| Unit (# of FT employees) | Median Annual Salary | % above $100K |
|---|---|---|
| . | ||
| MUNICIPAL: | ||
| Belgrave Sewer (11) | $61K | 0% |
| M-L Water District (34) | $68K | 6% |
| GN Library(74) | $49K | 7% |
| Town of North Hempstead (442) | $59K | 5% |
| Nassau County - General (7,550) | $61K | 17% |
| Suffolk County - General (8,302) | $59K | 9% |
| . | ||
| POLICE: | ||
| Nassau County - Police/Fire (2,705) | $131K | 76% |
| Suffolk County - Police/Fire (2,601) | $129K | 95% |
| NY City-Police (50,249) | $53K | 4% |
| . | ||
| SCHOOL PROFESSIONALS: | ||
| Great Neck (925) | $92K | 45% |
| Roslyn (448) | $96K | 44% |
| Port Washington (611) | $96K | 44% |
| Jericho (394) | $115K | 66% |
| Mineola (324) | $114K | 69% |
| NYC Dept. of Ed. (100,622) | $70K | 13% |
| . | ||
| MTA: | ||
| Headquarters (1,426) | $92K | 43% |
| Bridge/Tunnel (1,876) | $86K | 29% |
| LIRR (6,988) | $86K | 32% |
| LIBus (1,149) | $64K | 3% |
| NYC Transit (50,601) | $66K | 6% |
Looking at these numbers it's easy to see where hundreds of millions and billions go. Considering that employee payrolls are the major component of our local taxes, it stands to reason that reductions in the numbers of personnel and/or their wages and benefits would have to be the primary component of any realistic tax reduction plan.
We don't see much evidence of high pay in most of our local municipal entities which have fairly reasonable median wages and limited numbers of high-pay positions. Nassau County-General, however, has a much higher percentage above $100K than the other local units and almost double the percentage of Suffolk County, suggesting that our county is top-heavy with "management." Reportedly, our new county executive is indeed focusing on this as a key area for savings.
As for those claiming that consolidation of local government would somehow reduce our taxes, take a look at the salaries in our water and sewer districts. They are among the leanest around and, in any case, too small to make an appreciable difference if a position or two were eliminated.
The data shows that the really big money is going to county police and school professionals, where $100K+ salaries are the norm. While we appreciate the great services of these people, they are the biggest recipients of our local tax dollars bar non. We don't really understand why Nassau's finest get more than double the salaries of their city colleagues, but Suffolk seems to be subject to the same forces. As for teachers, just accept the fact that you're going to shell out big time for having a top school district and if you think Great Neck spends too much take a look at some nearby districts. While there may be some limited give in these numbers, especially for newer employees, any sudden cut-back that would save real money would probably have unacceptable consequences.
On the other hand, take a look at the MTA if you want to understand why it has its own newly enacted payroll tax. While some MTA units are lean others are out of control. Check out the LIRR where a third of employees clear $100K and median pay is $86K. Then there are the Bridge and Tunnel workers pulling down similar numbers.
There you have some initial analyses derived from this invaluable website. Log on and see through. It's transcendent.
Amendments proposed to Cuomo's consolidation law 03-26-10
Some ten months after the sudden introduction and enactment of NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's sweeping proposal facilitating consolidation of local government (see article), legislators representing our area have introduced amendments that would blunt some of the law's worst effects. Introduced yesterday by Senator Craig Johnson, NY Senate Bill S7238 was sent for review to the Senate's Committee on Local Government. The identical amendments were submitted to the NY Assembly in Bill A10432 by Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel.
Readers will recall our coverage of a meeting convened by our local districts and villages on this subject shortly before Election Day last year. Several speakers at that gathering spoke of the harmful provisions of the so-called Citizen Empowerment Act in actually reducing the ability of local communities to decide their own fate and leaving them vulnerable to organized petition drives by outside forces calling for their dissolution. At that meeting, GN Park District Commissioner Robert Lincoln outlined several amendments that he said were needed, but Senator Johnson and Assemblywoman Schimel explained that this would be an uphill climb.
Our quick take indicates that some, though not all of Lincoln's proposals are embodied in the new bill. Most important, it provides that a majority of voters within an affected village or district must approve a proposed dissolution. The law currently permits a majority of voters in a county to over-ride the majority vote within the affected village or district.
The bill also raises the signature requirement for a dissolution petition from 10% to 20% of the electors in the prior election. While seemingly significant, in the context of a small village where only about 50 people may vote in an election, as few as 10 signatures could still require a village to go through the ordeal of a dissolution process before a vote is taken. While this is raised from 5 by the bill, that's not much relief from frivolous petitions. Previously, the signature of a third of the registered voters was needed before the dissolution process could commence.
The bill provides the small benefit, however, of limiting signatures to a 60 day period, whereas prior fears were that signatures would be stored up for years. It also requires a more detailed report on the costs and benefits of a proposed dissolution before a final referendum takes place. Once a referendum on dissolution is defeated, the bill calls for a 4-year moratorium on further dissolution efforts, alleviating the fear that dissolution campaigns could be a non-stop burden on small entities.
We look forward to seeing how much study and consideration the legislature gives to this bill. The entire law was passed last year a mere two weeks after Cuomo proposed it. It also bears watching whether Cuomo and Gov. Paterson will support or oppose this bill now that it's in play or whether they will dance the side-step.
Success slipping away? 03-21-10
Like most residents, we were blindsided by the letter from the UG board announcing their previously confidential exploration of a merger with the Village of Lake Success. Then again, a merger could make sense for both sides--especially during a recession--so why not look into it? We're glad the UG board was sufficiently open minded to entertain the proposal.
As readers well know, we have long advocated a village for UG, although improved town services have made the case less acute in recent years. Whether as an independent village or through merger with a neighbor, the financial numbers have always made sense as have the prospective upgrades in community services. While there would be some bumps in the road and a village would require greater civic involvement, we think our residents would see the value and rise to the occasion.
We were somewhat surprised by the view of the Lake Success trustees that savings from a merger were "not great enough" to continue pursuing the idea. Our analysis comes out a bit differently.
An average UG home assessed for $1.2 million would pay $5,200 per year to Lake Success at its current tax rate (including sewer payments). This would raise $1,120,000 from UG's 215 homes, rising to $1,250,000 with taxes from UG's commercial strip and other minor revenue streams. There would be some expense for added police patrols, sanitation, road & tree service and the like, so let's say the village would net $800,000, saving about $1,000 per year for each of its 800 homes. This would mean roughly a 20% reduction in residents' taxes in exchange for having to occasionally tolerate some UG residents at their facilities.
On UG's side, the $5,200 annual price tag would be directly compensated by $5,100 in savings ($1,500-county police, $1,050-town, $1,200-sewer, $750-UG Property Owners Assn. and $600-sanitation). While this is roughly "cost neutral" as the UG board found, there would also be savings of a few hundred dollars from converting the non-deductible UG Assn. and sanitation payments into deductible village tax.
Aside from the financial side, the qualitative benefits for UG would be substantial: larger and more diverse facilities, more security, better municipal services, etc. This translates into improved quality of life and higher property values. There's little downside for UG and much to gain.
As for those Lake Success trustees who decided to discontinue this proposal, we think they should reconsider. UG offers them added strength without adding very many people. We also suspect that many of their residents would welcome the tax relief UG offers. It looks like a win-win scenario that should not be allowed to slip away.
Message to GN: NOT ONE VOTE FOR CUOMO! 03-11-10
Reviewing today's edition of the Great Neck Record we spotted a full-page ad entitled: Preserve the Local Control You Cherish! Paid for personally by the commissioners of several Great Neck districts, the ad was a heartfelt plea to the public to contact various leaders of our state to call for certain amendments to the so-called Government Reorganization and Empowerment Act scheduled to take effect in a few days.
As we noted last year when this law was suddenly rammed through the state legislature by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a totalitarian current had been introduced to our body politic. This "Empowerment Act" does the opposite of its implied meaning by taking away the rights of residents to control their own communities. Not only does the Act open up villages and districts to frivolous attacks by outside agitators, but, in some circumstances, it even hands the right to vote on dissolving them over to people who do not live in them.
In the corporate world, a law such as this would be called the Hostile Takeover and Asset Stripping Facilitation Act, but in NY politics it is passed off by Cuomo as a way of helping us save money. In reality, it amounts to a money grab by the insolvent larger units of government. Meanwhile, we haven't heard a peep from Cuomo about the adolescents running the legislature who have spent our state to the brink of bankruptcy.
There is no doubt that Cuomo is the single official most responsible for this monstrous law and it's also obvious he doesn't give a fig that this law tramples over the interests of Great Neck and other communities in our area. He and the legislature have had nine months to rectify the law before its scheduled effective date and we haven't seen any indication that they are interested in doing so.
The solution advocated in the ad, i.e., to write to our various state officials, is simply far too little, far too late. There is a solution, however, that has a chance of success: someone has to let Mr. Cuomo know that he cannot expect to get any votes from us when he runs for governor this year. Not one. In fact, if his opponent were Attila the Hun, we'd start noticing the nice side of Huns.
Now that the solution is out there, it remains for the commissioners, village mayors, etc. to do something about it if they really want to win. If the voters of Massachusetts could hand Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican, surely our local officials can work up the gumption to tell Cuomo that he cannot expect our votes. Not one.
"Distressed" town to get stimulus pork--but where's the beef? 02-26-10
As reported previously, the federal stimulus program (officially: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--ARRA) has hardly created any jobs in our area--or elsewhere. Once the verbiage is stripped away, it is clear that ARRA's main job effect has been to temporarily keep state and municipal workers employed at full pay despite shortfalls in tax collections.
Now that unemployment has dramatically worsened during the year since ARRA's enactment, we're supposedly entering a new phase that will finally start creating, rather than "saving" jobs. In our area, this has taken the form of a resolution passed last week by the Town of North Hempstead board declaring portions of our town a "Recovery Zone" (RZ).
What's that? An RZ could be most any area that has "significant" poverty, unemployment, rate of home foreclosures, or general distress--conditions found almost everywhere at present. ARRA allows local governments to designate RZs and to issue a certain allocation of bonds that the feds subsidize for about one-third of the interest payable.
Town Resolution 129-2010 declares that $8,315,000 in RZ Economic Development Bonds and $12,473,000 in RZ Private Facility Bonds have been allocated for the town's RZ. At prevailing interest rates, we figure the federal interest subsidy on this debt is worth about $200,000 per year, or about $1 per North Hempstead resident.
To put this in perspective, let's recall that the cumulative price tag on ARRA was about $800 billion--nearly $3,000 per capita. While $1 per year is a start, it looks like we have a way to go until we get our money's worth.
The UG Annual Meeting: some new, some deja vu 02-08-10
The UG annual meeting was held last Tuesday on schedule. Compared with last year's meeting, attendance was light and decibel levels low. There was discussion of a few new developments as well as some perennial issues that never quite get resolved.
Evident through much of the discussion was the board's significant coordination with the town, whereas town officials hardly knew of the community's existence five or ten years ago. Whether this translates into improved service remains an open question, though there is some evidence that it is working. Public officials at the meeting included County Legislator Judi Bosworth, Town Councilwoman Lee Seeman, Town Highway Superintendant Tom Tiernan and Town Solid Waste Director Igor Sikiric.
Ms. Bosworth thanked the community for re-electing her last November and announced a series of public seminars on appealing property tax assessments. She stated that the current assessment system is broken and "needs to be fixed" and she hailed the decision of newly-elected County Executive Ed Mangano to retain the expert hired for this issue by his predecessor.
Ms. Seeman also thanked the crowd for her re-election and looked forward to continued cooperation between UG and the town on the projects undertaken last year. To this end, she introduced Superintendant Tiernan.
Mr. Tiernan explained that the town expected to coordinate its tree pruning operations with the UG tree cataloging project (see below). He also promised to plant mature hardwood trees to match UG's existing stock, rather than the town's usual saplings. He expects Somerset South to be paved this year and said that a portion of UG roads will be paved each year until the community is completed by 2013. In response to a request from yours truly for a written copy of the plan, he stated that it was actually still pending before the town board and was expected to be approved shortly. He promised to send a copy to the UG board once it is formally adopted.
[Note: Merrivale, Wensley and Sussex have been paved within the past two years, so Mr. Tiernan has earned some credibility in this area. As for trees--not so much. Check out our archived article of 07-21-04 which evidences that vacuous promises to take care of UG's trees have been with us for a long time.]
As for Mr. Sikiric, he advised that there would soon be public hearings on the town's proposal for UG to join the local sanitation district. We note that this was at least the fifth annual UG meeting at which the town has reiterated this proposal, though it seems that the plan may now actually be going forward.
Next up was Captain Maria D'Amelio of the highly regarded GN Auxiliary Police which patrols UG on a voluntary basis. She presented a sample of the community's new street-name sign which will soon be installed throughout UG. The sign is somewhat reflective and has a UG tree logo alongside the street name. Each sign will be hung from a decorative bracket, providing a classy and distinctive look for the community's signage.
Those assembled were then treated to a slide show presented by the board's arborist, Gary Carbocci. A cheerful man who clearly loves his trees, Carbocci provided some fun facts few had heard before. For example, he calculates that each one of UG's curb-strip trees saves our residents a total of $168 in reduced energy bills. He also calculates that UG's total stock of 850 public trees is worth over $5 million in replacement value. He discussed the community's tree cataloging Master Plan project to rate and map each of UG's public trees as a preliminary to identifying where and when to focus the town's expected tree pruning services.
Members of the board then provided their functional reports. The most significant issues were reviewed by V.P. Andy Belfer, who discussed the controversial renewal of the community's covenants last year. While the board had initially sought to double the ceiling on annual charges under the renewed covenants, others (including yours truly) fought for holding the line on increases, resulting in a compromise he described as an "exercise in democracy." As a result, community funds balances were low following heavy legal expenses related to the renewal as well as a $73K expenditure on overhauling the community's pool and payments for the tree Master Plan. On the other hand, most of these were non-recurring expenses and he estimated that the pool should now be good for thirty years to come.
All in all, it appears that things are on the right track. The town finally seems to be stepping up to the plate in coordination with the board. Considering how town commitments have evaporated in the past, however, we urge continued vigilance, especially as regards servicing of the community's multi-million dollar stock of trees.
The Obama balloon goes pop
. . . New York gets splattered UPDATED: 01-29-10
Update 01-29-10: Facing a rising tide of public anger over the plan to hold the 9/11 trials in lower Manhattan, the administration is reportedly on the verge of changing the venue. Senator Charles Schumer, who had called for military tribunals back in 2001 but then supported the administration's plan a few months ago, has now had yet another change of heart. Good ol' Chuckles now says that getting the trials out of Manhattan would be a "really good idea."
In another noteworthy development, The New York Times reported today that NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has amassed a huge war chest for his expected campaign for governor thanks in part to major donations from the real estate industry. We're simply shocked--SHOCKED--to hear this, and would like to know if this had anything to do with his having rammed the local government consolidation bill through the state legislature last year.
Original posting 01-26-10: It used to be a rule of electoral politics in this country that being viewed as soft on national security was the kiss of death to a candidate's chances. Yet, in 2008, an old war hero with a half-century of national service ran for the presidency against a newcomer of radical background--and the latter won. We won't rehash the history of that election except to note that its circumstances were singular and transitory.
Poor Barack. After attracting huge audiences in 2008, he couldn't quite fill a 3,000 seat arena for the hapless Democratic senatorial candidate in Massachusetts last week. Republican Scott Brown won the former Ted Kennedy seat by flipping 15% of the electorate that voted for Obama only 14 months earlier, though his Democratic opponent still got huge majorities in hard-core Kennedy country: Brookline, Boston and especially Cambridge (see results). The latter, of course, is the home of Harvard Law School where it's apparently considered normal for community organizers to gain admission and even make Law Review with a little help from some unusual friends (see prior article).
While the Brown election has been portrayed as a rejection of the Obama health-care plan, his other major issue was the fatal Obama policy of granting civilian rights to foreign terrorists including the recent Christmas bomber. This policy is felt even more acutely here in New York where the upcoming trials of the lead 9/11 conspirators can be expected to snarl traffic for months and may attract terrorist attacks. Day by day, New Yorkers will live with the effects of their president's misguided notions.
Obama is now struggling to regain the initiative after last week's debacle by launching into a populist attack on banks. The problem with that one, however, is that banking is the biggest money industry in New York and both Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson are furiously opposed to this new tack, regarding it as a threat to the local economy and tax base.
Let's see--what else can he do to New York? A couple of months ago he attempted to anoint Andrew Cuomo as the Democratic candidate for governor, though the current holder of that office doesn't quite agree. Assuming that Cuomo does indeed get the nomination, it seems likely that Obama will try to regain his mojo by pulling out the stops to assure Cuomo's victory.
Readers will recall that Cuomo personally pushed through the new consolidation law that directly threatens Long Island communities, especially here in Great Neck. Residents of this area should learn from the Massachusetts example by changing customary voting patterns to send Cuomo packing.
NY pol lionized at funeral--but final roar was hushed up for Obama 01-06-10
New York said good-bye today to one of the pillars of its political establishment, former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton. One of a highly influential "Gang of Four" including Congressman Charles Rangel, former NYC Mayor David Dinkins and former NY Secretary of State--and father of the current governor--Basil Paterson, Sutton paved the way for African-American politicians in New York and beyond. Attendees at today's funeral included NYC Mayor Bloomberg, NY Governor Paterson, Senator Schumer and U.S. Attorney General Holder.
One might think that recent remarks by someone of this stature would be a matter of some interest, but you'd have to search pretty hard to find any reference in the media to one of Sutton's last public interviews, held in 2008 on the NY1 news channel. It relates to none other than presidential candidate Barack Obama, which of course is the reason for the self-censorship. Thanks to modern technology, however, it can be seen in perpetuity on You Tube here.
The implications of this clip are disturbing. In so many words, we are informed by a leading public figure that the man who would soon become our president was sponsored by one Khalid al-Mansour in gaining access to Harvard Law School--the platform that would lead him to prominence. Take a look at some of the other You Tube videos featuring al-Mansour if your stomach can handle it.
During the '08 campaign, the Obama campaign essentially denied everything and the word was put out that poor old Percy was just a confused senior citizen. Having viewed the video, we'd say that he was old and folksy, but far from senile. On the contrary, he was lucid about his recollection and was proud to relate it to the viewers. While his memory was intact, the problem is that his internal censors were no longer functioning and he revealed something that his party and the media were suppressing.
Does this information make Mr. Obama the "Mansourian Candidate" as some pundits have remarked? We think the jury is still out on that one. But if our public had been told the full story in the way typically done with other candidates, we wonder if the election might have ended differently.
The Christmas bomber and the USG: some facts you won't read elsewhere UPDATED: 01-06-10
Update 01-06-10: A spokesman confirmed yesterday that the State Department has finally revoked the bomber's visa.
Original Posting 01-01-10: Since Christmas Day, when a young Nigerian "allegedly" attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard a U.S.-bound airliner, we've been treated to 24/7 media coverage of this story and the scandalous failure to revoke his U.S. visa. Having been in the immigration law field, including government service as a visa officer, yours truly has been having a hard time listening to the explanations being broadcast. Neither reporters nor the public at large are familiar with the technicalities of U.S. visa law and practice and we suspect that some in the U.S. Government like it that way so they can cover their posteriors. Here is our contribution to enlightening the public:
A USG spokesman has declared that it was reasonable for the U.S. consulate in London to have granted a visitor visa to this Nigerian in mid-2008, when he was a 22 year old student there. What is generally not known is that a visa applicant is normally supposed to apply at the U.S. consulate in his home country where officers are familiar with local conditions and can better evaluate the applicant. A U.S. consulate in a certain country has discretion to entertain the application of a national from another country, but only in clear cases. A young single citizen of a third-world country asking for a casual visitor visa should rank among the least eligible cases.
What was so compelling that an American officer was willing to stretch his discretion to issue this visa? The visa application form with notations from the interview could reveal the answer, but has not been released to the public so far. We assume the applicant had an interview as required. If this requirement was waived it would be an even greater scandal, since interviews are a key screening tool and are supposed to be waived only for diplomats and senior officials.
It has emerged that the visa was actually used to attend a two-week seminar at the Houston, TX branch of the Al Maghrib Institute, an Islamic outreach organization. Assuming that this was revealed as the basis for the application, the U.S. officer could have easily denied it outright or he could have issued a visa with limited validity for this single occasion. In fact, he approved it for the maximum permissable for a Nigerian national--multiple entry within a two-year period. The unnecessary overhang validity of the visa long after conclusion of the seminar is what was used to board an American airliner last week.
It gets curiouser and curiouser when one checks out the Al Maghrib Institute. Nearly three years ago, one writer called it Jihad U.. A faculty member named Yasir Qadhi spoke to CNN to express his shock that this former student had resorted to terrorism, but it turns out that another former alumnus was also charged in a terrorism case in 2007, not long after attending the institute. We don't know whether Qadhi was surprised then too. While some accuse the institute of being an extremist front, Qadhi has moderate credentials: he was a key participant in a Counter-Radicalization Strategy Conference convened in June 2008 by the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC), the official body that coordinates terrorism intel among USG agencies.
When the father of the bomber visited the American embassy in Nigeria in November, he clearly had well-founded suspicions that his son was involved in an imminent terrorist plot against the U.S.A. Yet, the concerns of this man--a former minister in the Nigerian government--were treated like low credibility gossip from common sources and resulted in his son being placed on the lowest priority watch list of the NCTC.
The State Department spokesman has claimed that the NCTC determined that insufficient evidence was presented to warrant revocation of the visa. Yet, regulations make clear that visa revocation is within the discretion of a visa officer and that no formal burden of proof need be met. In so many words, we have been informed that the State Department--which has always militantly guarded its control of the visa function--deferred to the NCTC in this case and was unwilling to revoke the visa on its own authority--authority that it plainly possessed. The rest is history.
In the government they say that if an unknown bird looks, waddles and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. Our corollary: if said bird bites you on the rear-end, then it's not worth having--duck or not.
Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, our government has been desperate to cultivate moderate Muslims as a counter-weight to the extremists, but often has difficulty distinguishing one from the other. The bureaucratic imperative to develop such assets leads to cases where officials err in favor of their supposedly moderate Muslim contacts rather than erring in favor of public security. Lately they've been making bad calls in trusting people who proceeded to commit mass casualty attacks.
Piecing together the anomalous bureaucratic actions taken in this case with the specific fact pattern, our conclusion is that this is another such case. Luckily, passengers who were more concerned about saving their own lives than any political agenda were able to immobilize the bomber. But this is a warning call and it would be criminal to cover up what really happened. This is not merely a case of bureaucratic sloth or inadequate machinery as is being portrayed. There is an underlying policy that led to this attack and the public may soon have to over-ride the politicians if it wishes to prevent more such incidents.
Mangano platform being implemented 12-23-09
As we reported recently, incoming Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano ran on a four-point platform. Implementation of three of those points is already underway, even before he takes office.
The county legislature voted 13-5 on Monday to repeal the recently enacted 2.5% energy tax. Among those voting in favor were five Democrats who apparently realized that this unpopular measure may have cost them the election. Our area's own legislator, Judi Bosworth, was among the five other Democrats opposing repeal.
Outgoing County Executive Tom Suozzi has declared his opposition to the repeal because the county needs the $40 million per year that the tax raises. He has promised to refrain from taking action on this, however, before leaving office. Mangano will obviously sign the measure into law when he takes office in January.
While Suozzi has purported to be taking the high road during the post-election period, he also recently made 40 some-odd last-licks appointments to various little plum positions. While not illegal, this is more along the lines of traditional patronage politics rather than the high road.
On another platform point, Mangano has announced the sacking of some 160 Suozzi appointees. While some of those positions will be filled by his own loyalists, it appears that a fair number of the vacated positions may be trimmed down to help pay for the repeal of the energy tax. Other non-appointive positions will take longer to trim down, though Mangano appears determined to cut where possible to bring county finances into balance.
Plans to implement a third plank of Mangano's program--rationalizing the property assessment system--got a boost when he announced that the county's non-partisan assessor will be asked to stay on to work towards this goal. We would expect some plan to be produced in the coming months.
This leaves the fourth plank--making Nassau business friendly--as Mangano's remaining focus.
It's official: NY State is broke 12-09-09
NY Governor David Paterson announced today: "Now New York has run out of cash." Acknowledging that he may be sued for his decision to unilaterally slow down payments to schools and local communities, Paterson said: "You can't spend money that you don't have."
Actually, Paterson's budget director stated that New York does still have 1.2 billion in a reserve fund. If it were liquidated to pay current obligations, however, the amount remaining on deposit would be "razor thin" leaving no leeway for a contingency.
As we recall, when a party is unable to pay its bills in due course the term applied is "insolvent." New York is now crossing into that new territory, notwithstanding the billions in "stimulus" funds provided by the federal government earlier this year. Why? Because the free money from Washington allowed the legislators to avoid making the tough choices that everyone else has to make during hard times and they even increased spending by an incredible 8.7%. Although the legislators have now offered to cut back by 2.7 billion, Paterson insists it is not enough to close the gap.
Moves are also underway to trim back the execrable MTA payroll tax as legislators sense the gathering storm of public reaction in suburban districts. While city payrolls would still be taxed at the current level, the levy would decrease with distance from the city. Reportedly, the payroll tax isn't bringing in enough revenue to keep the MTA afloat anyway.
What will happen next in this soap opera to our state, the governor, legislators, the MTA and our schools and villages? Stay tuned as the world turns.
Republicans win out in Nassau County 12-01-09
Following a prolonged election recount and tallying of absentee ballots, the Republican challengers for County Executive and Comptroller have now claimed victories, albeit by razor thin margins. Democratic election lawyers had built up enough of a case to continue litigating a few hundred disputed ballots, but County Executive Tom Suozzi and Comptroller Howard Weitzman threw in the towel earlier today.
In addition to taking the county's top two executive spots, the Republicans also took decisive control of the county legislature. While it had initially appeared that they only flipped one seat to gain a 10 to 9 majority, the final tally gave them another seat for an 11 to 8 majority.
What will the Republicans do with their authority? For a few hints, we checked the campaign platform of incoming County Executive Ed Mangano. It would appear that the planks calling for elimination of annual property reassessments and repeal of the new 2.5% energy tax are reasonably attainable and will be well-received by most homeowners. The other two listed planks--paring down of patronage jobs and improvement of the business climate--will take longer to achieve and will not be noticed by the average citizen until and unless they lead to lower taxes.
On the critical issue of consolidation of local government, it's difficult to conceive of anyone with a more aggressive approach than outgoing County Executive Tom Suozzi. Readers will recall that Suozzi committed one final outrage on this score by suddenly calling a few days after the election for the consolidation of all school districts in the county. While Mangano doesn't rule out reasonable cost-saving measures and elimination of duplication, his emphasis appears to be on working together with local municipal corporations rather than mounting hostile takeovers, as indicated in this clip.
Having been duly chastened by their loss of power at the beginning of the decade, the Republicans will hopefully try to live up to their platform and remain on good behavior. We'll be here checking as usual.
Feeling stimulated yet? UPDATED: 11-25-09
Update 11-25-09: The New York Times has run a front-page article assuring us that a consensus of economists believes the stimulus is working. Most tellingly, it states that of the millions of jobs the program was supposed to save or create: "far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities ... " In so many words, we have been informed that keeping government payrolls at pre-recession levels has been the main jobs program of the stimulus.
Original posting 11-20-09: Now that the better part of a year has gone by since the enactment of the federal stimulus program, we decided to check up on its local impact. According to MSNBC, a total of $56.4 million has gone to projects in Nassau County out of $62 billion nationwide. The actual list of projects looks mostly like road repair stuff and the total of jobs created in Nassau comes to about 335--roughly one for every 4,000 residents. Assuming that about half the population is employed, this would make a difference of .05% in local employment. So, if the unemployment rate is now 10% we can thank the stimulus program for having reduced it from 10.05%.
How else have we benefited? At the state level, several billions in stimulus funds were provided to help continue operations despite the severe shortfall in tax collections this year. But a funny thing happened on the road to solvency: the state legislators were simply unable to control themselves and raised spending by an incredible 8.7%. The governor has announced that the state will run out of money next month, despite the billions he received in stimulus funds. Doesn't this information make your heart pound with pride?
By the way, we read that one of the solutions under consideration by the state is to tax private health insurers, who naturally will pass the costs on to their customers. The weasels in Albany apparently figure that this way the public will blame their insurance companies instead of them. But we digress too much and should focus on one wholesale fraud at a time.
Seeing how the stimulus has poured hundreds of billions down ratholes while having no appreciable effect on employment, one might think that a rational government would come up with a different approach--but not this government. They have apparently decided that if Stimulus I didn't work, the answer is Stimulus II. Actually, there are indications they knew all along that Stimulus I wouldn't do much and they merely used the promise of jobs as a ploy to pick our collective pockets of nearly a trillion dollars for other purposes.
How do we know this? Aside from the numbers themselves, look back at our article of 02-09-09 for example (see link) about an obscure report in a back-page of Newsday on what may have been the most important story in the modern history of Long Island. Even then, days after the new administration took office in Washington, they were already talking about a likely Stimulus II when the really big bucks would come rolling in for "game-changing projects." We surmise that Senator Schumer was the main conduit of this info right from the top echelon down to the local level.
If Stimulus II was planned from the get-go, it suggests that the pols already knew that Stimulus I wouldn't accomplish much. Although that's not what they told us, don't judge our pols too harshly--they are simply doing what comes naturally to so many of them. The question is whether the public will allow it to continue.
Suozzi's proposal would increase taxes and squeeze GN schools 11-13-09
Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi's bombshell proposal to centralize control of the county's public schools has already elicited some public reaction--most of it negative. But some ask: doesn't his claim that centralized administration would save money have merit? The evidence suggests that regardless of any marginal savings he could wring out of consolidating administration, Great Neck would face huge tax increases and severe downward pressure on the quality of its schools.
How could this be if money were saved? Contrary to conventional wisdom, Great Neck's school tax rate is one of the lowest around. In fact we perused the mynassauproperty.com website and couldn't find another district in Nassau County with a lower rate. Here's the data we collected in a random sampling of properties around the county, expressed in tax rates per $100 of assessed value (i.e., .25% of market value):
Great Neck: $325
Muttontown: $327
Lawrence: $336
Long Beach: $350
Garden City: $384
Bayville: $386
Hicksville: $390
Uniondale: $411
Roslyn: $421
Sea Cliff: $421
Port Washington: $425
Floral Park: $447
Jericho: $493
Carle Place: $494
Elmont: $499
Oceanside: $517
Freeport: $559
Valley Stream: $570
East Meadow: $575
Wantaugh: $600
Hempstead: $601
Syosset: $611
Malverne: $634
Westbury: $641
Levittown: $719
If Suozzi's proposal were adopted, the county would presumably adopt a single tax rate for all properties sufficient to fund all existing schools. That rate should be around the average of the rates we have sampled, in the vicinity of $500 per $100 of assessed value. If so, Great Neck would experience an increase of about 50% in its school property taxes from the current rate of $325.
That rate, however, would only raise enough funds to pay for the average expenditure per student among the districts--in the vicinity of $18K per year. Spending in Great Neck would eventually be brought down from its present $22K per student to conform with that. Therefore, even if 10% could be saved through improved efficiency (but possibly at the price of inferior and detached administration) it would hardly compensate for the huge increase in our taxes or the severe cuts in our staff and programs. Yet, Tom Suozzi says that his proposal would save money and improve educational quality.
Our advice is this: when they start pushing this agenda, push back. Also, if you know any Great Neck residents considering voting for Suozzi, Cuomo or any of the other consolidators in the future, we suggest you tell them to get their heads examined.
Post-election, Suozzi announces he wants your schools 11-08-09
As the consolidation campaign picked up steam over the past two to three years, we tried to warn readers that the pols would chip away at the unglamorous water and sewer districts first but would never be satisfied until they got their hands on the big money. Now that the election is a few days behind us, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi has made his move: he's going for your schools.
We also tried to warn that reflexive Democratic party line voting by some in Great Neck would mean that the pols who pursue the consolidation agenda would continue doing so with impunity. It hasn't taken long to be proven right.
The official story is that Suozzi formulated his proposed takeover of the schools only after the election last Tuesday. Since he ended up a mere 200 votes ahead of his challenger, he asserted that voters blamed him for their high property taxes unaware that most of the money went for schools which are out of his control. He says he thought about this "over the past few days" and concluded that "something revolutionary has to take place on Long Island. It's this: Give the control of our schools to the county executive." Then he supposedly wrote an op-ed piece and got it published in Newsday by this weekend.
In addition to providing this explanation of how and when he came to favor a school takeover, Suozzi claimed in his op-ed that transfering control of schools to the county executive "would both reduce costs and improve educational quality." Does anyone believe that he came to those conclusions too in the past few days? If not, then it should be obvious that his sudden proposal to take over the schools was not really sudden at all, and he was only waiting for an opportune moment to drop his little bomb.
That moment, of course, only came after the election rather than before. For those who voted for Suozzi last Tuesday, you can judge for yourself whether this politician leveled with you as of the moment when you pulled the lever. As for the Democratic die-hards, we wonder if they will vote for him again, even as he dismantles their own community.
It's a draw: Nassau Democrats and Republicans at parity
. . . consolidation not a vote-getter 11-04-09
After nearly a decade in purgatory since the disastrous ending of the Gulotta administration, the once formidable Nassau Republicans are back. Perhaps there was displeasure with the Democrats over consolidation, the new energy tax or other issues, or perhaps it was just the swing of the pendulum. Whatever the reasons, the Nassau Democrats were reduced to parity with the Republicans in yesterday's election after years of unbridled power.
At this moment, County Executive Tom Suozzi and Comptroller Howard Weitzman are hanging on by their fingernails. With all precincts counted, Suozzi was about 200 votes ahead and Weitzman 500 behind out of a quarter-million votes cast. Suozzi was apparently helped by a Conservative candidate who may have siphoned off a few votes from the Republican candidate, Edward Mangano. Weitzman was in a two-man race with Republican George Maragos, a Russell Gardens resident. In both cases, we may be in for recounts, absentee ballot issues, litigation, etc. before the winners are finally declared.
The county legislature will now be ruled by the Republicans after they managed to flip one seat and gain a 10 to 9 majority. Nassau DA Kathleen Rice was the one clear Democratic winner, easily gaining re-election. Republican Maureen O'Connell won re-election as County Clerk.
In our heavily Democratic Town of North Hempstead, Supervisor Jon Kaiman won re-election with a relatively slim 53.6 - 46.4 margin over his Republican challenger Lee Tu. In prior elections, Kaiman won by much higher margins. Our guess is that the trend against the Democrats as well as Tu's competitive performance and Kaiman's vulnerability on a number of issues produced this narrow win, with only 2,700 votes separating the two candidates out of 38,000 cast.
In fact, we received a robo-call on Election Day from NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo urging a vote for Kaiman. Considering that Cuomo was the chief proponent of the new consolidation law that threatens the villages and districts predominating in North Hempstead, putting him on the phone with voters may not have been the Kaiman campaign's most brilliant idea. It also so happens that Suozzi and Weitzman--now teetering on the precipice--are the county's leading consolidation proponents. Perhaps the Democrats will conclude that pushing consolidation is not a great vote-getting method in these parts.
Lee Tu who?
. . . You'll find out. 11-01-09
Lee Tu wasn't exactly a household name when he accepted the Republican nomination for North Hempstead Town Supervisor a few months ago. Although he's come a long way since then, he's still a relative unknown fighting an uphill battle against an entrenched incumbent. Still, the Republicans may have finally found a standard-bearer who has a fighting chance of winning an election in this town, perhaps this Tuesday and most probably in future elections.
We first met Mr. Tu only a few days ago and were impressed by his self-possession and sincerity. Some of his signature issues that stood out included opposition to forced consolidation and the need for transparency in town government. As a professional auditor, Tu promised to take a similar approach to reviewing town operations and it was music to our ears.
While his campaign has reportedly made good progress elsewhere, staffers advised that they had not focused that much on Great Neck since it is an overwhelmingly Democratic bastion. So, we volunteered our own modest services and had a few dozen people over at our place today on short notice to meet the candidate. The post-meeting feedback was overwhelmingly positive.
Tu stated that he would eliminate a series of unnecessary jobs in the town administration that were largely patronage appointments. He noted the corruption scandal in the town building department and promised to appoint a professional commissioner who would run an honest and efficient department. He also expressed opposition to the plans of the town administration to charge a "tipping fee" on all garbage disposal in the town that would add 20% to sanitation costs.
On the critical issue of consolidation, Tu said that he supported the efficient and accessible local districts and villages that were under assault from Cuomo's new law. He also opposed the accessory apartment law adopted by the town board last year, before it was repealed under massive public pressure. He noted that the same group that promoted this fiasco last year was now promoting it again and he promised to oppose their effort.
In sum, Lee Tu expressed a philosophy of small, efficient and open government with low taxes. He opined that this should be largely non-partisan at the town level and promised to work cooperatively with Democratic members of the town board.
Having campaigned at the GN LIRR station two days ago, Tu advised that his reception by commuters was extremely--if surprisingly--positive. The reaction of those assembled today was similar, with many noting what a breath of fresh air he provided. In a recent article, even the liberal editor of the Great Neck News seemed to say a few nice things about him--before endorsing his opponent.
Can he win? The conventional wisdom says no, but Lee Tu brings a few new wild cards to the table including relative youth, energy and a fresh take on local government. People react well to him--something many would agree is not always true of his opponent. He has also energized the usually apolitical Asian community, proud to have one of their own in a leading position. This growing demographic in our town can easily overturn the standard election models with a few thousand votes that no one saw coming, especially in an off-year election. Many other voters may also have grown weary of this town administration, especially with its scandals and mis-steps of the past year.
Even if conventional wisdom holds true once again, Mr. Tu is here to stay. If not Town Supervisor this year, it'll be another job next year or the year after that. Very soon, no one will say: Lee Tu who?
Craig's list is no bargain 10-30-09
During the election campaign of 2008, we posted Q&A with our state senator Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington). In response to our question whether "member item" pork barrel spending by senators should be discontinued, he answered in part: "I believe the “member item” program must be fixed in terms of apportionment per member. Each Senator represents roughly the same number of people, therefore the disparity between funding must be reduced. I also believe the $200 million budgeted annually for this program should not be held in a lockbox, safe from cuts during difficult fiscal times such as now. Cutting aid to schools is unacceptable; cutting member item funding is not."
At that time, the Republicans ruled the state senate and kept most of the member item pork for themselves, but that was then and this is now. Since January, the Democrats have had a 32-30 majority and, like the Republicans, have kept the money in the family. Who is the porkiest of them all? According to the NY Daily News that distinction now belongs to Senator Johnson who wields $9 million--several multiples of his pro rata share. The article lists a number of local institutions that have received his largesse and states that some recipients didn't even request the funds. The reason Johnson has been given so much money, reportedly, is that he faces a tough reelection battle next year.
Why is Johnson in such a shaky position? As Vice President Joe Biden might have put it, the issue can be summed up in a single four-letter word: MTA. The new Metropolitan Transportation Authority tax exacts a levy of .34% of business payrolls throughout the 12-county greater NYC metro area, but uses much of the revenue to subsidize city subway and bus fares. This inequity caused widespread outrage against Johnson when he flip-flopped earlier this year and cast the deciding vote along with his fellow Long Island Democrat Brian Foley. That makes this the Johnson tax so far as we're concerned; in Suffolk they blame Foley.
When the MTA tax was passed, Johnson assured his constituents that at least the public schools would be shielded from its impact. Just to make sure, we checked with the GN Schools Asst. Superintendant for Business John Powell. Powell stated that public schools are not exempt and that the GN school system had already started paying its $344K annual bill. He did confirm that the schools have been promised compensating state aid for this school year, but was uncertain when it will arrive or if it will continue in the future.
Our research indicates there is no law requiring the state to reimburse the schools; there's only a statement of "intent" to do so. Given the state's current budgetary crisis, there have already been rumblings that this intent may fall by the wayside. If that happens Johnson is toast in next year's election, but even if the state makes good he's still in a lot of trouble with his constituents.
A self-employed GN resident earning say $250K must now start paying about $800 per year directly for the MTA tax. Homeowners also pay indirectly through their property taxes to local governments and districts which must pay this tax on their payrolls. The total of direct and indirect payments rises towards the $1K mark, an amount comparable to a year's fare for an NYC subway rider. Moreover, city residents were shielded by their senators from the proposal to add tolls to the free city bridges as part of the MTA bailout package, while Long Islanders pay ever higher tolls to enter Manhattan via the LIE through the Midtown Tunnel.
After setting Johnson at odds with his own constituents, the Democrats apparently realize that he will need a lot of help getting re-elected. While pork is the customary solution, they know that an ordinary ham sandwich simply will not do in this case. That's why we're now being treated to a five-course luau, even as state coffers go empty. Considering the true price that we're paying, the list of freebies Johnson is delivering to this district is not much of a bargain. Frankly, we'd rather do without the porkfest and be spared the bill for giving city residents a free ride.
GN rally demands consolidation law amendments 10-27-09
At a rally held last night at Great Neck South High School, a coalition of villages and special districts launched a campaign to amend the recently enacted Citizen Empowerment Act scheduled to take effect in March 2010. As explained during the meeting, this new law threatens to do the opposite of its implied purpose by making it much easier to dissolve villages and districts, even against the will of their own residents. The meeting was chaired by Village of Saddle Rock Mayor Leonard Samansky who currently heads the Great Neck Village Officials Association. Other speakers on the panel were State Senator Craig Johnson, Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel and Great Neck Park District Chairman Robert Lincoln who also heads the recently formed Long Island Special District Association.
As we reported back in June, this law was largely the handiwork of NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, although NY Governor David Paterson made his own me too claims for credit. Several members of the audience asked about Cuomo's motivation for promoting this law, but got no direct answer. Assemblywoman Schimel and Senator Johnson stated that they worked well with Cuomo on other issues, but that they disagreed on this one. Mayor Samansky stated that we need to fix this law first and then deal with Cuomo later, implying that there should be opposition when Cuomo runs for governor next year.
Of all the speakers, Samansky seemed the most militant in opposing the new law. At his side was the old American banner bearing a coiled snake with the slogan "Don't tread on me" which he invited the audience to recite along with him. He opined that behind it all, the real motivation for this law was simply money--the state and counties are destitute and want to help themselves to the funds of the solvent districts and villages.
Samansky noted that the new law requires a referendum on dissolving a village upon presentation of a petition with signatures from as little as 10% of the local electorate, whereas the prior requirement was 33%. He also interprets the 10% requirement to apply to the number of actual voters in the prior election rather than the number of registered voters. Considering that as little as 10% to 20% of registered voters go to the polls in off-year elections, this could mean that signatures from as little as 1% or 2% of a village's electorate--possibly 5 or 10 people--could force a village to hold a costly referendum. He further explained that if the county initiated the process, a county-wide vote in favor of dissolving a particular village could over-ride the vote of the village's residents themselves to keep their village. He expressed a wish to commence a class action suit to overturn this provision as an unconstitutional taking.
GN Park District chief Robert Lincoln then outlined a five-point list of "chapter amendments" needed to set things right. The list included requiring that a higher number of signatures be obtained for calling a referendum, that signature canvassers be residents of the district or village proposed for dissolution and that notice of a referendum be mailed to each affected resident. He also called for a mandatory final referendum on the specific dissolution plan formulated after the passage of an original referendum. Perhaps most important for the GN Park District, he called for a mandatory referendum of the residents of a district on its proposed dissolution, whereas the new law permits a county to pass a law ordering dissolution without a referendum.
Assemblywoman Schimel and Senator Johnson both spoke of the practical difficulty in making their fellow legislators understand the importance of this issue in our area. Schimel explained that the new law passed in record time even though nearly all her colleagues recognized that the law had many flaws in need of amendment. Johnson warned that the effort to amend the law will face a difficult challenge.
Clearly on the minds of the panelists was the concern that the new law allows a handful of disgruntled residents to plunge a village or a district into chaos. They also expressed the concern that outsiders could come into a village with petitions promoting tax reduction while language calling for village dissolution is buried in the fine print. Schimel urged that residents be on the lookout for such sneak attacks and contact local officials immediately. She never exactly stated who might launch such attacks, but it sounds like she fears that Cuomo's law has left our communities vulnerable to left-wing activist groups.
How she and perhaps Johnson can believe such things and still work well with Paterson, Cuomo and their Democratic colleagues on other issues is a mystery. As we see it, this over-rides most every other issue and requires that our representatives go to the mat until relief is granted.
Prior to the meeting, a group calling itself "The Committee to Protect Local Government" distributed flyers outside the entranceway blaming leading Nassau Democrats for pushing the consolidation agenda and calling for votes against them on Election Day as "the only message that politicians understand." The panel at the meeting was dismissive and pointed out that many Republicans in the legislature also voted for Cuomo's bill.
We think the pamphleteers still had a point: it makes no sense to vote for politicians who attack your vital interests, be they Democrats or Republicans. In this case, the leading politicians pursuing the consolidation agenda--especially County Executive Suozzi and County Comptroller Weitzman--are in fact Democrats. Until such time as the predominantly Democratic residents of Great Neck and other North Hempstead communities wake up on this point, these politicians will continue to get re-elected and then proceed to diss our vital interests.
Zoning board bars construction on narrow UG lot
despite owner's $770K expenditure 10-17-09
As the real estate market heated up a few years ago, some owners of oversized lots in UG and other prime neighborhoods discovered a great way to squeeze additional profit from their properties: subdivide and sell two properties instead of one. While one property could be sold with a house, the other vacant one could still command a king's ransom if it qualified under the code as buildable. As efforts increased to cram construction onto ever narrower lots, however, opposition grew among the neighbors.
Finally, in 2006, the town interceded by adopting an ordinance that bars construction on a lot below 100 feet in width unless it is at least as wide as the average of neighboring lots. A corner lot must comply on both blockfronts.
Since then, one subdivision application in UG was withdrawn because it could not satisfy this requirement. In another case where subdivision had already been completed, the town's Board of Zoning & Appeals (BZA) refused to grant a variance from the lot-width ordinance to permit construction on the vacant lot, even though the owner had already sold the other lot with the house.
In a new case, the BZA's strict construction of this ordinance has been demonstrated to an even greater degree. A UG property running from the corner of Somerset Drive South along Rutland Road was subdivided and the house and vacant side-lot were sold to different buyers during the summer of 2008. The vacant lot at the corner was only 80 feet in width on the Somerset blockfront, whereas the average width of neighboring properties was 124 feet; therefore, it could not be built upon without a variance of the lot-width ordinance. Nevertheless, the lot was sold for $770K--a market price for a buildable lot.
When the new owner appeared without counsel at the variance hearing in November 2008, the BZA commissioners seemed shocked when she claimed that none of her advisors had informed her of the problem prior to purchasing the lot. Considering the potential loss that she was facing, the commissioners offered her a chance for another hearing with representation and she wisely agreed. At the new hearing in March 2009, the applicant appeared with leading local lawyer Peter Mineo who reportedly made a strong presentation. After giving the applicant every opportunity to make her case and after another seven months of deliberating, the BZA has now rendered a decision denying the variance.
In its findings, the BZA noted that there was a substantial lot width deficiency. They also considered the contextual impact within a 300-foot radius, noting that the 10,327 square foot area of the lot was far less than the 20,427 square foot average of other corner properties and the 16,265 square foot average of all properties. As an "area variance" the BZA further noted that they were required to compare the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the community, including consideration of whether the applicant's difficulty was "self-created."
Noting that denial of the variance would make it "likely that the applicant will suffer a significant financial loss" the BZA found that granting the variance would "impose upon the community a detriment that outweighs the benefit" due to the lot's being "significantly substandard" and "not a contextual fit". They further stated: "From our inspection of the neighborhood, we believe that the impact of the proposed new dwelling in terms of lot width, as it would appear from the street, would be dramatic, striking and inconsistent with the character of the community." Perhaps most tellingly, they stated: "If this Board were to grant the requested relief, it would set a precedent for development of similar substandard lots, with the strong potential of adding additional residences to this neighborhood. This is especially likely in the subject neighborhood, where there are a number of large lots. Such a precedent would also impair the effectiveness of the ordinance."
While expressing sympathy that the applicant apparently acquired the property "unaware of the need for a lot width variance" the BZA found that "she is charged with constructive notice of the Code. Thus, the difficulty faced by the applicant was self-created."
It remains to be seen if the applicant will take further action to challenge this decision in court or will seek relief in some other way. If this decision stands, it appears likely that narrow subdivisions in UG will be a thing of the past.
GN girl assaulted during burglary 10-07-09
A teenage girl alone in her Great Neck home was badly beaten during a burglary late Monday Oct. 5 or shortly after midnight. She was found when her parents returned and was taken to the hospital where she remains at this time.
Given the limited information available, it is unclear whether this crime was random or targeted. According to Newsday the police investigation has been stymied by the girl's current inability to speak as she is under sedation. Her name and address have also been withheld.
Fire and brimstone aimed at GN Jews UPDATED 09-25-09
Update 09-25-09: The bizarre cult referred to below showed up in Great Neck today and had their fun as planned. We drove by the corner of Old Mill and Middle Neck Roads around 6:15 p.m. expecting to get a look at the faces of evil miscreants. What we found instead was actually much scarier--about a half dozen normal looking people laughing and smiling while waving placards bearing pre-printed anti-semitic slogans. Across Middle Neck Road were about 100 Jewish counter-demonstrators who looked and sounded considerably less cheerful. Fortunately, the police maintained a strong presence that presumably included the helicopter we observed hovering overhead.
In addition to snarling traffic and befouling the atmosphere for congregants on their way to nearby synagogues, this group also succeeded in getting under the skin of those in authority at the two high schools on their itinerary. Rather than allow their students to be upset by what they might see, those in charge dismissed them early.
As for why this small group of provocateurs was permitted to disrupt so many institutions in a single community at strategic times during a one-day spree, one local official told us that the law requires uniform treatment for all groups. Any attempt to restrict the timing or quantity of demonstrations by this group could have lead to a lawsuit charging uneven treatment compared with other groups. This explanation left a strange after-taste, as we cannot imagine many cases where a group applies for permits to demonstrate at seven distinct sites in a single locale all within a few hours. If it is indeed the practice of the Nassau County Police Department to allow this much latitude, perhaps a change is in order.
Original posting 09-20-09: In a memo posted on the Great Neck Public Schools website, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Thomas P. Dolan advises of demonstrations to be held in Great Neck by a "small, very extreme" church next Friday, September 25. He warns that this group from Topeka, Kansas goes about the country provoking reactions and then brings lawsuits against those they provoked and is "well represented legally." The memo lists their demonstration schedule in Great Neck as: North Shore Hebrew Academy (1:30-2:10), Great Neck North High School (2:25-2:50), Long Island Jewish World (2:55-3:30), and from 6:00 to 6:30 at Temple Beth El, Great Neck Synagogue and Temple Israel. The group's website also lists a demonstration at the Great Neck Chabad House (11:45-12:15).
Let's see--does anybody notice a pattern here? Though the memo doesn't quite say it directly, this group has apparently singled out Great Neck as a Jewish bastion. They have also done their homework in targeting this community, putting schools, synagogues and a Jewish newspaper on their busy picketing schedule. Strangely, the group's website indicates a preoccupation with homosexuality, yet most of their listed demonstrations around the country are at Jewish institutions and we didn't spot any at gay organizations.
Whatever the reasoning process that guides this group, the main issue for our community is how to react to the challenge they pose. Dr. Dolan assures parents that there will be close coordination with the police and local authorities. He also advises: "There are two forces that are guaranteed to make this odious group's efforts entirely unsuccessful." One is education and the other is silence. If we are silent and don't react, he says: "they are likely to retreat quickly and quietly. They feed on attention. The district will give them none. I ask you to do the same."
This strategy seems appropriately calibrated to the situation. As long as this group sticks to lawful activity, those who encounter them should avoid getting suckered into their game and just walk away. Shunning them cuts off their oxygen, whereas reacting to their provocations gets them publicity and possibly a platform in court for their message. On the other hand, we're not so sure that this group is "guaranteed" to cooperate in its own neutralization. In addition to security measures, it may also be prudent to have legal assets at the demonstration sites. Let's remember: this is lawfare.
We also wonder whether our public authorities couldn't have tried harder to limit the group's activities. Their website lists nearly as many demonstration sites in Great Neck as in the rest of the New York area. Is there really no constitutional limit to how many sites they can picket on a single day in one locality? Must they really be allowed to wave their signs at school kids at dismissal time and at congregants as they approach their synagogues for Friday night services?
We recall a decade ago how an extremist group applied for a permit to hold a rally in New York City and came up against Mayor Giuliani. When a court finally ordered him to grant the permit, he insisted that the group adhere strictly to its terms. When the rally ran a minute or two over-time, the police advanced, helicopters swooped in and the group scattered to the wind.
While the former mayor's approach may be a bit too strong for this situation, we think it's important for the police to show similar zero tolerance when a group of this nature targets our community. Even if this group packs up and leaves quietly, it stands to reason that they will film or otherwise report on their local adventure. The reaction of the authorities now may determine how this group and others of similar character view Great Neck in the future. We think our authorities have an obligation to make this community as uninviting a target as possible within the law.
As for the educational component of Dr. Dolan's strategy, we don't mind if the kids go to an assembly, lock arms and sing Kumbaya, but they should also learn about the specific issue being confronted, i.e., anti-semitism. This is a topic that is rarely discussed in the public school system, so if the kids take a few hours to learn about it something positive will have come from this experience.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition 09-15-09
There have been endless retrospectives on 9/11 in the media over the past few days, but our country still struggles to grasp its lessons. One of them, we think, is to treat threats seriously rather than engage in the sort of denial that got us to 9/11 in the first place.
We learned last night of anti-terrorism raids in Flushing. A few months ago, there were the arrests of several terrorist wannabees who thought they were planting bombs at two Bronx synagogues, but were only using duds given to them by the cops. There have been a number of similar take-downs around the country in the years since 9/11.
While anti-terrorist efforts have generally been successful, some potential targets aren't relying solely on law enforcement to come galloping in on their white horses just in time. The Secure Community Network is an organization founded by mainstream Jewish organizations to enhance security at houses of worship and other community institutions. The SCN website contains a checklist of High Holiday security measures that we hope have been implemented here in Great Neck.
A little further out on the edge, we read recently of a group of pistol-packing rabbis who posed for the New York Post. While their behavior may seem outlandish, their intent was apparently to announce that their congregations are harder targets than one might presume. That may be a good thing, but we hope these guys know what they're doing with firearms.
Whatever the right solution may be, it seems clear that heightened security measures are in order. It may take some getting used to, but that is the price we must pay when terrorist ideologies continue to flourish in some of the world's darker recesses--even within our own country.
With that said, yet another lesson of 9/11 is to not let terrorists win by frightening us away from our normal lives. We wish a happy Rosh Hashanah holiday to one and all.
COVENANTS PASS! 09-04-09
After a protracted struggle, the extension of the UG community covenants has now been signed by the owners of a sufficient quantity of UG property to take legal effect upon recording. Signed consent by the owners of at least 2,187,360 sq.ft. of UG land (i.e., two-thirds of the community's 3,281,039 million sq. ft.) is required for passage. Owners of 160 residential lots with about 2.2 million sq. ft. have now signed.
The primary issue that had delayed passage since early this year was the board's attempt to raise the annual charge authorization in the covenants to a substantially higher limit. After initially proposing in January to double the ceiling from 5 cents to 10 cents per sq. ft. plus an escalation for inflation, the board reduced its proposal to 8 cents plus inflation in June. These proposals were both met by petitions opposed to the increase that were signed by half of the community. Finally, in July, the board reached a compromise with an opposition committee (including yours truly) that limited annual charges to 5 cents next year, 6.5 cents in years 2 through 10, and 7.25 cents in years 11 through 20, plus the inflation provision.
Notwithstanding this compromise, the owners of about 10% of UG's 216 residential properties have refused to sign. Some felt that annual charges were still too high or that the board spent too much money, while others were opposed to various rules or practices. Many residents who signed the covenants were also concerned about these issues, but accepted that this did not warrant pulling the plug on the community.
Those involved in this effort plan to continue seeking signatures from the 30 to 40 homeowners who have not yet decided or have been away during the summer. We urge all residents who have not signed to do so now for the sake of community unity. The signature table at the pool should still be in operation through Labor Day. Those who come to the pool on Sunday Sept. 6 between 2 and 5 p.m. can also attend the end-of-summer barbeque and join in the celebration of the community's new lease on life.
Congratulations community!
Editorial: it's time to sign 08-29-09
It's coming down to the wire on UG's covenants. Over a period of eight decades, our community has taken shape under these provisions. Considering the results, we think they've worked pretty well; in fact, very well. Yet now, barely a month shy of the legal deadline, not enough residents have signed to extend the covenants for another 20-year term. Owners of some 138 out of 233 properties have already signed, but another 25 or so are still needed to meet the super-majority requirement. This has been made difficult so far by the absence of many residents on summer holiday.
It has also emerged that a small portion of our community is genuinely opposed to extension because they wish to save on annual charges or because they dislike restrictions on the use of their properties. While these people may see some small benefit in freeing themselves from the covenants, we suggest that they look more closely at the other consequences. In all probability, the pool/tennis complex would close down, the community entranceways would become overgrown thickets and new building projects would no longer have to conform with the rest of the neighborhood. Moreover, all manner of zoning variances could be pushed through to our collective detriment if there were no organized community--often represented by costly legal counsel--to defend our collective interests.
We sincerely hope that the opponents of extending the covenants will reconsider, as the meager short-term benefits they would gain would be outweighed by their long-term loss of property value and quality of life. As for those still sitting on the fence, this is the moment of decision--another month will be too late. For all who haven't signed yet, please pay a visit to the pool at your earliest opportunity and put your signature on the consent sheet there. The welfare of your community is at stake.
Editorial: UG on right track 07-31-09
Given all of UG's problems that we have highlighted for years, we take special pleasure in saying that we think the community is now on the right track. This is not to say that all of our problems have been solved, nor that continued progress is guaranteed. On the contrary, vigilance will be needed to safeguard our current gains. All the same, let's review the good news:
First, since the UG board agreed to moderate the annual charge provision of the new covenants, residents have been signing almost unanimously. We understand that some parties will be held at the pool during the coming weekends where signature sheets will be available. If you haven't signed the covenants yet, we urge you to stop by, sign and join the festivities.
Once the covenants pass, UG will be in business for another 20 years at least. While this falls short of being a village, the UG board does manage our recreational facility and has some tools available to maintain the character of the community. It also represents the community to governmental authorities, a role that is often unseen but significant.
While a village has the added capability to directly handle municipal services, the question is whether that is necessary or appropriate for a small community like UG. We once thought so, given the inability or unwillingness of the town to address many of our problems. Now, however, the town may finally be stepping up to the plate.
The most notable example is the town's following through on their proposal of three years ago to include UG in the Great Neck Garbage District. We couldn't make it to the informational meeting on this subject earlier this week, but it appears that a serious offer is on the table that would save money for comparable service.
Another positive development is the paving of two UG roads last year. Then, at our annual meeting in February of this year, Councilwoman Lee Seeman promised the town would continue paving two UG roads each year until the community is completely repaved. Sure enough, they are out there now paving Sussex Road and hopefully will continue with another road this year.
As for the town's other promise at the annual meeting--to launch a program to maintain our street trees--there is some evidence that this is proceeding. We understand that the board has engaged a professional arborist to help oversee the project, which implies that the work is on the way. Seeing is believing, though we are cautiously optimistic.
Finally, we note that Verizon has begun delivering the GN School District television channel (32) to homes in UG and other unincorporated portions of Great Neck. This finally puts UG on a par with the villages that have been receiving this channel for decades. It also allows the school system to make greater educational use of its channel now that all areas of the district are being reached.
In sum, UG is finally receiving the services we pay for and need. This is critical to our quality of life and to maintain competitiveness with neighboring first-class villages. While we may not have the facilities that these larger communities offer, we can still boast of our fine, small-scale recreational facility. The annual carrying cost of a UG property is also a bit lower, thanks in part to the cost containments mentioned above.
Being under the town still has its pitfalls. Last year's short-lived "accessory apartment" law nearly put the unincorporated areas of the town into open revolt until it was quickly repealed. We can't be sure that some other misguided zoning change, service cut-back or change of plans won't short-change our community as has happened so many times in the past.
Our net conclusion is that the price of allowing a bigger entity to relieve us of the burden of taking care of ourselves is relentless vigilance in making sure that they do, in fact, take care of us. We're still not so sure which way is more labor-saving in the end. For now, at least, this is the set-up we have and it seems to be working for the first time in a very long while.
GN Sanitation District:
. . . to join or not to join Updated 07-15-09
Update: We've located some information concerning the GN Garbage District on an obscure inner page of the town's website. It appears to answer the questions posed below. Most important, it confirms that rear pick-up is provided in this district. We hope the town can confirm that this will continue to be the case. On the downside, the information indicates that pick-up in some areas is on a M-W-F cycle and in others T-Th-Sat. The current M-W-F schedule seems preferable.
Original Posting (07-14-09): The town is finally offering UG some concrete relief from its over-priced sanitation service. In a letter dated July 8, 2009, Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman and Councilwoman Lee Seeman have outlined a proposal to have UG join the Great Neck Garbage District. According to the letter: "you will be afforded all of the collection services you currently experience with several additions at a substantial tax deductible cost savings." The letter further states that: "The District's contract also offers the collection of bulky waste and white goods, such as sofas, wall units, refrigerators, washing machines, etc." As for cost, the letter notes that a home assessed at $750,000 would pay only $250 per year and a home assessed at $1,500,000 would pay $500.
We're glad that something is finally on the table, though it remains to be seen whether this is the right deal for UG. At present, UG homeowners pay $600 per year on a non-deductible basis for their sanitation service. Service is three times per week at the rear of the house and bulky items cost extra.
It's clear that nearly all UG homeowners would save if we joined the district. The average home assessed at $1.2 million would pay about $390 per year. As a deductible tax, this would net out to only $260 for those who itemize. The break-even point comes at about $1.8 million for those who do not itemize and $2.8 million for those who do. It also sounds like big items are included without additional charge--something we'd like to verify.
Despite these advantages, there's one issue that could trump all the others. Rear pick-up is a real convenience for UG homeowners and helps to maintain the aesthetics of the community. Hauling garbage cans to the curb every other night--sometimes through rain and snow--and hauling them back the next day, while leaving the community strewn with garbage cans during the interim is simply not worth the $1 per day that would be saved. We'd like to know if the district's service comes with rear pick-up or not. As we see it, it's rear pick-up or bust.
The town has called a community meeting at the Jayson Ave. Firehouse on Tuesday July 28 at 7 p.m. and residents would be well-advised to attend. We're sure we'll hear about procedures for getting into the district, but we'd also like to hear about procedures for getting out if it proves to be unsatisfactory. Hopefully, the UG board--having supposedly been studying this issue for years--will also report on what it has learned.
Compromise reached on UG annual charges 07-09-09
The UG board has reached a compromise with a group of residents opposed to the raising of the maximum authorized annual charge in proposed community covenants for the coming 20 years. The deal calls for keeping the ceiling at the current 5 cents (per square foot of land) in 2010, raising it 1.5 cents in 2011 and adding another .75 cents in 2020. Starting January 2011, the ceiling will also be adjusted annually in proportion to the increase--if any--in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
In January, the board had requested signatures from the community on proposed covenants with a ceiling of 10 cents + CPI--a 100% increase over the present ceiling. Over half of UG's homeowners then signed a petition opposing any increase. The board eventually came down to 8 cents + CPI--a 60% increase--but this too was opposed by many residents. Several of them (including yours truly) formed a Concerned Residents Committee which solicited signatures on a new petition to keep the current 5 cent level while allowing for CPI adjustments. As the petition drive picked up steam, the board invited the committee to negotiate.
The outcome was a compromise between the committee's agenda to limit charges and the board's interest in having funding available for capital projects or other contingencies in the future. The average homeowner who now pays $700 per year will pay no more than that in 2010. The ceiling goes to $910 + CPI during the next 9 years and $1,015 + CPI during the final 10 years. In constant CPI-adjusted dollars, the increase in the ceiling is 0% in 2010, 30% in 2011-19 and 45% in 2020-29, for an average of 36% over the full term. The actual annual charge, however, is determined each year by the UG board and could be less than the ceiling.
While these amounts are higher than what the committee wanted and lower than the board's two proposals, a compromise was necessitated by the impending legal deadline of October 1 for renewal of the covenants. The board and the committee are sending a joint letter to the community announcing their cooperation and asking for signatures on the new proposed covenants. Committee members further agreed to directly solicit signatures from about 100 homeowners who had already signed their petition when negotiations commenced. It remains to be seen if a sufficient number of those homeowners will now agree to the compromise.
Gov signs consolidation bill
Mayors blast new law while Newsday takes credit 06-27-09
Gov. David Paterson has signed into law the bill facilitating consolidation of local government that was promoted heavily by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as a means of reducing property taxes. Introduced just prior to the Memorial Day weekend, the bill was passed by the state legislature at breakneck speed earlier this month. Critics charge that the law will not save much if anything. In Orwellian fashion, the law is entitled the New York Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act when it actually strips away existing powers of residents over their own local governments.
The right to dissolve or relinquish functions of a local governmental entity had previously been reserved to its residents. In some cases, the new law hands those rights to the voters of a county who may approve a county-wide consolidation plan while over-riding residents who wish to keep their own local area as it is. In other cases, the law grants a town board the right to summarily dissolve a district upon presentation of a petition signed by only 10% of the district's residents without regard for the wishes of the other 90%.
We have characterized these provisions as a form of expropriation typical of socialist regimes. In somewhat less colorful terms, a series of village mayors around Long Island have also been saying some pretty strong things. Saddle Rock Mayor Leonard Samansky, who heads the Great Neck Village Officials Association, has published letters in local newspapers branding provisions that take away rights reserved to local residents as "unconstitutional." Newsday quotes a series of Long Island village mayors as calling this law: "the biggest mistake the state ever made"; an attack on "the power of self-government"; and an effort by "the most dysfunctional city on the planet" (alluding to Albany's political gridlock) to tell local governments "how to streamline government". The article notes that a group of villages will be challenging this law in court.
Long Island's supposed newspaper of record claims that the new law was "inspired by Newsday stories on wasteful spending and abuses". Having followed their coverage of this issue, we'd say it seemed more like a series of hit pieces over mostly petty issues.
As for the ultimate purpose of all this contention--tax reduction--we know that the state's commission that studied this issue failed to document any appreciable savings from consolidation outside of a few exceptional situations. After the new "Citizen Empowerment Act" strips away our rights and our tax base, we wonder if the state or Newsday will do an objective study of the savings and service reductions that resulted. We also wonder if the politicians who built their careers on this hokum will be held accountable for the damage they caused. Don't hold your breath folks.
Malice in the palace: two NY Senate Dems flip, restoring GOP to power
. . . Albany intrigue viewed as positive for Long Island 06-09-09
A remark attributed to Bismarck goes: those who like laws and sausages shouldn't watch while either one is being made. Yesterday's hijinks in Albany were a perfect example of how unsightly political maneuvering could yet be of legal benefit.
The Democrats have dreamed of taking over the NY Senate for four decades. Finally, last November, they got a 32 to 30 majority and then installed their own leadership. The torrent of big spending, high taxing legislation passed in recent months appears to have been a direct consequence. Politically active upstate tycoon Tom Golisano even announced that he was moving to Florida to escape New York's taxation.
Apparently, Golisano didn't sever all of his New York ties, as he was reported to have "facilitated" the defection of two troubled Democratic senators to the Republican side yesterday. One of them has been charged with slashing his girlfriend and the other with a string of financial improprieties. If the Republicans had any compunctions about doing business with these two they got over them quickly--the new majority voted to oust the Democratic leadership and restore Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Center) as majority leader, the position he had held before the Republicans lost control.
Much of the commentariat notes that Long Island will fare much better with the Republicans back in the driver's seat. In addition to Skelos, several of the most senior senators who will resume their committee chairmanships are from Long Island. Under the new regime, city-driven monstrosities like the new MTA payroll tax are not likely to be repeated. Had the palace coup come a bit earlier, we might also have been spared the Cuomo consolidation bill that passed last week and the huge tax increases adopted in connection with the state's profligate budget two months ago.
While the NY Senate may not be able to overturn these new laws, we expect it to chip away at some of their less palatable aspects. We also expect it to be far more resistant to any push for consolidation of school and park districts and other local governments.
It's unsettling to think that some of our most treasured local institutions may have been enabled to hang on by some murky back-room deal. Considering the alternative, however, we'll be happy to dine on this sausage and please pass the mustard.
UG board reduces proposed fee increase,
but still faces tough sell on new covenants 06-08-09
After proposing renewed community covenants in January that included an increase in the authorized mil rate from $.05 to $.10 per sq. ft., the UG board is now proposing an increase to only $.08. This means that annual charges could rise as much as 60%, rather than 100% as initially proposed. Adjustments for inflation over the 20-year term of the proposed covenants are also included.
For a typical 14,000 sq. ft. UG property, this could mean an increase of up to $420 (i.e., from $700 to $1,120). Since annual UG charges are non-deductible private payments, this would be equivalent to an increase of $630 in deductible local taxes for a typical taxpayer.
The reduction in the proposed mil rate ceiling is evidently a gesture by the board to the majority of UG property owners who signed a petition opposing the original proposal. Whether this is sufficient to tilt the balance in favor of their proposal remains to be seen, as renewal of the covenants requires signatures from owners of at least two-thirds of the community's land area. The legal deadline for renewing the covenants is October 1; failing that, the organized UG community will go out of existence.
When the board's original proposal ran into trouble, it would have been appropriate to quickly poll the community to develop a consensus position. Instead, the board waited until May to hold a special meeting where--incredibly--they merely pushed their original proposal. Since then they have considered alternatives proposed by various residents for smaller increases or phasing in increases in steps during the term of the renewed covenants, but rejected them all.
We regret that the board has taken so much time in pursuing this process. While finally making a small concession to the mass opposition to their plan, they are essentially saying: our way or no way. If more than a third of property owners still refuse to sign, we wonder how close to the October 1 deadline this board will push things until they make a proposal that can pass.
Welcome to the People's Republic of Cuomo-land
. . . AG's consolidation bill passes with almost no deliberation UPDATED 06-03-09
Update: The Cuomo consolidation bill passed the NY State Assembly on Monday and the Senate today, less than two weeks after it was introduced. It is a near certainty that Gov. Paterson--who claims partial credit for this legislation--will sign it into law.
Apparently, the legislature didn't consider it necessary to hold hearings or think too much about how this bill will work in practice. Rather, like a herd of cattle, a huge majority passed it reflexively in the name of the supposed savings from consolidation of local government. The wishes of communities that may be trampled by their stampede to judgment were apparently not deemed worthy of further consideration.
Members of both parties could be found on both sides of the vote, though Republicans were somewhat more opposed than Democrats on Long Island. Great Neck's representatives, Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel and Senator Craig Johnson--both Democrats--voted against the bill. While Johnson released the bill from his committee for the quick vote, he also tried to pass various amendments to soften its blow, but was rebuffed by his colleagues.
The bill will take effect 270 days after enactment. Critics hope that this will provide time for consideration that should have been given prior to passage.
Original Story 05-28-09: NY State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has gotten in on the consolidation action in a big way, introducing a bill in the state legislature that would facilitate the merger or dissolution of special districts and villages. Although this was announced just before the Memorial Day weekend, reports say that the bill will already be voted on by next week. Considering that there is no emergency--districts and villages have been around for a century or two--there appears to be something wrong with this picture. We guess if you're going to pull off a heist, better do it quickly before the public knows what hit them.
In most cases, the bill merely calls for lowering the requirements for putting a proposed merger or dissolution on the ballot, but still requires a majority vote in favor in each affected district or village. However, there are exceptions that would enable counties and towns to ride roughshod over the wishes of residents in individual communities and districts, strip away their functions and assets, and in some cases summarily dissolve them.
The bill allows a county to reorganize functions among itself and the towns, cities, villages and districts within its boundaries subject to a county-wide vote. If a county decided to handle all water supply functions on its own, for example, our understanding is that a county-wide vote would be required to take over all such functions and dissolve all water districts. In effect, the residents of a given area who wish to retain their own water district could be over-ridden by a majority of voters in other areas of the county. This seems rather like giving a vote to Ford and Chrysler shareholders over whether GM should be dissolved.
Even more heavy-handed is a provision that would give a town the authority to dissolve certain special districts (water, sanitation, lighting, snow removal and sewer) merely upon presentation of a petition signed by 10% of the district's voters. Under such circumstances, there would be no requirement to hold a vote at all.
As we predicted in our earlier coverage of this issue, the powers that be are trying to make it easier to pick off the relatively unglamorous districts. They know that the average resident is not likely to get worked up over water or trash collection. But it should be obvious to anyone who follows this issue that they won't be satisfied with those crumbs. If they get away with this law, it won't be long before they come back for the rest of the pie including school and park districts.
When you get past the legal trappings, the Cuomo bill facilitates expropriation without compensation. Residents of a given district or village invest in it for decades, build up the community's assets and develop its services according to its needs and wants. Stripping this away without a vote exclusively reserved to the affected residents is of a character we'd expect in places like Cuba or Venezuela.
We think it's time to take to task the public officials who have facilitated this bill. They should be told that a heist dressed up in legalistic finery is still recognized for what it is: a heist.
GN School District budget adopted by overwhelming margin 05-19-09
The proposed budget of the Great Neck School District was adopted this evening by a vote of 1,453 to 244, a margin of 85.6% to 14.4%. The GN Library budget was only slightly less popular, winning 79% of the vote (1,284 to 335). Voting patterns were nearly identical at polling places for the north and south sides of the district.
The Board of Ed's struggle to design a budget appropriate to the current economic climate clearly was rewarded with a huge vote of confidence from the community. While the public normally adopts the proposed GN school budget by a wide margin, this was among the biggest victories ever according to officials at the South High polling place.
GN to vote on school budget
. . . increase is minimized without benefit of "tax cap" 05-18-09
Voters in Great Neck (and throughout Long Island) will head to the polls on Tuesday May 19 to decide whether to adopt the proposed annual school district budget. Those residing south of the LIRR tracks vote at South High; other GN voters go to the Baker Elementary School. The polls will be open 7 am to 10 pm.
We needn't give you the rah-rah talk about what a great school district we have and why maintaining it is so important. You've heard that here and elsewhere before and we certainly stand by it. A different point, however, needs to be emphasized at this time: Great Neck does not need a state-imposed cap on school property taxes. The state already takes far more from us than it gives back in "aid" and the various mandates it imposes make it ever more expensive to operate the school system. For the state pols to pretend to be giving us "tax relief" by imposing a school spending cap that costs them nothing would only add insult to injury.
The justification for the proposed 4% cap on annual spending growth is that the present system supposedly lacks fiscal discipline, notwithstanding the right of local voters to approve or disapprove the budget proposed by their own elected Board of Education. Nothing debunks this claim more clearly than a review of the budgets proposed this year for Long Island's school districts: the average growth is 2.59% in Nassau and 2.13% in Suffolk. Great Neck's proposed budget is only 2.44% higher than last year's.
What accounts for this drastic slow down in spending growth? We haven't done a study, but it stands to reason that local school boards are actually reflecting the wishes of their constituents in the current recessionary economy. In other words, the democratic process works very nicely at the local level without any help from posturing politicians in Albany.
As we've pointed out before, it is the state that lacks discipline as evidenced by the 8.7% growth in its budget this year--a budget the tax-payers didn't get to vote on. After this colossal act of irresponsibility, Gov. Paterson has now become a born-again state tax capper, proposing to limit state budget growth to 4%--from now on. Which brings to mind a certain President of the United States who talks about saving money now--after having passed the biggest boondoggle spending package in human history.
You gotta love these pols. After gorging themselves, they want the rest of us to go on a diet and maybe they'll join in too. It's bad enough what they do at the state and federal levels, but when it comes to our most precious local asset--our school system--we don't need the kind of help that has been proposed.
Great Neck's voters can send a loud and clear message of independence by going to the polls in large numbers and voting in favor of the proposed budget.
UG covenants and finances: a few more reflections 05-12-09
In the current debate about the UG covenants (see prior article), it may be useful to reflect on the nature of UG finances. The UG Property Owners Association (UGPOA) is a simple organization that operates on the piggy bank model of finance. At the start of each year it collects new coins and then spends them at various times during the year. The goal is to conduct usual operations, undertake small projects and keep a reasonable number of coins in the bank by the end of the year.
The UGPOA should be able to continue operating on this model for years to come at current annual charge levels adjusted for inflation. Yet, the UG board wants to double the ceiling authorized under its proposed new covenants (from 5 cents to 10 cents per square foot) and then index this doubled level for inflation. They say that they would only use this authority in case of a major contingency.
How would this work in practice? Imagine one day in August 2014, it becomes clear that the community pool is on its last legs and must be completely re-built. The board solicits proposals and determines that $600,000 is needed. What would happen then?
Using the piggy bank approach, the board would have to increase the annual charge to the maximum it proposes, saving about $165,000 per year (each penny of annual charges applied to the community's 3.3 million square feet raises $33,000 in revenues). After closing the pool for three or four years, sufficient funds would be saved up to undertake the project and the community would finally get its pool back.
The alternative would be to obtain bank financing so that the reconstruction could be undertaken promptly and any closing of the facility would be minimized. A loan for $600,000 would require roughly $60,000 per year in installment payments over a 15-year term, which works out to less than two pennies in added annual charges.
In this worst case scenario, only a fraction of the increase in authorization that the board seeks would be needed. Moreover, the lost use of the facility would be minimized and the cost of the new construction would be spread out, rather than being foisted entirely on those residents who happen to be here at the time preceding construction. This would be more equitable, as those who are here benefitting from the new facility would be the ones paying for it.
In sum, we think the board's proposed increase in authorization is based on an unworkable and inequitable model and should be rejected.
UG board ignores petition against increased charges at meeting 05-09-09
Over 120 of UG's 215 residential property owners have signed a petition opposing any increase in annual charges under the new covenants proposed by the UG board; probably more would sign if given the chance. You wouldn't have known it, however, from the brave front put up by board members and their supporters Thursday night at the community meeting on renewing UG's covenants.
The meeting started with members of the board and a few supporters on a "committee" giving their spiel for over a half-hour about why the covenants should be renewed with certain changes. Then they invited yours truly to explain our objection. We stated that the covenants should be renewed and that the board's proposal to index the ceiling on annual charges for inflation is reasonable--but we disagree with their proposal to double the ceiling at the outset.
Several members of the committee hotly disputed that this was the case and gave convoluted explanations claiming that they were only trying to keep up with inflation. Fortunately, the board's attorney was in attendance and confirmed precisely what we said. Folks, that's not keeping up with inflation; that's doubling and then keeping up with inflation at the doubled level.
The board then asserted that they wanted a higher authorization just in case of a major unexpected need, but they had no current intention to raise charges. We pointed out that they expressed every such intention only last year when they presented a plan to rebuild the entire pool area for over a half-million dollars (they subsequently back-tracked and gave the pool a repair that should last for 10 to 15 years according to board VP Belfer at the annual meeting in February). They vehemently denied any thought of returning to last year's grandiose scheme.
We also pointed out that they went on a spending spree of over $100,000 off-budget in 2006 when they took office. Board member Bob Leighton denied this, but we advised him to check the board's financial records. The official UGPOA website lists budgets for each year, but the link for 2007 (which includes actual results for 2006) is missing for some strange reason. According to our report at that time, community balances went from roughly $155K to $46K in 2006, the year this group took over.
Given the board's financial history, we argued that it was wiser to keep them on a short leash. If a bona fide need were to arise at some point over the 20-year term of the new covenants, all the board would need to do is explain the situation and get the community's signatures on amendments authorizing higher charges. Board President Sy Coopersmith then warned of the expenses that would be involved in amending the covenants. When we inquired about those specific expenses, it emerged that they would be near zero except for the inconvenience of obtaining signatures.
It was around this point--as most of the board's substantive arguments crumbled--that a series of gratuitous personal attacks were directed at yours truly by persons with whom we are hardly acquainted, starting with one of the board members. Readers should note that this was not the first excursion into ugliness by members and/or supporters of this board. Sometimes the attacks have even been scripted through planted talking points (see article).
It remains to be seen if this board will wallow in these sorts of tactics or if they will focus on the real issues and try to achieve consensus within the community. To be continued.
Johnson caves on MTA payroll tax UPDATED: 05-06-09
Update: Newsday reports an angry reaction to the new MTA payroll tax across Long Island. The new tax of $.34 per $100 will be levied uniformly throughout the twelve-county downstate area served by the MTA, although schools will be reimbursed by the state. Newsday also reports that Senator Johnson may be appointed to the MTA Capital Program Review Board, a body with veto power over MTA capital projects.
Original Article 05-05-09: As we reported recently, State Senator Craig Johnson who represents our area, has been on record opposing, supporting and then opposing again the proposal to impose a payroll tax on employers in twelve downstate counties to fund a bailout of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Last night, it was reported in Newsday that Johnson now supports the MTA payroll tax yet again, following a three hour chat with the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.
Johnson and his fellow Long Island Democrat, Brian Foley, had been the critical holdouts depriving their party of the last two votes needed in the Senate to approve the MTA bailout. Foley reportedly hopes for a reduced payroll tax for his constituency in Suffolk County. There is no indication that any such reduction will apply to Nassau County, though Johnson now feels "comfortable" that schools will not be adversely affected. A payroll tax ranging from .25% to .33% had been under discussion previously.
We note that employers from as far as Montauk Point will be paying to subsidize city subway and bus fares as a result of this bailout, but the toll-free East River and Harlem River bridges will apparently remain free. Senators from those areas refused to allow tolls to be levied for the use of those bridges.
It looks here like tax-payers are being subjected to the death of a thousand slices. Higher county and town property taxes, a new county energy tax and higher state income taxes were some of the new slices already known. Now we're going to have an MTA payroll tax thanks to our very own state senator. And, of course, our UG readers can hardly forget the upcoming meeting this week at which the UG board will attempt to explain why our community should double the authorized limit on annual charges.
Tea party anybody?
Showdown looms on UG covenants 05-01-09
We now shift our focus from the sublime to the ridiculous--the meeting being convened Thursday May 7 by the UG board on the community's restrictive covenants. The need to renew the covenants by the legal deadline of October 1, 2009 was mentioned by the board three years ago when they promised to consult extensively with the community on needed changes in this process that takes place only once in twenty years. As we noted previously (see article), the UG board never followed through on this platform; instead, they summarily distributed the text of their proposal in January and directed the community to sign.
The major change proposed was the immediate doubling of the authorized ceiling on annual charges plus an inflation escalator. This gave rise to a petition in opposition which was signed by half the community. At the annual meeting in February, the board retreated by announcing that they would convene a community meeting shortly to discuss the issue. They also declared that it was all a big misunderstanding, as they had inadvertantly conveyed the impression that they wished to double current charges when they only wanted to double the maximum authorized charges to allow room for changes over the next twenty years.
As we noted in another article, UG operates in financial balance and is able to operate in surplus except when the board feels like spending money. In case of a bona fide financial emergency in the future, the community could always amend its covenants to allow for a higher ceiling if residents were convinced of the need. This might be inconvenient, but the alternative would be to give carte blanche to a group with an established history of spendthrift tendencies.
When this board took over in 2006, over $150,000 was in the community's bank accounts and annual charges and pool fees were substantially lower than at present. By the next year they had spent most of the treasury and raised fees to their present level. Only a year ago, they tried to convince the community about the dire need for a complete overhaul of the pool for about a half-million dollars, but then backtracked and announced that the pool could be repaired for much less money within existing financial parameters. When they say that they only want authorization but have no intention of actually spending so much money, we trust them about as far as we can throw them.
Here we are three months later and the board is finally holding the promised meeting. Time is short and they have to stop playing chicken with the community. Their recent mailing warned that "without the covenants there is no University Gardens" when they themselves are the cause of the delay. They have to drop the objectionable provision and the covenants need to be renewed without delay.
Consolidation campaign to go national?
. . . media water bearer floats proposal in NY Times Op-Ed 04-21-09
After retiring as NBC anchorman a few years ago, Tom Brokaw has remained in the news from time to time: a special report here, a presidential debate there. He's also a tacit Obama supporter, having compared the inauguration in January to Prague's "Velvet Revolution" of two decades ago.
You'd think that a media bigwig emeritus like Brokaw would confine himself to major issues of personal interest at this point in his career. This is why we could scarcely believe our eyes when we spotted this op-ed in yesterday's Times. Among all the issues of national and international import, it seems he has become very concerned about consolidation of local government in New York and in his native Dakotas.
Brokaw's points should be familiar to our readers: consolidation will save money, as a study by a New York State commission claimed. Alas, "parochial" interests--even among Democrats--have scuttled Gov. Paterson's efforts to implement the study's proposals.
We're not going to rehash our discussion of that report and why its supposed savings are mostly illusory, nor are we going to review why those parochial locals oppose consolidation. What is interesting here is that someone of Brokaw's stature has focused on such an obscure issue. This suggests that he has been brought in as a big gun by a high political level that wants very badly to crack the consolidation nut in New York.
As for North and South Dakota, he notes that they have a combined population of only 1.5 million supporting 17 different colleges and suggests combining them into a single consolidated "Dakota Territory College System." We note that the Dakotas are actually two different states and haven't been a "territory" for quite some time. We see here a suggestion that state sovereignty is to be ignored in furtherance of consolidation across state lines.
Brokaw then concludes: "If this is a reset, it's time to reorganize our state and local government structures for today's realities rather than cling to the sensibilities of the 20th century. If we demand this from General Motors, we should ask no less of ourselves." It sounds like he's saying that those who take bailouts, stimulus, TARP, etc. should be ordered to consolidate by the federal government, just as the feds are intervening in the internal management of GM, AIG and other corporations.
Assuming that Brokaw is acting as a mouth-piece for the Obama administration, it would seem at first glance that they see consolidation as a source of savings, but we see something else here. While the ostensible motivation is savings, few if any such savings have ever really been demonstrated. If so, then why go through all the trouble of reorganizing everything?
The answer--as we've been saying for the past two years--is that "consolidation" is really just a code word for collectivization. The supposed savings are just the fig leaf. Our country has elected a redistributionist as its president, and now he's trying to do for our country what certain local forces have tried to do in New York State in recent years.
Be aware. It should be obvious that in the Obama era anything that's not nailed down is up for grabs.
Tea parties, the stimulus and the media
. . . Long Island gets some pork--hooray! 04-19-09
Based on the news reports, you'd think that the hundreds of "tea party" tax protests held around the country on April 15 were the work of horrible, racist, right-wing crazies. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to the masses in attendance as "astroturf" rather than true grass roots participants, while anchors on CNN and MSNBC--acting like adolescents--called these events "tea-bagging parties."
Frankly, we've been sickened on occasion by this administration and its water bearers in the media. The wild and profligate pork barreling spree known as the "stimulus" has been among the worst horrors so far (along with the incremental deconstruction of our homeland and international security). Even if the economy temporarily recovers from the current recession, the cumulative effect of the new debt over the next ten years could progressively turn us into a society of tax slaves--at least the half of our society that pays taxes. We figure the typical Great Neck family will pay around $15,000 per year for the added debt service, over and above existing taxes.
The ten thousand or so participants at New York's tea party at City Hall Park last Wednesday night were concerned enough to show up, as did we and some neighbors. There was simply no evidence of an organized rent-a-mob as Pelosi had gratuitously implied. Those in attendance appeared to be a random collection of all ages and types and they were about as civil as any large group we've ever seen; whatever the police directed, they politely obeyed. Some carried home-made signs with colorful slogans such as: "Free markets, not free loaders"; "If I wanted to be a commie I would have stayed in China"; and, our favorite, "Keep the change."
Clearly this group was anti-Obama, but people groaned when one of the speakers mentioned the racism charge. Apparently, there are those in our society who view our new president as the source of all goodness; to their minds, any public expression of independent thought must be branded illegitimate. Similarly, the media did its best to play up the negative and/or bury the coverage on interior pages. Few gave the protests neutral coverage commensurate with their scale and the importance of the issue.
By way of comparison, check out the front page story in the Long Island section of The New York Times today on the stimulus funding coming our way. Some $150 million for transportation will essentially be used to fill potholes, pave roads, etc. faster than local LI governments otherwise would do. Another $25 million is being used for energy projects in public buildings. The job creation estimate is 3,715 according to a spokeswoman for the governor, who insisted that this was only "the tip of the iceberg."
Nowhere in the article did we see a critical analysis of the significance of this information. For example, 3,715 jobs means that only about 1 in 800 Long Islanders will have employment through these programs over the next year or two while the funding lasts--likely to have only a minimal effect on our regional economy. Nor could we detect any effort to weigh the benefit of these programs against the cost that Long Islanders will have to pay for the stimulus. Nope--all we could see was a glowing account of the benefits being showered upon us by our benevolent government.
Folks--we don't expect everyone to necessarily agree with all the positions we take, but we do hope that our readers will at least feel encouraged to exercise their critical faculties and express their views. We don't live in a banana republic just yet, though we seem to have made a great deal of progress going down that path lately.
Red light cameras coming to Long Island 04-12-09
Cameras that photograph the license plates of cars running red lights will soon be coming to Nassau and Suffolk Counties thanks to bills just passed in the state legislature. Each county will be authorized to operate up to 50 cameras and to impose fines of up to $50 per violation for a five-year trial period. The fines will not include points on the licenses of offenders, as they are based on identification of the vehicle rather than the driver.
While this measure was purportedly motivated by concern for public safety, critics claim that the primary beneficiaries are the local governments that receive the fines and the companies that install and operate the systems. Studies find that cameras actually cause more rear-end collisions because drivers who spot them suddenly screech on their brakes; other studies find reductions in other sorts of collisions.
Among the other issues about these cameras is the inability of the vehicle owner to meaningfully contest a citation when it arrives in the mail several weeks after the infraction. While the public may have mixed feelings about this, the state legislators passed these bills by overwhelming margins.
The road to hell and our local pols 04-04-09
He decried the large budget deficits of the Bush years when running for office, but our new president has just passed a federal budget plan that will incur more debt in the next ten years than in our country's entire prior history. The head of the European Union called this the "road to hell" and China's leaders--America's silent financiers--openly questioned his fiscal responsibility.
The rot is trickling down from the federal to the state and local levels. In the face of possible disaster, our leaders are throwing a big party on borrowed money and borrowed time. Stimulus funds that should have been used for economic restructuring will instead be used by New York and other states to temporarily sustain their bloated budgets, and many of the local "shovel-ready" projects receiving such funds will shovel little more than money to favored constituents. There's no indication that the Obama administration is objecting to any of this use--or misuse--of the funds.
Congressman Gary Ackerman's website proudly announces where some of this spending is going so far. The list of stimulus projects in Queens looks like a couple of old-fashioned earmark projects. Another list of project requests looks like a who's who of community pork. How most of these projects could have more than a token effect on the economy seems beyond rational comprehension.
As for our state, its newly adopted budget will raise total expenditures by 8.7% in the face of a severe economic downturn and the shrinkage of the state's Wall Street tax base. To the extent that stimulus funds fail to cover the increase, the state will raise taxes on most everything and everyone, especially high earners--a sure formula for driving even more of the tax base out of the state.
Amid this flight from reality, NY State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli--Great Neck's former Assemblyman--stands out as a profile in courage. Having been sponsored for his job by Speaker Silver and his colleagues in the Assembly over the wishes of then-Governor Spitzer, it could not have been easy for him to part ways with them over this budget. DiNapoli's press release states: "My preliminary review of the budget indicates it does not adequately respond to today's economic realities." In Bureaucratese, that's a pretty searing indictment. His statement goes on to characterize the budget as overly reliant on the "short-term fix" of stimulus funds and new projected tax revenues at a time of declining collections--in other words: wishful thinking. He states that New York could go "right back where we started, with huge budget gaps and an unsustainable level of spending." Apparently, his colleagues aren't listening, but at least DiNapoli is on record as one of the few adults among the state's Democratic leaders.
In contrast, we give this week's golden waffle award to State Senator Craig Johnson. As we reported recently, Johnson was originally on record opposing the payroll tax proposed in the Ravitch plan to rescue the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Then in mid-March he suddenly announced his support for a slightly lower MTA payroll tax, sparking angry protests from local school systems that are some of Long Island's biggest employers. It seems that Johnson is again opposing the MTA payroll tax, having been named in a Daily News editorial this week as one of the State Senate "bums" standing in the way of a solution. We think Johnson has generally been a stand-up public official, but he mis-stepped badly on the MTA issue. If he changes position yet again, he may go down for the count in the next election.
On the budget vote itself, Johnson went along with the Democratic majority, as did DiNapoli's successor in the State Assembly, Michelle Schimel. We wonder how their constituents will react to the raising of state income taxes from the current maximum of 6.85% to an additional 1% for couples earning $300k-$500k and more than 2% for those earning above $500k, reaching nearly 9%--a 31% increase over the current maximum.
Among the frustrated efforts of the Senate Republicans was a proposed amendment to the state constitution to cap annual increases in spending to 4% or 120% of inflation, whichever is less. This is the identical formula used in the proposed tax cap for school property taxes. Johnson's office put out a high-pitched statement justifying why he opposed this measure, but we think our state would have been in much better shape if it had been adopted instead of the monstrous 8.7% increase.
Readers may recall that we called precisely for a tax cap in Albany rather than a cap on school property taxes in our discussion of this issue last year. Clearly, the Democratic majority in Albany isn't ready for that message, yet our County Executive Tom Suozzi--the father of the school tax cap proposal--has called for a taxpayer "revolt" over school taxes. We're not quite sure whether he has jumped the shark or what he exactly means by this, but we don't exactly expect to see him at the "tea parties" the Republicans have called for April 15 to protest the march to hell by the federal government.
What we do know is that unlike federal and state budgets, local communities get to vote on their school budgets. While school taxes are large, property owners know that they are getting something for their money in terms of their children's education and the value of their properties. Those who oppose their school taxes are always free to vote against them or vote with their feet by moving to another community. Our state's leaders seem to wilfully forget this, just as they have forgotten that New Yorkers are free to vote with their feet by leaving the state. We hope that the damage the pols are causing isn't permanent.
Love that "change" 03-24-09
Americans who voted for "change" last November may soon be getting more than they bargained for. Incident to the planned closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison for terrorism detainees, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that some of the inmates the government declines to prosecute may soon be released into the U.S. homeland.
The prior administration had viewed the detainees as "enemy combatants" to be incarcerated for the duration of the war on terror. Holder says that this term will no longer be used and that the government will only hold those whose affiliation to terrorist groups was "substantial." This means, in effect, that detainees known to have had lesser degrees of affiliation to terrorist groups will be released.
Aside from the sheer insanity of allowing known terrorist affiliates into this country, admission of such persons is barred by U.S. law. This implies that the administration will relax the stringent application of provisions that had previously been used to deny visas to an assortment of pro-terrorist academics, clergymen, etc. who may soon be enjoying freedom to peddle their wares in this country.
We can also see a few other changes in the pipeline as a consequence of the new policy. Perhaps a few of the released inmates will be lawyered up to make appearances on talk shows. Better yet, some could gain the backing of advocacy groups to sue Bush, Cheney, et. al. for their "unlawful" detention and then forum shop until they find an activist judge willing to entertain the suit. In sum, they and their supporters will be tacitly permitted by the Obama administration to turn the war on terror into a three-ring media circus--precisely what the Bush administration had sought to prevent by keeping them off-shore.
So folks, thanks to the changes announced by the new administration, unindicted comrades of the people who brought us 9-11 may soon be among us. You may never know for sure when you encounter one of them. Perhaps it will be that waiter or cab driver with the fierce look in his eye--we hope he'll be satisfied with the tip you leave.
Feathers fly over proposed MTA payroll tax 03-21-09
Two days ago, we were treated to an extraordinary e-mail from the GN South High PTSA stating: "Our newly elected New York State Senator, Craig Johnson, has voted in a manner that has betrayed our interests, and will be detrimental to our community." The e-mail charged that Johnson is supporting a proposal to tax payrolls at a rate of one-quarter of a percent to raise funds for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, costing over $250,000 to the GN school system. The e-mail urged that protest letters be sent to Johnson stating: ". . . you are trying to solve the MTA's problems at the expense of our school children. Show us that you are actually representing the interests of those who elected you. Withdraw your support for the MTA Payroll tax so that we may continue to support you."
We contacted Sen. Johnson's Chief of Staff, Rafe Lieber, later that day to clarify what is going on. Lieber stated that Johnson had not yet voted on anything, but that he did support the quarter percent payroll tax--which is lower than the one-third of a percent payroll tax originally proposed in the Ravitch Plan that is supported by Gov. Paterson and the NY State Assembly. Moreover, the $250,000 that would be owed by the GN school system would comprise only one-seventh of a percent of its total budget--an amount he asserted could readily be raised through property taxes. Without the payroll tax, Lieber said that fares on the LIRR and other mass transit would rise more than 20% among other consequences.
For the other side of the story, we contacted the GN South High PTSA and they referred our inquiry over to Jimmy Kwong of the GN United Parent-Teacher Council. Kwong stated that Johnson had flip-flopped recently after opposing the MTA tax and that the sudden imposition of this tax could not be compensated from taxes. As for the preliminary budget for the coming school year, Kwong said that the new tax would "greatly complicate" it after it had already been crafted with "extreme difficulty" at a "bare bones" level.
Our research confirms that Johnson was indeed on record opposing the MTA payroll tax until recently. So far, we haven't been able to get an explanation from his office as to why he has changed position. The Ravitch Plan--proposed by former MTA head Richard Ravitch--foresees the immediate imposition of the payroll tax, while school budgets run July 1-June 30 and are developed and voted on during the preceding months. Consequently, the present school budget--formulated in the spring of 2008--never anticipated the $125,000 that the MTA tax would levy off-budget from the GN school system's bank account by June 30, 2009. Similarly, the preliminary budget for the 2009-10 school year that was crafted with such "extreme difficulty" would now face the added $250,000 annual payment for the MTA.
While the total magnitude of the MTA payroll tax is not large on the scale of the entire school system budget, it is one more slice of the proverbial salami. The preliminary school budget for the coming year is only about 2.5% above the current budget, but residential school property taxes will probably rise by a higher percentage due to probable decreases in state aid and the shifting of the taxation burden from commercial to residential properties. Then our state pols will bewail our high property taxes--after playing a key role in causing them--and will call for a tax cap.
We should also note in passing that the proposed MTA payroll tax would also apply to self-employed persons, which makes it effectively an income tax on the self-employed. A self-employed person earning $200,000 per year could expect to pay $500 more per year for the MTA tax supported by Sen. Johnson.
We think our PTSA and Mr. Kwong have it right--there's no room left for additional slices. While Senator Johnson may be caught in the middle between advocates of an even higher payroll tax and his constituents who are continually being squeezed, we think he owes us a credible explanation for his change of position.
Consolidation provisions dropped from state budget bill 03-12-09
We hear from reliable sources that consolidation provisions that had been mysteriously slipped into the state budget bill have been dropped. As we reported last month, an unprecedented rally to oppose those provisions was convened by the Great Neck Park District. Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel spoke at the rally about the challenge in catching such provisions buried in the text of massive, unrelated legislation and in convincing upstate legislators to refrain from such measures.
A number of provisions had been proposed that would bar salary and insurance benefits for commissioners, lighten petition requirements for calling a referendum on dissolving special districts and villages, and transfer commissioner-run sanitation districts to the towns. We do not yet know whether all or only some of those provisions have been dropped, nor can we say with certainty that the provisions will not be slipped back in again in the hurly-burly legislative process.
Send in Bening! 02-28-09
Once upon a time--in the troubled pre-Obama era of American history--when a crisis erupted somewhere in the world, the battle cry was: "Send in the Marines!" Maybe they weren't the most sensitive guys, but they sure knew how to fight and win a battle when you needed them.
Times have changed and the country is enthralled to a new administration that advocates smart power over mere military power. In its first application of this new doctrine, the Obama administration has embarked on a process of engagement with Iran, a country ruled by a fanatical regime on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. As the first step in that process, they have come up with a bold stroke that no one ever dreamed possible before: instead of sending in the Marines, they are sending in Bening. That is, actress Annette Bening.
It was announced yesterday that Ms. Bening is on her way to Iran leading a cultural delegation intended to help thaw out U.S.-Iranian relations. We're sure this move must already have the Iranian president and his terrorist minions quaking in their boots. Not only is Ms. Bening one of America's top thespians and a big Obama supporter, but she also brings important diplomatic qualifications to the table.
In The Grifters she showed ample guile that could come in handy during negotiations. Moreover, the R-rated scenes demonstrated her skill at subverting male-dominated cultures. The Iranian clerics are undoubtedly prepping for her arrival by studying those scenes for clues to her diplomatic strategy.
Ms. Bening also has direct Middle East experience. In The Siege, she played a CIA controller whose agent commits terrorism on the streets of Brooklyn as revenge for the U.S. leaving Iraq in 1991, abandoning the Shiites to be slaughtered by the Saddam regime. Of course, the Obama campaign claimed the opposite last year--that it was the presence of U.S. troops that was the source of the troubles in Iraq. Well--nevermind.
We sincerely hope the new administration's approach to the most sensitive security issue in the world today is successful, no matter how far-fetched it may seem. For that matter, we hope their economic policies--massive new social welfare programs at a time of economic downturn--also succeed somehow. If not, then heaven help us all.
Robocalls from Obama campaign office pound Schimel on consolidation 02-24-09
They say that revolutions devour their own, so we're not so surprised that an attack was launched last week on our NY State Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel (D-Great Neck) via automated calls from the office of an Obama campaign group. We're only surprised by the speed of the apparent falling out.
As we reported last December, the Obama campaign is pressing on as a parallel movement to the Democratic party. At the behest of the campaign, house parties were held across the nation before Christmas to kick off the new grass roots movement for "change."
Apparently, someone in control of the phones at one of the former campaign's constituent groups doesn't like Ms. Schimel's opposition to the effort to consolidate local government. The caller ID at our home indicates that the robocall came from a phone belonging to Yes We Can! Long Island, a major Obama campaign group. The phone number connected to that ID is listed on the group's website as a main number for their Merrick/Bellmore office, but our calls to that number were never answered by a live person nor were our messages returned.
We sent an email to a contact person listed on the group's website, however, and we received a friendly, if cryptic, response. This person advised that the group's phones had been left in the control of someone who had been their co-leader, but left after the election. On the other hand, the group was now relaunching itself at a "Founding Convention" to be held on March 21 at a hall in Glen Cove.
Precisely who was behind the attack on Ms. Schimel remains a bit murky, but there clearly was a connection of some kind to the former Obama campaign on Long Island. Our email to the former co-leader of Yes We Can! Long Island was not returned. We also called Ms. Schimel's office; while acknowledging that the calls had taken place and had mentioned Ms. Schimel, they refused to provide any further information on the matter.
County legislators vote for 2.5% sales tax on energy 02-24-09
Just when you were celebrating the fall in oil prices, Nassau County has decided to share some of your savings with you. The county legislature voted yesterday in favor of a 2.5% sales tax on home heating oil, gas and electricity to help close a $130 million deficit. The measure must still be approved by the NY State legislature before it takes effect.
The vote followed a raucous day of hearings at which various residents and interest groups berated the legislators over possible cuts in their favored programs. In a straight party line vote of 10-9, the legislature's Democratic majority decided to minimize the pain on the demand side for government funding by spreading the pain on the suppliers of the funding. Part of their rationale was that other nearby counties already have sales taxes on energy, so it was time to end Nassau's exemption.
This new slice should only cost about $100 to $200 per year depending on the energy bill of a given household. Coming on top of rising town and county taxes, however, cumulative higher taxes may start to become more noticeable.
Board defends record at annual meeting as town officials promise service
. . . sanitation reform was delayed due to consolidation issue 02-12-09
The UG Property Owners Association meeting was finally held on Tuesday night and a good portion of its three-hour length was consumed by residents peppering the board with skeptical questions. We estimate upwards of 70 people in attendance, making it one of the best attended meetings in memory. The board struck a somber and somewhat contrite tone about some admitted errors, but also tried hard to defend itself. We almost started to feel sympathy over their predicament.
Then again, let's remember: this is the group that sowed hysteria in our community over the attempt by the prior board (led by yours truly) to plot a course towards becoming an independent village that could address problems neglected by the town. Now--after three years under Team Town--people have noticed those problems are still with us. This time it wasn't your humble correspondent going out on a ledge by himself to face their shrieking minions; one resident after another raised point after point about the performance of the board or the town. It was a sad spectacle, but a necessary venting of growing frustrations.
The first failure that stood out was the lack of communication that reached its apotheosis last week when numerous residents showed up at the originally scheduled time for the annual meeting having no idea that it had been canceled. The board inherited a good functioning website three years ago, but declined to use it on grounds that it wasn't needed by people who had "real lives." They admitted that they didn't post the cancellation on-line because they don't know how to use their website. Apparently, they have a paid consultant who occasionally posts materials for them, adding needless cost and delay to the process of informing the public.
After apologizing over this mess, they introduced Town Councilwoman Lee Seeman who stated that the town was ready to pave a portion of UG's roads each year and only needed to know which roads the community wanted to have paved first. She also mentioned the town's new tree program for UG which will start with an intern arborist this summer.
Vice President Andrew Belfer explained that he and President Sy Coopersmith had met with Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman to urge the development of a "master plan" for UG's trees. Belfer said that Kaiman agreed to have the master plan proceed. First, the intern will conduct a survey of all public trees and then 20% to 25% of the trees will be pruned each year.
We note that this must have sounded great to residents who are not familiar with the history of this issue and don't know that this is only the latest of many similar promises made and forgotten by the town over the past five years. As documented ad nauseum on this website, this has included explicit promises of funding by Kaiman himself at UG meetings in 2006 and 2007. In fact, the town already had a tree service company survey and report on UG's trees three years ago, yet they refused to release that report to us when we filed a freedom of information request for it. Now, the necessary work will be held off again on grounds that another survey is needed. Until there is regular pruning work being conducted, this promise merits no credence in our view.
We are also baffled by the town's largesse in promising road paving, when their own capital plan through 2012 (posted in an earlier article) does not include any UG roads after 2008. Of course, they write the plans and can amend them as they see fit. We'll see.
After Councilwoman Seeman concluded her remarks, the discussion moved on to the budget. Board member Bob Leighton noted that extensive mechanical work was being conducted at the pool. The financial statements showed that $30,000 had been saved in 2008 largely through the postponement of planned capital work, leaving the treasury with a $100K+ balance. A modest deficit is planned for 2009, however, when $60,000 is expected to be spent on the pool. Throughout his presentation, Leighton was persistently challenged by a resident who felt that the financial statements were lacking in detail. For example, the resident questioned why there was an office expense when the community has no office. Leighton explained the meaning of this item and insisted that the board's expenditures were reasonable, notwithstanding any lack of detail in the financial reports.
A discussion of UG's sanitation then ensued. Pres. Coopersmith declared that he considered current rates about right. One resident said that he had previously lived in the Village of Great Neck Estates and had never paid a separate charge for sanitation services. Leighton suggested that the sanitation expense was covered in his former village tax--which was high--but the resident insisted that his total taxes in UG seemed even higher. [Ed.: We published a comparison of UG with Great Neck Estates and Russell Gardens two years ago. Our finding was that the total taxation burden in UG--including sanitation--was about the same or slightly lower than in Great Neck Estates, though the latter offered far superior services and facilities.]
Town Supervisor Kaiman popped in as the sanitation discussion was ongoing. He declared that UG had not been included in the town's existing sanitation district because legislation was waiting at the state level to expand the district boundaries. In response to one resident's declaration that a village would solve this problem, he declared that forming a village would be "stupid" because he claimed it would involve too much expense. We pointed out to him that nothing had been done in several years to solve UG's high sanitation costs, currently about $50 per month in after-tax funds whereas the going rate in nearby communities was about half that amount, paid in deductible local taxes. In response to our suggestion that UG could form its own sanitation district, he claimed that this would be costly due to the small size of the community and said that it would run counter to the current effort to consolidate districts.
It became clear from this discussion that UG's sanitation problem has been sitting on the burner for the past three years largely because the town (and the UG board) have been waiting to see how the consolidation campaign plays out. The possibility of joining the town's existing district was already discussed at a UG meeting in 2006, but no further action was taken. Although joining this district would save some marginal money, we question whether it offers rear pickup or other service features without which we'd prefer not to join. The town won't move on giving UG a district of its own because that would run counter to its consolidation agenda. The net result has been three years of dithering while each UG home has overpaid $300+ per year for a total loss per home of about $1,000 so far.
Kaiman was also told by a resident that the 311 call center which has been a centerpiece of his administration has often been non-responsive. The resident advised him of code violations in the commercial properties adjacent to her yard that never get solved despite her numerous calls. He explained that there were limits to the town's ability to address every situation and that code violations take time to solve. The essence of the resident's complaint--that 311 is often non-responsive and/or that town code enforcement is often ineffective--largely went unanswered.
The board also discussed the community's pool. VP Belfer explained that the board's engineering consultant had erroneously concluded last year that the pool only had two or three years of life remaining and that, as a consequence, the board had erroneously told the community at last year's meeting that a half-million dollars would be needed to repair or replace the pool. Further study by others revealed that the pool had 10 to 15 years of life remaining after all, provided that needed work was performed. He expected that the $60,000 project to be performed this spring would bring the pool up to grade and that pool-related expenses should go back to normal thereafter. Belfer insisted to a questioner that several parties had been asked for bids and that the contract had been awarded to the lowest qualified bidder.
After completing their review of the past year, the board asked for a vote on its re-election. Embarrassingly, only a few hands went up in favor and we can't recall any request for votes opposed. Since they were running unopposed in any case, the board decided that it had been re-elected unanimously and had the record so noted.
The meeting moved on to its final and possibly most contentious business: the extension of the community's covenants for the next 20-year period. Board attorney Richard Gabriele explained his preference for not making too many changes in the original text since issues of enforceability might arise.
Responding to a resident who had gathered signatures from nearly half the community's residences opposing the doubling of the mil tax ceiling (from 5 cents to 10 cents), VP Belfer admitted that the board had erroneously stated in its letter that they intended to double the annual charge when they only wanted to double the maximum allowable charge. They had no intention of actually raising charges so much at this time and only wanted to have the authority available in case expenses go up over the next 20 years. Nevertheless, many residents remained opposed to granting that authority. Belfer also seemed to acknowledge that it had been a mistake to present the proposed covenant changes as a done deal and said that another meeting would be convened soon to get community input and try to reach consensus before soliciting signatures for the new covenants.
In sum, the meeting ended with the board explaining and back-tracking on many key points including covenants, annual charges, pool maintenance and website/communications. The board's absurd position that UG currently pays the right price for its sanitation service may also end up being revised, depending on whether we join a town sanitation district. The bright spot of the evening was the announcement by Councilwoman Seeman that more UG roads will be paved, notwithstanding their absence from the town's paving plan. As for the town's new "Master Plan" for UG's trees, believing it will require the triumph of optimism over experience.
Finally, we note that talk of "village" was heard from a couple of different people in the room and it didn't sound like such a dirty word anymore. Whether this trend grows or fades out may depend on how the town performs over the next few months.
Memo to Long Island: meet your new (secret) government
. . . biggest story in LI history buried in obscure back-page article 02-09-09
We've never been a big fan of conspiracy theories--except when there actually is a conspiracy. Generally, things are more or less as the official stories have them, allowing for a certain amount of spin by the political class. The campaign to consolidate local government, however, seems more amenable to conspiratorial explanation because the official rationales simply don't add up.
The glimmer of an explanation is now starting to emerge from the shadows. Covering what is probably the single biggest story in the modern history of Long Island, Newsday put this article on page A21 of its print edition yesterday. Entitled "New group's call to action", the article focuses on an entity you've probably never heard of before: the Long Island Regional Planning Council. Notwithstanding its banal, bureaucratic sounding name, this secretive and unaccountable entity is now in the process of asserting more control over your community and region than any accountable, elected entity ever has.
Originally known as the Long Island Regional Planning Board, this entity was recently reconstituted as a "council". This status allows it to receive funding for its activities from private sources. Unlike its predecessor, the council is an independent entity--which means that it does what it wants and is not under the control of the planning boards of its two constituent counties.
According to the article, the council recently named its team of consultants to draft its "blueprint" for the region. This is not a study, according to its executive director Michael White, but rather an action plan for Long Island. In furtherance of that plan, a "highly unusual" and "unpublicized" meeting was held last Monday including the two county executives, four of Long Island's five members of Congress, Senator Schumer and a top aide to Governor Paterson. Congressman Timothy Bishop is quoted saying: "I don't think I've ever been to a meeting like that," adding "But it's exactly the kind of thing we have to be doing."
The immediate impetus for the meeting was the rush to identify "shovel ready" projects to grab funding from the economic stimulus package expected to pass Congress in the coming days. But beyond this immediate agenda, the meeting also focused on a "second phase of likely funding where "game changing" projects--ones that will have the widest possible effect on the region's economy--could move forward quickly."
Planning boards usually take years to vet major projects, hold public hearings, assess impacts, etc. We find something terribly unsettling--even totalitarian--in the talk of "game changing" projects with the "widest possible effect" being planned to "move forward quickly" under the aegis of an obscure entity that meets in secret and is accountable to no one. It's clear that speed is of the essence to secure federal funding for projects that are "shovel ready" and have already been vetted, but frankly, we recoil at being railroaded into "game changing" projects that have never gone through the normal public process. No one should be allowed to change anyone's game without due consideration, no matter how many pots of gold are being dangled as bait.
Oh, and by the way, the 'game changes' mentioned in the article include "educating the region, its governments and community activists to wean themselves from the sprawl of single-family homes, focus on developing main streets with rentals and housing that is affordable, the sewers to support higher densities and create commercially and culturally vibrant downtowns. It also means dealing with the region's high cost of energy, schools and property taxes, and the needs of its poor."
There you have the entire agenda of consolidation, tax-caps, etc. being pushed in the last two or three years in a nutshell. We intuited much of this back in September when we tried to figure out what the town was up to with its abortive accessory apartment law (see article), but now it is being spelled out explicitly. The powers that be seem to already know what Long Island is going to look like, practically without any hearings or consent of the governed. It's a matter for the rest of us serfs to be 'educated' away from that dark nasty "sprawl" of single-family homes to the bright sunshine of rentals and affordable housing. And we better do it in a hurry or else we may miss out on all that wonderful federal funding.
According to the article, two hearings (Feb. 26 and Mar. 26) are being convened where municipal and community leaders and the wider public will have "input." In our humble opinion, these are going to be dog and pony shows--the basic plan was already determined somewhere else two or three years ago and the attempt at an end-run is already underway.
People--it's time to hold your public officials accountable for their actions. It's only your homes, schools, parks and communities that are at stake.
Great Neck rallies against threat of consolidation
. . . Weitzman: What threat? 02-07-09
In a rebuke to the politicians pushing for consolidation of local government, the Great Neck Park District hosted a spirited rally Thursday night to push back against this effort. Hundreds of residents of Great Neck and other Long Island communities braved the frigid weather to fill the auditorium of the Baker Elementary School and the expansion room behind it to oppose the consolidation effort. Many town and county officials were in the audience along with commissioners of various districts. The panel consisted of State Senator Craig Johnson and Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel who are opposed to the consolidation effort, and County Comptroller Howard Weitzman who has been one of its leading exponents.
A source informed us that Weitzman--rumored to be a candidate for county executive this year--specifically requested to be included on this panel. We admire his fortitude stepping into the lion's den to explain his position, but we think he left the room with a few claw marks to show for his effort. Saddle Rock Mayor Leonard Samansky, who serves as President of the Great Neck Village Officials Association, declared that County Executive Tom Suozzi and Weitzman "instead of looking at our cash register should look at their own." One member of the audience compared Suozzi, Weitzman, Gov. Paterson and Attorney General Cuomo to the British royals who taxed the American colonies without representation, concluding that these modern "royals" should "go away" and leave the colonies alone.
The event started with an overview of the issue by GNPD Commissioner Robert Lincoln, who noted that he and his fellow commissioners had been following the consolidation campaign for years and had now reached the point of calling for public action to combat it. Associations have recently been formed among various special districts to try to act as an interest group on this subject alongside other interested groups such as the New York Conference of Mayors. Although this event was initiated by the Park District, Lincoln stated that its impact was now reaching far beyond Great Neck. His chief concern was the threat of middle of the night legislation in Albany, as bills had already been introduced that would eliminate pay and insurance coverage for commissioners and would mandate the transfer of commissioner-run sanitation districts to the towns without the consent of the affected residents.
Lincoln was followed by Mayor Samansky who declared that our local governments are "of the people and by the people" and that "local government is the most efficient government that there is." He said of the consolidation campaign "this is not about service, this is about money," leaving little doubt that he regards it as an effort by a hungry county to devour the resources of villages and districts.
Assemblywoman Schimel came across as a passionate defender of local government and said that everyone upstate knows about the Town of North Hempstead and its multitude of villages and districts. She described her struggle to get her upstate colleagues to understand our local circumstances and to prevent stealth legislation from being adopted. Similarly, Senator Johnson spoke about how his upstate colleagues see the issue differently and noted that he was the great dissenter on a high percentage of the recommendations made by the state commission on consolidation. All the same, he stated that he would be standing with Comptroller Weitzman on election day.
Weitzman then took the mike and immediately noted that he received less applause than the other speakers. He insisted that he--a former Mayor of Great Neck Estates--would never support anything that would "weaken control" of villages or take away control of the parks from the GNPD.
In fact, he questioned why people were up in arms when there was no threat of compulsory consolidation at all, and the only changes being made would merely streamline the process when a majority votes in favor of consolidation. Well--actually--he said, he made one exception because the county's study of consolidating sanitation services was too compelling and could save Nassau residents $14 - $20 million [Ed.: we will have a follow-up on this claim]. And he also called for dissolving certain water districts that he claimed didn't do anything; he also did another study that claimed that certain water districts hoarded too much money. He also called for the statutory elimination of pay for commissioners on the grounds that commissioners outside of Nassau County are not paid. Opponents of the latter proposal argue that commissioner pay is minimal, and in any case, this should be decided by local voters and not by the state.
While that may be it for Weitzman's wish list, we note that Suozzi announced in 2007 that he wanted to consolidate sewers. In December 2008, Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman announced a consolidation study for ambulance service, and consolidation reports were recently completed by consultants working for Suozzi on a range of services. Those reports were partially paid for by the private Rauch Foundation, which called for drastic consolidation of Long Island's school systems in a recent study. Suozzi also called for compulsory consolidation of small school districts in a report by the state commission on school taxes that he chaired. Even Attorney General Cuomo is getting in on the action, issuing proposals for streamlining the consolidation process--something normally left to the legislature.
If Weitzman believes that there is no threat of consolidation without consent of the governed, the members of the audience made it clear that they understood the salami tactics being employed. While few opinions were changed by the event, it clearly put Suozzi, Weitzman and other consolidators on notice that they may pay a penalty at the polls if they push for consolidation against the will of affected residents. Many of our local politicians have come out in favor of strictly voluntary consolidation, including Senator Johnson, Assemblywoman Schimel and our County Representative Judi Bosworth. We think our "royals" would do well to pay similar heed to public sentiment.
UG board AWOL--3rd annual meeting in a row postponed 02-04-09
In its approach to communicating with the public, the UG board reminds us of kids on their way to the dentist. They twist, squirm, run amok and remember overdue homework that must be done immediately. Eventually--when it becomes clear that there's no way out--they take their place in the chair and face the drill. It's usually not so bad in the end, but the ritual repeats itself every year just the same.
Last night, the UG board went 3 for 3 in postponing the annual meeting. This time they didn't even bother to tell anyone--except, perhaps, some of their friends. It seems that even the firehouse didn't hear anything, as they directed people up to the hall which was set up for the meeting. About 15 to 20 residents showed up between 8 and 9 p.m. and waited around for some sign of life from our fearless leaders. No sign was posted and no one was sent by the board to inform people of the postponement.
Finally, some of those present started calling board members at home. None would come to the phone, though messages were conveyed by others in their homes that the meeting had been canceled, allegedly due to the snow.
The simple truth is that the snow wasn't so bad, but this board was apparently happy to clutch at any straw it could find. Facing a petition opposing their attempt to double the fee ceiling and general dissatisfaction over their performance, we wouldn't be surprised if they postponed the next meeting because a groundhog named Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow.
This is your community board folks. Can you believe it?
Lies, damned lies and statistics
. . . yet another consolidation report grabs at local tax bases 02-01-09
Statistics can be worse than overt falsehoods when they give an air of mathematical objectivity to misleading statements. We were treated to an example on Friday when our president justified the urgency of adopting his "stimulus" package by stating: "Today we learned that our economy shrank in the last three months of 2008 by 3.8%." What actually happened is that the economy shrank by nearly 1% in that quarter-year period--a rate of 3.8% per year. While that's bad enough, this slippery statement presented the total shrinkage as four times its actual amount.
The advocates of school consolidation seem to be engaging in similar legerdemain with a new report that was given a big roll-out today on the front page of the Long Island section of The New York Times. Replete with statistics and graphs, the report was issued by LongIslandIndex.org, a website sponsored by the Rauch Foundation. In mid-2007, Rauch granted several hundred thousand dollars towards Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi's hiring of consultants to draft a consolidation plan for the county. No one has heard anything from Suozzi about that plan since then, though he has recently chaired a state commission that recommended capping school taxes and compulsory consolidation of small school districts.
The main issue identified in the new study is that some school districts spend as much as $25,000 per student annually and others as little as $17,000. In districts with low commercial tax bases, such as Roosevelt, 90% of the tax collections come from residents whereas residents of districts with large commercial tax bases may only pay as little as 30% of the taxes. What's more, the districts with lower tax bases tend to have higher percentages of black and Latino kids. The net conclusion, in so many words, is that if we only consolidated Long Island's 125 school districts into 15, equality would reign and all would be well.
The most obvious flaw we detect in this study is the way it picks on the most extreme examples to present its case. In reality, only a few thousand dollars per student separate most of the higher spending and lower spending districts.
As to the complaint that the homeowners of Roosevelt pay over 90% of their school system's taxes, readers are left with the misimpression that this is where the bulk of its school funding comes from. Nowhere did we see mention of the fact that residential property taxes there only cover a fraction of that district's budget, while the majority of its funds come from state aid. Neither did the report mention that state aid ultimately comes from the tax payments of residents of higher income areas. By comparison, how much aid does Great Neck get? Answer: about 5% of total spending per pupil.
Alas, that's not enough for the Rauch Foundation; any disparity at all gets them worked up. For example, in better off districts the student to teacher ratio is about 13 to 1, whereas it's 15 to 1 in the less well off districts. In the richer districts 97% of the teachers have master's degrees whereas in the poorer districts it's only 82%.
We simply don't see a compelling case in these numbers. Given the consolidation agenda of this organization, we'd say that this is just another attempt at helping the pols get their hands on the tax bases and authority of local communities over their own local affairs. Our advice: just say no.
Ten questions for the UG board 01-28-09
1. Budget: Does the board have any specific spending plans that would necessitate a large increase in annual charges? If so, what are they? If not, why has the board proposed doubling the ceiling on annual charges? If present annual charges are sufficient, why not simply index the present ceiling for inflation?
2. Pool: After declaring at last year's annual meeting that the pool would have to be replaced or overhauled for hundreds of thousands of dollars, the board later revised its position and declared that the pool could be repaired within existing financial parameters. Is the board sticking with that position? Are those repairs being made?
3. Covenants: Why has the board done so little homework on the covenants in three years time? What has become of the promise to convene a consultative committee of residents to develop revisions? Is the board willing to revise its proposal or is it presenting the community with a take-it or leave-it proposition?
4. Sanitation: What has the board done to solve the problem of overpriced sanitation charges? After three years of studying sanitation districts or other solutions what has the board concluded?
5. Communications: Why is substantive communication from the board limited to an occasional postcard? Why does the board fail to use its web-site? Why is there no newsletter?
6. Roads: Why did the board send a postcard to residents claiming that the town has a five-year plan for paving the community's roads that goes beyond the two roads paved last year, when the town's plan lists no other paving in UG through 2012?
7. Trees: After the town supervisor promised $10,000 in 2006 and $50,000 in 2007 for the pruning of UG's trees and then failed to follow through, what did the board do about it? Why hasn't there been any follow up or explanation to the community?
8. Zoning: Last summer the town adopted a law that opened the door to renting accessory apartment units within existing homes in single-family zoned areas such as UG. Other communities were up in arms until the law was repealed, but nothing was heard from the UG board. Does the board have a position on this issue? Will it oppose similar attempts in the future?
9. Sidewalks: Two years ago the board promised to raise the issue of the ridiculous checkerboard sidewalks that the town created through its repair practices. What became of those discussions? Has the town undertaken to at least avoid this in the future or can we expect more of the same?
10. Disclosure of Interests: When running for office three years ago, the board circulated a letter claiming that its members had close relationships with the town. Shouldn't the details of those relationships be disclosed so residents can assess whether or not they could conflict with the community's interests?
5-year UG paving plan claimed by board not in town's actual plan 01-25-09
Readers may recall a postcard from the UG board last August claiming that Merrivale and Wensley were "the first two roads" in UG that would be paved "as part of the Town's 5-year resurfacing plan for University Gardens." The board promised information on the remainder of the plan as it became available.
We have now learned that the town's latest paving plan was adopted on March 25, 2008 covering the years 2008 to 2012. For some reason, this plan was not released to us a few months ago when we requested such documentation, but it has been released now. It includes work in 2008 on the two aforementioned UG roads, but does not include any further work in UG through the end of 2012.
If any 5-year plan for UG exists, it is not contained in the town's actual paving plan. Of course, they could always revise their plan, though that seems unlikely given the tight economic situation. FYI.
Follow the money 01-24-09
In what may be its most controversial action in recent years, the UG board has proposed doubling the ceiling on the mil rate used to calculate annual charges. The maximum mil rate would rise from five cents per sq. ft. to ten cents per sq. ft. and would also be indexed for inflation every five years. The owner of an average 14,000 sq. ft. lot who now pays $700 could pay as much as $1,400 next year. Since UG is an unincorporated community whose charges are not tax-deductible, this would be equivalent to a deductible $2,100 local tax.
It would be one thing if operations could not continue at present funding levels. However, the board's own financial statements (see page 3) evidence that they were able to save $37,000 in 2007 while still performing all normal operations. Why then do they need so much additional money?
Let's recall that as soon as this group took over in 2006 they discovered massive spending needs that had not been known before and used up most of the treasury. The next year they saved up some money because they had to. Last year, they announced extravagant plans for rebuilding the pool area on the alleged grounds that the existing pool was about to die. When it became clear that they could not raise sufficient funds, they announced that they could repair the pool after all within existing finances.
We have little doubt that if the mil rate were doubled, the board would again discover that the pool is dead after all. While we have no quarrel with the desire to upgrade community facilities, it comes down to a value judgment whether the improvement compensates for the higher carrying cost of a UG property.
Everything done in UG costs 50% more than in a village where taxes are deductible. For small amounts this may not matter much, but as charges grow larger the financially inefficient structure of the community becomes more pronounced. As discussed in the preceding article, the proposed increase would bring UG right up to the carrying cost level of nearby villages, while its facilities and services remain behind. This could only impact property values adversely. While a nicer pool area would be a little more enjoyable and might impress prospective buyers a bit more than the existing facility, it would only be enjoyed by the half of the community that signs up for the three months of the year that the facility is open.
We don't know if the board has any other big plans that would warrant so large an increase in funding. Based on what is known today, we give two thumbs down to their proposal.
UG board stiff-arms community
. . . prepare for big fee increase 01-18-09
Three years ago, the group that forms the core of the present UG board campaigned for office promising extensive consultation with the community to develop changes to UG's covenants coming up for renewal in 2009. We must have missed those consultations. In fact, we heard nothing about this until yesterday when a letter from the board arrived in the mail announcing--rather than proposing--a few changes.
The board's letter does not invite proposals from the public nor does it solicit reactions to their proposal. It merely says that they will answer questions before proceeding. We think the UG community will lose big time if it allows the usual apathy to prevail in this instance.
In particular, we believe the board's proposal to double the ceiling on annual association charges is potentially very harmful. The average household already pays about $600-sanitation, $700-association and $250-club in after-tax dollars annually. The proposal could add another $700 to this non-deductible burden.
Two years ago, we published a comparison of UG with two neighboring villages (Russell Gardens and Great Neck Estates) and found that the net taxation burden in all three places was very similar. While UG was a few dollars lower than the other two, the services and facilities of the two villages were superior. Add another $700 in non-deductible association charges to UG and the balance of costs and benefits tilts ever more in favor of its neighbors. That can't be good for property values, especially at a time of economic downturn.
Moreover, since UG is not a village, the board cannot pass new ordinances whenever needed. Considering how cumbersome it is to renew or amend covenants, this is essentially a once in 20-year opportunity to get things right. There are many other matters that could be addressed or at least considered in this context including:
- penalizing prolonged construction that unfairly burdens neighbors
- banning construction of accessory structures such as outdoor swimming pools, detached garages and chauffer quarters
- eliminating the tree removal provision (sparing the association a major source of potential liability), relying instead on the town's parallel ordinance
- adopting further measures to shield residents living adjacent to the commercial properties from unpleasant sights, sounds and odors
- authorizing the association to clear snow from sidewalks
- authorizing the association to sign a contract for sanitation services
We suggest that the community tell this board to get back to the drawing board. As presented, we won't be signing these covenants.
County slashes property assessments--good news? 01-08-09
There are some silver linings in the current recession, such as lower interest rates and an expected cut in federal income tax rates. So when we opened yesterday's mail and saw a Notice of Tentative Assessed Value showing a lower valuation of our home in 2010/11 than in 2009/10, we were on the verge of celebrating our coming tax cut. Then reality intruded.
The aggregate value of all property in a given area constitutes its tax base. Once a local government finalizes its budget and determines how much it must raise through property tax, it sets a tax rate that is applied to its tax base to raise the needed funds. According to the Nassau County Assessor's Office, the average assessment has been reduced by 17% to account for the lowering of property values. What they don't say, however, is that the county can--and probably will--raise its tax rate by a corresponding amount to compensate for the lower tax base and the average homeowner will pay at least the same as before.
The key question, therefore, is whether a given homeowner has received as much of a reduction in assessed value as the average homeowner. Our reduction was only 15%, which translates into a small tax increase assuming all else remained constant. In actuality, both the town and the county have announced tax increases for 2009 and we wouldn't be surprised if this continued in the following years. Moreover, the state is lowering its aid to schools, which means additional burden shifting onto GN property owners even if the school budget remained constant--and it never does.
So folks, if you've already uncorked that champagne bottle you might as well enjoy the drink. We figure anyone whose assessment reduction is less than about 20% will be paying more.
Suozzi report collides with reality 01-05-09
As discussed recently, the consolidation campaign has reached a point where the elimination of districts has been proposed to save as little as four dollars for the average homeowner. Perhaps the pols would tell you with a straight face that four here and four there really add up, but for some strange reason we haven't been persuaded. Not only are the savings negligible, but we find the very idea of compulsory consolidation against a community's wishes as simply offensive.
Perhaps the worst example we've seen so far is the recommendation in the report of the NY State Commission on Property Tax Relief, chaired by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, to "[r]equire consolidation of school districts that have fewer than 1,000 pupils." Those words seem rather clear and unequivocal, yet the New York Times has reported in a recent article that the report "urged districts with fewer than 1,000 students to consolidate."
Aside from massaging Suozzi's "require" into "urged," the article did a good job analyzing how consolidation would not work for four small school districts in eastern Suffolk County. A decade ago these districts did their own consolidation study and found that there were too many problems. For example, the tiny Amagansett district allows its students to eat lunch at their desks, whereas consolidation with a larger district that has cafeterias would legally compel them to build their own cafeteria for a million dollars. As for the savings to be expected through consolidation of job positions, it turns out that Amagansett's principal doubles as its superintendant and its custodians are also its bus drivers. The superintendant is quoted saying: "Everyone wears many different hats, so we are extremely efficient."
If a district functions well within its own local conditions and in accordance with the wishes of its residents, then what need is there for forced consolidation? According to the article: "Mr. Suozzi acknowledged in an interview that there might be isolated instances where demographic, geographic and fiscal factors would require the education commissioner to make exceptions."
While this shows an iota of flexibility, we still find it deeply troubling that Mr. Suozzi would take away a community's right to make its own decision on the continued operation of its school district and would hand that right over to a commissioner sitting in Albany. We sincerely hope that our governor and state legislators have better sense than to adopt this high-handed position.
Happy new year!
Grades for 2008 01-01-09
As is our new year's custom, we post here our report cards for performance during the past year:
Town of North Hempstead
UG Board
Population facts and property taxes 12-27-08
Various politicians and press outlets have been implying that our state, particularly in its suburban areas, is depopulating because of high property taxes. A recent example of this claim was presented in the December 3 issue of the NY Post which declared that the proposed school property tax-cap had better be passed before the "last remaining homeowners flee for lower-tax states entirely."
The NYS Commission on Property Tax Relief (CPTR), chaired by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, has also chimed in that the commissioners "have watched with dismay as New York’s population has decreased" (see CPTR report of Dec. 1, 2008, p. 49). In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the state's population increased by more than a half-million from 2000 (18,976,457) to 2008 (19,490,297)--but who cares about facts when you're on a roll?
When the Census Bureau estimated a small decrease in Nassau County's population from 1,334,544 in 2000 to 1,306,533 in 2007, Suozzi challenged their methodology because higher population would entitle the county to greater federal benefits. The Census Bureau has now revised its estimate to 1,353,061 (see article), a small increase over 2000. Yet, Suozzi warned us in his State of the County address last year that unless we do something about property taxes "young people will continue to leave." It sounds like people are either coming or going at the same time depending on the issue under discussion.
When our pols fixate on an agenda they often cite "facts" that are misleading or simply aren't so. Instead of pushing for a tax-cap on local school districts with specious arguments about population loss, Suozzi and the CPTR might have focused on ways to cap the state's relentless issuance of unfunded mandates that drive up costs and force local governments to raise property taxes. But that would have trampled on too many vested interests and, of course, we can't have that.
Moreover, if a mass exodus from the state were truly in the offing, the entire gamut of taxes would have to be reined in and not only this one particular tax. The new proposed state budget, however, lists an array of new taxes that would be levied to maintain current spending levels in spite of the recession.
The New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials has launched a new Stop the Tax Shift website that we have linked through the Long Island section on the left margin. Though a more catchy title might have been found, the website provides invaluable information on how the state foists expenses onto local governments and then bewails high local taxes. More information like this and less pseudo-factual posturing is what is needed to get a handle on our property taxes.
Merry Christmas: the town does some good 12-25-08
There's been much to criticize about the town administration during the past year, but we won't recite the litany here and now. They have also done a few praiseworthy things, or more precisely, a few things that should be standard but are considered special when performed by the town. In the Christmas spirit we thought we'd mention them, bearing in mind that Christmas only comes once a year.
The resurfacing of two UG streets recently has given them a whole new look and feel. The community's entrance off Lakeville, in particular, no longer stands as a physical illustration of the difference between the neighboring village and our unincorporated area.
The town's website lists developments in the "News from Town Hall" section and in the archives link below it. One item concerns the pre-treatment of roads for winter storms. This indicates a level of attention that seemed absent five or ten years ago when roads were often left coated in ice for weeks at a time.
This fall we had the best leaf cleaning ever, whereas a few years ago the leaves used to pile up somewhere between ankle and knee level and the streets became a mulchy mess. Street sweeping services in general have been exemplary all year long.
Another item on the town's website concerns the enforcement of the property maintenance law. Better late than never, the town is now asserting its right to clean up derelict properties when the owners fail to do so.
While there's much more that needs to be done, at least UG is now getting something even if it pays several times over for it. We also doubt if the town would be as motivated to perform if the state adopts a proposed law that would make it much harder to become a village, effectively blocking the main avenue of relief available to an under-served community. All the same, enjoy it while it lasts.
We wish everyone a happy holiday.
In the oil market: don't get burned REVISED: 12-25-08
Update: Residents in tight economic straits may wish to check out the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP). A higher maximum income for emergency benefits eligibility and a higher benefit through the regular program have just been announced (see link).
Original Article: We never paid much attention to oil prices until this past summer when we got a delivery at $4.74 per gallon. After that painful experience we decided to watch the market more carefully.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA) offers a historic table of the daily spot price per gallon of No. 2 Heating Oil at New York Harbor since June 1986. It indicates that the price was usually below $1.00 per gallon until mid-2004, climbed to a peak of $4.08 on July 3, 2008 and then slid back to around $1.40 recently.
For current spot and futures prices, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) posts an Intraday Chart showing the fluctuating traded price of heating oil along with data on futures for the next six months. The expanded table lists futures prices for the next 36 months. While most homeowners won't be buying their own futures contracts, this helps to illuminate the cost structure faced by some residential oil dealers.
We did some checking around at the beginning of this month when the spot price was in free fall from $1.70 down towards $1.40. One dealer--basically a guy with a truck--was able to deliver for a very lean markup over spot at $2.00. This dealer only sells heating oil, however, which means that a separate company would be needed to service the heating system.
A large company we contacted was willing to lock in a one-year supply contract at $2.50 per gallon. To do this, the company must buy on the futures market and charge the customer a reasonable markup. We figure their markup varies from about $.80 to $1.00 over the one-year term. With a small additional payment this also covers service on the heating system.
Our existing dealer--a small company that has consistently provided great service--wouldn't go below $3.05. We compared our old bills with the USEIA historic table and found that the prices we had been paying correlated with a markup of about $.80 or $.90 above the spot price prevailing a few weeks prior to delivery. This suggested that the dealer was not suddenly demanding a huge markup but was simply adding the usual markup to what he had paid several weeks before when prices were higher. We decided to accept the delivery and maintain our existing arrangement.
The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) lists the going rates charged by dealers for local oil deliveries in various regions of the state. Comparing this data to the USEIA historic table indicates that delivered rates usually correlate with a markup of about $.85 above the spot rate prevailing a few weeks earlier. Since the market was much higher a month or two ago, the current delivered price still reflects the prices prevailing then. Eventually, the delivered price listed by NYSERDA should level out to around $2.25--assuming the spot price holds around $1.40--but don't hold us to that.
The recent gyration of the market could make a difference of thousands of dollars in a single season and warrants careful assessment by each individual homeowner. We welcome any insights that readers could share with us.
Ambulance consolidation update 12-19-08
An article in the current edition of the Great Neck Record reports that the town's ambulance consolidation study (discussed here a few days ago) was based on a Request for Proposal that focuses extensively on potential insurance reimbursements of $350 per service call. It indicates that these funds largely go unclaimed by the volunteer force and suggests that securing this revenue may be a hidden motivation for the study. The article further reports that the two GN fire companies handle some 2,800 ambulance calls per year and the typical GN home pays $40 per year in taxes for ambulance service.
If consolidation cut 10% off your $40 tax, it would mean an extra four bucks in your pocket. The tradeoff would be a reduction in the system's redundant resources that provide a surge capacity in case of a large-scale event. It may come down to a choice between your chewing gum or your life--think hard before responding.
Collecting insurance reimbursements that could theoretically total $1 million per year in Great Neck alone and many millions throughout the town is another matter. It has no direct connection to the issue of consolidation so far as we can see.
There are downsides however. The volunteers who staff the ambulance services would be turned into insurance form fillers, perhaps while racing to the hospital. It's a little unclear whether verification of insurance would be a prerequisite to obtaining ambulance service or whether those without insurance would be required to pay up. The article reports that volunteers are prohibited by law from collecting payment, so any such collection would have to take place after the service was rendered.
We could also see how ambulance service could become a race for revenue, with overlapping services rushing to the scene to see who gets the $350. Perhaps that's where consolidation comes in, with whoever's in charge assigning territories and taking a cut--like some other enterprises we've heard of.
While extra savings and revenues are always tempting, there clearly would be problems. Sometimes it may be best to leave well enough alone.
State tightens belt: goodbye STAR rebate, hello education aid cuts 12-18-08
We probably stand corrected on a side comment in the preceeding article that the state is heading for a federal bailout. That's the way it looked recently as reports circulated of a $10 billion deficit next year--a figure that has been revised to more than $13 billion. Gov. Paterson has now proposed a balanced budget that should avert this, if adopted by the legislature. This means that the state will pay after all for the $185,000 boondoggle we described, rather than foist it on the feds. We're not really sure if this is better or worse.
According to the Gov's press release, he is proposing to eliminate the STAR rebate program which had sent a check to every property owner for simply signing up. We always thought this was rather silly and now it's going overboard and will save a billion. The proposal leaves in place the STAR exemption program costing $3.3 billion which constitutes a permanent subsidy to certain property owners. This would have been a good opportunity to trim down this program and limit it to temporary relief for people in severe need, but the Gov prefers to turn the entire state educational system upside down and shake it out rather than touch this not-so-holy cow.
There will also be a 3.3% cut in state aid to education which, if evenly spread, would only come to about $50 per kid in the GN school system. The press release, however, states that the cuts will be "structured progressively based on district fiscal resources and student need." We think you know what that means for GN taxpayers.
This raises an interesting hypothetical regarding the so-called "tax cap" proposal. The cap attempts to limit the annual growth in the total school tax levy to 4%. If all of the 5% of the GN school budget coming from state aid were cut, then local taxes would have to be raised by this amount just to make up for the loss. We wonder if the cap would apply in this situation--does anyone out there know the answer?
Ambulance consolidation--need a consultant? 12-16-08
In our prior article we wrote of small water districts proposed for consolidation to save as little as four dollars per year. Now they have consultants looking into consolidating ambulance service in the Town of North Hempstead even though much of the labor is provided by volunteers whose salaries cannot go lower.
Saving almost nothing through consolidation does not come cheaply--the glossy report on ambulance service will cost $185,000. The recipients--the Center for Governmental Research, a non-profit in Rochester, and Hofstra University--through an amazing coincidence also happen to be the same consultants engaged by Nassau County last year to produce a consolidation plan for a half-dozen different services throughout the county for a total fee of $550,000. Now they're getting one-third of that sum only to study one limited service in the smallest town in the county. It seems like the hourly for consolidation services has gone up since last year.
If the town were paying for this white pachyderm with our property tax money we would raise the roof, but it is being covered by a state grant which makes it almost seem like free money. With the state expecting a $10 billion deficit next year, no one will notice this extra tidbit and they hope to get it all back from a federal bailout anyway. Also, let's not forget the importance of supporting those bastions of scholarship that give a patina of intellectual authority to the consolidation campaign.
While we don't pretend to hold a candle to those institutions, we hereby offer our unsolicited consulting report at a much more competitive price:
The basic theory of consolidation is that larger units of government are cheaper because they enjoy greater economies of scale and eliminate duplication. This may sometimes be true, but often turns out to be incorrect in practice. Many services provided by villages and districts are similar in cost and sometimes even cheaper than those delivered by towns and counties.
How could this be? One reason is that larger units of government employ civil servants whereas smaller units are often staffed by volunteers or under-compensated commissioners and mayors. Moreover, those who only know the 'economies of scale' theory apparently never took the next course in micro-economics that explains why companies do not grow to infinite size: at some point they become top-heavy and lose the efficiency of distributed decision-making.
Even if local services sometimes cost more due to having underutilized resources that duplicate those in the next community, many communities willingly pay the price. The consolidation effort is geared to squeezing redundancy out of the system and getting maximal utilization of resources. That may sound great to a government bean counter, but it's not necessarily what people want. In the case of ambulance service, we want lots of redundancy and we're not interested in taking five extra minutes to get to the hospital to save four bucks.
In covering this issue, Newsday reports the statement of Andrew DeMartin, chairman of the GN Vigilant Fire Company, that in the event of cut-backs in ambulance service the town may be unable to handle "a large scale incident." In other words, the ambulance service that is more cost-effective 99% of the time may not be up to the task on the 1% of occasions when its services are most needed.
Village of Saddle Rock Mayor Leonard Samansky is quoted as saying: "I'm very concerned about comparisons and cost analysis . . . We want the service . . . we're ready to pay for it." In other words, the downside of not having an ambulance available when you need one is not worth the savings, even if the cost-effectiveness of the system falls off the maximum efficiency curve on some graph.
What we have now is a system that works well and already has low labor costs. As DeMartin pointed out: "You can't financially beat zero, and that's what you pay the volunteers." Why save a few dollars on equipment, routes, etc. when the public is willing to pay the freight as Mayor Samansky declared?
As we've said before and will say again, the consolidation campaign has nothing to do with the wishes of the people for whose benefit it is supposedly being waged. It may save a few dollars here and there, as any cut-back would, but the real effect will be to reduce service, choice and local control by handing it all over with our tax base to larger units of government. The pace of the campaign seems to be picking up, so now is the time to take a stand.
Weitzman targets two small water districts 12-13-08
Nassau County Comptroller Howard (The Consolidator) Weitzman is at it again folks--this time he has two small water districts in his cross-hairs. It seems whenever something pops up on his screen that doesn't follow his theories, the word "consolidate" flashes and when that happens he won't stop until the offender gets absorbed into some other folder and disappears from view.
As we reported last month (see article), Weitzman issued a study criticizing 19 commissioner-run water districts for having saved up too much money, whereas he knows better and keeps county cash reserves at minimal levels. This was reported by Newsday--his frequent muse in the consolidation campaign--without asking the water commissioners for their side of the story. It was only a matter of time before he started reaching for the low-hanging fruit identified in that study--two districts that had saved up hundreds of thousands of dollars, but only service a few hundred households.
We wrote at an early stage of the consolidation campaign that the powers that be would not frontally assault all districts at once, as the public would revolt when the most popular entities were threatened. When there were hints in the air last year of the possible consolidation of the Great Neck Park District--including an in-depth Newsday special on the supposed horrors going on there--Weitzman and other local pols were pressured into declaring their support for the GNPD's independence lest they face the wrath of the GN community. So, for the time being at least, they are chipping away at the marginal districts.
The two water districts in question--Cathedral Gardens and Glenwood--purchase their water from the much larger adjoining districts of West Hempstead and Roslyn respectively. Weitzman says that these districts are mostly administrative operations and therefore should be consolidated. Their maintenance functions, testing of water quality, etc. could be done by their merged districts.
Weitzman might have gotten away with this version of reality, but this time Newsday decided to invest those precious extra minutes in checking with the other side before running with the story. A commissioner in Glenwood asserts that Weitzman is motivated by an agenda and never called when doing the study. If he had, he would have learned that Glenwood provides water treatment. A commissioner for Cathedral Gardens described his minimal water tax and stated: "And when someone has a problem, they call us and they get personal service. We're their neighbors."
We could find no indication in Weitzman's report that the wishes of those neighbors, i.e. the residents of the two affected districts, need to be ascertained. And what money would be saved from all this?
The report indicates that the average water payments of the residents of the two small districts are virtually identical to the larger adjoining districts--in fact, slightly lower. But Weitzman argues that the administrative overhead of these small districts could be eliminated and the savings passed on to the residents of the combined districts, saving the average household $4 per year in one case and $18 per year in the other. That's right--all of this is over $4 or $18 per year. And this is based on the best case assumption that the administrative overhead of the small districts could be eliminated while no additional administrative overhead would be incurred by their larger neighbors. It seldom works out that way in the real world, so let's cut these pitiful savings estimates down even further, while the transitional disruption and effects on future service cannot be estimated.
Our advice to our crusading comptroller is to spend his time in more profitable pursuits.
The permanent campaign 12-11-08
While most campaigns end on Election Day, the Obama campaign is now continuing to rally supporters into some sort of mass movement for "change." It appears that our future Commander-in-Chief will also be our Community Organizer-in-Chief.
Check out the Obama campaign website and you will find a call for supporters to host or attend a "Change is Coming" event at private homes across the country this weekend. The initial meeting is ostensibly for the purpose of discussing different ideas for change, but it's clear that they are especially anxious for the hosts to gather up the sign-in sheets with supporters' contact information and relay them into the national data bank of "Obama for America."
The rather detailed operational instructions also call for establishing contact with politicians and media and inviting the pols to at least one "service" event to be held prior to the inauguration. This seems to be a first attempt at showing mass strength to back up whatever calls for social mobilization Mr. Obama has in mind for his inauguration speech.
The website lists many locations for the initial meeting in the New York area, including several around Long Island. Surprisingly, there are none in Great Neck (see map).
What precisely is the Obama campaign--or movement--up to? We note the statement of campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt on the website: “President-elect Obama was clear throughout the campaign that elected officials in Washington alone aren’t going to bring change. And whether it’s by working to expand the Democratic majority or building grass-roots support for the administration’s agenda, the power to bring the change we need lies in the hands of Americans who are engaging their communities.” Read these words closely. Our read is that Mr. Obama is building a parallel "grass-roots" movement to the Democratic Party.
We hope you're enjoying the ride so far folks--and he hasn't even been inaugurated yet.
Things get strange over tax cap issue 12-09-08
NY Governor David Paterson certainly has a way with words. When asked by the NY Times whether his recent chat with Caroline Kennedy concerned appointing her to the U.S. Senate, he replied: "She did not express an interest in the Senate, but we talked about the Senate, so I got that she was just trying to get some information to determine whether or not she would like to have an interest in it." Sounds like she wants the job.
With respect to the recommendations of the Commission on Property Tax Relief (CPTR), however, the Gov has expressed himself with great definitiveness--which means that he stands on shaky ground. Reacting to the CPTR's call in June for requiring a supermajority vote to raise a community's school taxes above a 4% cap, Paterson said: "The property tax cap would put voters in control of their school taxes." This means the opposite, of course, since the "tax cap" would give a veto to a minority while reducing the existing control of the majority over their own community's school budget.
Things got stranger still during the summer, when the state Senate passed the tax cap with the support of Republican Majority Leader Dean Skelos, while the state Assembly blocked it under the leadership of Paterson's fellow Democrat, Speaker Sheldon Silver. This was brought home in a recent exchange in the NY Post which printed this editorial last week. In response, we wrote a letter to the editor explaining why the editorial was off-base and Skelos wrote in to blame Silver for the failure to pass the cap (see correspondence).
We think Senator Skelos is trying to head in the right direction but has jumped on the wrong train. Taxes can only be contained when expenses are contained. Capping taxes without regard for rising mandated expenses is a sure formula for seeing good school programs gutted out sooner or later.
There's real potential here for harming the brilliant success of the GN school system (see prior article). Under these circumstances, GN voters would probably override the cap with a supermajority vote, but then there would be no difference from the present situation. If there is to be real tax relief, the state cannot merely posture with the so-called "tax cap" while allowing the same old practices that drive up expenses to continue.
Before capping local taxes, we say: cap Albany. So far, we haven't heard much on this point from Paterson, Skelos and Silver.
GN South ranked LI's #1 public high school for 2nd year 12-07-08
GN South High School has once again been ranked highest on Long Island in the nationwide survey of public high schools by U.S. News and World Report. GN South was ranked #43 of 18,000 schools in 40 states in the first such ranking last year. This year it ranked #49 out of 21,000 schools surveyed in 48 states. Long Island's other public high schools that made the Top 100 list are Jericho (#62), Cold Spring Harbor (#84) and Wheatley (#88).
The 48 schools ranked above GN South include 29 with a merit-based application process, 12 others listed as charter or magnet schools or having some other form of application process, and 4 that are listed as open enrollment but appear to be specialty schools or with very limited enrollments (i.e., New York City's Dual Language and Asian Studies High School and Stuyvesant High; the International Academy in Bloomfield, MI and the International School in Bellevue, WA).
By our count, GN South ranks #4 nationwide among true open enrollment public high schools. The highest ranking is University High School of Tuczon, AZ, followed by Walt Whitman of Bethesda, MD and Horace Greely of Chappaqua, NY. Our salute goes to the Board of Ed, administrators and teachers who make it possible, the tax-payers who stretch their pocketbooks for the extras and the kids who rise to the challenge.
They're baaack: tax cap commission issues final report 12-02-08
Following up on its interim report in June calling for a "cap" on school property taxes (see article), the NY State Commission on Property Tax Relief (CPTR) issued its final report yesterday. The report is based on a simple premise, namely that property taxes have been rising a lot in New York and that's bad. To this extent, the report should take its rightful place alongside other famous banalities like 'buy low, sell high' and 'knowledge is good.'
Of course, no one likes to pay high taxes, but the report elevates this to a breach in the fabric of society between local school districts and their communities. The fact that the selfsame communities elect the boards that propose the school budgets and approve or reject those budgets in an annual community vote gets short shrift. After all, to acknowledge the legitimacy of this process would highlight the commission's role as unelected meddlers in local decision-making. So they resort to a fuzzy logic that dismisses the existing highly democratic local process on grounds that voter turnout is usually low. Instead, the commission gives its imprimatur to the pre-selected witnesses at its hearings as the legitimate voices of the public.
We should note that there is a legitimate role for a state commission on school taxes and that is to analyze the extent to which the state itself is responsible for driving up school expenses. To a limited extent the CPTR report steps up to the plate in this area.
With respect to the STAR (School Tax Relief) program, the report calls for reform of the various programs currently grouped under this term by limiting STAR to needs-based cases solely for primary residences. Considering that the state may soon be going hat-in-hand to the federal government for help in closing a $10 billion deficit, it seems unlikely that a $5 billion per year cash-handout program could withstand scrutiny anyway, though limited targeted relief as proposed by the commission may survive.
The report notes that special education costs 2.5 times as much as mainstream education per student and as many as 15.9% of the students are enrolled in special ed. This is obviously way too high and adds billions per year to statewide expenses. The report calls for greater emphasis on mainstreaming special ed students and examining the cost effectiveness of programs, since only half the special ed students graduate high school. Moderating some of the more extreme state mandates on special ed class size and the like is also recommended.
On the subject of unfunded mandates, the report pretends to tackle this tough issue but actually weasels out. It recommends that new mandates be carefully studied by accountants and the funding sources identified in financial impact notes attached to each such measure. While this is undoubtedly a necessary first step, it still leaves unanswered who will be paying the bills in the end. If the state continues to impose costly mandates on local districts while capping their tax levy, the difference will be made up by cutting enrichment programs and other general education spending. A far better solution would be for the state to cap its own mandates, but don't hold your breath folks.
Most disturbing, the report calls for mandatory consolidation of school districts with under 1,000 students and possible consolidation of districts with up to 2,000 students at the discretion of the state education commissioner. Nowhere does the report show minimal respect for the wishes of the local residents who actually pay the bills for these districts nor does the report explain whether the districts consolidated with them would have any say in the matter. The expected savings projected by the commission are also rather limited (7% - 9%) for districts of 900 students, though somewhat greater (20%) for very small districts of only 300 students.
The report notes that the commission staff estimated savings of $2 - $3 billion for suburban districts throughout the state if all of the report's recommendations were followed. This represents savings in the 6% - 8% range. The report also identifies the median property tax paid in top counties such as Nassau as about $8,000 per year, of which school tax comprises 62% of the total, or about $5,000 per year. In other words, they are talking about saving $300 to $400 per year for the average property owner through all of these measures.
While some of the commission's money-saving ideas seem worthy of implementation, we urge the state to refrain from the high-handed measures advocated in this report. Tax-caps, forced consolidations, etc. may save a few bucks but are simply not worth the trauma and dislocation they will cause. We suggest that the state pols keep their hands off local tax bases and trust local boards and residents to limit spending of their own accord during the current recession.
Weitzman demands return of hoarded cash 11-27-08
It must be puzzling to many that our economy has run short of cash when it was awash in easy money until recently. Logically, it must have gone somewhere. Nassau County Comptroller Howard Weitzman now seems to believe that he's found where some hidden funds have been parked and is demanding that they be returned to the taxpayers to ease current economic burdens.
As one of our state's leading consolidation advocates, he sure knows how to spot misbehavior in our special districts. This time he did a report on the county's 19 commissioner-run water districts and found that they were hoarding cash--in some cases enough for more than a year of operation and, in one unusual case, a lot more.
We had always thought that saving up a reasonable cash cushion was a prudent practice. The financial community has given kudos to Mayor Bloomberg for building up NY City's rainy day fund, whereas NY State has no such fund and must now get in line for a federal bailout. But Weitzman cites Nassau County as the right model because it only holds 4% or 5 % of its annual budget (about 2 weeks worth) in cash reserves. When Nassau runs short of money it bonds, even when the obligation is short-term--a practice that has raised the eyebrows of financial monitors.
According to the report, our local Great Neck water supplier, the Manhasset-Lakeville Water District (MLWD), leads the pack in hoarded cash with $8.2 million on deposit--sufficient for 11 months of operation. With 10,600 accounts, this comes to about $775 per account. If MLWD's reserves were pared down as advocated by Weitzman this would mean a refund of $730 per home in the form of temporarily reduced taxes or usage charges.
We first became aware of this issue from this article in Newsday. As Long Island's paper of record, Newsday must be very busy and doesn't have the time to look into every story. In this case, they reported only on Weitzman's study at face value.
Alas, it falls on those of us with greater journalistic resources to dig a bit deeper. We placed a phone call to the MLWD yesterday to ask when we could expect our $730 refund. When the official we spoke with finally calmed down it became clear that Weitzman's figure of $8.2 million was a wild distortion of reality as it included millions of dollars dedicated for specific projects. He estimated that the real funds balance maintained by MLWD was only about $1 million.
So, notwithstanding Newsday, Weitzman, consolidation and all, we won't be expecting that $730 refund any time soon. But don't get us wrong--we'd like a government refund as much as the next fellow. We're just not prepared to strip the pipes and pumps out of the water system for it.
Back from the memory hole:
Town Supervisor's forgotten promises on UG trees 11-23-08
It's been five years since we started beating the drums to get service for the trees that line UG's roads. This never-ending story has been told and retold periodically as new chapters have been added to the annals of neglect and duplicity on this issue. It's time for another update.
Commitments to prune UG's trees have been made and broken by town officials going back to the earliest archives of this website in 2004. At first they insisted that they could handle the job, but only lurched from one empty promise to the next. Occasionally they sent out a truck to cut a few branches--often badly--but then the truck would invariably be called away.
In November 2005, we sat down with Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman at his office accompanied by two colleagues on the UG board of that time (see article). He finally admitted that the town's employees and equipment were simply too busy to handle the job, so he announced his intention to hire a contractor instead.
Nothing was done from then until July 2006, when Mr. Kaiman appeared at a UG community meeting and announced that he had reached agreement with the new UG board to go 50/50 on a $20,000 pruning contract. The UG board contributed its share from UG Assn. funds, the town hired a contractor who did some work and it appeared that things were on track (see article). But our Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for a copy of that contract revealed that it was only for $10,000. In other words, the town used the contribution from the UG board, but paid nothing of its own. Adding insult to injury, the contractor made a $500 donation to Kaiman's re-election campaign a few days after bidding on our contract (see link).
Mr. Kaiman appeared again at the next UG community meeting in February 2007, this time announcing $50,000 for UG tree pruning. We saw little evidence of any follow-through, but waited until July 2008 before filing another FOIL request for any such contract or other evidence of tree service. We have now received the town's response consisting solely of work-sheets for service calls by town personnel to individual UG homes to remove dead trees, hanging branches and the like, but there was no evidence of any contract for systematic pruning, much less one for $50,000.
Why issue promises repeatedly for years and not fulfill them? We think pols know that promises sound good when they are uttered but usually slide down the memory hole and are forgotten, so there's no need to worry about accounting for them later. Alas, we here at this website operate on a shockingly different principle: we actually expect promises to be remembered.
So folks, the next time Mr. Kaiman appears at a UG meeting and says he needs just a little more time to get a jillion dollars for UG's trees, please remember that we've heard that song before. If you care about maintaining UG as a first-class community, we suggest that you stand up and demand service. Not a show-the-flag chop-chop job for a day or two, but a comprehensive professional job commensurate with the magnitude and importance of the task. After five years of stalling and evasion, Mr. Kaiman owes UG nothing less.
UG roads paved as planned--not!! 11-20-08
At the UG Property Owners Association annual meeting back in April, town officials announced their intent to repave some UG roads this year. All of our experience argued for skepticism, but in August we received a postcard from the UG Board advising that work would begin in September "as part of the Town's 5-year resurfacing plan for University Gardens."
A plan for UG? We were astounded and filed a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request with the town attorney's office to get more information. The only responsive document, however, was this 5-year plan for the entire town for years 2004-2008. This document lists various roads planned for repaving in different sections of the town, but no UG road is listed anywhere. The back end of 2008, however, includes 9,500 linear feet of repaving at locations "to be determined"--a loose ends category that apparently now includes UG.
The repaving announced for September appeared to have been slipping away when town trucks finally started resurfacing a week ago amid the piles of autumn leaves. This morning we barely got our car out to the street a few feet ahead of the steam-roller as the workers apologized for not having sent advance notices so that residents could avoid driving over freshly paved areas. These are the sorts of town services we've come to know and love over the years, though any work is still welcome and in some cases badly overdue.
On the other hand, even if UG were formally added to the next 5-year plan and the town fully repaved the entire community, there would still be less here than meets the eye. Repaving the 3 miles or so of UG roadway would cost about $600,000, as the plan indicates that about 6 miles are paved each year for $1.2 million. This would cost $2,800 for each of UG's 214 homes, equivalent to $56 per year over a 50-year period. If we use an accelerated 20-year repaving schedule, this would rise to $140 per year.
Add in some street sweeping and snow plowing, and perhaps the annual value of town services comes to $300 or $400 per home. But the average UG homeowner pays $1,000 per year for these services and the town has announced a 10% increase for next year. Where does the rest go? Stay tuned for our follow-up on UG's trees--one of the places it doesn't go.
Barack and you 11-15-08
We don't mean to spoil the party for the majority of our local electorate that voted for Obama. But, when the celebrating is over, all of us will be left facing the changes that may come including the following:
Affordable Housing
Flash back to mid-summer when the Town of North Hempstead adopted the biggest zoning change of the past half-century with almost no public notice. The official story is that their decision to allow single-family homes to rent out accessory apartments--converting entire communities to quasi two-family zoning status--was a well-intentioned effort to create "affordable housing." Supposedly, the pols had no inkling this could lead to the mass opposition that would compel them to repeal the measure a few weeks later.
We suspect this was a political gambit taken shortly before the Democratic National Convention to establish our town pols as affordable housing advocates. As we said previously (see article), their actions appear to have been motivated by interests other than those of the town's existing residents, most of whom do not need new housing. We reaffirm that conclusion.
Affordable housing will, in fact, be a significant part of the Obama program as stated in his website. The part about "mixed-income neighborhoods" particularly catches our eye. Whether this refers to neighborhoods that are already mixed-income or those that will become mixed-income through the introduction of affordable housing is a crucial question. Adding comparable housing to an existing community seems reasonable enough. Introducing properties of a significantly lower caliber inside an established neighborhood would depress its floor value and put downward pressure on existing properties.
There's every reason to believe that the town will try again to get onboard the Obama affordable housing bandwagon. They may not change zoning throughout the town again, as this could ignite town-wide opposition. Next time they are more likely to focus on a particular project in a specific locale, so any opposition that develops would be local and more easily contained.
One way to forestall this is to become a village and take over the zoning function from the town. Another way was demonstrated by the opponents of the accessory apartment law who invaded Town Hall--much like the pitchfork-waving peasants who storm the castle in the old Frankenstein movies. But, if the federal government were standing behind a project, then we'd be dealing with a much bigger monster. Defeating a harmful federal project targeted on one particular community would require an unprecedented solidarity among nearby communities standing together in support. We're not so confident this can be expected.
Consolidation of Local Government
First, there was the fairy tale that consolidation would substantially lower property taxes. Then a state commission failed to substantiate any appreciable savings from consolidation, yet was hailed as a great success anyway. This non sequitur only confirmed our suspicion that the fix was in to try to consolidate so that larger units of government could grab the tax bases and resources of local districts and communities. It was only recently, however, that we came to recognize the affordable housing campaign as the real 800 pound gorilla in the room waiting to benefit from the consolidation effort.
Grabbing local tax bases would help to defray the cost of the municipal services provided to the new affordable housing projects that the government may introduce in our area. Don't be surprised when the pols try to consolidate without leaving the decision to the affected residents; they will do so if they can get away with it.
We offer no prescription other than extreme vigilance and organizing to throw out of office any pol who pushes a consolidation scheme not subject to the veto of the residents. Once the pols of all sides are on notice that local votes cannot be taken for granted, they will compete to serve the interests of the local residents--unlike the present situation where they can serve outside interests and still get re-elected.
"Universal Voluntary" Community Service
The Obama campaign web-site calls for 50 hours per year of community service for both middle and high school students. While this is presented as a voluntary goal, the title of this section calls for "universal voluntary" service. This Orwellian oxymoron seems better suited to North Korea or Cuba--places where the public universally volunteers--so it remains to be seen whether community service in the Obama era will truly be voluntary. Or perhaps kids as young as age 10 will be subject to group criticism if they fail to do their government-sponsored make-work.
The web-site further states that college students will be "required" to put in 100 hours per year of service, but this comes with a silver lining in the form of a $4,000 tax credit. This comes out to $40 per hour, a rather generous rate of compensation for a college student. But, then again, we're the ones footing the bill for this through our taxes in the first place.
Let's be grateful, however, that the plan of the new White House Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel hasn't been advocated so far. In a recent book called The Plan: Big Ideas for America Emanuel calls for three months of compulsory national service for all persons at some point between ages 18 and 25. He insists this is not military service, so if "the plan" is adopted and your kid is dragooned off somewhere for three months you can take satisfaction in knowing that this is not a draft.
Taxation
Let's go back through the memory tunnel to 1977 when New York City teetered on the edge of insolvency. The underlying cause was a vicious cycle of rising taxation and tax-payer flight. As the city's tax base dwindled, rather than cutting back on ever-increasing expenditures it responded by increasing taxes, causing even more flight until it nearly drowned in red ink.
New York City is still the highest taxing jurisdiction in the country, but an equilibrium has been found between the needs of the municipality and its taxpayers. A professional or business owner living in the city who earns enough to qualify as "rich" under the Obama scheme currently pays marginal tax rates of 35%-federal, 2.9%-medicare, 6.85%-state, 3.65%-city and 4%-UBT (city unincorporated business tax), adding up to 52.4%.
Obama has said that they would be "selfish" if they don't want to pay the "chump change" of an additional 4.6% in income tax and 2-4% in payroll tax beyond the FICA-cap that he proposes to add, which would bring total marginal taxes up to about 60%. In addition, Obama advocates other hidden income taxes, such as increased phase-outs of deductions, that would bring the effective marginal tax rate even higher. And let's not forget sales tax, property tax, commercial rent tax and lord knows what else that city residents and business-owners pay.
What will the selfish rich do when they are nibbled to death by all the existing levies plus the new ones Obama has in store? Over-taxed residents fleeing the city may move to Great Neck, but we think it more likely that they would leave this state entirely. This would put downward pressure on real estate markets here and in the city, as well as upward pressure on city and state taxes to make up for the lost revenues. Movements of this magnitude take time, however, so the effects may not be noticeable for a while.
Needless to say, not so few Great Neck residents would also qualify as rich and would pay the added 6.6-8.6% in marginal rates that Obama would impose nationwide. We also wouldn't be shocked if a commuter tax were imposed once again to help the city cope with its revenue losses.
Conclusion
Well folks, these are some of the direct impacts that may be coming from the man who ran on a platform of hope and change. On the hopeful side, we note that Obama's own positions have changed greatly during the past year and may change even more when he confronts the realities of office.
The election battle ends
. . . an eyewitness report from the front 11-08-08
As illustrated in the preceding article, we make no bones about our deep misgivings regarding the man just elected our next president. The possible impact of the new administration on our local situation will be explored in the next article. We offer here an account of what we personally witnessed on Election Day in the key battleground of Cleveland, Ohio. This may be a preview of future elections in our own area.
In the interest of full disclosure, it should be mentioned that we contributed some money and time to the McCain campaign during the primaries early this year--our first such involvement since college days. We had hoped to call it quits at that point, but when e-mails pleading for volunteers on Election Day started arriving, we agreed on the assumption that it would only require one day somewhere nearby. Then we learned that assistance was most urgently needed in Cleveland--expected to be the tipping point of the entire election--and felt obligated to go.
Upon arriving there the evening before Election Day, it became apparent that the campaign was in disarray. A group of about 50 lawyers--including some from the New York area--had assembled to work out a poll-watching plan. The leader of the effort was an earnest fellow who had just returned from a two-year judicial training mission in Afghanistan a few days earlier. He worked out a series of routes for two-attorney teams to visit polling places and touch base with registered poll observers stationed inside. After several hours, we finally got our assignment and teamed up with a local attorney who had been trying to volunteer his services for months but only now was given the opportunity.
Early the next morning we were off and running. We were prepared for a nasty experience, having been told of an incident in 2004 when members of a certain organization raided Republican headquarters in downtown Cleveland and beat up several staffers. Fortunately, there were no significant frictions this time. In fact, most of our encounters with election officials and Obama campaigners were friendly.
We observed some violations of election rules, though it is doubtful if any of them altered the final outcome. What was most noteworthy, however, is that while board of elections officials supervised the voting, the Obama campaign really owned the polling places and the process.
Driving up to a typical Cleveland polling site, one passed clusters of lawn signs for Obama-Biden, but none for McCain-Palin. Approaching the entrance of the polling place, several persons would approach to inquire whether we were there to vote. They all wore laniards around their necks holding large laminated cards saying Voter Rights Assistant or listing the provisions of a Voter Bill of Rights. Nothing they wore would indicate that they worked for the Obama campaign, so a typical voter might well conclude that these people were election officials.
In addition to the Voter Rights people, another type of Obama campaigner we encountered was the Line Manager. We asked one woman wearing a Line Manager badge what duties her job entailed. She advised that when lines stretched beyond the poll perimeter she was supposed to try to prevent the intending voters from giving up and leaving. Among the tools of her trade were water bottles and candies left over from Halloween.
Inside the polling places, the Obama observers also typically wore their Voter Rights cards, which gave them a quasi-official appearance. Like the Line Managers, the poll observers appeared well stocked with cookies and the like which were liberally passed around. In contrast, there were many polling places that did not have poll observers for the other side, due to a failure of organization.
The relatively few McCain poll observers we did encounter basically sat in silence, isolated from the festivities taking place around them. One of them--a pastor by trade--sat for the day in a polling place in the basement of a housing project. He was rather gung ho when we first met him early in the morning, but by the time we touched base with him again near closing time he appeared shell-shocked from the comments he had heard during the day as well as the cutting of corners on election rules.
One interesting phenomenon that several of the McCain poll observers noted, was that the Obama poll observers took copious notes on every voter who signed in and matched it against a voter enrollment record already in their possession. This seems to suggest that their campaign was not only interested in getting out the vote, but in knowing about each individual voter and ultimately deducing which voters on the list had not voted. Sure enough, we heard radio reports later in the day that people had been dispatched to knock on doors to get out voters. We infer that the Obama campaign knew how to target the non-voters from the field intelligence provided by their poll observers. In sum, this was a TIA (total information awareness) effort, especially in African-American communities which were squeezed for every last vote possible.
During the final hours before closing, the victory celebration was already at hand as we observed deejays blaring R&B music into two polling places from the parking lots. If this was a violation it seems no one cared, as the music continued through closing hours and beyond.
So folks, welcome to the new Obama era in our democracy. We would not say that his campaign substantially violated the rules, but rather that it ran rings around the system. It may be a while before the Republicans are capable of matching an effort like this, but failure to make the attempt would constitute political malpractice.
It's a wonderful country 10-20-08
We were despairing over the state of the nation when an angel named Clarence suddenly appeared and told us that things were actually great. When we expressed skepticism, he whisked us to the year 2016 and showed us a cable news program on the tv. Here's what we heard:
Suspecting this to be faux news comedy, we switched to another channel to find out what was really happening and heard this report:
At this point, we told Clarence that we needed to go outside for air. He replied, "Okay, but you're not gonna like what you see." Strolling the neighborhood, we recognized most of the same houses and street names, yet there were many subtle changes. Things looked more crowded and rougher at the edges. Garbage cans were strewn about the front curbs after the morning pick-up. More cars were parked on streets and driveways. Many homes had a second entrance door and mail-box on the side. Some homes had "Affordable Unit For Rent" signs and one sign said "Will Trade Unit for SR Points."
Rounding the corner, we passed by our community center and saw a large number of cars and people, most of them apparently from outside the neighborhood. "What's going on at our community center Clarence?" we asked. "It's not yours anymore" he replied. "They consolidated it into the county so now it belongs to everyone. How's that for 'spreading the wealth' and 'tearing down walls'?" he asked.
At this point we ran home and turned the tv news back on in a final reality check, only to hear this report:
At this point we screamed out "CLARENCE!!! GET US BACK HOME!!!" The tv suddenly went quiet, we picked up a newspaper and saw that we were back in the middle of the financial meltdown of 2008.
Never before had the country seemed so wonderful.
Q & A with Senator Craig Johnson 10-10-08
We are delighted to present here ten questions that we e-mailed recently to State Senator Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington) together with his unabridged answers. Sen. Johnson is running for re-election in New York's 7th District which includes Great Neck. The same list of questions was e-mailed at the same time to the campaign office of his challenger, Barbara Donno (R-Plandome Manor), and we followed up with them thereafter but, regrettably, could not obtain a response. We thank Sen. Johnson for taking the time to explain his views in such detail and we direct the attention of our UG readers to the special section focused on this community.
1. Please provide a statement about your background and qualifications for the position of state senator:
Craig M. Johnson made history with his victory in a 2007 special election, making him the first Democratic representative of the 7th Senate District in a century.
His dedication to fighting for tax relief for Nassau's overburdened homeowners and easing unfunded state mandates on local governments has earned him a spot as the top Democrat on the Local Government Committee.
Senator Johnson, whose district includes the Belmont Park Race Track, also serves as the ranking member on the Racing, Wagering and Gaming Committee as well as Insurance and Consumer Protection.
During his first term in office, Johnson, 37, introduced legislation to protect property tax reductions given to volunteer firefighters and ambulance workers; voted for a strong civil confinement law that protects children from dangerous sexual predators; and supported a measure to fix New York’s broken Workers’ Compensation System.
Moreover, Senator Johnson demonstrated his independence by breaking ranks with his party to make sure that Long Island’s schools received the funding they need to give our children the education that they deserve.
He also was the first lawmaker in the New York to push for state pension funds to be divested from companies that conduct business with the Iranian government. The State Comptroller has since adopted this socially responsible divestment strategy that will ensure that none of New York's money will go towards funding this extremist regime.
Prior to being elected to the Senate, Craig Johnson served four terms in the Nassau County Legislature. There, as the youngest-ever chairman of the Finance Committee, he oversaw a $2.2 billion budget and was part of the team that brought Nassau's finances back from the brink of bankruptcy.
A more than 30-year resident of Nassau County, Senator Johnson lives in Port Washington with his wife, Liz, and two sons, Benjamin and Samuel. They are congregants of the Port Washington Jewish Center.
2. Given the talk in the presidential campaign about eliminating earmarked pork barrel spending, do you believe that a corresponding effort should be made at the state level to eliminate "member items" by senators?
I believe the “member item” program must be fixed in terms of apportionment per member. Each Senator represents roughly the same number of people, therefore the disparity between funding must be reduced. I also believe the $200 million budgeted annually for this program should not be held in a lockbox, safe from cuts during difficult fiscal times such as now. Cutting aid to schools is unacceptable; cutting member item funding is not. There is good in the program, however. Who better to know the programs in the district than their representative? These funds provide much needed resources to organizations which either rely heavily on private fundraising or to local governments where the money helps to ease the property tax burden.
3. State aid to the Great Neck schools comes to only about $1,300 per student, while the residents pay ample income and sales taxes that support aid to other school districts going as high as $13,000 per student. On top of this, the school district is hit with costly unfunded mandates. What would you do about this to give Great Neck a fairer deal?
I believe we must always strive to increase state aid to our schools, even in these difficult fiscal times. There is nothing more important than making sure our children receive top quality education and at the same time, we must reduce the tax burden in Nassau County so that we may continue to thrive. That is why I have introduced my Tax Relief Triple Play plan. My plan places a fair cap on local property taxes and rolls back tax hiking unfunded mandates. It also protects Enhanced Senior STAR and improves on the middle class STAR tax rebate program by creating a STAR Circuit Breaker which ties your rebate check to your income and property taxes, not just income. More information on my plan can be found at http://www.senatorcraigjohnson.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpNews&htmlID=10463&s=johnson
4. Should the present system of approving a school district budget by the majority vote of a community be changed to require a super-majority (55% or 60% in some cases) if taxes would rise by more than 4% (i.e., the so-called "tax cap")? If so, what is the justification for obstructing the wishes of the simple majority?
I have been going door to door and speaking with residents on the street since my first day in office last year, and skyrocketing property taxes are the number one issue on the minds of families in my Senate district. In respect to overriding the cap should one be in place, I support the concept of requiring a super-majority for approval. There are many cases in government where super-majorities are required to approve certain initiatives. In order for local governments to bond for capital projects, a super-majority is required. The United States Senate must muster 60 votes in order to avoid a filibuster. In the case of overriding a cap, I believe the communities considering their school budgets, which make up over 60% of their property taxes, must show that a strong majority of taxpayers are willing to pay the increased costs.
5. Should a "circuit breaker" be instituted by the state to help defray the cost of school property tax that exceeds a certain portion of a homeowner's income? If so, how could this be implemented during a budgetary crunch when so many things will have to be cut?
My Tax Relief Triple Play plan includes a circuit breaker, which I believe is a fairer way to provide assistance to our overburdened taxpayers. My plan is paid for and, because I believe high property taxes are the #1 issue facing our families, I would not vote in favor of cutting this program.
6. Do you concur or disagree with the essential findings of the NYS Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness? In your view, has it been demonstrated that consolidation of local special districts for sanitation, water, parks, etc. would lead to appreciable tax reductions?
I served as a member of the NYS Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness. In the final analysis, I agreed with some of their recommendations and I disagreed with some. I have attached my letter to the Commission Chairperson which I believe explains my position in more detail.
7. Should state law impose consolidation from above or should district residents be able to vote to accept or reject any such plan?
Residents must always be allowed to vote on consolidation.
8. Should the NYS Education Commissioner be empowered to order the consolidation of school districts as recommended by the commission? Under what conditions, if any, should such authority be granted?
No. The power to consolidate should never be granted to one person. I voted against this recommendation in the commission report.
9. Do you agree with the commission's recommendation that incorporation of a village be subject to a vote of the entire town in which it is located rather than a vote of the residents of the proposed village as under present law?
I disagree with this recommendation, which I voted against in the commission report. If residents of an unincorporated area wish to incorporate, they should be able to decide for themselves.
10. In addition to the issues discussed above, please share with our readers any other concerns, goals or legislation you would propose or support if elected:
Much of what was achieved came in small steps that should have been giant leaps. There is no doubt that this past year has been a tumultuous and trying time for New York State government -- but that shouldn't be any excuse. We need to do more, and there are a number of key areas I would like to address more aggressively.
UNIVERSITY GARDENS
My top two community priorities for University Gardens are working with the NYS Department of Transportation to allow the Town of North Hempstead to enforce parking violations along Northern Boulevard, specifically in regards to illegal truck parking. Nassau County Police, currently charged with this, are stretched too thin to adequately service the local community in this initiative. My second priority is to provide more funding for the Town to increase their tree and road maintenance programs in University Gardens.
TAXES
Easing the tax burden on Nassau’s families is my top priority. Please see my response to question #3.
THE ECONOMY AND THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
Long a cause championed by the Senate Democratic Conference, the Legislature took its first steps toward addressing the subprime mortgage meltdown and subsequent foreclosure crisis. A recent report shows Nassau County at the epicenter of this crisis, having nearly a third of bank-owned properties in the New York metropolitan area. Legislation approved this year which I supported will:
1) Provide additional protections and foreclosure prevention opportunities for people at risk of losing their homes;
2) Strengthen and expand laws to crack down on predatory lenders;
3) Establish standards for lenders and brokers to prevent borrowers from being placed in unaffordable loans;
4) Register and regulate mortgage loan servicers; and
5) Establish strict penalties for those convicted of residential mortgage fraud.
The Senate Majority, however, voted against an amendment from the Senate Democratic Conference to add to the bill a one-year foreclosure moratorium for victims of predatory lending -- a move that would allow up to 125,000 families across the state the opportunity to have their mortgages rewritten and have their homes saved.
The Majority also voted against an amendment that mandates banks to maintain foreclosed properties in its possession. The longer these boarded-up properties sit and become run-down, the more they affect the values of the buildings around them. A report from Deputy Minority Leader Jeff Klein's office shows that values of homes near foreclosed properties drop an average of $5,000. Both amendments also exist in the form of legislation, which I will continue to fight for in the next session.
NYRA & BELMONT
There is no greater potential engine for economic development in Nassau County than Belmont Race Track Park. 400 acres of land sit in waiting, used almost exclusively for one race, one day a year.
I currently serve as the ranking member of the Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering committee and one of my top priorities is making Belmont a destination for people to come, enjoy their day and put resources into our local economy, At the same time, the host communities of the track, notably Elmont and Floral Park, must not be required to bear the brunt of the track any longer.
The Legislature passed a bill cleaning up language in the state thoroughbred racing franchise that was enacted earlier this year. I voted against that franchise due to the lack of consideration it extended to the communities that host the Belmont Park Race Track. The clean-up legislation fixed technical corrections, and also included $12 million to have the New York Racing Association to pay its back property taxes. What was missing, however, is the inclusion of a Community Advisory Board for Belmont. Similar boards for the Saratoga and Aqueduct race tracks were included in the franchise agreement. I have introduced legislation, (S.6977), to create a Belmont board. The session ended without the majority allowing it to go to a vote on the Senate floor. A video of my debate of the bill can be viewed at my government Web site: www.nyssesnate7.com.
BROWNFIELDS
Both houses did pass legislation championed by Senate Democrats to revamp the state's Brownfields clean-up program.
The agreed upon measure provides:
Up to half the cost of the site cleanup
Encourages manufacturing projects up to $45 million in tax credits
Reduces the red tape to access the benefits of the program
Allows certain previous applications for Brownfield cleanup to be eligible for the tax credits
Brownfields are sites that once housed factories, gas stations, or similar businesses, are now contaminated, leaving them vacant, off the tax rolls, and without the facilities for new jobs or affordable housing. This measure will be a big boost to the environment in many communities across the state, as well as a catalyst to attract new jobs.
OTHER
Other notable bills passed included legislation to protect children from dangerous toys, enhance protections for consumers to prevent identity theft, and protect nurses from crippling mandatory overtime that often leaves them exhausted and unable to perform at the high standards they hold themselves to.
Left undone was passage of the Healthy Teens Act and Paid Family Leave, both of which have bi-partisan support, as well as any real efforts to combat out-of-control property taxes and burdensome unfunded mandates on local governments and schools.
The majority also blocked common sense legislation I sponsored to guarantee equal pay for equal work, protect tax breaks offered to volunteer firefighters and ambulance workers, divest pension funds from companies that do business with the Iranian government, and give the Main Line Communities a say in whether or not the MTA/LIRR's controversial Third Track expansion project is constructed.
We owe it to our constituents to pass measures that will improve their lives and make their communities better, safer and stronger places to live and raise a family. The leadership in both houses should not have ended the legislative session with this much
work still on the table. If re-elected, I will go back to Albany and never stop fighting for property tax relief, improving education, getting New York’s economy back on track, bringing much needed economic development to Nassau County, protecting the
environment and everything else that my constituents demand of me. I will continue to put progress over partisanship and I pledge to remain accountable to you and nobody else.
Accessory apartment law repealed
How the town almost made your home "affordable" 09-25-08
As promised (see article), the North Hempstead town board repealed the controversial accessory apartment law at a special meeting on Monday night. They were assisted in reaching this decision by over a thousand angry residents who attended an informational meeting held by the board last week as well as hundreds of protesters who crashed an earlier board meeting. The final vote for repeal was unanimous--just as it was when they passed this law two months ago.
Who were these protesters? It seems unlikely that many came from villages that control their own zoning and, therefore, were not subject to this law. Our understanding is that most were hard-working folk from unincorporated middle-income communities who were not about to see their property values jeopardized by an influx of transient residents. This law could also have been a way-station on the road to two-family zoning, notwithstanding the denials by town officials. For the better school districts, this law could have facilitated a wave of new students, living--or claiming to live--in accessory apartments, adding further costs that could have only been partially defrayed by taxes on the accessory units.
Although this threat has been defused for the moment, there is a lingering question: why did the town attempt to pass this law? The answer, we believe, is connected to the recent consolidation and tax-cap campaigns.
We note that many pols from Gov. Paterson on down have been hyperventilating about how high property taxes have driven people out of New York's suburbs. In fact, U.S. Census Bureau statistics indicate that from 2000 to 2006, Long Island's population was basically stable (Suffolk County added 50,000 to its 1.4 million residents; Nassau lost 9,000--a negligible fraction of its 1.3 million residents). The pols keep insisting that this justifies their campaign to make housing "affordable" by consolidating local government and capping school taxes. Yet, the state's own commission failed to show any real savings from consolidation and the proposed tax-cap will also have no effect in most cases.
In sum, the pols are trying to solve a non-existent problem using measures that are wholly ineffective at reaching the supposed solution. Have you got that? Well folks--we can smell the compost from here.
So what is really going on? When they try to take control of local taxes and services and change local zoning without consulting the community, it appears they are serving interests other than those of the residents. Combined with the talk about depopulation and the need for affordable housing, it sounds like they are mostly concerned about attracting a population that doesn't yet reside in the area.
Why do the pols want this? Are they egalitarians who want high-value properties balanced with low-value properties? Are they motivated by contributions from developers looking for new projects? Or are they just politicians looking for new constituents and ribbon-cuttings? We don't know their motivations; we merely report what appears to be their true agenda.
When seen in this light, their illogical and unsupported claims make sense. It's not that we are depopulating, but rather, that our population is not increasing as they would like. It's not that consolidating local government would materially change the cost of municipal services for existing residents, but rather that tax bases of higher value areas would be appropriated to help make the consolidated districts more affordable to the new population. And the tax cap proposal that would make no difference in most cases would give the state a hook into the local school budget process; later it could be strengthened to limit school spending against the will of an existing community to keep things affordable for the community to come.
There is little room in this scheme for autonomous villages and special districts that want to preserve their spacious zoning and superior services. The pols are looking for big consolidated services for the big affordable housing schemes they would like to develop. The accessory apartment law was an effort to infiltrate one such scheme right into the middle of existing communities. If the value of existing homes were to decline as a result, then they too would be more affordable.
Of course, pols are pols. When confronted by hordes of angry voters they deny everything and run for the hills. Then they make nice and run for re-election. You can bet on this: they'll be back with ever new and creative ways to introduce "affordable housing" in or around your community. They'll also keep repeating the canard that the consolidation of local districts and services will make your home more affordable--even while doing backflips to prevent you from voting directly on any such proposals.
Vigilance and reward/punishment of the pols on election day are the appropriate responses.
GN schools channel finally on the way 09-20-08
When Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman negotiated a cable TV franchise agreement with Verizon early last year he had his priorities. The agreement gave the town a share of Verizon's revenues, a studio, grant money, free service for a few dozen favored institutions and access for the town's broadcasts to its incorporated villages and beyond the town itself. Public access channels, however, seem to have been somewhat lower on the list and a relatively paltry three or four were included in the deal.
The town's hearing on this agreement in April 2007 (see Archives) was thrown into turmoil when GN Schools Superintendant Dr. Ronald Friedman appeared and urged that Verizon be required to carry the GN schools channel to the unincorporated areas of the GN school district. This channel had been carried in GN's incorporated villages for years; once it was carried throughout the district, he advised, it would be used as a major educational medium. Supervisor Kaiman rejected Dr. Friedman's plea on grounds that it would require a separate channel solely for GN schools and told him that he could share one public access channel with the town's other school districts.
An uproar ensued and Kaiman went back to the drawing board. A week later, he announced a new solution--regionalization--which would allow different programming in different locations on the same channel. In effect, this would give the GN schools full-time use of the town's educational channel within the bounds of the GN school district while leaving the channel available for other programming in other areas. The catch was that Verizon would only be required to implement this plan if its own study found it to be "technically feasible" and "commercially reasonable." Despite this big caveat, the town board approved the agreement and regionalization was hardly heard of again.
Now--a year and a half later--we have confirmed through a freedom of information request that Verizon actually did complete its study in July. Fortunately, the study found that regionalization was indeed technically feasible and commercially reasonable.
This is uncharted territory and technical obstacles or other problems may yet delay implementation for a time. It appears, however, that UG and the other unincorporated portions of the GN school district will soon be receiving the GN schools channel, finally bringing these areas up to parity with neighboring villages--at least on this particular point. Moreover, based on Dr. Friedman's prior statements, the GN schools channel is poised to bring local educational broadcasting to an entirely new level. We are looking forward to this.
Suozzi calls for tax increase 09-11-08
According to Newsday, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi has announced that he will seek an increase of up to 3.9% in the county's portion of property taxes for the coming year. Blaming the slow economy for lower tax revenues, Suozzi advised that he could no longer hold the line as he had done for the past five years.
As we have analyzed previously (see article), the county has boasted of having a budgetary surplus while actually having a deficit in its regularly recurring revenues. The imbalance has been covered with a mixture of one-time maneuvers, liquidation of assets, etc. Suozzi's call for a tax increase now suggests that reality has finally caught up with the county's financial practices.
The county's portion of the property tax bill comes to about 60% of the General Tax. We estimate that the proposed increase would add about $150 to the tax bill of the typical UG homeowner.
Town may bow to people power on accessory apartment law
. . . Repeal seems likely, but is not being expedited
. . . Seeman supports repeal and expects it soon
. . . Repeal hearing to be voted on by town board REVISED 09-05-08
Update 09-05-08: The agenda of the town board meeting scheduled for Sept. 9 has been posted on-line; it includes a resolution to hold a hearing on the proposed repeal of the accessory apartment law. The hearing would tentatively be convened on Sept. 22 at 7:30 p.m. It is unclear whether a vote will be taken immediately after the hearing or at a later time. A public information meeting on this matter is also being conducted by the town board on Sept. 16 at 7 p.m. at New Hyde Park Memorial High School.
We note that at least three public meetings are being held to deal with the repeal of this law when it seems that a single meeting should suffice.
Update 09-03-08: As we suggested to our readers in the update of 08-27-08 below, we sent an e-mail to UG's Town Councilwoman Lee Seeman a few days ago urging swift repeal of the accessory apartment law. Yesterday we got an unexpected phone call in response.
Mrs. Seeman stated emphatically that this law was adopted with the best of intentions, but that she supports repeal due to the strong negative public reaction. We asked her if we could expect to see the repeal posted on the agenda of the town board in the near future and she answered in the affirmative. We pointed out that a number of different meetings over the coming month appear to have been mentioned on this subject and that a simple repeal motion could be put on the town board's agenda for its scheduled meeting of September 9. She promised to look into this.
Update 08-30-08: The Town of North Hempstead website now lists New Hyde Park Memorial High School as the venue for the public information meeting mentioned below. The time remains the same (Sept. 16 at 7 p.m.).
Update 08-27-08: According to Newsday, North Hempstead Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman will likely put the repeal of the new accessory apartment law on the agenda of the Town Board for a hearing at its meeting in September to be followed by a vote in October. The Town Board will also hold a public informational meeting on this subject at Clinton G. Martin Park in New Hyde Park on September 16 at 7 p.m.
The only scheduled meeting of the Town Board in September is set for the 9th. If this law is to be put on the agenda for this meeting, then the public informational meeting scheduled for the 16th would seem to be superfluous. Moreover, we see no reason why a vote could not be taken immediately after the hearing on the 9th. We hope we are mistaken, but we wonder whether Mr. Kaiman is dragging his feet somewhat. Until it is repealed, the accessory apartment law remains on the books; the longer it takes to repeal it the greater the chance that some permits could be issued prior to repeal.
Readers may wish to contact our Town Councilwoman Lee Seeman (seemanl@northhempstead.com) to express their opinions.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE 08-23-08: The North Hempstead Town Board may soon repeal a law it approved unanimously at its meeting of July 29 authorizing the creation of accessory apartments in single-family homes. The law, proposed by Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman, had the support of a number of "affordable housing" advocates. According to The Great Neck News, the proposal "amazingly" did not encounter any strong opposition at the meeting.
Of course, the public hardly knew about the proposed law until after its adoption. Unlike the US Congress or the NY State Legislature, the Town Board does not post the text of its resolutions on-line and only posts a vague one sentence summary of each agenda item a day or two before its meetings. Anyone who wants to read the text of a proposed law before a vote must rush to the Town Clerk's office, fill out a Freedom of Information form and sit around long enough until the request is processed. Considering how little it would take to correct this state of affairs, we suspect that Town Hall simply prefers to operate in this below-the-radar fashion. Combined with public apathy on most local issues, it usually works . . . but not this time.
When word of the new law spread, residents concerned about the potential effects on their communities started organizing in opposition. A group several hundred strong crashed the Town Board's next meeting on August 19 and essentially forced them to reconsider the new law even though it was not on the agenda. They won a promise not to start issuing permits under the new law until a public meeting is held at Clinton G. Martin Park in New Hyde Park on September 16 at 7:00 p.m. Newsday quotes Town Supervisor Kaiman as saying: "We need to look into going back to square one on this concept."
Meanwhile, the Town Board's lone Republican, Angelo Ferrara, has announced that he is introducing legislation to immediately repeal the new law in deference to the outpouring of public sentiment on this issue. In his press release of August 21, Ferrara states that he has advised the Town Supervisor and his colleagues of his plan and they are "in basic agreement that this is the best way to proceed."
RIP.
We're back! 08-18-08
To our readers: We've just returned from a lengthy trip to China which included attending the Beijing Olympics as well as visits to some pretty remote spots. After many miles and a few too many meals we're glad to be home.
Check with us in the coming days and weeks as we follow up on local matters. Stories in the pipeline include: proposed changes in our property tax system, tree-pruning in UG and developments in our cable television service.
To the Gov: cap this! 07-15-08
We have reported recently and in prior articles on the campaign to enact a cap on school property taxes in the suburban areas of New York State. The basic premise of the campaign is that, if school taxes are high then the local school budget process must be to blame. The proposed legislation does not in any way restrain the state's imposition of unfunded mandates on local schools that drive up their costs.
The existing process involves a locally elected school board holding public hearings, proposing a budget and getting a majority of voters to approve it. A naive reader might think that this is more open, accountable and democratic than any other process in our system of government, but the pols in state government know better. Under their plan, a mere majority of the voters would no longer be trusted to reflect the will of their community if a budget would increase school taxes by more than 4%--in fact, not even 54.9% would do. Nope--55% of the voters would have to approve such a budget or else. This is the so-called "tax cap" in a nutshell.
Of course, some districts do not increase their taxes by as much as 4% in a year and many other districts--such as Great Neck--adopt their budgets by more than a 55% majority. For those districts, the tax cap plan would do nothing. As for those districts that need to increase taxes by more than 4% and cannot get a 55% vote in favor--we predict a lot of screaming, exception-making and backtracking by the pols if and when that day comes.
While the current effort was launched by Democrats and is now actively pursued by Democratic Governor David Paterson, state Republican leaders have decided not to allow a tax cap gap to develop and have jumped on this bandwagon of ersatz tax-relief. The latest maneuver in this folie a deux was the announcement by the new Republican Majority Leader, Dean Skelos, that he expects to call the State Senate back into special session shortly to act on this plan.
Amid so much cognitive noise, it's always good to have an obscure local paper around to get a fix on reality. In its lead article yesterday, The New York Sun compared the offices of governors in several leading states and found that Gov. Paterson's office is by far the highest paying (see article) with executive staff averaging $89,000 per year. The next highest on the list was California at $71,638 and others were well below that. Perhaps most notably, the article reveals that Paterson's 28-year-old communications director is good for $175,000 per year--a notch above NY's top judge. The article quotes a spokesman as saying, "[p]aying competitive salaries is an essential part of attracting top-flight talent..."
Readers will note that similar points are invoked to justify high salaries for top school administrators and teachers and, for that matter, top personnel of other sorts of districts and local governments. The only difference is that the latter are paid directly by local residents who see what they are getting and vote on it annually. In the case of the governor's office, none of us knows the staff nor have any of us ever voted on the budgets of the governor's office, the state government at large, county government or town government. Yet the pols would tell us that the one budget we do get to vote on needs their interference, while the bloated budgets they enact in obscurity without a vote by the public are just fine.
Our advice to Gov. Paterson and the other pols: cap thyselves.
Winters Bros. accused in anti-trust suit as rates soar 07-04-08
Newsday reports that Winters Bros., a sanitation company that services wide swaths of Long Island including UG, has been sued on anti-trust grounds. The plaintiffs allege that Winters has engaged in anti-competitive practices including a "relentless campaign to restrain and coerce" customers from switching to lower priced competitors. The company denies the charges.
We note that Winters has had an extensive record of contributions to candidates and committees of both parties on Long Island according to NY State Board of Elections records. In 2007, most notably, they contributed $27,600 to Suffolk Democrats, $5,000 to Nassau Republicans, $5,000 to Tom Suozzi and $2,000 to Ralph Suozzi. They also contributed $1,000 to North Hempstead Democrats and $1,000 to North Shore Republicans. Newsday reports that North Hempstead and Islip have extensive contracts with Winters.
Winters is the third company to service UG in a decade. Originally, there was the Donno company--aptly named because whenever we asked old-timers how Donno got the business of the whole community without a formal contract, they would respond: "don't know." Apparently, Donno got the UG territory somewhere in primordial pre-history and held it until Waste Management bought them out in 1999. Waste Management then sold its Long Island operations to Winters early last year. Originally a local concern, Winters was sold last year to a Canadian investment firm.
Our last Waste Management bill shows a total charge of $43.25 for March 2007. Our July 2008 bill from Winters totals $56.98--an increase of 31.7% in the 16 months since they took over. Since sanitation charges paid by UG residents are not deductible on tax returns, a typical UG wage-earner needs over $1,000 in annual income to net the total annual charge of $683.76 based on the current monthly rate. In contrast, residents of villages or sanitation districts typically pay about $300 in local tax for this service, which nets to about $200 after deduction of local taxes.
Ed.: UG residents may usually be unconcerned about the political and corporate maneuvers that deliver services to their door-step as long as the services themselves are acceptable. We're not so sure this is the case with UG's vastly over-priced sanitation service. The answer is to start acting like a real community that looks after its interests instead of passively accepting whatever comes our way. Happy Independence Day!
Tax cap plan becomes a football REVISED 06-28-08
Update 06-28-08: We concluded our article below saying that no one is speaking up about the need to reduce unfunded mandates as the true way to limit property taxes, but we stand corrected. A press release of the New York Conference of Mayors (NYCOM) dated 06-26-08 quotes its Executive Director Peter Baynes as saying, "If New York is ever going to slay the property tax monster, the Legislature must stop its expensive tradition of forcing local governments and their taxpayers to pay for special interest legislation . . . NYCOM urges Gov. Paterson to reject this perrenial practice by vetoing these counterproductive mandates."
Original Article 06-26-08: First there was Gov. Eliot "The Steamroller" Spitzer who was determined to prove that he was made of tougher stuff than his predecessors by tackling high suburban property taxes once and for all. Shortly after taking office in January 2007, he appointed a commission to develop far-reaching plans on consolidating local government which would supposedly save oodles of money. The only problem was that his premise was flawed from the get-go: consolidation could only save marginally in some select cases and nothing in many others.
Rather than back down, Spitzer decided to appoint yet another commission in January 2008, this one to devise a school tax cap plan in only four months. Toward this end, he recruited his former rival, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, to chair the commission. Suozzi, who was already on record favoring a tax cap, accepted the assignment with gusto and has continued under Spitzer's successor, Gov. David Paterson. The so-called tax cap his commission devised is not a cap at all, but rather a requirement of a 55% or 60% majority vote by a community (rather than the usual 50%) if a proposed school budget would increase taxes by more than 4%. This would not save anything in a community like Great Neck that passes school budgets by larger margins, but it could frustrate normal majority rule in communities where the approval margin is narrower.
Paterson has shown surprisingly strong support for this plan, bolstered by a Sienna College survey that shows an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers responding in favor of a property tax cap. Of course, if the pollsters had asked whether a community should be prevented from spending its own money despite the majority vote of its own residents, we suspect the results of the poll would have been quite different. But such is the debased nature of the public discussion on this issue that this point is never raised.
Paterson's fellow Democrat, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, has been the key opponent of the tax cap--not because he cares about local control in suburban communities, but rather due to opposition by his backers in the teachers union. Republican State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno outflanked Silver by changing his prior opposition to the tax cap, but only for a two-year trial period. Bruno then suddenly resigned the other day and his successor, Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) announced that he too would favor the tax cap, but only if it were coupled with a freeze on property assessments. In making this demand, Skelos effectively took a plank the Nassau Republicans have been using against Suozzi in Nassau County and turned it into a poison pill against him at the state level. Whether the Democrats are willing to swallow this pill for the sake of their tax cap remains to be seen.
The NY State Legislature adjourned from its annual session this week without voting on the tax cap. Skelos, however, has indicated that he may be prepared to go back into session a few weeks down the road to vote on the tax cap. Paterson has also called for a special session for this purpose.
While this "tax cap" is mostly gimmick without substance, it seems the politicians can't resist jumping on the bandwagon when so-called tax relief is on the table. Meanwhile, no one is speaking up for local control or for reducing unfunded mandates or other cost drivers, which is the only true path to tax relief.
Building inspector acquitted on all charges . . . incredible ruling
by judge tipped balance on final charge REVISED 06-20-08
Update 06-20-08: Newsday reports that the credibility of the prosecution's key witness, builder Mansour Zarabi, was the main problem the jury had with the case against town building inspector Thomas McDonough. Zarabi's credibility--already damaged by his admission of having paid prior bribes and/or contributions--was dealt a fatal blow when the judge took the extraordinary step of allowing new evidence to be read to the jury after they had already retired for their deliberations.
Reportedly, Zarabi had contacted town building inspector Kevin Murray to thank him for his testimony that supported Zarabi's claim that McDonough had coerced him to make a contribution to the Kaiman campaign in exchange for a promise to inspect a drywell. Zarabi reportedly told Murray that he would 'take care of him'. Murray then contacted the town's attorney who brought this matter to the attention of the court. The judge ruled that Murray's written statement--which he described as "damning"--should be read to the jury. A juror advised Newsday that this was the final straw in the jury's consideration of the charge of official misconduct against McDonough.
Original article 06-19-20: On its third day of deliberating, the jury has acquitted town building inspector Thomas McDonough of all charges. As discussed in the preceding two articles, McDonough was accused of coercing a donation to the Kaiman campaign from a builder. The acquittal means that the jury was not convinced of this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Editorial: in the building inspector trial
. . . the town is guilty 06-15-08
The trial of town building inspector Thomas McDonough will soon be over. A guilty verdict would require finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly coerced a certain builder to donate to a fund-raising dinner he was organizing for the re-election campaign of Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman. Whether or not the evidence presented is found to have met this high standard in a court of law, there is ample reason to find the character of this town administration guilty in the court of public opinion.
We live in a town where those who want what they are legally entitled to--building inspections, contracts and public services alike--had better fork up for the politicians. While there may not be a "smoking gun" out there, so much evidence of the town's "pay to play" culture has emerged through this trial and from other sources that we think any other conclusion would be unrealistic.
The Nassau DA insists there is no evidence Mr. Kaiman himself knew of the overt coercion alleged in this case. Yet, Mr. Kaiman accepted the benefit from this building inspector's solicitation of donations from the very same builders whose projects he inspected. Can it be any coincidence that so many of the builders reportedly showed up at McDonough's fund-raiser and presumably shelled out the standard $2,200 per table? The pressure implicit in this situation was so overwhelming that there was no need for overt coercion. Yet this is the fine point on which Mr. Kaiman's "clean hands" rest.
Some readers may yawn and say this is just local politics as usual. Perhaps, though Mr. Kaiman has demonstrated a special gusto in his fund-raising efforts. This means that we can probably expect more of this type of local government in perpetuity, regardless of the particular person in charge.
It follows that UG--a small community offering little to local pols--will always be at a disadvantage. Ultimately, this demonstrates once again that UG would be far better off taking care of itself as a village in its own little pond so to speak, rather than trying to swim as a minnow in shark-infested waters.
Inspector accused of extorting donation to Kaiman campaign
. . . builder blames Kaiman; inspector was promoted REVISED 06-13-08
Update 06-13-08: As reported by Newsday, testimony in the trial of town building inspector Thomas McDonough indicates that he was proposed for promotion by the town's building commissioner in March 2005 and that Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman acted on this two weeks after a fund-raising dinner for his campaign--organized by McDonough--was held in May 2005. As indicated in the testimony of another building inspector (see update 06-12-08), a large number of builders in the town attended the dinner. McDonough is accused of extorting the donation for the fund-raiser from one such builder, Mansour Zarabi, in exchange for a promise to perform an inspection. Other testimony indicated that the inspection was not performed because Zarabi had bargained down the amount demanded by McDonough and complained about it (see update 06-11-08).
Update 06-12-08: Builder Mansour Zarabi stated in court yesterday that he didn't consider building inspector Thomas McDonough a criminal, but as someone who worked for one. According to Newsday, Zarabi stated "There is a criminal sitting up there, meaning Mr. Kaiman, sending somebody to get money from me - and still [they] don't do their job." This was an apparent reference to McDonough's failure to inspect a drywell even after he allegedly agreed to do so in exchange for Zarabi's contribution of $900 to a Kaiman campaign dinner (see update 06-11-08).
Town building inspector Robert Schroeter also testified yesterday, stating that he too attended that campaign dinner. According to Newsday, he was asked who else was there and replied "Just about every builder I've dealt with over the last 20-plus years."
Update 06-11-08: Newsday reports that builder Mansour Zarabi wrote a company check to Friends of Kaiman in 2003, two years before he made another such donation--allegedly under coercion from town building inspector Thomas McDonough--in exchange for getting a drywell inspection. This was brought out at trial by McDonough's defense counsel, apparently contradicting Zarabi's earlier testimony that he had no idea about the Kaiman campaign previously and calling into question his claims of coercion. It was revealed, however, that the earlier donation was also made at a time when Zarabi needed something from the town--rezoning.
Newsday has further reported Zarabi's testimony that although his $900 check to Friends of Jon Kaiman in 2005 cleared the bank, his drywell was never inspected. Testimony was also given by town plumbing inspector Kevin Murray that he overheard conversations between McDonough and his boss, Deputy Building Commissioner Joseph Madden. McDonough was angry at Zarabi for having complained about the required donation and for having only purchased a few seats at the campaign dinner, whereas a full table of ten seats (for $2,200) was required. McDonough sought and received approval from his boss to retaliate against Zarabi by not performing the inspection. Murray also testified that he was required by Madden to attend the dinner to help boost attendance, though he was not required to pay.
Update 06-09-08: The trial of former town building inspector Thomas McDonough continued today. According to Newsday, builder Mansour Zarabi testified that he had left an envelope containing $700 cash on the desk of Deputy Building Commissioner Joseph Madden in November 2004 to expedite a drywell inspection. In May 2005, he went looking for Madden to expedite some more drywells, but ran into McDonough. The latter demanded that Zarabi purchase a table with about ten seats at a Kaiman fund-raiser for $2,200 as the price of getting the expedite, but after some haggling they agreed on four seats for $900. McDonough assured him that other builders had bought tables at the event.
Original article 06-07-08: As reported previously, a former North Hempstead Building Commissioner, his deputy and several building inspectors were indicted on corruption charges by Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice last October. Most of the charges related to garden variety venality and have since resulted in plea bargains or convictions. Inspector Thomas McDonough, however, was charged with using his official position to extort a $900 donation for a political fund-raiser he hosted in 2005.
It emerged this week at McDonough's trial that the donation was for Friends of Jon Kaiman. Newsday reports that the DA's office has no evidence that Town Supervisor Kaiman was aware of McDonough's alleged abuse of office. But, Newsday also reported last year that Kaiman had received substantial campaign donations from companies doing business with the town and that allegations had been raised of a "pay to play" culture.
UG may have had its own brush with this phenomenon. As we noted back in July 2006 (see archives), Kaiman announced at a UG community meeting that the town and the UG board would each make a $10,000 contribution towards hiring a contractor to prune UG's trees. The UG board made its contribution and a contractor was indeed hired as of 08/11/2006, but only for $10,000 (see invoice). Not only did the town welch on its share, but the contractor then made a $500 donation to Friends of Jon Kaiman as of 08/16/2006 according to the NY Board of Elections (see contributors list).
Well folks--you can decide for yourself if this is how you want your community maintained. We think there's a better way to run the railroad.
Commission issues tax cap plan
. . . Paterson going on road show to promote legislation 06-04-08
The NY State Commission on Property Tax Relief (CPTR), appointed in January by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, issued its interim report yesterday with a plan to cap school property taxes as its centerpiece. Spitzer directed the CPTR to produce this proposal within only four months, as his existing commission to cut property taxes through consolidation of local government was not finding major savings. This was confirmed a month ago when that commission issued its much ballyhooed report containing dozens of consolidation recommendations, but offering negligible savings for property owners. Spitzer's successor, Gov. David Paterson, has now announced that he will go on a statewide tour to promote tax cap legislation based on the CPTR report.
At present, a local school board proposes an annual budget to the voters who must approve or reject it by a simple majority. The CPTR plan, as modified by Paterson, would only change this when the proposed annual growth in school district spending exceeded a 4% cap (or 120% of the inflation rate, if lower). In such cases, a majority vote of 55% would be needed to pass the budget, and if a district had received a 5% or greater increase in state aid then a 60% majority would be required.
Paterson's press release on this had the temerity to claim that "[t]he property tax cap would put voters in control of their school taxes" when the opposite is plainly the case. The proposal, in effect, would change existing majority rule by giving a veto to a 40% to 45% minority of a community under certain circumstances. While this would hardly affect Great Neck with its 80% approval margins for school budgets, some communities might prefer to take less than a 5% increase in state aid rather than face a 60% approval requirement.
On the possibly positive side, the report called for an examination of state mandates as one of the major cost drivers behind school tax increases and it advocated "circuit breakers" to offset school tax increases with needs-based STAR relief for individual taxpayers. But due to its high-handed attempt to limit existing majority rule and Paterson's Orwellian attempt to describe this as giving control to the voters while actually reducing it, we give this plan our two thumbs down.
Why a village-Part 3 05-28-08
The following represents in tabular form the various financial effects for the average UG home that we expect from making the change to a village, as discussed in the first part of our Why a Village series. The local services now provided by the town, UGPOA and UG's private sanitation company would be obtained by a village at market rates for those services. Current UGPOA services would no longer include taxes paid on UGPOA properties. The commercial and misc. tax items listed are paid to the town at present, but would be taken over as revenue sources by a village. The extra village overhead item reflects additional secretarial, insurance, legal and accounting costs beyond those already included in the UGPOA figure.
| UG Current | UG Village | |
|---|---|---|
| Sanitation | $660 | $360 |
| UGPOA | 750 | 665 |
| Town | 1,000 | 300 |
| Commercial Tax | 0 | [325] |
| Misc. Tax | 0 | [95] |
| Extra Village Overhead | 0 | 185 |
| Surplus | 0 | 1,320 |
| Total | 2,410 | 2,410 |
| Tax Deduction (33%) | [330] | [795] |
| Net | 2,080 | 1,615 |
As illustrated, the net effect of these changes leaves room for $1,320 per home ($282,000 in total for UG's 214 homes) in surplus for the village to use for the benefit of the community, even though the total payment per home is the same $2,410 as at present. Also, additional tax savings could be realized by deducting the entire village tax, whereas at present only town tax can be deducted, with final net cost of $1,615 instead of the present $2,080.
Why a village (cont.)
. . . failing to act will have consequences 05-25-08
Several dozen readers have already seen our prior article, but it seems that only a few reached the end where we asked for an email (to: perlmanlaw@aol.com) stating a willingness to sign a petition for putting the village proposal to a vote. There should be ample opportunity to discuss the details before the proposed vote would take place (see the Bulletin Board), but it is imperative that the effort begin now. If this process is not underway or completed and the state legislature adopts the proposed change to the village law--possibly in the next few weeks or more likely after the summer--it may well be too late.
We also suggest that residents not look to the UG board to lead the way. These are the people who organized in the first place to prevent incorporation and who boasted to the community of their close ties to the town administration. This effort will either arise from the ranks or it will not happen at all, but be aware of the known or probable consequences of failing to act:
- thousands of dollars per home in additional non-deductible payments to support rebuilding of the community's pool in the next few years
- increased non-deductible UGPOA charges under amended community covenants which are up for renewal by the end of next year
- rising sanitation bills already costing double the normal rate or switching to the town sanitation district with whatever service consequences that implies
- continued annual loss of about $500 per home in forfeited tax savings due to lack of deductibility of payments to the UGPOA and UG's private sanitation carter
- continued forfeiture of nearly $100,000 in tax revenues arising from UG but collected by the town and used for other purposes
- continued decline in UG's trees, roads, sidewalks and other infrastructure with no maintenance plan in place--only occasional piecemeal patching by the town
- reversal of recent service improvements whenever town finances tighten, even as UG residents continue paying several multiples of the town tax paid by residents of other communities for the same services
These items and others exist today or could reasonably be expected unless the community overcomes its usual inertia and takes timely action. It's up to you folks. Speak now or hold your peace.
Why a village? 05-21-08
We concluded our prior article with a simple choice that faces the UG community: either incorporate as a village now--before a possible change of law effectively prevents this--or prepare to permanently forfeit that option and the leverage it provides in dealing with the Town of North Hempstead. If the latter, then expect to get the short end of the stick with respect to municipal services forever more.
Nearly all upscale communities in Great Neck are villages and we have never heard of one that has opted to dissolve in order to enjoy the supposed benefits of consolidation with the town. The reason is simple: villages don't have to lobby endlessly to be taken care of; they simply take care of themselves.
Village residents also get a 100% return on their village tax dollar, whereas UG home-owners get a 26.5% return on their town tax dollar. We base this on the town's website which puts the median home value in the town at $354,100, implying that the $265 tax for local services paid by a property of that value is the approximate cost of those services. The average UG home (estimated value: $1.33 million) pays $1,000 for the same services.
While villages usually have much superior municipal services and facilities, the objection is often heard that they are more costly than unincorporated communities. Our analysis examines this claim solely with respect to the effects of incorporation on UG, all other factors being equal.
Financial impact
The average UG household currently pays a total of $2,410 for its local services: town-$1,000, UG Property Owners Association-$750 and sanitation-$660. We do not include the elective UG pool club. For those who itemize on their tax returns, the net after-tax cost is $2,080 because the $1,000 town tax may be deducted (saving $330), whereas payments for the UGPOA and sanitation cannot be deducted. Assuming all services remain the same, the key financial changes caused by incorporation would be the following:
(1) Sanitation Contract: A village would secure a market-rate sanitation contract--something the UGPOA lacks legal standing to do. We estimate the cost per home at $360, which would save $300 from the present $660 per year.
(2) Property Tax Exemption: Taxes on the community's properties in the club and entrance areas--currently about $18,000 paid through the UGPOA--cost $85 per home. If transfered to a village, those properties would be tax-exempt.
(3) Reclaiming Town Taxes: The $1,000 town tax pays for services that cost the town about $265 (items such as snow clearance, street sweeping, etc.). We allow $300 for the village to accomplish those things through contracts with private companies and/or inter-municipal agreements with other villages, although there are less expensive approaches. This would save $700.
(4) Commercial Property Taxes: UG includes 17 commercial properties along Northern Blvd. which collectively pay $70,000 per year in property taxes to the town for functions that would be assumed by a UG village. This is equivalent to $325 per home in added revenue.
(5) Franchise, Mortgage Recording and other taxes and revenues: A variety of revenues received by the town for activity within UG would revert to a village, including cable television franchise taxes, a share of mortgage recording taxes, sales tax sharing and other forms of state aid. These variables are sometimes much larger, but we estimate a modest $20,000 or $95 per household.
(6) Added overhead: We estimate $40,000 would be needed above the $40,000 already included in the UGPOA budget for insurance, secretarial, legal and accounting services. This would add $185 per home to existing costs.
The net effect of these items would be to reduce the annual cost of local services by $1,320 per home, a savings of 55% off the current total of $2,410 per home. If UG's 214 homes continued paying $2,410 as a single village tax, the savings would provide the village with $282,000 per year to use for service improvements, infrastructure maintenance, etc.
These are funds that the community will never realistically receive from the town in equivalent services. We have documented elsewhere on this website how the town has repeatedly reneged on promised services of much smaller magnitude during the past three years--this being a time when town finances have been relatively strong. During other recent periods town finances and services have been much weaker.
(7) Deductibility: If residents paid $2,410 as a single village tax, the net cost after income tax deduction would be $1,615 (a savings of $465 from the current net of $2,080). Assuming that most residents itemize on their tax returns, this is equivalent to almost $100,000 in collective savings in addition to the $282,000 cited above.
Conclusion: The claim that incorporation itself would increase costs for UG residents is erroneous. On the contrary, incorporation would produce large savings.
What are the problems?
Most of the financial benefits outlined above would be achieved by recapturing tax revenues that arise from UG but are currently collected by the town. Although these are revenues that UG would be lawfully entitled to as a village, the town could try to forestall this through obstructive legal claims.
For example, when we first proposed incorporating as a village three years ago, a town auditor claimed that UG would have to buy its own roads back for about a million dollars if it became a village. UG's municipal law counsel at that time advised that this claim was specious and further discussion we had with the auditor reinforced this conclusion. Even if the claim were somehow found to be entirely valid, however, we believe it would still be worth paying it given the long-term financial benefit to the community of escaping its present inefficiency and helplessness.
The town administration could take other diversionary actions. At UG's community meeting on this subject three years ago, the Town Supervisor showed up unannounced to assure those assembled of his personal commitment to delivering needed services. This may have been enough to assure the UG public then, but we doubt it would work now given the town's marginal performance over the past three years. Still, we wouldn't be surprised if the community received a few more unannounced visits, surprise services, etc. in an attempt to dissuade residents from seeing this through.
We cannot predict with certainty whether the proposal to subject new village formation to a town-wide vote will be introduced in the state legislature at all or how rapid the legislative process would be if it is. There appears to be a possibility that the proposed change of law could be passed while the incorporation process is in mid-stream.
If the process is concluded successfully, a village board would require a greater degree of voluntarism than has been the case with respect to the UGPOA board. Given the greater impact that a village would have on the community, we believe that residents would rise to the occasion.
What now?
Having long studied these issues, we would feel remiss if we failed to spell this out for the community's consideration one final time before it is too late. Time may be short and there may yet be other obstacles and pitfalls we haven't anticipated. The bottom line is that to become a village, the community must want it enough to ignore the interference that could be expected from the town and it probably must act quickly before being overtaken by the proposed change in the law.
Even at this late hour, we are prepared to help make this happen but we would need support. Please e-mail your name, address and contact info to perlmanlaw@aol.com if you are a registered voter residing in UG who is willing to sign a petition legally required to initiate this process. If enough people respond, a petition will be circulated. If enough signatures are obtained and the petition otherwise sustains legal review, the proposal will be put to a secret ballot where the voters will decide.
Consolidation--the fix is in
. . . UG's right to incorporate: use it or lose it 05-11-08
As discussed in the prior two articles, the state commission charged with finding ways of reducing the cost of local government has issued its final report containing dozens of recommendations for consolidation but little evidence of savings. Though this means that the commission largely failed in its stated mission, the pols are hailing it as a great success nonetheless. The explanation is quite simple: consolidation was the real goal of this exercise all along, while tax reduction was merely the sales pitch.
In addition to calling for referenda on the dissolution of existing districts and small villages, the commission also proposed that the incorporation of any new village be subject to a town-wide vote. As with many of its recommendations, the commission did not offer any estimate of savings from this proposal. It merely justified it by claiming that formation of a village is often contrary to town interests--which makes sense, of course, if consolidation itself is the interest at stake.
With property values several multiples of the average, UG is a nice little profit center for the Town of North Hempstead, generating annual revenues several hundred thousand dollars above the cost of the services rendered. We think it unlikely that a majority of town residents would vote to relinquish the free lunch UG has long provided. Therefore, if this recommendation were adopted, the option to become a village that UG has always had would effectively be extinguished.
Does any of this matter when UG has never exercised that option? You bet it does.
We know of no mechanism that ensures the delivery of adequate service from a town to a particular community. The votes of a small place like UG don't amount to much in a town with a quarter-million people. We've heard that some residents have shown appreciation (so to speak) to town workers with a case of Scotch and cash at X-mas time though this has not brought any particular results that we could observe and may be illegal for all we know. Residents could always rally until the town delivers, but this seems pretty remote and in our experience the pols are expert in deflecting such pressures.
The only leverage that a small community like UG has over the town is the right to opt out by becoming a village. When we proposed this three years ago, UG witnessed a showering of attention that it had not received in many years, if ever. While long-term maintenance of UG's infrastructure is still woefully inadequate, some short-term services have improved. If the right to incorporate were removed from the equation, we think UG residents could kiss these improvements good-bye as soon as the town was in a financial squeeze, along with any hope for more meaningful infrastructure work.
The choice, therefore, is clear: incorporate now before it is too late or show a lot of appreciation to the town and say your prayers. We have never thought much of the Johnnie Walker/theological approach to securing municipal services. We'll explore the alternative approach in the coming article.
Consolidation will save bupkis 05-04-08
Bupkis is a Yiddishism that has come to mean something that is virtually worthless. [Its literal meaning is somewhat more colorful.] We had never heard this word used before in public discourse when it crossed the lips of newsman Bill O'Reilly last week while interviewing Hillary Clinton. Since bupkis has now attained mainstream status, we take the liberty of using it in our humble weblog.
Which brings us to the report discussed in our prior article. The NYS Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness issued several dozen specific recommendations intended to reduce the cost of local government, but we were left wondering what the true savings would amount to. Further review of the report and its related materials led us to a document entitled Savings Estimates which claims that $900 million to $1.1 billion would be saved statewide annually.
While a billion dollars doesn't go as far as it used to, it still seemed worth considering. Delving into the details, however, we noticed that about half the claimed savings--$473,700,000--would be realized by making local government employees cover more of their own medical costs. This conclusion has nothing to do with reforming of local government and is, in fact, a simple tautology. Even greater savings could be realized by making civil servants pay even more of their medical costs. The hard part will be in getting the civil servants to go along with the plan.
What about the other half-billion or so to be saved from consolidation of local government and other reforms? The next largest item on the savings list is an estimated $158,500,000 - $189,200,000 that could be realized through consolidation of small school districts. While this might be a savings in those localities, the savings everywhere else would be zero.
The only listed item that appears to have any applicability to residents of Nassau County is $23,800,000 - $35,700,000 in savings through town take-overs of local special districts from commissioners. We're not sure whether this makes any allowance for the extra work the towns will have to do in taking on these new burdens, but this comes out to about $20 per capita in reduced taxes. For a family of four, this means $80 in reduced taxes or about $50 net after tax.
As we've been saying repeatedly over the past year, the consolidation campaign appears to be mostly about increasing the power and tax base of big government over local communities. What will be saved from your tax bill through all these efforts? You guessed it: bupkis.
NYS Consolidation Commission issues recommendations:
forced school district consolidation and veto on new villages 05-01-08
The New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness appointed by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer a year ago issued its long-awaited report yesterday. While some of its recommendations were relatively reasonable and based on consensus, others were strident and were issued over the dissent of many commissioners. Gov. David Paterson has already announced the introduction of legislation to implement its recommendations on eliminating pay for commissioners of special districts and handing commissioner-run sanitation districts over to their towns.
At its most controversial, the report recommends that the NY State Education Commissioner be given the authority to order the consolidation of school districts under certain conditions. While the report stresses that this would not apply to high performing school districts, the red flags went up for the two commissioners from our area--State Senator Craig Johnson and Nassau County Comptroller Howard Weitzman--who dissented from this recommendation along with several other commissioners.
Another controversial recommendation is that all commissioner-run districts be consolidated into their towns unless voters support maintaining their independent existence in a referendum. With the GN Park District presumably in mind, Johnson and Weitzman also dissented on this provision. Although a popular district such as the GNPD would likely gain the necessary approval in a referendum anyway, the burden would be placed on those wishing to maintain the status quo rather than on those who wish to change it.
As to villages, the report recommends a similar affirmative referendum for each existing village with a population under 500. It further recommends that the formation of any new village be put to a vote in the entire town where the proposed village is located, whereas present law only requires a favorable vote by the residents of the proposed village themselves. Johnson and Weitzman also dissented from this recommendation.
[Ed.:] We note that residents of a community would normally seek to form a village because they were getting an inequitable deal from their town. If this recommendation were adopted, that same town would have a right to veto the exploited community's attempt to break away.
Mr. Obama's neighborhood
. . . almost like Great Neck 04-29-08
When asked recently about former Weather Underground bomber William Ayers, presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to make light of his association with him by saying that he was merely "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." This got us thinking: we don't know of any actual bombers living in Great Neck, though we probably have a few bomb throwers, so to speak. This and other comparisons intrigued us, so we did some research on Chicago's Hyde Park community where the man who would be president resides.
We've seen a photo of Obama's home and it would compare favorably with many of the finer homes in University Gardens, Great Neck Estates or similar communities within Great Neck. The complex real estate games played in Great Neck are not entirely unfamiliar there either. Reportedly, Obama purchased his home at a bargained-down price from a seller who simultaneously sold the vacant lot next door at full asking price to the wife of one Tony Rezko, previously on Obama's U.S. Senate campaign finance committee. That land was then sub-divided, a strip sold to Obama to enlarge his yard and the remainder sold off to a third buyer. The Rezkos didn't make much from these maneuvers, but did make the Obamas happy. Tony now happens to be on trial on Federal charges of influence peddling in an unrelated case.
On the political level, Obama launched his first electoral campaign--for Illinois State Senator--back in 1995 in a manner similar to an event we once went to for Great Neck's former State Senator Mike Balboni, i.e., at the home of a friendly constituent. In Balboni's case the home belonged to a local village mayor; in Obama's case the home belonged to friendly neighbor Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, a fellow bomber. Although Ayers remains unrepentant about his prior career in domestic terrorism, it appears that he has become a pillar of Obama's community and has served with him on a local charitable board. It seems that Obama's wife Michelle also organized an academic panel a few years ago at which Ayers and her husband sat side by side.
Both Great Neck and Mr. Obama's neighborhood have longterm Congressmen. In our case we have Gary Ackerman, who was previously a school teacher in Queens. In Obama's case there's Rep. Bobby Rush, who used to be a Black Panther. While Obama has been an unstoppable force on the national political scene, it seems he met the immovable object in Rush back in 2000. Rush, portraying himself as a man-of-the-people, successfully fended off Obama's attempt to take away his seat in Congress.
On the religious side, Great Neck has had its share of leading clergymen; the same for Mr. Obama's neighborhood. Most prominently, there's Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who has a mansion of his own not far from the Obamas' pad. Farrakhan gained notoriety for a series of anti-semitic statements over the years as well as attempts to unlawfully distribute a billion dollars on behalf of Libya's terror-friendly leader Muammar Qaddafi. We've learned that Obama's long-time spiritual leader, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has had close ties with Farrakhan for decades and accompanied him to Libya to visit Qaddafi. Within the past year, Wright gave Farrakhan a "life-time achievement" award and he recently called Farrakhan one of the leading voices of the past century.
Obama himself reportedly went to Washington for Farrakhan's Million Man March back in 1995. We've also seen an unconfirmed (but undenied) report by columnist Debbie Schlussel that several of Obama's leading staffers have been Farrakhan followers from the neighborhood. As for Rev. Wright, Obama attended his church for the past 20 years until Wright suddenly retired in February after the America-hating content of some of his sermons was publicized. Concerned for Wright's safety, Farrakhan now provides him with security from the ranks of his own followers.
Given the vast amount of press coverage that Wright has received recently, we think that he too now ranks as a national leader. Between him and Farrakhan, we'd say that Mr. Obama's neighborhood has the edge over Great Neck in the religious leadership department.
When candidates run for president, it's important to know who they are and where they're coming from. We trust any concerns you may have had have been allayed, now that you know how similar Mr. Obama's neighborhood is to your own.
Capping success 04-13-08
Last weekend we went to see The Marriage of Figaro at GN South High and witnessed a performance that went very far beyond the high school level. This was only the most recent in a series of musicals of extraordinary caliber that we've seen there including Sweeney Todd with Nikki Blonsky in her pre-stardom days. While these were only high school performances, these kids sounded like professionals.
Scarcely a week goes by without a new accomplishment for the GN school system. Last week it was the top performance of a GN team in the US FIRST robotics competition sponsored by inventor Dean Kamen as reported in the Great Neck Record. Every year we read about a half-dozen or so GN semi-finalists in the Intel competition out of 300 nationwide--about 100 times GN's pro rata share of the U.S. population. The list of superlative and unique things goes on and on, including the GN school system's own television station with its own dedicated cable channel.
It's little wonder that U.S. News & World Report recently ranked GN South High among the top high schools in the nation and number one on Long Island. It's also no surprise that the GN school system must deal with numerous students trying to get in from outside the district one way or another.
Success like this does not come cheaply, but GN homeowners seem willing to pay the freight judging from their overwhelming vote in favor of the school district budget each year. Presumably, they appreciate that having a top school district furthers their children's education and also enhances their property values.
While local property taxes provide most of the funding for most school districts, a certain amount also comes from state aid. State aid ultimately comes from the income taxes, sales taxes, etc. that we all pay to the state and GN residents presumably pay more than an average share of these.
Which brings us to the present crossroads. Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer had been planning to slash state aid and cap school taxes by legal fiat following the issuance of a report due in May from his Commission on Property Tax Relief (CPTR). [The CPTR is headed by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and includes the father of our new Governor David Paterson.] With Spitzer's sudden departure last month and Paterson's need to shore up his position, most districts have now received a significant increase in state aid. Great Neck is not among them.
A chart published by Newsday details the amounts of aid and increases or decreases for each school district. An interactive feature on the chart also provides financial and academic data for each district. It reveals that annual state aid per student can go as high as $13,000, but Great Neck receives only about $1,300.
A school tax cap coming on top of this raw deal would add insult to injury. It would mean, in effect, that after the state had given most of the school aid paid for by GN residents to other districts, it would forbid GN residents from voluntarily spending beyond a certain point on their own district. While the pols would claim credit for limiting local taxes, they would not be around to take the blame when outstanding programs are thrown overboard for budgetary reasons.
According to the Great Neck News, GN's representatives in the state legislature (State Senator Craig Johnson and Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel) engaged in intense lobbying in Albany to restore the deep cuts in aid to Great Neck that had been originally planned by Spitzer. We hope they have a lot of energy remaining to oppose the tax cap proposal that may be announced shortly by the CPTR.
The UG annual meeting--time for a reality check 04-06-08
Based on reports coming in from people who attended the UG Property Owners Assn. annual meeting last week, it seems our April Fools spoof wasn't so far off the mark. In some respects, we think it was more realistic than the real meeting.
At the real meeting, some town officials showed up to perform the usual dog and pony show. There was more talk of garbage districts, a subject the UG Board has mused about for years. There was talk of possibly doing some limited road paving under a future five-year plan--the sort of talk we heard from town officials years ago. It seems no one mentioned the town supervisor's multi-year stream of broken promises to prune UG's trees--like it never happened.
On the financial front, the accountant's report indicates that after their blowout of the treasury in 2006 the Board actually saved some money in 2007. The largest saving was achieved by holding off on small capital improvements, bringing cash balances up to 50% of where they had stood two years ago.
We hear the Board has some big ideas about re-building the community's pool to the tune of a half-million dollars. Yet there is no effective way to raise so much additional money from annual charges. There was talk of taking a mortgage, but Assn. bylaws require approval by 75% of the membership. [The membership approved our proposal a few years ago to add this provision as a safeguard against sale or conveyance of Assn. property without broad agreement.] Even if the community authorized the mortgage, a lot more money than is presently available would be needed to carry it.
All of this reconfirms the unreality of this UG Board since its beginning two years ago. Let's remember--this is the group that came rampaging into office in reaction to our proposal to incorporate UG as a village which they claimed would cost a lot of money. Instead, their campaign letter asserted that they had "close personal and political relationships with the Town of North Hempstead" and would work with the town supervisor to get "the best service possible for University Gardens." Remember that one?
For the record: villages are funded mostly through property taxes which are deductible on income tax returns. A tax-payer who pays $100 to a village must part with $100 of income. A resident of UG who pays $100 of after-tax money to the UG Assn. must part with $150 of income. In other words, it costs 50% more to deliver a dollar to the Assn. than to a village. Aside from recurring losses, any major capital project under the Assn. would cost hundreds of thousands more due to this disparity in tax treatment.
The same applies to sanitation. UG rates have now reached $54 per month per home or about $650 per year, but to net this a resident must earn $1,000. In neighboring villages and garbage districts, the cost per household is only about one-third of this sum. In response, the town is encouraging UG to join the existing Great Neck garbage district which would save money, but is far from optimal. UG property values are double those of the other homes in the GN garbage district; therefore, UG residents would pay twice as much as the other residents of the district. Also, UG would have little influence over the terms of service. A separate garbage district or village for UG would address these issues, but the town doesn't seem too enthusiastic about either option.
Similarly, since UG property values are several times the average of the town's unincorporated areas, UG residents pay several times as much in town taxes as the average town resident. The alternative is a village where UG would keep its own money instead of paying hundreds of thousands to the town every year and then begging to get a few crumbs back. Needless to say, the town finds the present arrangement much more to its liking.
There are many other reasons why a village is a superior arrangement for a community like UG but that's enough to mention just for today. Despite all this, the official story of the UG Board is that they derailed the village proposal because they wanted to save you money and get you the best service possible. We hope you're appreciating how this is working out in practice folks.
The UG annual meeting--tomorrow's news today 04-01-08
It can be rather tedious piecing together a story from facts, so this time we decided to report on tonight's April Fools Day UG Assn. annual meeting before it takes place. This is how it will go:
Upon spotting a handful of residents and the firehouse caretaker, the chair declared that a quorum was present and the meeting was called to order. The chair asked for a motion to waive reading of the minutes and, after a brief pause, announced that he had greetings for the community from various politicians.
Former Governor Eliot Spitzer sent an email stating that he might be available if any UG Board member couldn't handle the job. His successor David Paterson faxed a note on the letterhead of a Motel 6 in Albany stating that he would love to attend but was way too busy. County Executive Tom Suozzi called in to assure everyone that he was home with his wife after an arduous day of consolidation hearings.
Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman sent an aide to read a note on his behalf stating that he had actually attended several prior UG meetings and didn't think it was fair to hog the limelight. Responding to complaints that his prior promises of $10,000 in 2006 and $50,000 in 2007 for the pruning of UG's trees had proven meaningless, he announced that he will allocate $138,259.76 in 2008. [At this point, the UG Board erupted into wild applause. The chair noted that it should take until 2011 for such a large promise to be proven meaningless so residents should please hold off on complaints until then.]
Kaiman also stated that the town's experimental program to convert portions of UG's sidewalks to a checkerboard pattern had been a great success. He advised that over the next five to ten years the remainder of UG's sidewalks would also go checker. Similarly, he stated that the patching of UG's roads would continue, as a high-level study by Hofstra University had shown that this gave their surfaces more traction than new paving. Alluding to those who accuse him of beggering communities like UG to fund show-piece programs, he stated that his critics were mired in the past and simply didn't understand his forward-looking vision.
The chair then announced that it was time for reports on various functional areas. Rather than have each officer stand up to describe all the work he or she had done during the past year--which would be incredibly time consuming--he announced that his deputy would deliver a comprehensive State of the Gardens address on all of the activities done by the entire Board.
The address seemed rather short and sweet. Some of the highlights:
-The Board continues to be warm and harmonious.
-In the interest of being uniters instead of dividers, the Board prefers not to communicate with anyone since few people agree on anything.
-Community finances are finally stable now that the burden of managing a large reserve fund has been eliminated.
-The Board proposes to amend the Bylaws to have the annual meetings in May rather than February. This way it will be warmer when the town does its token work in the community each year prior to the meeting.
-UG's overpriced sanitation service is still a subject of concern after several years of study and the Board continues to monitor the situation closely.
The chair then took the floor and assured everyone that once they got into the right state of mind they would come to see that all was sunny. He then declared the meeting over and invited those assembled to try the Board's kool-aid and other refreshments.
Consolidation campaign meets resistance 03-24-08
After the tumultuous year in office and resignation of former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer, we had expected some tranquility from his successor David Paterson. Paterson was barely in office for an hour, however, when he decided to pre-emptively air his own dirty laundry in public and ended up embroiling himself in a new scandal.
While his position remains shaky, we doubt if our new governor will fight very hard for any highly controversial measures that the Spitzer-appointed commissions on consolidation and property taxation may call for in their reports to be issued in the next two months. However long this lasts, some groups aren't resting on their laurels. The New York Conference of Mayors, Nassau County Village Officials Association and the Great Neck Village Officials Association (GNVOA) are all gearing up to resist the assault on local control.
The GNVOA, in particular, has been learning to flex muscles it hardly knew it had, having played a key role in defeating two Spitzer proposals designed to put pressure on villages. One proposal was to allow a referendum on dissolution of a village to be called with signatures from only 10% of a village's registered voters, instead of one-third as currently required. Another was to strip villages of the right to conduct their own property assessments. These proposals were dropped by the state legislature after the GNVOA conducted an active mail campaign. Reacting to this victory, GNVOA President and Village of Saddle Rock Mayor Leonard Samansky declared to the GN Record, "The GNVOA, when we work together, can indeed perform magic."
Suburbia and Governor Paterson 03-16-08
When NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's resignation takes effect as of noon tomorrow, the reins of office will be taken up by someone who has been around for a long time but has rarely made waves, i.e., Lt. Gov. David Paterson. Clearly well-regarded by both parties, Paterson is reputedly a compromiser and a go-along get-along sort of politician.
On the other hand, Paterson like Spitzer is a New York City politician who is more attuned to the financial interests of the city over the suburbs. One barometer of this is his advocacy of restoring the commuter tax which would negatively affect the many suburban residents who work in the city. How far he will go in pursuing that divisive agenda--amid the wreckage of Spitzer's year in office--remains to be seen.
Another key issue is the ongoing diversion of state school aid from the suburbs to the city. Paterson's restoration of more proportionate aid would be a conciliatory gesture to suburban taxpayers who have been getting a raw deal, whereas continuation of this would alienate many suburbanites.
Similarly, Paterson must now pick up the pieces left behind from Spitzer's effort to cut suburban property taxes. Two commissions are now at work based on Spitzer's executive orders: one to reduce costs through consolidation of local government and the other--the Commission on Property Tax Relief (CPTR)--to examine high property taxes and devise a plan to cap school taxes while supposedly not impairing the quality of education.
So far, we have seen no indication whether the two commissions will proceed as originally planned or if Paterson will modify their charters in some ways. We note, however, that his father--veteran politician Basil Paterson--is on the CPTR. Interestingly, dad is a partner of the law firm of Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, where the father of Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi is also a partner. Tom Suozzi is the chairman of the CPTR.
Will our new governor go along with the school tax cap simply because his dad is a law partner of Tom Suozzi 's dad? The jury appears to be out on that question so far. At the first meeting of the CPTR on Jan. 30, 2008, Basil Paterson said: "I have no idea why I'm here. I'm a practicing attorney. I represent unions as diverse as the Teamsters and the teachers union, transit workers, hospital workers and I hope to learn something about the subject."
Can they consolidate without a steamroller? 03-11-08
With the inauguration of Governor Eliot Spitzer in Jan. 2007, the campaign to consolidate local government in the suburbs of New York State went into high gear. Not only was Spitzer a strong advocate of this concept, but he was a self-described 'steamroller' who was prepared to run over those standing in his way. With so much aggressive power behind them, officials down the line were emboldened to adopt strident positions of their own--see our prior article for example--and various commissions were expected to make new consolidation recommendations in the coming months. Given the generally anemic response of suburban communities thus far, it appeared that the consolidators might well have their way.
Then a deus ex machina intervened yesterday and apparently put an end to our governor's political career. Now the question at hand is whether the political system is able or willing to undertake the sort of bruising actions needed to effect significant consolidation without a steamroller at the top of state government. We think the answer is probably no.
If suburbia has indeed been given a reprieve, however, it may only be temporary. The hunger of the counties and towns for additional tax bases is insatiable and the burden on the state from STAR payments to property owners and aid to schools is huge and growing. With these pressures, big government simply can't resist trying to get its hands on the reserved tax bases of suburban communities that seem so ripe for plundering. They apparently believe that once a loaf of bread has been sliced up no one will notice a piece or two that go missing. Anyway, if people object to reductions in school programs or local services post-consolidation it will be too late and too bad.
We think our local officials who value suburbia would do well to use this reprieve to organize a bi-partisan coalition for local control. Just as Spitzer appointed commissions to study consolidation, tax caps, etc., they should be studying and issuing reports on the benefits of local control and the freedom of communities to determine their own local budgets and services. And just as Spitzer and his supporters were preparing to steamroll over their opposition, such coalition should be prepared to support those who respect their communities and oppose those who try to trample on them.
In sum, the time should be used to prepare before the next steamroller comes along.
Suozzi and Weitzman: even efficient districts must go 03-10-08
If ever you have wondered what the campaign to consolidate local districts is really all about, we suggest reading the article in yesterday's Newsday on the Port Washington Garbage District.
As analyzed in the article, the district in question is managed by three elected commissioners who earn about $3,000 per year apiece. With 5,804 homes and 738 commercial properties, this district provides sanitation service to the average household for $23 per month according to one of the commissioners. We note that this nets out to about $15 per month after tax deduction, whereas the average UG home pays $46 per month through a private contract which does not permit tax deduction.
What happens when a district works well and delivers lean efficient service through dedicated commissioners? The answer from Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and Nassau County Comptroller Howard Weitzman, as reported in the article, is that the district must still be consolidated for the public good. There is no mention, however, of putting the matter to a vote so that the residents of the district could make their own determination of the public good.
So folks, if you're wondering why we've been hammering away on this issue over the past year, the answer should now be obvious. The consolidation campaign is not about saving you money or improving your services--these are simply talking points. The consolidation campaign is really a high-handed attempt to grab your local tax bases and hand them over to the larger units of government without your consent. We doubt if the powers that be are going to stop until they encounter some real political resistance.
Editorial: UG Board goes AWOL REVISED 03-07-08
Added 03-07-08: We've now received a notice stating that the UG annual meeting has been rescheduled to April 1--nearly two months later than the UG annual meeting is supposed to take place. Until then--no information for you!
Original Posting 03-05-08: As we have noted recently, the UG Board appears to be sliding into oblivion while holding its cards close to its vest all the way down. In yet another sign of this institution's decrepit condition, 22 days have now passed since the annual meeting was cancelled without word about a rescheduled meeting.
Last year's annual meeting was also cancelled on short notice. Although there was adequate time then to reschedule for the first half of February as required by the Assn. bylaws, the meeting was called for Feb. 27. This was apparently to suit the schedule of Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman who the Board wanted to have at the meeting.
Why the UG Board is waiting so long this time is anyone's guess. Perhaps they are scrambling to get something done to demonstrate their relevance or perhaps they are again trying to suit some pol's schedule. Then again, it may just be their usual non-chalance about legal obligations.
Whatever the reasons, the meeting will now be held at least a month late even if the notices are already in the mail. Taken together with the Board's refusal to release the financial statements prior to the meeting and their general secretiveness, we believe they have some explaining to do.
Steamrolling your taxes 03-03-08
NY Governor Eliot Spitzer is known as a man who likes to get his way in a hurry, having famously boasted of being a "steamroller." As readers may recall, the steamroller ran into a ditch last year, but it seems he is now rolling along as before. Alas--so many things to flatten and so little time.
A major target this year is property taxes and especially school taxes. As we reported in January, Spitzer had opposed capping school taxes as an infringement on local control when he was a candidate for office. Now, a year into his term, not only is he for it--he can barely wait for it to begin.
But let's backtrack for a moment. When he first took office in January 2007, Spitzer created the NYS Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness (the Consolidation Commission) to come up with recommendations for lowering property taxes through consolidation of local government. Judging from the modest measures called for in their early recommendations, it seems the Consolidation Commission may not be living up to the Governor's grand expectations. So, rather than wait for their final report due April 15, 2008, the Governor appointed a new tax-busting commission in January: the NYS Commission on Property Tax Relief (CPTR).
Executive Order 22, issued on January 23, 2008, charges the CPTR with examining the causes of high property taxes and devising recommendations as to "the most effective approach to imposing a limit on local school property tax growth in New York State without adversely impacting the ability of school districts to provide a quality education to all students." While their final report is due by December 1, 2008, an interim report setting forth the CPTR's recommendations on a "statutory school property tax cap" is due by May 15, 2008.
The CPTR, headed by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, started taking testimony last month. Gluttons for punishment can read the transcripts here. Our own cursory review of the testimony indicates that several experts sounded cautionary notes on a legally mandated school tax cap, something directly at odds with what the "steamroller" is looking for.
The CPTR will be taking public testimony on the morning of March 5 on Long Island. After that, a few more hearings, a few more experts and May will be here. We hope to report on the CPTR's recommendations on a school property tax cap at that time.
Tough times for top consolidator REVISED 02-28-08
Added 02-28-08: Nassau County Comptroller Howard Weitzman announced proudly today that the County had achieved a $23.8 million surplus in 2007. But he explained that this was achieved through using $138.6 million in non-recurring revenues. In other words, the "structural imbalance" (Ed.: the real deficit) was $114.8 million, up from $59 million in 2006 and continuing to grow according to the Comptroller.
It can't last much longer folks, but enjoy it while it lasts. Our guess is that the tax increase will come after next year's County elections, unless the consolidation campaign succeeds in grabbing the tax bases of a large number of special districts by then and handing them over to the County.
Original Story 02-24-08: Nassau County Comptroller Howard Weitzman can't seem to get a break lately. As a member of Governor Spitzer's consolidation commission he can see the promised land from afar. The problem is getting there.
As a leading public figure in favor of consolidating local districts, Weitzman came under intense pressure a few months ago from GN residents who were concerned about a possible attempt to consolidate the GN Park District. He and North Hempstead Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman--both GN residents--finally came out against consolidation of this particular district, which is wildly popular with its residents.
Having defused the wrath of his fellow GN residents by making an exception for the GN Park District, Weitzman is now being dragged into another consolidation caper. The Water Authority of GN North has been under intense scrutiny lately due to the high compensation paid to its superintendant. Several articles in Newsday have implied that this is the sort of rip-off that happens when a local entity operates without benefit of consolidation with Nassau County. The only problem with this version of reality is that this water authority is under the control of the elected mayors of the villages served and they think the world of their superintendant. Newsday is now reporting that Weitzman--previously the Mayor of GN Estates--was one of those who approved the high compensation practices years ago.
Meanwhile, as we reported last month, Weitzman is taking extreme steps to stave off a tax increase, even extending to an effort to shake loose a few dollars from merchants who under-report their sales volume (see Nassau County scraping for dollars). Newsday is now reporting this story with a similar title, Mining for Pennies, albeit with a positive spin. In any case, the minimal cash derived from this effort is but a drop in the ocean compared to the losses the County is suffering due to the collapse of the auction rate securities market. Weitzman is now taking unprecedented action to refinance $715 million in County debt to avoid interest rate hikes that could add $5 million per month to the County's expenses.
Amid this crisis, Weitzman and others keep insisting that they want to consolidate local districts to save taxpayers money and that expansion of the County's tax base is the farthest thing from their minds. But, even if County finances were in good shape, consolidation would still be a tough sell in Great Neck, a place that thrives on local control. GN South has the top high school on Long Island, the GN Park District is the envy of park systems throughout the nation, the Water Authority of GN North provides water that is far purer than the County standard, the GN library system is excellent and the GN villages provide a level of local service that the Town and County could never match.
One wonders which part of this picture Comptroller Weitzman expects to improve through the wonders of consolidation. The commission's report is due in April. Stay tuned for the fireworks folks.
The top secret vanishing UG board 02-18-08
Readers may still remember a time when UG had informative official media and a board that made transparency a guiding principle. Then, two years ago, a new board came along whose minimal communication seemed more like propaganda than substantive sharing of information.
The new board terminated the former analytic newsletter, froze the official website and launched a new colorful, part-pictorial newsletter. The limited content of this sporadic publication seemed designed to erase any memory of the prior board and replace it with pleasing thoughts for the new "warm and friendly" board. Any troubling ideas UG residents may have had about budgets, services and the like were dismissed because this board supposedly had close ties with Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman. They even brought the big guy to a number of UG meetings to prove it. In short, they endeavored to lull the community into a happy stupor where all was sunny and there was no need for real thought or discussion.
Then, even the board's new publication seemingly vanished for the past nine months. The same goes for the mid-year UG Assn. meeting which was skipped last year. Now the board has reached a point where it hardly issues a statement, save at the annual meeting as required by law. We frankly wonder whether they plan to surrender the little remaining local authority in the hands of this community by allowing UG's restrictions to lapse at the end of next year. Then we could enjoy the benefits of the Town directly without any further work or thought by local residents.
Alas, this website continues to service the many UG residents who still wish to be burdened with facts about their own community. Considering that the UG Assn.'s financial statements were supposed to have been distributed last Tuesday--when the annual meeting was originally scheduled--we had hoped to post them so residents could study up before the rescheduled meeting. We sent an e-mail requesting a copy to the board's Treasurer Amos Weinberg who responded that he would send a copy if he had one, but that he would contact the secretary. When we didn't hear from board secretary Brooke Struminger, we sent her an e-mail directly. When we still didn't hear from her, we sent an e-mail to board President Sy Coopersmith.
Brooke's response presented here with original malaprops, came a little later. Apparently acting on the instructions of someone other than Treasurer Weinberg, she stated that the financials would only be released at the rescheduled meeting. Then, days later, we finally received a response from board Pres. Coopersmith saying the same thing with a cc to board Vice President Andy Belfer, without reference to Brooke's earlier e-mail.
Well folks--this is just one more example of your UG board not wanting you to think too much. But that is not all. This is a board where the Treasurer doesn't have authority over release of the financial statements or even a copy thereof, the secretary reports to someone else who won't release them and the President issues a decision days after the secretary has already done so and notifies the Vice President about it. In sum, this appears to be a board mostly in name, where most of the limited business is handled by V.P. Belfer and the secretary. Their only other function, it seems, is to act as a cheerleader for the Kaiman administration.
Meanwhile, the serial failures of the Town to properly maintain our community continue. It has now been about four years since we started documenting the Town's serial breaking of promises to service our tree canopy (see our archives going back to mid-2004). UG's roads are looking like pepperoni in many spots and its sidewalks like checkerboards while our sanitation rates are double those in neighboring villages. We are now entering the third year since the UG board and the Town supposedly began studying our sanitation arrangements, but their in-depth research continues.
We can still enjoy our beautiful community for now, thankfully, but the decline is not being arrested or reversed as would happen under a responsible regime. Year by year, the hole that we are in gets a little deeper and it gets ever more difficult and expensive to extricate ourselves. There is an alternative to this ridiculous, self-defeating state of affairs. It is a village, where the community takes charge of itself and we finally get a government that actually wants to do its job. Think it over.
UG Meeting Cancelled 02-12-08
We've been informed by UG Assn. President Sy Coopersmith that the annual meeting scheduled for tonight has been cancelled due to the severe road conditions.
North Hempstead-The Show, Act 2 02-07-08
We'd like to think that our recent postings had finally provoked the folks at the Town of North Hempstead into doing the unthinkable, i.e., their jobs. The reality, however, is that their recent flurry of activity in UG has only been a symbolic show of doing their jobs before next week's UG Assn. meeting. As one of our readers quipped on the Bulletin Board, we might get more work from them if we held more frequent meetings.
As we noted a few postings ago, pre-meeting dramatics have become standard for the Town. We had thought that the recent pruning of about 15 trees along Somerset was the entire show for this year. But, this morning we observed Act 2 in progress with Town trucks filling some potholes on Merrivale.
During its brief run each year, North Hempstead-The Show may fill UG residents with warm thoughts for the Town. What it really illustrates, however, is how badly UG needs a working local government for the other 50 weeks of the year. For that less pleasant subject we recommend North Hempstead-The Documentary, a work currently in progress. Stay tuned.
Editorial: Why we fight--but choose our battles 02-03-08
A number of readers have inquired whether we will be involved in an effort to oust the UG Board at the upcoming annual meeting of the UG Property Owners Association. The answer--at this time--is no.
True, this Board and its supporters used reprehensible methods to take office two years ago. True, they have mostly been a bunch of do-nothings in office. True, they have provided cover for the Kaiman administration as it extracts a half-million dollars per year from our community while giving almost nothing in return. All of these are excellent reasons for replacing this group.
The more important issue, however, is not who controls the UG Board, but whether UG will ever receive the municipal services it needs and pays for. Anyone who thinks this could be accomplished by lobbying the Town need only examine the record of the past two years, with the pro-Town UG Board sitting in stony silence as the Town Supervisor repeatedly welched on his public commitments. Even if the Kaiman administration--under the spotlight--were to actually do some work for UG, there would still be nothing to ensure that it or its successors would perform needed work in the future.
In the 10+ years we have lived here, we have carefully studied UG and its better-run neighbors. All of this has led to a single conclusion: UG must incorporate as a village to acquire control of its own infrastructure and tax base as the only way to secure proper service and maintenance.
Considering that there is a campaign underway to consolidate local government, the right of a community to incorporate may soon be taken away. If that happened, the Town would have even less motivation to deliver needed services than at present, since an aggrieved community could not break away under any circumstance. The clock is ticking and UG residents will either have to make this choice before it is too late or else be sentenced permanently to the legalized plunder and low performance standards of the Town.
Presenting the facts to our public is, therefore, the most important battle to be fought at this time. We expect to continue this fight.
Kaiman was A-OK for UG voters 01-31-08
Readers may recall that we urged them to vote against Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman last Election Day to protest his record of broken promises to the UG community. Data we have received from the Board of Elections, however, indicates that Kaiman received 82% of the UG vote, albeit from the 19% of the electorate that turned out at the polls.
UG has 487 of the 731 registered voters in the 30th Electoral District (ED) of NY's 16th Assembly District; the other 244 live in unincorporated areas mostly around Jayson Avenue. 48% of the ED's voters are Democrats, 24% are Republicans and 28% are independents or members of minor parties. Party affiliation is nearly identical in UG and the non-UG portion of the ED.
In November 2007, only 141 registered voters of the ED went to the polls. Of those, 112 voted for Kaiman, 25 for his opponent and 4 abstained. Kaiman's fellow Democrat Judi Bosworth--who ran for County Legislator--received 118 votes to 20 for her opponent with 3 abstentions, indicating that 6 of her voters chose not to vote for Kaiman.
It seems possible that these results are generally representative of UG as a whole. But, it could be that Kaiman's partisans got out their vote while his opponents stayed home, knowing that his reelection was a foregone conclusion. One thing we would bet on in either case is that the current level of Town services will continue until such time as UG voters demonstrate a different pattern at the polls.
NY State audit faults GN schools
. . . Constructive criticism or consolidation warfare? 01-26-08
An audit report entitled Great Neck Union Free School District Procurement and Financial Operations, covering the 2005-06 school year, was released yesterday by the NY State Comptroller's Office. The report criticized the GN school district for having awarded four public works contracts worth $605,231 without advertising for bids through a Request for Proposal (RFP) procedure required by law. The report also urged the district to award professional service contracts through competitive bidding, although this is not required and the district's existing legal and environmental advisors have served for many years. The financial operations side of the report noted weaknesses in procedures that could make it easier to commit misappropriation.
In their response (Appendix A, pages 17-21), School Superintendant Ronald Friedman and School Board President Barbara Berkowitz pointed out that the audit was conducted over an 18 month period but, in the end, the report "tested" only a dozen public works contracts out of 5,800 purchases worth over $44 million that were properly transacted with over 2,000 vendors. Even the four contracts at fault, they noted, involved a solicitation for competitive bids though not through the formal RFP procedure. They accepted the report's recommendations for tightening financial control procedures while noting that no actual funds transfer ever took place as a result of the weaknesses detected. They rejected the report's recommendation to solicit professional services through competitive bidding.
Commentary: This report and the response of the school district officials should be seen in the broader context of the campaign to consolidate local government. While audits can be helpful in improving operations, they can also be used as attack tools. A state government intent on beating a local district into submission could use no better weapon than an audit to weaken the district's standing with the public, since the audit is supposedly pristine in method and motivation.
This is what comes across from the response by the school district officials. They appear to have implied that the state auditors culled for 18 months through the vast number of transactions conducted by the district, focused on a small class of contracts which they knew was problematic, and, lo and behold, found a problem. In so many words, their audit "test" was not random.
We also note the district officials' comments that the report contained constructive points, but that isolated statements could be misused by the media to "lay blame, rather than shed light." In their final remarks, the officials thanked the auditors for correcting misleading statements in their original draft report and then stated, "We also thank you for the constructive portions of the work you performed in Great Neck." Reading between the lines, it should be clear that they did not regard some other portions of the auditors' work as constructive.
Our final concluding observation: GN residents and, indeed, all suburban residents who treasure their ability to exercise local control over their schools, villages, parks and other aspects of their local communities had better start responding more emphatically. Moreover, traditional party lines will have to be crossed and new coalitions formed if this effort is to be effective.
Town does usual pre-meeting show
. . . workers may be endangering canopy trees 01-23-08
UG residents should recognize the pattern by now. Not long before a community meeting, Town trucks show up under odd circumstances and perhaps do a bit of street work. Residents who attend the meeting are told of progress in getting things done--as evidenced by the recent work--and everyone goes home for another year.
As Tip O'Neill famously observed "all politics is local," and politicians have been plying their trade in local services for a long time. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Town of North Hempstead deals in similar currency.
We first started to notice this three years ago when--shortly before the UG annual meeting--our former colleague complained that the Town had failed to follow through on promises made in mid-2004 to prune the community's trees. Suddenly, in the middle of an icy January, two Town workers showed up in a truck, cut a few low branches for a day or two and then disappeared.
Then in mid-2005, the Town's new boom truck for pruning went on parade through the streets of UG a few hours before a big community meeting on the question of incorporating as a village. Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman showed up at that meeting and assured everyone that the Town was taking steps--such as acquiring the boom truck--to service the community. Shortly thereafter, Kaiman advised the UG Board that the boom truck was too busy elsewhere and that UG pruning would be contracted out. Then he forgot to carry out that promise too, except when the UG Board picked up the tab.
Another example occured shortly before the annual meeting last year, apparently in response to complaints on this website about the crumbling condition of the community's Hereford Road entrance. Town workers--rather bizarrely--showed up to patch the concrete there in the middle of January with snow on the ground, contrary to normal practice. It remains to be seen whether this concrete will crumble in a few years as a result.
Which leads us to a phone call we received yesterday from a tree surgeon of our acquaintence who reported that workers had been spotted pruning the canopy trees along Somerset Drive near Hereford. The problem, he advised, was that the workers had used spiked boots to scale the trees, puncturing their barks and making the trees susceptible to disease. We drove by the area today and saw large piles of branches along the curb and fresh cut marks on the trees along a stretch of a few houses.
If the report we received is accurate, it would not only be one more example of the Town scrambling to cover itself before a UG meeting, but also a case of causing damage through hasty ill-advised action. We suggest that readers keep an eye on these workers if they return, and if they climb the trees with spikes please call the Town to try to put a stop to this before it's too late.
GN meeting focuses on Iranian nuclear threat
. . . Congressman Ackerman goes ballistic 01-20-08
A meeting for the "entire Great Neck community," sponsored by the Great Neck Democratic Club and the National Jewish Democratic Council, was held tonight at the Iranian Jewish Center on Steamboat Road. Though all the public officials who spoke were Democrats, the speakers stressed that the topic, Iran: Questions and Challenges, was one of bi-partisan concern. US Representative Gary Ackerman was the keynote speaker. Also speaking were NY State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, NY State Senator Craig Johnson and Iranian-Jewish leader Hooshang Nematzadeh. Many other local pols were also in attendance.
Congressman Ackerman spoke about the difficulty in understanding the recent National Intelligence Estimate which found that Iran had ceased attempting nuclear "weaponization" several years ago. The bottom line, he explained, was that Iran still posed a very serious danger and was still developing nuclear technology, though not necessarily weapons at this moment. He stressed that serious economic sanctions must be applied against the Iranian regime, but that we must also talk with them.
Comptroller DiNapoli spoke movingly about his efforts to prevent state pension money from being invested in companies doing business with regimes that commit or threaten genocide, including those in Sudan and Iran. Senator Johnson described his similar efforts in the NY State legislature.
Hooshang Nematzadeh spoke from first-hand knowledge about the radical nature of the Iranian regime. While expressing his appreciation for the efforts of the three prior speakers, he left some egg on their faces by blaming the current situation on former Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
During the Q&A that followed, several members of the audience asked questions that suggested skepticism about Ackerman's proposal for non-military sanctions. Ackerman insisted that he wanted to have "discussions" with the Iranian regime, though not "negotiations." Finally, one back-bencher who identified himself as a Republican charged Ackerman with being a member of a party that advocated a U.S. defeat in the Iraq war.
Well--we find Congressman Ackerman a rather low-key speaker and have had to struggle on a few occasions to keep our lids open once he got going. However, that wasn't a problem at this stage of the evening's proceedings. Responding to the charge, Ackerman stated in rising decibel levels that unlike members of the Bush administration, he attends the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. He also noted that the fatalities occured to residents of places like Corona and Jackson Heights rather than Great Neck and that something had to be done to evenly share the burden, though he denied favoring a draft. Finally, to a standing ovation from his partisans in the room, he announced how angry he was to be charged with defeatism. So ended the Q&A and the meeting.
Breaking the school tax cap taboo 01-13-08
Following up on Governor Spitzer's proposal to cap school taxes (see prior post), LI Newsday published an article yesterday entitled: Spitzer takes taboo route to cut property taxes. The article asserts that a school tax cap has been a political "third rail" because of opposition from public employee unions, presumably because it would limit pay increases.
The article notes that when Spitzer was vying with Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 2006, Suozzi proposed such a cap, but Spitzer declared that "Albany should not impose arbitrary spending caps that take decision-making power away from local voters . . . If the residents of a school district want to use additional funding to improve their children's education, they should be permitted to do so." Now in 2008, Governor Spitzer has completely reversed himself and named Suozzi to head the new tax cap commission. Why is he breaking this taboo and proposing something he acknowledges is a "blunt instrument"?
The answer in part, we believe, is that Spitzer, Suozzi, et. al. have painted themselves into a corner with their campaign to cut property taxes through consolidation of local government. As we have pointed out over the past year, local special districts only account for a small portion of a typical property tax bill and the paltry savings (if any) that would be realized through compulsory consolidation of them cannot justify the bruising battles that would be needed. The residents of the Great Neck Park District in particular have made it clear that they will not surrender local control without a fight. Moreover, at least one of Spitzer's existing consolidation commissioners has expressed some skepticism about the validity of this effort.
Where does this leave the effort to cut property taxes through consolidation? Nowhere, it seems, particularly since most property taxes go for schools, counties, towns and villages and no one is suggesting a direct takeover or consolidation of them at this point.
So, a new campaign has been started on the premise that taxpayers are demanding a limitation on school taxes when nothing could be further from the truth. It is simply an objective fact that taxpayers regularly and overwhelmingly approve the school budgets in most communities. While no one likes to pay higher taxes, it is clear that homeowners recognize school tax payments as an investment in their children's education and in the higher property values commanded by homes in good school districts.
If a school tax cap is adopted nonetheless, Spitzer appears likely to send more state aid to those districts that limit their spending and less to those that spend more. Suozzi also proposed this back in 2006. Thus, by appropriating money raised through other taxes, he and Suozzi will push some school spending down on the margin and declare victory over high property taxes.
The real price of this illusory victory, however, will be the reduced ability of communities to further the education of their own children through their own resource allocation decisions beyond a point dictated by Albany. We also expect some gradual erosion of educational standards in top performing school districts such as GN South, as spending limitations slowly take their toll on facilities, equipment, special programs and the ability to attract and compensate top teachers and administrators.
Spitzer creates commission to cap school taxes
. . . Suozzi to lead the charge 01-09-08
We hope you're all sitting down for this one.
In his State of the State address today, NY Governor Eliot Spitzer announced the creation of a high-powered bipartisan commission to develop recommendations relating to school taxes. In his own words:
------------------
"First, a package of reforms that gets at the root causes of what is driving taxes so high. This should include a look at unfunded mandates on both school districts and municipalities. Because school district property taxes account for about two-thirds of all property taxes, the commission must also identify ways to maintain our commitment to the highest quality education at a more affordable cost. Second, proposals on how to make our tax relief system fairer to the middle class taxpayer. And third, a proposal for a fair and effective cap – to hold the line on sky-high school district property taxes once and for all.
I have asked Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi to lead this commission. Tom, you have championed this cause for many years, now let us work together to solve it.
Our goal should be proposals that enable responsible districts to stay within the cap and promote the most effective investments in educational quality, constrain districts that would go beyond responsible spending, and ensure that state tax relief is directed to the taxpayers who need it most.
A tax cap is a blunt instrument, but it forces hard choices and discipline when nothing else works. When combined with real reform of unfunded mandates and a blueprint for providing a high quality education at a more affordable cost, a cap will allow us to invest wisely in our schools while achieving the goal of controlling property taxes. Let’s finally get real about property taxes. That is what our taxpayers demand, and that is what we must deliver."
------------------
Let's see--what's wrong with this picture? As readers will recall, there is already a New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency & Competitiveness that was created by the Gov a year ago to explore all aspects of local consolidation. Mr. Spitzer is now creating another study commission before he hears from the existing one whose report is due in April. Then again, Tom Suozzi already has consulting companies writing up reports on consolidation in Nassau County, including consolidation of school business functions. But before these reports are in, he's now heading up Spitzer's new state commission on school taxes with a pre-determined "blunt instrument" solution: a tax cap.
Perhaps most obnoxious of all is Spitzer's description of school districts that stay within the proposed cap as "responsible," implying that any other school district is irresponsible. Great Neck South, Jericho and Manhasset, with some of the most highly rated high schools in the country, must surely be among the most irresponsible by this standard given their high per-student spending. Never mind that the residents of these and other districts must directly approve their own school budgets in an annual vote--from now on, the state is going to tell us what is responsible and what our taxpayers demand.
We also note that Mr. Spitzer is the product of some of the most elite educational institutions on our planet: Horace Mann, Princeton and Harvard Law. Current base tuition at the Horace Mann high school is $29K per year, not including all the extra donations expected from Horace Mann parents. Sounds pretty irresponsible huh?
We could write more but our nausea is reaching dangerous levels. Over and out.
Nassau County scraping for dollars REVISED 01-08-08
Added 01-08-08: Fitch Ratings, a bond rating service, has moderately downgraded Nassau County bonds to "A+ stable." Although this may seem like an outstanding grade, it is only moderately positive on a scale from AAA to BBB-. Their report deems the County's 2008 budget and financial plan for the coming years as "less conservative" than in prior years, relying on "speculative" savings. Further, they find that the County's plan relies on assumed property tax increases which the County has successfully "deferred" since 2002.
We question whether the County will be able to stave off a property tax increase much longer, judging from the extreme measures to which they are resorting (see below).
Original story 01-07-08: In yet another sign that Nassau County is in tight straits, County Comptroller Howard Weitzman has announced that he will revive a lapsed program of surveilling retail cash businesses to detect under-reporting of sales volume, according to LI Newsday (see article). He will also go a step further and, for the first time, request a link to NY State tax records to search for inconsistencies in reporting by such businesses.
Sales tax brings in about a billion dollars per year to the County, comprising 40% of its revenues. With $25 billion in annual sales volume within the County, a 1% increase in sales volume would raise an extra $10 million in sales tax revenue according to Weitzman, as cited by LI Newsday.
This additional 1% of sales volume--$250 million--would essentially be drummed up by agents surveilling the various businesses and then calling in the auditors if a discrepancy is detected. We surmise that the owners would then face the choice of having the auditors turn their businesses upside down or reaching a settlement to make the auditors go away. Let's say an owner settled for a payment of $1,000--reflecting $25,000 in under-reported sales volume--the County would have to collect from 10,000 businesses to raise $10 million. If we assume that not all cash businesses under-report their sales volume--or at least not to a point that is noticeable through surveillance--Weitzman's agents might have to observe 20,000 businesses to get the goods on 10,000.
According to the article, Suffolk County has declined to reinstitute this program as it requires too much manpower to be effective. Not so for Nassau's Comptroller, who is also prepared to go where no man has gone before with his proposed link-up to NY State tax records. This is apparently premised on the belief that an under-reporting business owner might say one thing on a State Income Tax return and another thing on a Sales Tax return. Why an owner would do this is unclear, but--who knows--maybe there are a few out there whose accountants fail to keep their stories straight.
As we reported last month, Nassau County has already resorted to dubious measures to temporarily postpone its fiscal crunch, including the liquidation of a contingency fund and the selling of $75 million in long-term bonds to cover current obligations. Comptroller Weitzman's new measures may succeed in squeezing a bit of blood from stones, but they suggest a desperate effort to stave off a property tax increase for a little while longer--perhaps until County Executive Tom Suozzi finishes his term next year.
Happy 2008!
. . . Grades for 2007 01-01-08
We hope everyone had a great holiday and we wish one and all a happy new year. We start the year with our report cards on the performance of the UG Board and the Town of North Hempstead last year, with a composite grade and grades for specific areas.
UG Board: D
Conclusion: There were one or two bright spots in the performance of the UG Board and the Town. Otherwise, the UG infrastructure continued its long slow decline while the Town patched the problems and avoided any real investment in our community. The UG Board was most noteworthy for its progressive disengagement.
For earlier articles, see the archives