Their campaign for efficiency seems largely a tactical ploy intended to justify dissolving the special districts and perhaps even villages and school districts at some later point and taking over their functions and tax bases. The added revenues might permit a slight reduction in tax rates, but this would arise from redistribution of revenues rather than improved efficiency. No doubt, any such reduction of tax rates would be claimed as a vindication by the politicians, while any decline in the services delivered to the newly consolidated areas would be swept under the rug.
This nightmare scenario, especially for village residents, hasn't happened so far and may not for quite some time, if ever. It appears that the consolidation campaign will test the waters in the more obscure special districts first, since the public is only dimly aware of their existence anyway. So far, the villages and school districts have been keeping their silence, apparently hoping that the bureaucratic crocodile will attempt to devour them last. But when the day arrives that they too start feeling the pressure, a much stronger public reaction seems likely.
Savvy politicians know how to divide and conquer. They also know how to take two steps forward and one step back as the public reacts to various maneuvers. It may take a long time and there may be lulls and retreats. We can't be sure how far things will go before a new equilibrium is established. But make no mistake about it -- the game is afoot.
EDITORIAL: UG and the Town--Part II 2-17-07
As reported in our prior article, more than half the homes in the Town of North Hempstead are located within incorporated villages, free of most Town taxation--and these are the homes at the higher end of the tax base. This means that the Town is left servicing the lower end of the tax base with only a fraction of local tax revenues flowing into its coffers.
In his recent State of the Town address, Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman dubbed the Town "the poster child for specialized government" with its 31 villages, 14 school districts and 60 special districts, and expressed doubt whether so many entities were needed. Although he acknowledged that "we generally like the ones that serve us directly" he then stated that "even those with the best of intentions might not be up to the challenges that we face in modern municipal government." In other words, even districts or villages that faithfully serve residents who like what they are getting and are willing to pay for it, may still have to be controlled or absorbed into bigger entities for their own good because the Town supposedly knows and performs best.
Living in UG, we are quite familiar with the effects of this sort of paternalism. While our taxes are slightly lower than in some nearby villages, there is simply no contest as to who gets the better public services, as our patched roads and checkerboard sidewalks mutely testify. The most salient example of the problem has been the Town's perennial promise to provide a complete pruning job for our grand tree canopy--a project that hasn't quite happened in decades. Even Mr. Kaiman's pledge of a mere $10,000 for this purpose at our community meeting last July was forgotten until we blared this fact out over these pages two months ago. It was then re-promised for this year, much like the proverbial rug in the bazaar that gets sold twice to the same buyer. UG's inability to get adequate and predictable maintenance from the Town should serve as a warning to all communities about what happens when autonomy is surrendered to a larger, supposedly more efficient entity.
But is the Town really more efficient? And is the multiplicity of local municipal corporations really the cause of our soaring taxes? When we compared two neighboring villages to UG we could only find minute differences in taxation levels. Moreover, these two villages are acknowledged as having outstanding facilities and services. To the extent that there is any additional cost in these communities, there's not much evidence that this is caused by being another "layer of government." They may simply cost a bit more because they do more things, which suggests that they may even be more efficient than the Town at delivering the basics.
So, what is Mr. Kaiman really getting at? It appears that there is a push underway to coordinate and ultimately consolidate some or perhaps many of the existing municipal corporations into the Town under the aegis of the Office of Intermunicipal Coordination, which Mr. Kaiman is now promoting heavily. The revenues from these higher-end communities would then flow to the revenue-starved Town and would, in effect, be redistributed to help cover the cost of services in the lower-end areas. With these extra revenues, local taxes may be stabilized or go down a bit overall, but the Town would predictably end up servicing these higher-end communities in a manner similar to the way it has serviced UG.
As to incorporation of a village or a special sanitation district for UG, these actions would increase rather than decrease the number of municipal corporations in the Town, and incorporation would reduce the Town's revenues. It doesn't take much imagination to see how these things would draw a negative reaction from the Town, flying in the face of a grand strategy going in the opposite direction. Before long, we could see how the push to consolidate municipal corporations could involve a freeze on the creation of new ones. It seems to us that the hour is growing late for UG to take its fate into its own hands. Late, but not too late.
UG and the Town:
some facts and figures 2-14-07
We recently requested some data from the Nassau County Assessor's Office to help analyze the tax payments of UG homeowners as compared with other owners of Class One properties (single family homes and small multi-family properties) in the Town of North Hempstead. The following table contains the data on Class One Taxes released to us. Some implications of the data are discussed below. Others will be discussed in our next article, to be published in a few days.
| General Fund | Highway Fund | Part-Town Fund | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (65,242 parcels) | (28,957 parcels) | (28,957 parcels) | |
| 2004 | $9,981,198 | $9,137,814 | $876,145 |
| 2005 | $10,128,915 | $9,235,060 | $886,029 |
| 2006 | $10,399,458 | $9,602,647 | $902,944 |
| 2007 | $11,011,540 | $11,124,736 | * |
*For the 2007 Tax Year, the Highway and Part-Town Funds were combined.
This chart taken together with some other data we have imported to the following analysis implies some interesting things. We'll spare you the math, but will be glad to provide it on request. Notably:
We note that the Town's website states that the median house value in the Town is $354,100. It appears that this may include nearly 10,000 other units such as apartments. It is difficult to correlate a median with a mean since we do not have the distribution of data that went into the table above. But if there has been an error in our methodology and if the median is similar to the mean, it would imply that UG's property values are about three times the average for the unincorporated portion of the Town and not merely double.
In sum, the data indicate that a slight majority of Class One properties in the Town are in incorporated villages while nearly half are in the Town's unincorporated areas. The incorporated areas are significantly higher in value than the unincorporated areas, though we cannot say whether incorporation causes values to rise or whether higher values are what causes communities to be incorporated. Although the Town enjoys relative economies of scale from consolidation of several tens of thousands of units within its jurisdiction, Town taxes have been rising in recent years. Since UG has two or more times the average property value of a home within the Town's unincorporated area, its taxes to the Town have been rising commensurately.
to be continued.
UG test case for zoning law 2-11-07
Following a spate of subdivision and home construction on ever narrower lots, the Town Board amended the zoning code in January 2006 to bring some relief to neighborhoods such as University Gardens. The new rule requires that the average width of a lot be no less than the average width of neighboring lots within 200 feet on either side before a permit for new construction will be issued. One application for subdivision in UG that was pending at that time was withdrawn by the developer a few months later. Since then, no new construction plans for narrow subdivided lots have been proposed, so far as we know--until now.
The new case in question, located on Hampton Road, involves a subdivision that took place in December 2005 and the sale of the original residence. The apparent intention of the owner was to sell the vacant narrow side-lot separately. At the time, small buildable lots were reportedly being sold for about three-quarters of a million dollars. However, after January 2006, any proposed building plan for the site would run into the new provision.
The owner of the side-lot has now applied for a variance, and we are in the process of obtaining a copy of the application. Meanwhile, our quick visual estimate is that the nearby properties have an average lot width above 100 feet, while the lot in question has an average width of about 75 feet. Therefore, this case pits a substantial variation from the zoning code against a substantial economic interest: without the variance, the owner (who does not live at the site) will be left with a vacant, though certainly attractive, lawn.
In the interest of full disclosure, we should note that this lot is directly behind our own backyard. While NIMBY ("not in my back yard") is a rallying cry of our day, we will still endeavor to report the facts on this matter as we find them.
Will 'tough decisions' shortchange UG? 2-11-07
As we reported last week, the Town Board has approved a resolution "authorizing settlement agreements" with the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The text of the resolution, which we have just obtained, does not merely "authorize" the agreements, but in fact states that the Town Supervisor or the Deputy Town Supervisor is "directed" to execute them. The resolution refers to DEC allegations and a Consent Order that the Town will sign, but makes no mention of the price tag or other actions required of the Town. We have filed a request for the Consent Order under the Freedom of Information Law and will report on whatever is released.
The question we raised last week was whether environmental obligations such as these could presage a return to the lean public services of five to ten years ago that resulted from the diversion of funds to environmental work. In his annual "State of the Town" address on February 1, Supervisor Jon Kaiman alluded to this era when he hailed his predecessor May Newburger, for her "tough decisions during tough times" and her commitment to environmental cleanup. He also noted that the Town had received $20 million in grants over the past three years for environmental work that the Town "would not or could not fund" on its own.
This all sounds a bit ominous to our finely tuned ears. Unlike the voluntary grants that the Town solicited and received from higher levels of government, the DEC settlements sound to us like compulsory cleanups for which the Town will have to expend its own funds. If this proves to be the case, we wonder whether Mr. Kaiman will also have to make "tough decisions during tough times" as did his predecessor and how much of the brunt will be borne by UG and other unincorporated communities that depend on the Town for their public services.
Mr. Kaiman is presumably attending our rescheduled annual meeting on February 27. We hope he will have some answers for us.
EDITORIAL: UG annual meeting 2-7-07
Apparently signals were crossed at the Fire District office. The Company 4 Firehouse meeting room was indeed used for the election yesterday, as UGPOA President Sy Coopersmith had maintained (below). Although the board obviously cannot be blamed for a circumstance such as this beyond its control, its response to the problem was not what it should have been, in our view.
The board was apprised by February 2 or earlier that the room was no longer available for the UG meeting and was obliged to make a diligent effort to find a substitute that would comply with Association bylaws. The bylaws require a meeting in Great Neck within the first half of February. Considering that Great Neck has dozens of potential locations--village halls, firehouses, schools, houses of worship, restaurants, etc.--it appears that a legally complying date could have been arranged without undue effort.
Yet, the president informed us that the rescheduled date was based on polling the "invited guests" and board members, with Presidents week ruled out. He also contended that February 27 was the earliest date that could be arranged. Taken together, it sounds to us as though February 27 was the earliest rescheduled date that accommodated certain people and was available through the Fire District.
When faced with a choice of accommodating certain people, limiting search efforts to the Fire District, or following our bylaws, the bylaws must win in a properly run organization.
Now that the meeting has been postponed, it would be appropriate for the board to distribute whatever information it had been planning to release at the meeting, such as financial statements, the budget, and any handouts concerning the Sanitation District proposal. The silver lining from this episode would be that residents could have the opportunity to study these materials in advance of the meeting and participate more meaningfully in Q&A.
If the board doesn't wish to expend the postage, we would gladly post these materials on-line.
About the meeting: she said, he said ... 2-5-07
Subsequent to the posting of the preceding story (below), we heard from UGPOA President Sy Coopersmith who stated that the board was notified by the Company 4 Firehouse of the unavailability of the premises on February 6 due to the election. He also stated that after polling the board and "invited guests" he determined that the rescheduled date was the first available, other than Presidents week when people are unavailable.
As reported in the prior post, we called the Fire District office earlier today and the lady there told us a somewhat different version of events. Is it possible that our "invited guests" are influencing the selection of dates for the UG meeting?
Meeting postponed--rules ignored again 2-5-07
By notice postmarked February 2, the board of the UG Property Owners Assn. suddenly announced that the annual meeting scheduled for tomorrow, February 6, at the Company 4 Firehouse on Jayson Ave. has been rescheduled to February 27 at the Company 3 Firehouse on Prospect St. The notice states, "Due to the Special Election for the New York State Senate on February 6, we have been notified that we must adjourn the University Gardens Annual Meeting."
We contacted the Manhasset-Lakeville Fire District office this morning to ask what happened. They informed us that the February 6 reservation of the Company 4 Firehouse was canceled at the request of the UG secretary and not by them. Our request to the board for an explanation of who "notified" them of the need to reschedule and its connection to the special election has not been answered. We also note that the date of the special election was published in early January.
Association bylaws require that notice of the annual meeting be mailed to the membership at least 10 days in advance and that the meeting be held in Great Neck during the first half of February. Even if it became known as late as February 2 that the meeting must be rescheduled for some lawful reason, it appears that there was still sufficient time to line up an alternative that would have complied with the bylaws. Instead, the board set a new date nearly two weeks after the legal deadline.
It appears to us that this is one more in a series of legal mis-steps relating to the organization including:
As a not-for-profit corporation, the Association must observe legal formalities in order to maintain its corporate existence. We cannot say with certainty at what point a lack of observance of legal formality will have consequences, but it appears best not to find out.
Annual meeting: not so spontaneous 2-3-07
Some residents may be considering their attendance at the February 6, 2007 annual meeting with a sense of trepidation. At several prior community meetings, supporters of the current board raised a variety of seemingly spontaneous points with great passion and conviction, leading up to a heated atmosphere. Yet all was not as it seemed.
We have seen evidence that what transpired at the last annual meeting was, to a significant degree, a staged dramatic production complete with script, central casting and choreography. We prefer not to name the participants in this little passion play, but we do hope to educate readers about what they saw--and may see again some day. Readers familiar with organized political combat may find nothing surprising here, but it seems noteworthy that such methods were imported to our small community.
According to papers we have seen that we believe to be authentic, the following was the "script" as e-mailed from the "director" to members of the "cast" who were challenging the former board in the February 2006 annual election:
Dear Committee Members,
Attached is a list of Talking Points for all of us to raise Tuesday night. They are the result of our recent Committee meetings and feedback from many of you. An abbreviated 1-page "bullet point" version of these topics will be handed out as a flyer outside the firehouse before the meeting. The front of the flyer will have a positive message about our Board slate's efforts to bring back harmony to University Gardens, while the bullet points on the back of the flyer will contrast the 2005 Board's unfortunate record of divisiveness.
Rather than asking each of you to raise any particular topic, we ask that you print out the attachment, familiarize yourself with the issues and be prepared to raise points which you find of particular concern at an appropriate time at the meeting. This will make our points come across in a more natural, conversational way. But it is important that as many different people as possible speak at the meeting, and that we raise as many of these topics as we can. This will have the greatest possible impact on undecided voters.
For the seven candidates on our slate, please be prepared to make a brief statement about yourself--items like how long you've lived in Great Neck, any personal background information you'd like to share, or what role you would have on the 2006 Board. It would be helpful if each of us placed a particular emphasis on wanting to restore harmony to our community. And please utilize any of our Talking Points that you feel are particularly important to you.
It would be much appreciated if the seven members of our slate could meet outside the firehouse no later than 7:30 pm so we can greet arriving residents and help hand out the flyers.
The only other "scripted" part of of our presentation will be . .
The letter then describes statements to be made by certain committee members. Accompanying this letter was a six-page attachment, including 17 points on the former board's alleged "divisiveness."
As can be seen throughout the letter and the talking points, the theme of this production was: board = "divisive," committee = "harmony." The same thematic approach could be seen in the current board's Voice of the Gardens newsletter during the past year, where a long list of emotive adjectives describing the board and its actions was interspersed in the text, including: "congenial," "happy," "wonderful," "harmonious," "beautiful," and several servings of "warm" and "friendly."
The atmosphere of the upcoming annual meeting may be different, as there is no competing slate running this time. But we wouldn't be surprised if a few members of the audience "spontaneously" rise to thank our Town Supervisor or the board for their great job, or perhaps to promote some new agenda.
Town's new environmental obligations: trouble for UG? 2-1-07
Meeting on Tuesday evening Jan. 30, the Board of the Town of North Hempstead voted unanimously to approve a resolution introduced by Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman "authorizing settlement agreements between the Town and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation." Thus far, we have been unable to obtain any specific information on the scope and price tag of the settlement agreements.
This may seem a remote issue for UG residents, but is potentially of far greater significance than meets the eye. As explained to us some time ago by a knowledgable official, the Town was under financial duress five to ten years ago due to earlier environmental obligations, resulting in sharp public service cut-backs. If the new environmental settlements are of substantial magnitude, we wonder where the Town will find the money to pay for them if not from public service budgets.
We certainly hope that our Town Supervisor will speak to this issue when he appears at our community meeting next Tuesday.
Decision reserved in key variance case 2-1-07
The case of the former Men's World property at Northern Blvd. and Wensley Drive was heard yesterday afternoon by the Town of North Hempstead's Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The proposed conversion of the building from a retail store to a plastic surgery center necessitates zoning variances for inadequate off-street parking and inadequate landscape buffer separating this property from the residential properties to the rear.
According to the attorney and a series of experts appearing for the applicant, a solo plastic surgeon, only 20 parking spaces are needed whereas over 30 spaces are already present on the property. Richard Gabriel, the attorney for the UG Property Owners Assn., expressed concern about traffic, parking and compliance with UG's restrictive covenants. The BZA reserved decision until an unspecified later date.
If the variances for the Men's World site are ultimately granted, it appears that the Association could still bring a private legal action to prevent violation of its covenants. The acceptability of the plastic surgery center may depend on the ability of the parties to draw a distinction between this facility and a hospital, which is explicitly barred under the covenants. Otherwise, if the UG covenants are not enforced, our understanding is that they could become a legal dead letter. The UG covenants bar a wide variety of undesirable enterprises from the Northern Blvd. properties, including funeral homes, pool halls and tanneries to cite a few.
Two other variance applications for properties in UG were on the agenda of the BZA yesterday. One, for an in-ground sign at Chase Bank on Northern Blvd., was withdrawn prior to hearing. The other, involving an air-conditioning unit that was slightly within the side setback required for residential properties but enshrouded in bushes was granted without opposition.
Our thanks to some residents who were present at the hearing for some of the facts reported in this article.
UG Spectator reaches record audience 2-1-07
We are pleased to announce that this website reached an all-time high audience of 183 unique IP addresses during January 2007. Our web hosting company filters out visits by automatic devices, so only visits from live readers are included. With one exception, all visitors keyed in our address directly (rather than going through a search engine), indicating that we were known in advance.
This statistic suggests that we have just about reached our entire target market, i.e., all residents with an internet connection among UG's 211 households. Even assuming a few non-UG readers and some residents who visit from more than one location, it appears likely that we are now reaching a large majority of UG residents.
All in all, it's been a good start to the year. We plan to continue telling you the real story about your community for as long as a substantial number of you continues to visit. Tips, including anonymous ones, are appreciated. Responsible posts on our bulletin board and guest columns from various points of view are also invited. Anyone interested can get in touch at: perlmanlaw@aol.com..
Bad fire on Rutland Rd. 1-28-07
A large portion of UG was a sea of flashing lights Friday night from a dozen or more firetrucks and other vehicles battling a blaze that broke out at 4 Rutland Rd. We walked by at about 10 pm to the sight of a boom carrying firefighters above the roof of the structure, from which a thick column of smoke was rising. Many of the vehicles could be seen or heard working well into Saturday morning. Judging from the boarded windows and a hole in the roof that could be observed yesterday, the damage to one of UG's most charming homes appears severe. Fortunately, the residents were out at the time when the fire struck, according to our limited information. The sympathies of the entire community, we are sure, are with them.
Pouring concrete in winter? 1-26-07
We don't like to criticize when much needed work finally gets done, but . . . .
Readers may have noticed town workers replacing portions of the public sidewalk on both sides of our Hereford entrance in recent days (our thanks to the resident who gave us this tip). In principle, this is very welcome and long overdue maintenance. Several residents had urged the board to bring this badly eroded area to the town's attention last spring when sidewalk work was underway. The failure to do this led to some critical remarks on these pages earlier this month.
But, little did we imagine that town workers would suddenly turn up to do this in late January. True, there has been some unseasonably warm weather recently, but there have also been some freezing moments as well. The other morning we spotted the workers going about their tasks with a dusting of snow all around. We checked again at 7 pm and saw that the work had been completed. The temperature stood at 28 degrees according to the car thermometer.
A cursory review of websites dealing with this subject indicates that it would be far better not to pour concrete at a season when the temperature could take a sudden down-turn to the freezing point and that freshly poured concrete should never touch snow or ice. Several sites indicate that cracking or loss of chunks is likely to be the result. One website we saw indicated that it is possible to pour concrete in cold conditions with certain chemical additives and covering over the area for a week or so. We don't know whether the town used additives but we saw no covering.
Aside from this concern, the town workers are unfortunately continuing the practice of replacing a few slabs and keeping a few old ones in an alternating pattern. We have difficulty seeing how this practice saves very much, and while the new work itself is welcome, the checkerboard pattern that is being created is detrimental to the look of the community.
In sum, we don't really understand the sudden rush to do this in winter. Well, of course, our annual meeting--with Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman present--is just around the corner. Could that be it?
Tax comparison: a follow-up 1-24-07
Several readers have gotten in touch about our prior article comparing taxes in UG with Russell Gardens (RG) and Great Neck Estates (GNE). One reader felt that the $1,300 net higher payment in RG tilted the scales against becoming a village. Another hoped that readers would understand from the data that a village was better. Still another argued that the Great Neck Park District (GNPD) is not a good deal and UG residents get better value because we don't have additional user fees for our facilities.
We did not study whether membership in the GNPD is cost-effective, but merely noted that RG residents receive certain benefits for their extra money including GNPD membership. Incidentally, GNPD membership has nothing to do with incorporation status: RG is a member, GNE is not, and UG has declined invitations to join. As far as we can determine, RG and GNE do not charge residents using their main facilities beyond what was listed on the chart in our prior article. GNE does have some specialty facilities (such as indoor tennis) that require additional fees. We doubt whether these issues materially alter the analysis presented in the prior article.
The article was not necessarily a promotion of the village concept, and some readers drew the opposite conclusion. However, the article did dispel the erroneous beliefs that villages are much more expensive than unincorporated areas and that UG in particular is a low-tax area compared to neighboring communities. Sorry folks, but we're right up there with the rest of them, and while we may save a couple of dollars, we also get less per dollar.
If we were to estimate the cost of a UG village by using RG and GNE as models, we would have to net out the tax that RG pays for the GNPD and the added cost of running their facility through the RG association instead of the village, since neither would apply in UG. As adjusted, the net cost in RG is 0-$400 above UG's; GNE nets out to 0-$800 above UG.
Although these existing villages might provide a model for comparison, a more precise way to ascertain the likely cost of a UG village would be to compile a zero-based budget using UG-specific data. This exercise was performed by a leading municipal CPA engaged by the UG board two years ago.
The CPA termed his budget "bomb-proof" as it was based on such conservative assumptions that it would be impossible for "bomb-throwers" to complain later on. He deliberately understated revenues, overstated costs and included more service than our community had known. After all this, he found that if UG residents continued to pay the same as before, the village would have a $100,000 annual budgetary surplus (about $500 per home) that could be used for capital projects or tax reductions. Aside from direct benefits, the average UG resident would save a similar amount in income taxes, because of the conversion of UG charges into local taxes.
The primary foundation of this plan was the ability of a village to collect revenues that arise from UG but currently flow to the Town of North Hempstead, including most Town taxes, commercial property taxes, mortgage recording taxes, etc. UG's recapture of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for its own use would deprive the Town of these funds, a prospect that did not sit well with Town officials.
It appears more than coincidental that those who campaigned most ardently against the village proposal were members of a group that boasted of their "close personal and political relationships with the Town of North Hempstead." Say hello to your current UG board.
Costs and benefits: How does UG compare? 1-18-07
We thought it would be interesting to compare University Gardens (UG) with two nearby communities, Russell Gardens (RG) and Great Neck Estates (GNE), to see how we stack up in terms of costs and benefits. For this purpose, we calculated the various taxes and levies in each community at this time based on an imaginary, representative residential property with fair market value of $1.25 million and a plot area of 14,000 sq. ft.--the approximate UG averages. We assumed a 33% marginal tax bracket to adjust the "total" for savings from itemized deduction of the indicated tax items, yielding the "net" figure in the chart below.
All three communities are in the GN School District and pay the same School Tax, as listed on the chart (no adjustment for the Star program is included). In the "sewer tax" column, the approximate assessment of the Belgrave Sewer District is listed for UG and RG. Parts of GNE are also serviced by Belgrave and other parts have other arrangements; therefore a range is shown. The usual UG Club charge is listed.
We believe the following chart is substantially accurate, but it is presented here only for general informational purposes. Please don't rely on it for any actual investment.
| Schl. | Cnty. | Town | Sewer | Village | GNPD | Assn. | Sanit. | Club | Total | Net | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tax | Tax | Tax | Tax | Tax | Tax | Chg. | Chg. | Chg. | |||
| RG | 9,818 | 4,288 | 281 | 1,228 | 3,125 | 688 | 1,118 | 0 | 0 | 20,546 | 14,135 |
| UG | 9,818 | 4,288 | 1,216 | 1,228 | 0 | 0 | 750 | 525 | 475 | 18,300 | 12,839 |
| GNE | 9,818 | 2,205 | 281 | 0-1,228 | 6,846 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19,150-20,378 | 12,831-13,653 |
The net cost for UG and the net cost for the non-sewer parts of GNE are virtually identical; other parts of GNE range up to about $800 higher. The net cost for RG is about $1,300 higher than UG's, primarily due to RG's membership in the Great Neck Park District (GNPD) and because RG funds its recreational facility via a non-deductible Association charge instead of through its village tax.
On the benefits side of the ledger: RG has a recreational/park facility, extensive municipal services, and membership in the GNPD. GNE has major recreational/park facilities, extensive municipal services, and its own police force. UG has a small recreational facility and must rely on basic town services and a private sanitation service.
In our estimation, GNE runs away with the highest return in benefits per tax dollar. UG costs a few dollars less than the other two communities, but receives the least benefit per tax dollar. RG costs a few dollars more than UG and GNE, but has the added benefit of the GNPD.
Who's better off? It may depend in part on your priorities and whether you itemize on your tax return. But even without itemizing, the differences in total cost appear to be relatively marginal, while the service differences--to us at least--appear considerable.
Board to investigate variance applications 1-18-07
According to the website of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) of the Town of North Hempstead, requests for variances at three properties in UG will be heard on Jan. 31. Two of the cases involve commercial properties on Northern Blvd.; the other is residential. When we brought this to the attention of Association President Sy Coopersmith, he advised that he had already engaged in discussion with an affected resident who was opposed to the commercial applications and that the board will look into all three matters.
Perhaps the most consequential of the three variance applications involves a plan to alter the zoning of the former Men's World store at the corner of Northern Blvd. and Wensley Dr. to permit operation of medical offices with insufficient off-street parking and insufficient landscape buffer from the residential portion of the community. The other commercial case involves an application to install a ground sign at Chase Bank that does not conform to the zoning code. The residential case involves an air-conditioner compressor in the sideyard setback.
These cases may also have implications under the Association's Declarations of Restrictions, the recorded sets of deed restrictions for the commercial and residential portions of UG. Under Article Third of UG's commercial restrictions, a "hospital, sanitarium, asylum or institution of like or kindred nature" is barred. It may be a legal question whether the proposed medical offices building comes under this rubric. Signs are governed under Article Thirteenth of the commercial restrictions which states in part, "No signs of any kind or character shall be exhibited or displayed upon any of the said plots or upon any of the buildings erected thereon, or any part thereof, without the written consent and approval of the Association."
As for the residential case, UG's R-A zoning code requires at least 10 feet of sideyard on each side of a home, and sometimes more. Article Sixth of UG's residential restrictions states in part: "No building, nor any part thereof, except steps, shall be erected or permitted within ten feet of any side line of any plot . . . " with certain limited exceptions. We do not have the details on how close the proposed a/c unit is to the sideline of the property. If in excess of 10 feet from the sideline then it may not necessarily involve the UG restrictions; if within 10 feet, it would appear that both the zoning code and the UG restrictions apply.
The BZA is sometimes a convenient line of forward defense for UG's restrictions. Variance applications that may also violate the restrictions can be opposed at the BZA relatively inexpensively by the board or members of the community. If the variance is denied, then no further action would normally be needed to defend the UG restrictions; if the variance is approved, however, then enforcement of UG's restrictions could require costly legal action.
Another look at the GN Refuse & Sanitation District 1-16-07
UG residents currently pay about $525 per year for sanitation services as a personal expense, rather than as a tax as in most other places. By comparison, residents of the Great Neck Refuse & Sanitation District and nearby villages typically pay in the mid-$200s through a tax, which nets to a mere $160 or so after taking income tax savings into account. Since UG residents are effectively paying several times the going rate, there is clearly much room for improvement.
Last year we were informed by Rafe Lieber, Town Supervisor Kaiman's liaison to our community, that if UG joined the District, UG residents would have to pay nearly the same as at present, but that the advantage would be in gaining deductibility for this payment as a tax. He advised that the large disparity between the rates for UG residents and the other residents of the District was due to the disparity in property values.
The new tax rate of the District for 2007, $13.159 per $100 of assessed value, seems to offer a bit more incentive than was the case last year. Assuming that a typical UG home has a fair market value of $1,250,000, its assessed value would be $3,125 (1/4 of 1% of fair market value), or 31.25 units of $100. This yields an annual expense of $411, which nets to $275 after tax deduction. Although this is still above market rate, the District appears to offer UG residents some financial improvement over the present arrangement.
Aside from financial considerations, however, the following questions and perhaps others should also be answered:
Creation of a special sanitation district for UG alone would avert many of these issues. The average value of a UG property would be the average of the district, enabling residents to pay something close to the true market rate. Also, the terms of service could be conformed to the wishes of our own community. To have a separate UG district, however, would require some additional set-up and administration work by the town and would deprive the existing District of the hidden subsidy that UG's payments would provide.
It remains unclear whether the town would be willing to take this step. When a prior board discussed this issue with UG's town board representative in 2004, he advised that the town would want a premium above the cost of sanitation service. The proposal was not followed up, in part because of this added cost and also because the board was looking into incorporation of the community as a global solution to its service issues.
Board announces annual meeting 1-10-07
By notice received in yesterday's mail, the board has announced that the annual meeting of the UG Property Owners Assn. will take place on February 6, 2007 at 8:00 pm. The meeting will be held at the Manhasset-Lakeville Company 4 Firehouse, 97 Jayson Ave. (at Northern Blvd.) in Great Neck. The notice also says that the entire board will be standing for election and provides brief biographies of each member of the slate. In addition, the notice says that Town of North Hempstead Supervisor Jon Kaiman will make a presentation (see article below).
In the notice, the board asks residents to complete an enclosed proxy instrument naming the board as proxies and to return it to them through the Association mailbox. Thus, the board has directly promoted its own election campaign using Association resources.
The proxy instrument states, "This proxy may only be revoked if I (we) make a personal appearance at the Annual Meeting." This appears to be at odds with Sec. 609(a)(2) of the New York Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, which states ". . . Every proxy shall be revocable at the pleasure of the member executing it, except as otherwise provided in this section." We do not see any exception listed in the statute that would be relevant to this situation, so we hope the board's counsel has signed off on this. But, even if lawful, the effort to lock in residents through an early proxy solicitation is an unfortunate practice.
We hope the board rethinks its action on this promptly.
EDITORIAL: Let's hope Kaiman addresses UG issues 1-10-07
In addition to standard Association business at the upcoming annual meeting, the community will hear a "presentation" from Town of North Hempstead Supervisor Jon Kaiman. Mr. Kaiman delivered an "update" at the Association's mid-year meeting in July 2006. He also made an unscheduled appearance at an Association meeting in June 2005 where he assured the community that remaining as an unincorporated portion of the town was preferable to incorporating as a village.
We hope that Mr. Kaiman's upcoming presentation will be more focused on our community than his recent update. At the latter, he basically reviewed "visioning" and "inter-municipal cooperation"--favorite programs of his that have little applicability to our unincorporated community, since we do not have public development issues nor do we have the freedom to contract our own public services.
The unusual degree of attention to our small community by the Supervisor may reflect a desire to tamp down interest in incorporating as a village, a possibility that we originally raised two years ago. This option may still resonate with residents whenever the town forgets its commitments, as in the matter of tree pruning, or provides poor service (see public services in a recent prior article). If this is indeed the unspoken purpose behind Mr. Kaiman's visit, we suggest that he redouble his efforts at addressing our community's service needs in a timely, consistent and substantial way--something we have yet to see after several years of waiting. Although attention from the town's senior official is always welcome, the symbolism of a visit is no substitute for substance.
COMMENTARY: Board issues newsletter--without news
1-9-07
We sometimes have difficulty understanding the motivations and behavior of the UG board, but the latest move is in the inexplicable category. They have now issued a new-year edition of the Voice of the Gardens newsletter that was practically devoid of news. Of its four pages, one was a cover that listed the names and numbers of board members, two were filled by a survey questionnaire form that could have been issued under separate cover, and one had a letter from the president consisting mostly of thanks and congratulations.
Perhaps you are as baffled as we are as to what they are trying to do. An informative newsletter should have provided the following, for example:
One of our consistent critiques of the present board has been their blackout on real news to the community, other than a few rosy statements in the Voice. We have also criticized the tendency in the Voice to issue self-congratulatory statements. Unfortunately, the present edition was no exception,with a series of buzz words including "harmonious," "successful," "warm," and most brazenly, "informational." This was the single most uninformational newsletter ever, at a time when there is a great deal of information that should have been provided.
COMMENTARY: How did they do in 2006?
1-7-07
Here are our grades for the board’s performance in key areas during the past year in descending order:
Club operations--A-. The board hired a good pool director and had several capable life guards return from prior seasons. The facility was usually clean and in good order and some new decorating was attractive. The board conducted a useful experiment with extra hours, but sometimes failed to ensure that the facility would be open at these times. Strangely, it did away with gate guards, but tightened security on refreshments.
Community improvements–B+. The board’s platform had called for a community meeting to get input on improvements at the club facility, but after taking office it skipped the meeting and decided to do a costly makeover by its own lights. Some of what it did was worthwhile, but other expenses were frivolous. For example, it had the pool house repainted by the same painter who had painted it one year earlier. It ascribed much of the expense to supposed flood damage, but later admitted that it had never thought of filing an insurance claim. Constructively, it permitted a former director to complete the pillar/mailbox project initiated by the prior board. It is also pursuing the prior board’s plan to install sprinklers at the community entrances.
Finance–C. At the end of 2005, the Association’s cash exceeded $150,000, a balanced budget was planned for 2006 at a mil rate of 4¢ per square foot, and the club fee for 2006 was set at $125 per home. The board has now raised the mil rate for 2007 to 5¢, despite its assurances at the July 2006 meeting that balances remained adequate after the major expenses it had incurred. It appears likely that the club fee will also be raised at a later date to help pay the bills. Another draw on cash was its $10,000 “gift” to the town for tree pruning (see Public Services below), despite the promise in its platform to improve public services “without additional expense.”
Communications--D. The board stopped reporting news on the Association’s official website and eliminated its bulletin board on grounds that on-line exchange of opinions was not needed by residents who had “real lives.” Requests by residents to monitor a board meeting or read the minutes were denied. Many people reported difficulty reaching board members. In May, the board issued a new publication, Voice of the Gardens, which claimed that the new president was “working to open Board Meetings to members of the University Gardens Community,” among other dubious statements. The second and final 2006 edition of the Voice in October was more factual than the first and finally announced contact information for the board’s secretary–eight months after it took office.
Legal--F. The board and its supporters rode roughshod over the community’s bylaws in the February 2006 election. Since its slate did not receive a majority of the vote of Association members, it demanded that some invalid proxies it had received from non-members be counted to provide the margin of victory. When this was rejected by the chair (your current correspondent), slate members and supporters attempted to pay the overdue membership charges of the non-members from their own pockets. When the chair would not allow this either, they threatened litigation while some members of their support group shrieked and cursed. In the end, the prior board’s slate bowed out to avoid mayhem.
In office, the board failed to convene the public committees its leaders had called for to consider changes in our bylaws and covenants. In the invoice for 2007 annual charges, it specified various dates that deviated from legal requirements for no apparent reason. The invoice also stated that membership was needed to participate in a sanitation program that had lapsed long ago.
Public services--F. The board arose from a committee formed to oppose the prior board’s study of how our community could control its own public services by incorporating as a village. The committee brought Town Supervisor Kaiman to our community meeting on this issue in June 2005, where he announced that he would take personal charge of our services--impressing many residents with this high-level intervention and helping to put an end to the incorporation study. This was followed by the committee's run for the 2006 board on a platform that stated, “Our Committee has close personal and political relationships with the Town of North Hempstead and promises to work closely with Mr. Kaiman and his staff to get the best service possible for University Gardens.”
Having taken control of the board, this group attained its goal of keeping our community tied to the town’s service system. It even had Supervisor Kaiman attend another open meeting in July 2006, demonstrating his continued interest in our community. However, the “close” relationship between board and town has seldom translated into improved public services. As seen in many of the following examples, the board appears to have made greater efforts at shielding their friends in the town administration from criticism than in asserting the community’s interests:
Conclusion Eighteen months after Supervisor Kaiman took personal charge of our public services and nearly a year after town partisans took over our board, public services generally remain poor, over-priced and delayed. The little work done on our infrastructure was performed in an inferior manner or by extracting additional payment for services that should have been covered by the town through our existing taxes. The town has repeatedly broken its promises, deferred its work, shrugged off its failures,and covered up embarrassing facts, but none of this has dampened our board’s support: The president was even quoted praising town services in the local press. With the sanitation initiative, the board now appears to be lining us up for another town service, oblivious to the double payment to be charged to our residents.
Tribute to John Campbell
1-4-07
I’d like to reflect on the contributions of my predecessor on this weblog, John
Campbell, who moved out of the community last month. At an age when
most people look forward to taking it easy and smelling the roses, he
demonstrated a youthful, can-do attitude and worked tirelessly to bring
about positive change. Although he sojourned in University Gardens for
only a few years, I’d say that John had a bigger impact on things
here than most any other resident. Just to cite a few examples:
Several years
ago, when the rest of the board was trying to figure out how to get
action from our town, John took the lead in establishing contact with
our town councilman and arranged a meeting for our board with him. At
the meeting, the councilman stated that our community had long been
a dead zone on the map of his district--something that changed quite
dramatically thanks to John’s efforts.
When the board unloaded a costly and ineffective private patrol car service, John stepped
into the breach and put our board in touch with Capt. Maria D’Amelio
of the Great Neck Auxiliary Police. The rest is history.
As a retired journalist, John identified the lack of transparency in our board as
a serious flaw in the body politic. He set about remedying this by creating
a quarterly newsletter of extraordinary quality. He later reluctantly
filled a vacancy on the board at the urging of the other directors and
became a maker of the news as well as a reporter of it.
Subsequently, John expanded the newsletter to an on-line version that gave residents
real-time information about their community for the first time. Then
he added the bulletin board to allow residents to communicate and/or
debate with one another on everything from local issues to the rates
for a good repairman.
When the present board took office, John quickly recognized that his view of community journalism was not compatible with theirs and left them the website and newsletter to use as they saw fit. However, when he saw the board dismantling the website he had bequeathed to them,
he swung into action and created this website as an alternative forum
for our community. His effort to keep our community informed continued
as the movers were showing up at his doorstep and even afterwards.
These are very big shoes to fill. As a lawyer, my inclination is to be a commentator
and advocate, rather than expressing things in the neutral tones of
a journalist. However, I do share with John a respect for facts and
a belief that information and frank discussion are essential if the
public is to make good choices. In this spirit, I hope that our readers
will help out with comments of their own on the bulletin board or as
guest writers. Let’s continue John’s legacy and have an open, informed
and civil community.
For earlier posts, see archives