Letters to the Editor: Affordable Housing 04.07.16

Quality Education for All

East Hampton

March 31, 2016

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to the article “Housing Plan Fuels Fears of ‘Disaster.’ ” After reading The Star’s account of the meeting held by the Amagansett School District on March 19, I wondered if your reporter had attended a different event. Only two out of approximately 100 attendees expressed fear. One, that the school will be overrun by all these children, and the other that he could not afford to hang on in Amagansett much longer without some affordable housing in the area. 

One speaker quite pointedly, and repeatedly, asked the school board to work on a plan to accommodate the increase and not focus on what they couldn’t do. The housing plan did not fuel fears of disaster although the presentation by Mr. Dragone attempted to do so. At least three speakers scolded the school board for implying that additional children in the district would cause damage to the quality of education.

My interpretation of the “rustle” at Mr. Dragone’s estimate of 72 additional children in the district was disbelief, not concern, and that is why he backed off his estimate. I believe the public, if not the school board, understand that that was a gross exaggeration.

The school board’s own analysis and trend charts reveal a significant decrease in Amagansett School population across the board. These include kindergarten enrollment, births in Amagansett, births in Suffolk County, and K-12 base projected enrollment. This was a significant portion of the presentation (eight slides and at least 15 minutes of presentation time), which was omitted entirely in your reporting. In 2007, for example, 21 kindergarteners entered Amagansett School and in 2015 there were 10. Despite Mr. Dragone’s “God forbid, absolute disaster, worst-case scenario” the data collected by the district’s own consultant show a shrinking Amagansett School population.

The Amagansett superintendent herself stated their goal is 16 students in a class. The general public might interpret that to mean classroom. For clarification, that is 16 per grade. Currently there are 13,10,12,17, 17, and 15 in each grade level in the school in grades one through six, respectively. There are approximately seven students in each classroom. This dispels the suggestion that there would be a need to increase the size of the school.

Yes, all of the classrooms are in use, but no, they are not at capacity. I respectfully request the school board turn their attention to ensuring access to quality education for all, not capping the number of students in the district. If you asked the students of Amagansett School whether they would like to have a few more classmates I bet they would say yes. A school can, in fact, from a child’s perspective, be too small indeed.

None of what I presented to the public on Saturday was included in your article. Snippets of a phone conversation I had with your reporter three days after the meeting were edited to imply that the Housing Authority is disregarding the needs and wants of Amagansett. In fact, the Housing Authority welcomes dialogue with the immediate community of Amagansett and the community of East Hampton at large. We hope to build what’s appropriate in size, scale, and aesthetic to complement the surroundings, not detract from the neighborhood.

The official editorial on March 24, “New Approaches Needed in the Housing Crisis,” contradicts itself twice. First, “. . . the number of units planned [in Amagansett] is small and would probably not put a dent in this season’s needs.” (I admit I am unclear about what is meant by “this season’s needs.” Are you suggesting the summer colony is experiencing hardship?) Then, “Every unit that can be added to the affordable supply matters.”

Later on in the editorial, “. . . so-called accessory apartments were well intended but no magic bullet,” followed by praise for Jay Schneiderman’s idea to create apartments in underutilized houses, which is modeled on precisely what East Hampton’s accessory apartment law codified five years ago.

KATY CASEY

Executive Director

East Hampton Housing Authority

No Sympathy

Springs

March 28, 2016

Dear David

Regarding the housing issue in Amagansett, which might increase the student population and thus raise taxes. Excuse me. I live in Springs. My taxes and mortgage go up every year, along with the student population. Consolidation is suddenly thrown on the table as an option? Of course, you know that was quickly pulled off. Any Springs resident can tell you that will never be an option! 

Nothing more to say. No sympathy for Amagansett residents. Welcome to my world. 

Sincerely

KERRY S. BAKER

The Amagansett Project

East Hampton

April 3, 2016

To the Editor:

How individuals and municipalities determine their self-esteem or specialness follows a similar pattern. A person or place is special because of what it does to make itself special, the actions and characteristics that elevate it above the norm. Or its specialness derives from the lack of specialness of everyone else: You suck, so I am automatically special and valued.

East Hampton Town is perceived by most of the world as being a special place. But not all parts of the town are equal. In truth, parts of the town are overcrowded, underfunded, and treated like third-class citizens. The town’s housing problem is a reflection of that inequality. Our specialness is a function of where we are, much more than who we are.

There is no debate on the need for affordable housing and the derivation of that problem. The debate is over whether we, as a town, are in this together or not. The loud response from the chorus is: We are not. So, when the town proposes affordable housing complexes in Wainscott and Amagansett their school boards go apoplectic.

If one were to carefully examine the effects on both schools, fake studies aside, one would find that the only real issue is about taxes, with a tinge of racism. The two hamlets with the lowest tax rates in East Hampton (Springs’s is five and a half times higher than Wainscott’s and four times higher than Amagansett’s) are logically upset that their taxes will go up. Why should Springs get a break? What did Springs do to deserve it?

The answer lies in whether we perceive housing as a townwide problem or not. When the town board caved in to the Wainscott School Board and bailed on the Wainscott affordable housing project it set a precedent for the other hamlets to follow. Unintended consequences or something more pernicious? So Amagansett wants to know why it should be treated differently than Wainscott. Isn’t Amagansett special? Shouldn’t its taxes remain low and its school untainted by kids who aren’t homegrown?

The town board bailed on Wainscott despite enormous support and a virtually cost-free ride. Will it have the courage to sustain the Amagansett project in the face of school board opposition? 

NEIL HAUSIG

Live Where You Can

Amagansett

April 4, 2016

Dear Editor,

I attended the meeting of the Amagansett School Board on March 19, at which an educational consultant, Joseph Dragone, gave a presentation to an audience of about 100 people. It apparently was a different meeting than that attended by Diana Walker, who I guess considers the presentation of facts to be “catered hypocrisy.” 

Mr. Dragone’s presentation had nothing to do with the need for affordable housing, as was stated at the onset; it was about the impact of said housing on the school’s future. He had studied the report of the SES Study team commissioned by the Amagansett School District and related the condensed statistical results to the audience in a clear and concise manner. 

Mr. Dragone presented the best and worst case scenarios for the district: an increase of between 36 and 72 new students (hardly the “few” mentioned by Ms. Walker) at a cost between $647,421 and $1,473,487, or a 7.38 percent to 16.8 percent school budget increase. Those are the facts; the school taxes of every Amagansett resident will increase. It’s just a question of the amount of the increase. And, as usual, anyone who doesn’t agree with the opinions of the all-knowing planners of the next spread-the-wealth project is labeled with one of the following terms: racist, xenophobic, elitist, etc.

This project was approved with no discussion of the effects it would have on the Amagansett schools and property taxes. I never had any idea that income from the rent of these units of “affordable housing” would contribute nothing to the school taxes. I work very hard to maintain my home in this so-called lowest-taxed, richest district in the state. An increase of 17 percent would really hurt, and is an example of the law of unintended consequences. Some idealist comes up with a plan without having done the due diligence required to assess the ramifications of that plan. So, 40 low-income families move in, the school district is overwhelmed, school taxes increase, and possibly dozens of (older) homeowners are priced out of town. And then, newer, younger families move in to these homes with even more children, making the problem even worse.

Back in the ’60s, there was a song by the Rolling Stones titled “You Can’t Always Get What You Want (but You Get What You Need).” That should be changed to fit this scenario to “You Can’t Always Live Where You Want (but You Live Where You Can).” This country guarantees everybody the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself. Everyone has the right to try to pursue the goal to live anywhere, but not the guarantee to make it. Like me on Further Lane — I have the right to try, but let’s face it.

Here’s an idea: Why doesn’t the subsidized housing crowd get together with people who think like them, form a corporation, put up the extra money they seem to have, buy up some relatively cheap houses in East Hampton Town, and then rent them out to low-income families for $1,500 a month? At least those houses would be on the tax rolls. 

Let the housing project advocates put their money where their mouths are. I am so very tired of them putting my money where their mouths are. Again, you can’t always live where you want, you live where you can.

BOB ELDI

Need to Provide Carrots

Springs

April 4, 2016

Dear David,

In 2007 the town launched its affordable accessory apartment program, a program that allows owner-occupied houses to contain a rental unit with kitchen for up to two renters. The law allows for the creation of 100 apartments, yet, in almost nine years, only 16 apartments have been approved and only 11 are currently functioning in a legally secure manner. Clearly the demand for affordable rental apartments is strong. So why has the program not succeeded and how should it be changed?

Here are some of the disincentives that hamper the town’s program: a. creating an affordable accessory apartment leads to a higher property tax reassessment, b. the apartments must be physically part of the owner’s house, and cannot be in a freestanding, converted garage or accessory building no matter how large the lot, and c. the owner, and not just the renters, must be a legal resident of East Hampton.

The triggering of an upward property tax reappraisal is enough to stop most homeowners, especially when added to the potentially high construction costs of creating the apartment. We need to provide carrots to the private sector and not disincentives. There are two possible fixes. The first would allow for an initial abatement, and then a future phase-in, of any increase in property tax assessment (at least for town taxes but not necessarily for school taxes). Permission from Albany in the form of a new law will likely be required for the town to make that change to our local law.

Another possibility is to lobby our state and federal elected officials to expand existing laws that provide income tax credits for the provision of affordable housing. A new version could specifically include credits for the individual homeowner who is providing a single unit on their property. A tax credit along with deferral of property tax increases becomes a strong incentive to homeowners to create affordable housing.

The town’s excellent Community Housing Implementation Plan published last year recommends that affordable accessory apartments be allowed in detached structures if some setback restrictions are met. Many residents would welcome having a person live on their properties but they do not want a renter within their home, even if there is a separate entrance.

Unfortunately there is a prejudice against the participation of part-year homeowners in the provision of affordable housing. Yet, nonresident homeowners are more likely to have the land, the financial resources, and the incentives to construct detached affordable accessory apartments. The existing legal requirement that the landlord-owner of an affordable accessory apartment be a legal resident provides no sensible benefit for the community, given that the landlord grants the town many rights of oversight of these apartments, including mandatory entry in emergencies. 

Some aspects of the program were well thought out. For example, the landlord has full control in choosing a tenant as long as the tenant is a resident of East Hampton. The landlord can ask for references and financials but there is no income cap or check by the town. Also, a 2004 law waives fees and grants priority status to an application to any town department or agency if that application includes an affordable housing component. 

Given the existing positive aspects of the program and the high demand for affordable rentals, it becomes undeniable that the law needs to remove the existing disincentives or else it will never succeed. Those changes must become an immediate priority before we lose all the people who understand why it is so important.

ZACHARY COHEN