CLOSE
Government

by -
0 1245
The street-level view of the Port Jefferson Crossing apartments, a 45-unit affordable housing complex opening within weeks. Photo by Raymond Janis

The transformation of Upper Port is happening in real time after years of well-documented social issues and underinvestment.

In the coming weeks, the village will complete two major initiatives. Station Street will soon open to traffic, and the Port Jefferson Crossing apartments, a 45-unit affordable housing complex developed by Conifer Realty, will launch.

As these projects open, further planning is in full swing. Conifer is working with the Village of Port Jefferson Planning Board on a second development located at the Main and Perry streets intersection. Meanwhile, the Board of Trustees is actively pursuing a vision for the proposed Six Acre Park along Highlands Boulevard.

In an exclusive interview with Mayor Margot Garant, she summarized the activities. “I think we’ve made great progress,” she said. “I think it’s a great start to what will continue to make [Upper Port] a safe and welcome place.”

Completing these projects marks the next chapter in a multiyear village undertaking to revitalize its uptown. Yet as the area undergoes its metamorphosis, a broader conversation is emerging.

Community revitalization in context

‘A good plan is the genesis of effort and conversation between the constituents, elected officials, economists, environmentalists, civic organizations, resident groups, business owners and, yes, real estate developers.’

— Richard Murdocco

Richard Murdocco is an adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science at Stony Brook University. His writings focus on land use, economic development and environmental policies on Long Island. In an interview, Murdocco detailed the regional and historical context surrounding redevelopment efforts in Port Jeff.

Downtown revitalization on Long Island dates back at least six decades, said Murdocco, when communities started tackling the effects of suburbanization and population boom.

“Downtown revitalization is not anything new,” Murdocco said. “The first comprehensive plans were drafted in the early ’60s by the Long Island Regional Planning Board and Dr. Lee Koppelman. Those identified key downtown areas where to focus growth, and the whole point of the plans was to mitigate the ever-ongoing suburban sprawl that western Suffolk County, especially, was getting a taste of at that time.”

With the eastward expansion of the Northern State Parkway and the construction of the Long Island Expressway, downtown areas soon became targets for growth. Ideally, this growth consisted of additional multifamily housing options, expanded retail sectors and developing neighborhoods near train stations.

Although development plans today are often pitched as novel or innovative, Murdocco contends that the general framework underlying revitalization has been replicated across generations.

“These concepts are as old as city building,” he said. “It may be new for Long Island, but it’s not new in practice.”

The view of Port Jefferson train station from the Port Jefferson Crossing apartments. Photo courtesy Margot Garant

The Patchogue model

‘For an area to be successful, there has to be people and there has to be a reason for people to be there.’ 

— Paul Pontieri

Today, proponents often cite the Village of Patchogue as a cornerstone of community revitalization on Long Island. Spearheading these efforts is Paul Pontieri, who has served as the village’s mayor since 2004. 

In an interview, Pontieri detailed his approach to community building. For him, areas that thrive are those with people.

“For an area to be successful, there has to be people and there has to be a reason for people to be there,” he said. “Businesses go where people are.”

Another priority for Pontieri was attracting young families into Patchogue. “We have a lot of young families,” he said. “That happened because we provided the kind of housing they can afford.”

Apartments were central for creating affordable housing options, according to Pontieri. While existing rents may appear overpriced to some, he believes these rent payments are preferable to the mandatory down payments when taking out a mortgage.

“Right now, if you have to put 20% down on a $500,000 home, you’re telling me that a 22- or 23-year-old that just got married has $100,000 to give on a down payment — it’s not going to happen, and that’s the reality,” he said. “You have to have the apartments because they will come into the apartments and begin to save their money, even though the rents on those apartments seem exorbitant.”

Pontieri holds that Long Island communities today face the challenge of drawing and keeping youth. According to him, young people will inevitably move away from unaffordable areas.

“You have a choice: You can sit there in your house — you and your wife at 75 years old — and your kids move someplace else because they can’t afford to live in your village,” he said, “Or you make your community user-friendly, kid-friendly, young-family friendly.” 

Murdocco said Patchogue had been held up as the standard-bearer for community rejuvenation because Pontieri more or less carried his vision through to completion. Though revitalization brought unintended consequences for Patchogue, such as magnifying a “parking problem that was enhanced and amplified by growth,” Murdocco said the example is generally regarded favorably.

“Overall, it’s lauded as a model because they did it,” the adjunct professor said. “For all intents and purposes, the area is thriving relative to what it was.”

Differentiating Upper Port

‘Our little footprint can’t really hold as much as Patchogue.’ 

— Margot Garant

While Garant acknowledges the utility of Pontieri’s method for Patchogue, she points out some key distinctions unique to Upper Port.

Like Pontieri, she holds that the neighborhood’s success depends on the people it can attract. “I believe that new residents and the new opportunity will drive an economic base and new economic success,” she said. Though arriving at this new resident base, Garant is employing a different approach.

For one, the two villages differ widely concerning their respective topographies. When organizing a plan, Garant said Port Jefferson must operate within the confines of limited space, further constrained by the existing built environment.

“Patchogue is flat, and it’s a grid system, so you can spread out there and have larger parcels that connect to the heart of your village,” she said. “In Port Jefferson, we’re in a bowl. We’re surrounded very much by residential [zones] on both sides of Main, so I see us as able to grow a bit differently.” 

Tying into the issue of topography is the matter of density. Garant maintains Pontieri had greater flexibility, enabling vertical and horizontal expansion to accommodate a growing population. “Our little footprint can’t really hold as much as Patchogue,” Garant said. 

Applying the Patchogue model to Upper Port is further complicated by the historical and cultural differences between the two villages. Garant stated she intends to bring a family oriented culture to Upper Port. In contrast, Patchogue attracts a more robust nightlife scene accentuating its bar and restaurant culture. 

“I just have a different philosophy when trying to revitalize the neighborhood,” Garant said. “I think Patchogue became known for the young, jet-setting community, the Alive After Five [street fair] bringing people to Main Street with a different sort of culture in mind. We’re looking at making things family oriented and not so much focused on bars and restaurants.”

In an email statement, trustee Lauren Sheprow, who emphasized revitalizing Upper Port as part of her campaign earlier this year, remarked that she was impressed by the ongoing progress. She remains committed to following the guidelines of the Port Jefferson 2030 Comprehensive Plan, published in 2014. 

Referring to the master plan, she said, “It does appear to be guiding the progress we are seeing take shape uptown. It would be interesting to take a holistic look at the plan to see how far we have progressed through its recommendations, and if the plan maintains its relevance in current times where zoning is concerned, and how we might be looking at the geography east of Main Street.”

Six Acre Park

‘The Six Acre Park is something that I see as a crucial element to balancing out the densification of housing up there.’

­— Rebecca Kassay

Along with plans for new apartments, Garant said the proposed Six Acre Park would be integral to the overall health of Upper Port. Through the Six Acre Park Committee, plans for this last sliver of open space in the area are in high gear. [See story, “Six Acre Park Committee presents its vision.”]

Trustee Rebecca Kassay is the trustee liaison to the committee. She refers to the parkland as necessary for supporting new residents moving into the village.

“As far as Upper Port, I am hoping and doing what I can to plan for a vibrant, balanced community up there,” she said. “The Six Acre Park is something that I see as a crucial element to balancing out the densification of housing up there.”

Plans are ongoing to convert the remaining six acres of open space along Highlands Boulevard into a tranquil, arboretum-like setting. Photo courtesy Rebecca Kasay, taken from Google Maps Street View

With more density, Kassay foresees Six Acre Park as an outlet for the rising population of Upper Port. “Everyone needs a place to step out from a suburban or more urban-like setting and breathe fresh air and connect to nature,” she said. “The vision for Six Acre Park is to allow folks to do just that.”

In recent public meetings, a debate has arisen over a possible difference of opinion between the village board and the planning board over active-use space at Six Acre Park. [See story, “PJ village board … addresses Six Acre Park.”]

Garant said the Board of Trustees has yet to receive an official opinion on behalf of the Planning Board. Still, the mayor does not see sufficient reason to modify the plan.

“We’re talking about creating an arboretum-like park used for educational purposes,” she said. “At this point in time, we don’t have enough land. The uptown population is welcome to use the rest of the parkland throughout this village.” Garant added, “But we are extremely mindful that when the new residents come to live uptown and they bring their needs, there’s a lot more that’s going to happen uptown and a lot more opportunity for us to make adjustments.”

Identifying the public good

‘In my opinion, property owners have allowed their buildings to deteriorate so that they would be able to sell the properties to — in this case — subsidized developers.’ 

— Bruce Miller

New development, in large part, is made possible by the Brookhaven Industrial Development Agency, which can offer tax exemptions to spur economic growth. Former village trustee Bruce Miller has been among the critics of Upper Port redevelopment, taking issue with these IDA subsidies.

“It’s an open secret that the properties were very poorly maintained up there,” Miller said. “In my opinion, property owners have allowed their buildings to deteriorate so that they would be able to sell the properties to — in this case — subsidized developers.”

In Miller’s assessment, while the projects are taxpayer supported, their community benefit is outweighed by the cost to the general fund.

“The buildings that are being built are paying very little in the way of taxes,” Miller said. “At 10 years it ramps up, but even at 15 years there’s not much tax they’re paying on them.”

Responding to this critique, Lisa Mulligan, CEO of Brookhaven IDA, released the following statement by email: “In accordance with our mission, the Brookhaven IDA is committed to improving the quality of life for Brookhaven residents, through fostering economic growth, creating jobs and employment opportunities, and increasing the town’s commercial tax base. The revitalization of uptown Port Jefferson is critical to the long-term economic well-being of the region, and housing is one key component of this.”

Town of Brookhaven Councilmember Jonathan Kornreich (D-Stony Brook), who represents Port Jefferson on the Town Council, also took issue with Miller’s claim. For him, the purpose of IDA subsidies is to identify benefits to the community and advance the public good.

“So often, there is no public benefit,” he said. “If it’s the will of Port Jefferson Village to revitalize an area that has struggled to attract investment for many years, that may be an appropriate use of IDA funding.”

However, Kornreich also acknowledged that these tax incentives come at a cost for ordinary taxpayers. For this reason, it remains crucial that the IDA has a firm grasp of the public good and advances that end alone.

“When this unelected body gives these benefits to a developer, it’s a tax increase on everyone within that taxing district … they are increasing your taxes,” the councilmember said. “When you pay those increased taxes, what you’re doing is supporting this vision of a public good.” In instances where the IDA functions without a view of the public good, he added, “It’s a huge betrayal.”

Garant suggested that ridding Upper Port of vacant lots constituted a public good in itself. While IDA benefits may mean short-term sacrifices for village residents, the tax exemptions will soon expire and the village will collect its usual rates.

“For us in the short term, we might be making a little bit of a sacrifice, but I can tell you right now what I’m making on the payment in lieu of taxes program is more than what I was getting on those buildings when they were blighted,” she said. “Six, seven, eight years down the road, when we’re at the end of those PILOT agreements, we’re going to be getting a sizable tax contribution from these properties.” She added, “I was looking down a 10- to 15-year road for the Village of Port Jefferson.”

Murdocco foresees opportunities for continued discussions within the village. According to him, community development done right is highly collaborative, uniting the various stakeholders around a common aim.

“A good plan is the genesis of effort and conversation between the constituents, elected officials, economists, environmentalists, civic organizations, resident groups, business owners and, yes, real estate developers,” he said. “I know for a fact that in Upper Port Jefferson, a lot of that did happen.”

The SBU adjunct professor added, “In terms of defining a public benefit, it depends on what the community wants. Do they want economic growth for an underutilized area? Do they want environmental protection? Do they want health and safety? That all depends on the people who live there.”

by -
0 537
Stock photo

Election Day is less than two weeks away, and now is the time for citizens to begin researching their ballots.

When we vote, we are not merely selecting a “D” or “R.” Our representatives are living, breathing creatures with all of the features of ordinary citizens. They possess personality traits, character flaws, preferences, opinions and persuasions. 

In these last few weeks, we must uncover these traits and determine whether they align with our values. Today, it is not enough to show up to the polls and vote. Here in Suffolk County, we find numerous examples of the popular will being subverted to advance the interests of a powerful few. 

Take judicial elections, for example. Party leaders hold enormous power concerning our judges. Through a sequence of dealmaking and compromises — most of which happen behind closed doors and away from the public eye — the party leaders line up all county judgeships through cross-endorsements well before the election.

To receive a judgeship and the sweet $185,000 to $211,000 salary that comes with it, our “elected” judges do what they must. They answer to their superiors, who are the political bosses awarding them their seats of power and cushy salaries. Meanwhile, the ordinary citizens — those paying these salaries — get left behind and forgotten.

If we do not research our ballots thoroughly, then our only options this November are those handpicked by the party chieftains. An uninformed citizenry only reinforces this broken electoral system, rendering our elected officials less accountable to the people with each passing election.

A functional, vibrant democracy requires that citizens take an active, rather than passive, role in the electoral process. We must take a deeper plunge into the candidates on our ballots. Who are these people? What are their professional backgrounds? If elected, how will they advance our values and interests?

It is time for the people to take back the reins of power. Let not the political bosses pull our strings as they do the puppets they try to plant in office. 

If we want politicians to be accountable to us, we must give our votes much more weight. Blindly voting down a ballot is as pointless and unproductive as not voting at all, especially since ballots also include candidates who have not actively campaigned. No person, regardless of party affiliation, is entitled to our vote.

Next week, TBR News Media will release its election supplement. Read through those articles, and get to know your prospective representatives. Let us break away from the party masters. Let the age of the uninformed voter die a sudden, unceremonious death.

by -
0 941
File photo by Lina Weingarten

The Town of Huntington board repealed an old code, Chapter 155, at its Oct. 19 meeting that limited pregnancy terminations to hospitals.

The law was adopted Dec. 8, 1970, and the regulation required “justifiable abortion acts, as defined in the Penal Law of New York State, shall be performed only in a hospital duly licensed and accredited under the New York State Department of Health and having equipment and facilities acceptable to the State Hospital Review and Planning Council.”

Chapter 155 allowed the town to order a cease and desist to a facility that was not authorized and permitted by the town to perform the procedure. The misdemeanor also carried a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 15 days. However, due to the practice of medicine being within the authority of the NYSDOH, the law was never enforced.

At the Oct. 19 board meeting, Councilwoman Joan Cergol (D), who sponsored the measure, said she had the support of her colleagues. 

“This is a violation of New York State law,” she said.

She added similar laws had been struck down in Hempstead [in 1972] as the law is unenforceable due to towns and villages not having police power to regulate police procedures.

“This has been a moot law on the books that is 52 years overdue to be removed because it has no effect at all, no matter what the laws of the land are, this law has no powers,” Cergol said. “It’s a paper tiger.”

The board held a public hearing on the motion. While some speakers gave their opinions as to why the code should remain on the books or not, a few used the opportunity to share their beliefs on abortion.

Among the speakers were representatives from the League of Women Voters who were on hand to support the repeal of the code.

Michael Lobasso asked the council members to remember “the spirit and intent” of the Town Board when the law was established. He said the board in 1970 had the foresight to choose a hospital as the safest place to have an abortion. Lobasso asked the current Town Board to ask themselves what is their intent and if they want to promote abortion procedures in any part of the town, and what precautionary procedures will they request of facilities. He asked the members to reconsider.

A mother carrying her baby was the last to come up to the microphone. She said it was great to repeal the “archaic” law, while it may not have a direct impact now due to state laws but could in the future. She said a few years ago when she had pregnancy complications, she was unable to access care in Huntington. She was told to go to Stony Brook University Hospital or Manhasset, which she said was costly and emotionally difficult. 

The board voted unanimously to repeal the law.

In a statement released after the board meeting, Cergol said, “I am proud to join other local municipalities on Long Island to repeal outdated regulations on where a woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy. The state judiciary and Legislature have made it clear: The Town of Huntington does not have the authority to regulate this issue.”

by -
0 420
Above: Mark Murray, chief of the narcotics bureau for the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office. Photo by Raymond Janis

Despite the pouring rain outside, dozens of locals gathered at Mount Sinai High School on Thursday, Oct. 13, for an educational forum on substance misuse prevention.

Hosted by Suffolk County Legislator Sarah Anker (D-Mount Sinai), who chairs the county’s addiction prevention and support advisory panel, the event brought together various entities. In her presentation, Anker emphasized the outsized rate of drug-related fatalities in the area.

“Right now, the town of Brookhaven has the highest number of opioid deaths in Suffolk County — one of the highest in the state — and we have to do more,” she said. The legislator added, referring to the county government, “We’re trying, but it’s really up to the community. It’s up to the parents, kids and peers to do more and get us in a better place.”

Anker highlighted the need for drug addiction and prevention workshops, stating that these provide an outlet for community members to better prepare themselves in case of an emergency. She also noted that drug education has evolved in recent years, addressing victims’ needs rather than creating stigma. 

The county’s DASH [diagnostic, assessment and stabilization hub] program was cited by her as a model for responsible drug intervention. “When people overdose, they go to an emergency [room] at Stony Brook or Mather or St. Charles or one of the hospitals here in Suffolk County, but what do you do after?” Anker said. “Before, they would just go home or go somewhere. There would be no support, no direction. Now there is.” She added, “New York State is taking that example and making more throughout the state.”

Also present at this community forum was Town of Brookhaven Councilmember Jonathan Kornreich (D-Stony Brook), chair of the town’s Drug Prevention Coalition. He considered the coalition a valuable public resource for Brookhaven residents.

“That’s a model of getting the school districts involved, of all kinds of community organizations from a grassroots level, so that we can really get down to that family level,” he said. For Kornreich, the goal of the coalition is to “be accessible and get people connected to the services they need and bring prevention programs to schools … so that we can break that cycle of use and abuse before it starts.”

Another essential component of the forum was its presentations on drug awareness. Among the speakers throughout the night was Mark Murray, chief of the narcotics bureau for the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office.

Murray delivered a detailed presentation on the dangers of fentanyl, which he said has become increasingly problematic for county communities.

“Since 2016 here in Suffolk, fentanyl has viciously made its mark,” he said. “We have easily averaged over 300 fatal overdoses a year here in Suffolk, due primarily to the presence of fentanyl.”

Murray characterized fentanyl as a highly potent substance, requiring just “a grain or two” to deliver a lethal dose. According to the narcotics chief, fentanyl is found in nearly every drug on the black market.

“Fentanyl is popular, it’s addictive — and there’s no such thing as a scrupulous drug dealer,” he said.

Given the frequency of fentanyl-related overdoses in Suffolk, Murray stressed the importance of the Good Samaritan Law. This New York State statute protects victims and witnesses of overdose events. 

“It covers a witness or a victim of any medical episode — but more specifically a drug or alcohol overdose — who decides to call 911 either for themselves or that third person,” he said. “It’s not a trick. It’s statutory. It was codified by the state because they wanted to encourage people to realize the importance of the situation and to pick up the phone, call and get help.”

Following the presentations from Murray and other speakers, attendees were given training instructions in naloxone.

To learn more about the addiction resources, including emergency hotline numbers, visit the Long Island Addiction Resource Center website: longislandaddictionresourcecenter.org.

by -
0 390

Brookhaven Town Highway Superintendent Daniel P. Losquadro and Councilman Kevin LaValle have announced the resurfacing of Holbrook Road from Route 25 to Portion Road, Holbrook Avenue and Smith Road in Centereach and Ronkonkoma.

Prior to paving, crews completed extensive concrete improvements, inspecting and installing new drains and repairing and replacing damaged concrete curbing and aprons. Crews removed and replaced 11,650 square feet of concrete sidewalk, 6,300 square feet of aprons, 4,975 linear feet of concrete curb, and 4,780 square feet of ADA-compliant handicap ramps. The $135,525 cost to replace the existing handicap ramps within this project and bring them into ADA compliance was covered by a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Human Services. In addition, crews replaced catch basin roadway safety grates with bicycle-friendly grates. The new grates that were installed have narrower openings that are designed to meet current federal and state safety standards. The total cost for this paving project was approximately $676,000.

“The portion of Holbrook Road that we resurfaced is a major artery running from Centereach to Ronkonkoma,” said Superintendent Losquadro. “Crews worked diligently to complete this paving project – which is located in a school zone – prior to the start of the school year earlier this month to be as minimally-disruptive to students, teachers and administrators traveling to and from Holbrook Road Elementary School.”

“I want to thank the Highway Superintendent for prioritizing Holbrook Road in the 2022 paving schedule. Infrastructure projects are extremely important to our residents, and I am committed to focusing on infrastructure projects like this to continue to improve the quality of life of our residents in the Town of Brookhaven.” said Councilman LaValle.

by -
0 399
Incumbent state Sen. Anthony Palumbo (R-New Suffolk), left, and Democratic Party challenger Skyler Johnson, right, during a Meet the Candidates forum at Comsewogue Public Library on Tuesday, Sept. 20. File photos by Raymond Janis

The Republican and Democratic Party nominees for New York’s 1st State Senate District took to the debate stage on Wednesday, Sept. 28, at the Hampton Bays Senior Center.

Hosted by the Hampton Bays Civic Association, incumbent state Sen. Anthony Palumbo (R-New Suffolk) and Democratic challenger Skyler Johnson, a Mount Sinai native, tackled various pressing issues in Albany. Questions were submitted by members of the civic, as well as some in the audience.

Abortion

Palumbo described himself as a libertarian concerning abortion law but raised objections to the practice of late-term abortions. “Women have a right to choose and should have a right to choose,” he said. “My only objection is to late-term abortion.” 

On the other hand, Johnson referred to himself as pro-choice and said he supported a woman’s right to choose. He accused Palumbo of not supporting exceptions for the life of a mother. He also called objections to late-term abortions “a myth.”

“If someone is getting an abortion past six months, it is because their life is in danger,” he said. “Late-term abortions aren’t actually a thing. They are a thing that happens when someone’s life is in danger. There is no data, no statistics to indicate that people are getting abortions because they are changing their minds past the sixth month of pregnancy.”

Renewable energy

Johnson said that he would not like to see the expansion of nuclear power on Long Island. For him, the risks imposed by nuclear power plants are not worth the rewards. However, he does foresee ways to promote alternative forms of green energy.

“I do think New York has a great opportunity to invest in green energy, to invest in better transportation,” he said. “That gets more cars off the road, that keeps our air clean, and that lowers the burden on our critical infrastructure.”

Palumbo offered his support behind renewable energy, and said the transition to these novel energy sources should be done “smartly and reliably.”

“The technology is getting there, and we’re pushing,” the state senator said. He added that continued funding for environmental initiatives will be critical to Long Island’s overall health. “We’re a very different animal on Long Island, and the environment is critical. All of the renewables are certainly a part of that whole package.”

Guns in schools

Palumbo said schools should consider having school resource officers, or trained and armed police officers designated to secure schools. 

“The people who should be handling guns are not teachers, but people who are trained,” Palumbo said. “Guns in schools should be with school resource officers.”

Johnson agreed that teachers should not be armed, referring to this as a “commonsense policy.” 

“I want to make sure that we’re doing everything that we can to improve gun safety in New York because there’s a lot that we can mostly all agree on,” Johnson said.

This debate marks the first of several encounters between the two candidates in the coming weeks. Voters will make their picks on Tuesday, Nov. 8. Early voting begins later this month.

by -
0 1332
Photo by Gerard Romano

By Nancy Marr

The $4.2 billion Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Job Bond Act proposition on our ballot in 2022 will allow our state to undertake vital and urgent environmental improvement projects via issuing bonds; not a tax increase.

Long Island’s waterways are impaired by failing sewage and septic systems, and algae and nitrogen pollution impacts our sole-source aquifer system which provides drinking water to three million state residents. We need to find a way to conserve open space to benefit wildlife habitats, food production, and outdoor recreation. Many marginalized communities are harmed by pollution and have no access to open space, clean air and water.

There have been eleven environmental bond acts passed since the early 20th century. The conservation movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a response to vast deforestation, natural resource depletion and industrialization. The “forever wild” clause was added to the New York State Constitution in 1894 to enshrine the protection of lands in the Adirondacks and Catskills. 

In 1910 voters passed a bond act for $2.5 million, in 1916, for $10 million, and in 1924, for $15 million, all for the purposes of land acquisition and the establishment of parks. The 1965 Bond Act funded infrastructure to limit the flow of wastewater from untreated sewage overflows. In the 1970’s and 80’s, attention was galvanized by the problems with Love Canal, near Niagara Falls, the site of thousands of tons of toxic waste from the Hooker Chemical Company, which led policymakers in the US to establish hazardous waste regulatory systems.  The majority of the funding from the Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986 went to manage hazardous waste in sites under the State Superfund program which had been established in 1979. The Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996 allocated the bulk of its $1.75 billion to safe drinking water and treatment of solid waste. 

The infrastructure in New York City, which supplied water to approximately 40 percent of NYS’s population, had already exceeded its life span by 2008 when the NYS Department of Health estimated that $38.7 billion would be needed over the next twenty years for drinking water infrastructure. The Legislature responded with an initial allocation in 2017 of $2.5 billion. In 2019 it passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which established clear statewide goals for emissions reduction and clear energy. 

Governor Hochul’s budget released the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs Environmental Act of 2022. The final version, $4.2 billion, makes climate change its largest category of funding and designates that a portion of the total funding must be allocated to disadvantaged communities that bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences. The 2022 Bond Act includes:

Climate Change Mitigation (includes money for electrifying school buses) — $1.5 billion: Will fund projects that expand clean energy infrastructure, increase energy efficiency, reduce green gas emissions, and protect air and water quality to help fight and mitigate climate change. 

Restoration and Flood Risk Reduction — $1.1 billion: Damage caused by severe storms and flooding is projected to cost over $50 billion statewide. Funding would provide investments in NY’s natural and manufactured coastal resilience systems such as shoreline protection, wetland restoration, local waterfront revitalization, green infrastructure, and voluntary buyout programs.

Open Space Land Conservation and Recreation — $ 650 million: The Bond Act funding will expand open space conservation programs, promote outdoor recreation, protect natural resources, improve biodiversity, benefit threatened and endangered species and help farmers who are facing the challenges of climate change. Funding will invest in restoring and maintaining native fish populations and increasing public access to our waterways to support LI’s maritime culture. 

Water Quality Improvement and Resilient Infrastructure — $650 million: A long-term solution is needed to fund our backlog of water quality and infrastructure needs which continue to outpace available funding; the Bond Act will help fill the gaps in funding by investing at least $659 million in protecting water quality, spending 35% of the total in disadvantaged communities.

On Election Day 2022, remember to turn over your ballot and vote for the Environmental Bond Act proposition! 

Nancy Marr is Vice-President of the League of Women Voters of Suffolk County, a nonprofit nonpartisan organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government and influences public policy through education and advocacy. For more information, visit www.lwv-suffolkcounty.org or call 631-862-6860.

by -
0 803
Councilmember Jonathan Kornreich (D-Stony Brook) questions the town’s mapmaker during a public hearing on Thursday, Sept. 29. Screenshot from the town website

The Town of Brookhaven’s controversial redistricting process concluded on Thursday, Sept. 29, after the Town Board voted unanimously to approve the latest proposed map.

The Town Board, which has a 6-1 Republican majority, took over the redistricting process after an appointed redistricting committee failed to find agreement on a draft proposal. Days after the committee formally disbanded, Town Supervisor Ed Romaine (R) presented his own map. For more on this story, see “Brookhaven officials react to latest redistricting proposal” (TBR News Media website). 

Councilmember Jonathan Kornreich (D-Stony Brook) kicked off the public hearing with a forceful line of questioning of the town’s designated mapmaker, David Schaefer of Schenectady-based firm Skyline Consulting. 

Kornreich pressed Schaefer on a range of subjects, such as his familiarity with the hamlets throughout the town. He also inquired about how Schaefer arrived at an original determination to split Port Jefferson Station and Terryville between Council Districts 1 and 2, and why he decided to move most of Ridge into CD4.

Responding, Schaefer said that he created the initial maps solely to bring the six council districts into roughly equal populations. “The first draft that I submitted is all population driven,” he said.

Following Kornreich’s line of questioning, residents pressed their representatives on the Town Board repeatedly over concerns that arose throughout the redistricting process and the alleged inequities in drawing the district lines. 

Ira Costell, a resident of Port Jefferson Station, argued Schaefer’s approach was unproductive, reducing redistricting to an analytic method while ignoring its impact on communities of interest.

“There’s more than just standard deviations and numbers at play here,” Costell said. “There’s people, there’s communities, there’s interests, and there’s fairness at stake here, and I don’t see a lot of it in what the mapmaker initially did.”

‘Despite the hideously flawed process that led here, I think in the end we’ve created a map that’s got some compromises, and it’s got a little something for everyone to be unhappy about.’

— Jonathan Kornreich

Costell further railed against the committee process, saying, “The hearings were poorly advertised, they were chaotic, they were confusing, they were marked by a lack of support information from the town, which resulted in maps that just appeared out of thin air.” He continued, “What does seem transparent, however, is the majority on this board seems poised to ignore the clear will and desires of the voters who did speak out.”

Terryville resident Lou Antoniello suggested Schaefer was not being truthful during his remarks. He added that tampering with district boundaries may affect future redistricting procedures.

“While the map that this board put together is light-years better than the original map, which cut out a huge chunk [of Terryville from CD1], it’s still cutting — cracking — Council District 1,” he said. “That sets a dangerous precedent for the future.”

Members of the redistricting committee also attended the public hearing. Among them was Gail Lynch-Bailey, who had served this year and in 2012. She referred to the two initial maps which split Port Jefferson Station and Terryville as a ploy to divert the public’s attention away from alleged gerrymandering in Council District 4. This district includes the racially and ethnically diverse communities of Coram, Gordon Heights and North Bellport.

“Once the public realized the commission had had no input into them, the maps were readily recognized by many for what they were: diversions, bait-and-switch tactics, ‘pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain’ maps intended to focus attention on the northern CDs instead of what was going on for CD4,” she said. “This ruse was, and still is, unconscionable.”

Also making an appearance was Ali Nazir, the Republican co-chair on the redistricting committee. He defended the movement of mostly white Ridge into CD4, citing the hamlet’s longstanding ties to the Longwood community.

“Despite rhetoric of the contrary, Ridge has always been in Council District 4,” Nazir said. “Ridge has a long history with the Longwood community, and to arbitrarily excommunicate them from the Longwood community is quite frankly wrong.”

Port Jefferson Station and Terryville, however, remain mostly united within the boundaries of Council District 1. Kornreich, who voted with the majority, justified his vote, saying this map would not split minority communities or dilute their votes.

“We negotiated in good faith, and the supervisor fulfilled his promise to keep Gordon Heights and North Bellport together, not to dilute the minority vote, and in good faith, I will support the agreement we made,” Kornreich said. “Is it an ideal map? No. Is it a map that I were to draw? Of course not. But when you’ve got one Democrat and a row of Republicans, you tell me what level of political power you have.”

In concluding his remarks, the CD1 councilmember said the final map reflects a series of compromises. “Despite the hideously flawed process that led here, I think in the end we’ve created a map that’s got some compromises, and it’s got a little something for everyone to be unhappy about,” he said, adding, “I hope that we can get to work and solve the real problems that face our town.”

No other board member spoke during the hearing. Following the vote, a droning cry rained from some in the audience, the dissidents shouting, “Shame on you, shame on you.” 

It remains unclear whether the map will face challenges in court or whether those challenges could hold up given the bipartisan outcome.

by -
0 608
File photo by Heidi Sutton/TBR News Media

The Port Jefferson Village Board met on Monday, Oct. 3, for an afternoon packed with important business. 

Business meeting

Mayor Margot Garant

For its first order of business, the board unanimously approved a bond anticipation note to finance construction for improvements at the Old Homestead/Oakwood Road recharge basin. The BAN will enable construction to begin without the village having to draw from its operating budget. 

This project, according to Mayor Margot Garant, is primarily subsidized through a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Administration. 

“We’re still waiting for the grant to come in from FEMA, but we have to pay the bill,” Garant said. “Hopefully, that money comes in before the end of the year.”

The board approved Garant’s appointment of Shane Henry to the Architectural Review Committee. Deputy Mayor Kathianne Snaden, trustee liaison to ARC, anticipated Henry’s expected contributions to the committee.

“He’s young, enthusiastic, and he wants to get more involved,” Snaden said. “I think he will be a great addition.” Garant added that she is looking forward to drawing from Henry’s contracting and historic preservation background.

Deputy Mayor Kathianne Snaden

With trustee Lauren Sheprow voting “no,” the village board approved a 4-1 resolution for the 2023 rate increases for the Port Jefferson Country Club. Stan Loucks, trustee liaison to the country club, said these rate increases are based upon a unanimous recommendation from the Country Club Management Advisory Committee. 

The rate increases, according to Loucks, will enable the country club to make renovations to bunkers, improvements to cart paths and cover other unforeseen expenses.

“The rates that have been presented will increase our revenue by $100,000,” Loucks said. “That is an … increase in the overall budget, which I feel — I hope — is adequate.”

Defending her vote against the resolution, Sheprow expressed uneasiness about membership rate increases. She advocated exploring and exhausting other options for raising revenue before placing added costs on members.

“When I was the chair of the CCMAC, I did not agree with raising membership rates because I felt like there was an opportunity to find new revenue … without putting the revenue on the backs of the members,” Sheprow said. “We’re playing on this product that isn’t the A-plus product that it’s been. It’s kind of a C-level product, and we’re asking our members to come back next year and pay more for something that they don’t have yet.”

General meeting

Trustee Stan Loucks

After a brief interim for an executive session, the trustees moved upstairs for the general meeting. During that time frame, there were several exchanges between the public and the village government.

Chief of code enforcement Fred Leute reminded residents to drive carefully on village streets as schools are again in session. He also reported a speeding issue on Brook Road near the high school. “Brook Road is not a road you want to go fast on,” he said. “When you go down that hill, slow down.”

A Suffolk County Police Department representative told Port Jefferson residents to remain alert to the ongoing crime trends of catalytic converter thefts and phone call scams. 

During her report, Sheprow announced that she would present findings from her internal communications audit at a future meeting. She also reported that the Country Club Social/Hospitality Task Force has already met several times and is working with the restaurant management of The Waterview to “create a more welcoming, accessible and fun environment up at the country club.”

Trustee Rebecca Kassay reported that she is continuing to coordinate with Snaden on a “complete streets concept” for Port Jefferson.

Trustee Rebecca Kassay

“I am highly recommending that the village looks into investing into a study, which can be anywhere between $30,000 and $80,000,” Kassay said. “This would be something that benefits all residents. It would assess how to make the village more walkable and potentially more bikeable as well.”

Loucks gave an update from the parks department regarding removing vessels from village racks. “The vessels need to be removed by November 1,” he said. 

Snaden announced her effort to coordinate more closely with the Greater Port Jefferson Chamber of Commerce and the Port Jefferson Business Improvement District.

“We’re going to have quarterly meetings moving forward just to make sure that everyone is on the same page with their activities and their events,” the deputy mayor said. “We can all collaborate and bounce ideas off each other, let each other know what we’re all doing.”

Garant gave a detailed report on several significant initiatives within the village government. There are ongoing discussions about giving a proper name to Station Street, a block in Upper Port opening later this month. 

Trustee Lauren Sheprow

“There will be a conversation about what we should call this new street as the new gateway to Port Jefferson,” the mayor said. “We do have a ribbon-cutting on the calendar for October 26 … It will be a great new start to a total revitalization of Upper Port.”

Bids for an upper wall to stabilize the East Beach bluff are due this Friday, Oct. 7. Garant announced that once the board has the final cost estimates, it will decide whether to approve the upper wall or retreat inland. For more on this local issue, see The Port Times Record’s story, “Port Jeff mayor estimates $3M for upper wall, trustees debate erosion mitigation strategy at village country club,” Sept. 29 edition, also tbrnewsmedia.com.

During the public comment portion at the end of the meeting, village resident Michael Mart advised the board to consider the future instead of the past when deciding upon the East Beach bluff.

“Rather than put all of our efforts into saving the past, please look forward to creating the future that we might want here,” he said. “And in doing that, I think it’s important the residents have an opportunity to express their views on the final decision, and maybe even, like with the school board [proposed capital bond projects], have an opportunity to vote on the final decision.”

To watch the full video of the general meeting, visit the village’s official YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bwpxXtRxmA

by -
0 1141
Stock photo

By Nancy Burner, Esq.

Nancy Burner, Esq.

Skilled nursing care is a high level of care that can only be provided by trained and licensed professionals, such as registered nurses, licensed professional nurses, medical directors, and physical, occupational, and speech therapists. 

Skilled care is short-term and helps people get back on their feet after injury or illness. Skilled nursing facilities are residential centers that provide nursing and rehabilitative services to patients on a short-term or long-term basis. Examples of the services provided at a skilled nursing facility include wound care, medication administration, physical and occupational therapy, and pulmonary rehabilitation.

Generally, patients who are admitted to skilled nursing facilities are recovering from surgery, injury, or acute illness, but a skilled nursing environment may also be appropriate for individuals suffering from chronic conditions that require constant medical supervision. If you or a loved one is interested in using Medicare for skilled nursing, though, there are specific admission requirements set by the federal government:

• The individual has Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) with a valid benefit period. The benefit period will start from the date of admission to a hospital or skilled nursing facility and last for up to 60 days after the end of the stay.

• The individual has a qualifying hospital stay. This generally means at least three in- patient days in a hospital.

• The doctor has recommended skilled nursing care for the individual on a daily basis. The care must be provided by skilled nurses and therapists or under their supervision and should be related to the condition that was attended to during the qualifying hospital stay.

• The individual is admitted to a skilled nursing facility that is certified by Medicare. A skilled nursing facility must meet strict criteria to maintain its Medicare certification.

Usually, the skilled nursing care services covered by Medicare include the room charges, provided that it is a semi-private or shared room, meals at the facility, and any nutritional counseling, as well as costs of medication, medical supplies, medical social services, and ambulance transportation. It also covers rehabilitative services that are required to recover from the condition, such as physical therapy, respiratory therapy, and speech therapy.

Medicare generally offers coverage for up to 100 days of treatment in a skilled nursing facility. Note that if the patient refuses the daily skilled care or therapy as recommended by the doctor, then the coverage by Medicare may be denied for the rest of the stay at the skilled nursing facility. Many patients are advised that they will not get the full 100 days of Medicare benefits because they had reached a “plateau” or that they failed to improve. This is known as the Improvement Standard and was a “rule of thumb” used to evaluate Medicare patients. 

Applying the Improvement Standard resulted in the denial of much needed skilled care for thousands of Medicare patients. The denials were based on a finding that there was no likelihood of improvement in the patient’s condition. This standard ignored the fact that the patients needed skilled care in order to maintain their current state of health and to prevent them from deteriorating. More often than not, if the patient was not improving, Medicare coverage was denied. While this standard was widely used, it was inconsistent with Medicare law and regulations.

A court case brought by Medicare beneficiaries and national organizations against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Jimmo v Sebelius) sought to change this. The plaintiffs argued that even though the term “plateau” does not appear in the Medicare regulations, it is this term that is often used and relied upon to deny coverage. The appropriate standard should be: will the covered services “maintain the current condition or prevent or slow further deterioration,” not whether the individual was showing signs improvement.

As a result of this litigation and the settlement on Jan. 24, 2013, patients should be able to continue receiving services provided by Medicare, even where improvement in the patient’s condition cannot be documented. However, the old standard continues to be used. Patients and their advocates should educate themselves on the correct standard to make sure coverage is not cut prematurely.

Nancy Burner, Esq. is the founder and managing partner at Burner Law Group, P.C with offices located in East Setauket, Westhampton Beach, New York City and East Hampton.

Prev1...828384...228Next Page 83 of 228
TBR News Media is your local news and entertainment website.
We provide you with the latest breaking news and information for your community.
Contact us: [email protected]

Most Viewed

©