‘Affordable housing’ projects seek to keep residents on Long Island

By: Jim Mancari

Though shelter—along with food and clothing—is a basic necessity of life, rising prices are making affordable housing increasingly difficult to find for young people and families on Long Island.

Nassau and Suffolk counties are ranked in the top-10 least affordable living counties in the U.S. Currently, over one-fifth of Long Island households spend more than half their income on housing.

Meanwhile, since 2000, rents have increased 39 percent throughout the island.

Despite these statistics, both counties are taking strides to lessen the financial burden on residents by offering affordable housing.

What is affordable housing?

The Long Island Progressive Coalition (LIPC) introduced the “Yes in My Backyard” project in 1979. It defines “affordable housing” as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of the monthly household income for rent and utilities. The project also guarantees the housing will remain affordable to families who qualify under specific guidelines.

What steps are Nassau and Suffolk taking to increase availability of affordable housing?

On Oct. 31, Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano joined the Long Island Housing Partnership (LIHP) in Inwood to break ground on four new 3-bedroom, 1.5-bath homes, which have been made affordable through grants from the county, the Federal HOME Program and the New York State Affordable Housing Corporation. LIHP seeks to provide increased housing opportunities for Long Islanders unable to afford decent and safe homes.

“It is extremely important that we increase affordable housing opportunities available to our residents,” said Mangano. “These homes provide a once in a lifetime opportunity to those who need it the most, while also creating construction jobs which are the backbone of our economy.”

Mangano said these homes will revitalize neighborhoods and put federal dollars to good use for residents. Barring the Nassau Interim Finance Authority’s approval of Mangano’s most recent 2012 budget proposal, Nassau residents will not experience a property tax increase in the near future.

“Any time you can create an affordable housing market, coupled with the certainty of no new county property taxes and then offer the individual or family the services and quality of life that Nassau County delivers, you create a very desirable place to live,” Mangano said.

Nassau County Legis. Howard Kopel (R-Lawrence) also dug his shovel into the earth at the Inwood ground breaking ceremony.

“Making affordable housing available across Nassau County is fundamental to our long-term economic prosperity,” said Kopel.

Several months ago in Suffolk County, the LIPC fought for the approval of a 490-unit mixed availability living community in Huntington Station designed by AvalonBay. Though ground has yet to be broken, LIPC director Lisa Tyson said the goal is for nearly 20 percent of these units to be affordable housing.

Additionally, for the past decade, land developer Gerald Wolkoff has fought for the approval of the Heartland Project in Brentwood, which would create new shops, restaurants and apartments, in addition to jobs. Of the proposed 9,000 rental units, 23 percent would qualify as affordable housing. Disputes over labor and money have delayed this $4 billion project.

What does the future hold?

By the time these housing projects are completed, there may not be any buyers left. In 2008, the Stony Brook University Center for Survey Research reported that 65 percent of Long Island residents between 18 and 24 said they were likely to move away from the island in the next five years.

“Most people cannot go from living in their parents’ home to owning a home,” said Tyson. “Young people don’t want to live in their parents’ basements or attics. They can’t pay $1,500 a month, so there is just very little opportunity.”

While the economy doesn’t seem to be improving anytime soon, local officials hope that affordable housing will keep Long Island residents—and taxpayers—on the island for the long haul.

Nassau County GOP ram through redistricting plan aimed at securing majority rule

By Karen Rubin Long Island Populist Examiner

After a heated and contentious public hearing on Monday, May 9, the Nassau County Legislature is poised to vote to adopt the redistricting map at its Monday, May 16 meeting.

The intention here, under the guise of preserving “one-man-one-vote,” especially in the 2nd Legislative District, where racial minorities and the majority, is to shift population around, eliminate one of the districts, now represented by a popular Democrat, David Denenberg, and create a new District 19, designed to emerge as a third minority/majority district, but one where the Republicans think they will be able to elect their own minority candidate. The calculation is to reach 13 out of 19 seats on the Legislature (as it is, the two minority Legislators, both democrats, have virtually no power because this body is not interested in compromise).

In fact, 544,000 people, or 44% of Nassau County’s 1.3 million population, would be shifted to a different district – a scale of shift that is unparalleled. In fact, in 2003, during the last reapportionment (under the Democratic Majority), only 50,000 voters were shifted. Nonetheless, the Republican legislators constantly attacked the Democrats for being “brutal” when they had the reins.

Republican Francis X. Becker, Jr. (LD 6), declared angrily that Valley Stream, East Rockaway and Rockville Center were “split by Democrats in the last redistricting. So it depends on who is doing the  gerrymandering” He actually admitted what the Republicans were doing was gerrymandering.

This is all being orchestrated by County Attorney John Ciampoli, who was brought in by County Executive Ed Mangano expressly for his considerable experience (which he boasted of during the late-night public hearing) reapportioning districts.

John Ciampoli made his bones as a political operative for the Republican party. As Counsel for the New York State Senate Republican Campaign Committee, Albany, he was tasked with disenfranchising potential Democratic voters such as college students at Bard and Vassar and poorer people who may have moved residences in order to shift the balance to Republican candidates.

But during a public hearing lasting 14 hours and only winding up shortly before midnight, Ciampoli, speaking in velvet tones, presented himself as the noble knight protecting minority voting rights, preserving the cherished principle of “one man-one vote,” and the County’s guardian against a lawsuit which he contended would be imminent if the County did not address reapportionment.

He cited Sec 112 of the county’s charter, which requires that six months after receiving the Census data, the Legislature describe a plan for reapportionment.

That’s six months, not six weeks, as Ciampoli and Presiding Officer Peter Schmitt are trying to do.

But the “race card” itself is a red-herring, designed to give cover and somehow avoid the smell test of gerrymandering when the plan comes to court, as the Republicans acknowledge is likely. This isn’t about preserving or creating minority representation – because even two or three minority members of the board would have no power to actually do anything. It is about carving out a Republican majority for generations. And how goes Nassau County may well go New York State and even the Congress and White House.

On April 25, just two weeks after unveiling the “map” for re-districting, prepared in secret by Ciampoli and two consultants he hired on his own without the Legislature’s knowledge or authorization, Schmitt called for one solitary public hearing, on May 9, at 10 a.m. Ostensibly, you are supposed to believe that Ciampoli only began work on the new map on April 15, after being entreated by Schmitt to save the County from a Constitutional catastrophe. That would be just 10 days to create a plan that shifts nearly half of the population into new districts, as described and defined in a 200-page bill.

Despite the fact the meeting was held when most people are at work and in a room with a capacity of only 251, huge contingents from Great Neck, Hempstead and the 2nd District turned out, filled the room, and during an extremely contentious hearing (at one point, police were called to threaten arrest after one man raised the specter of White Hoods and voter suppression), 150 people stood up to oppose the plan, including a few self-declared Republicans. (After 8 hours of public statements, there was only one statement of support, in the form of a letter which Schmitt read into the record).

While most of the speakers accused the Republicans of engineering districts that would “pack” and “crack” to dilute or weaken minority power, and otherwise gerrymander districts to weaken Democrats, what no one noted was that the aim was also to “pack” and “crack” Jewish votes. Besides Great Neck being severed in two, the plan is also to split the Five Towns (2 1/2 Towns), with Woodmere, Inwood and half of Cedarhurst put into a newly created “minority-influenced district” together with parts of Elmont and Valley Stream, leaving Hewlett, Lawrence and the rest of Cedarhurst in the district now represented by Republican Howard J. Kopel.

No one mentioned this. Apparently the fact that Jews are a mere 1% of the population doesn’t warrant consideration as a minority worthy of protection in terms of representation. But Jews are targeted as a political and financial base for Democrats. The Republican scheme – manifest across the country – is to weaken whatever source of Democratic influence there is. In Wisconsin and Indiana, it means going after public unions; in Michigan, it means empowering the governor to dissolve villages and install his own “manager”; in Florida, it is a new law making it harder to register and to vote. The reapportionment tactic was used very successfully by Tom DeLay in Texas, helping to turn a Democratic state into a Republican stronghold, which rippled into giving Republicans control of Congress, as well, in 2003.

You may think that Ciampoli’s Machiavellian tactics here in Nassau County are just local politics, but already, we have seen how replacing Democrat Craig Johnson with Republican Jack Martins returned the State Senate to Republican control.

“Nassau is the linchpin for the state,” attorney Cynthia Kouril, of the New York Democratic Lawyers Council, commented to me. “They are destroying the [Democratic] party.” Kouril, an expertise in election law, voter protection and fair elections who told the Legislature that Ciampoli “misrepresented the statute” in order to justify this rush to reapportion,  added it is inconceivable for a reapportionment plan to affect 44 percent of voters. “You would have had to have a cataclysm” like a Hurricane Katrina uprooting entire communities, to warrant that scale of redistribution.

While Ciampoli kept reiterating his refrain that his plan complies with the Constitution, and satisfies the requirements of “compact” and “contiguous,” Kourcil pointed to the map and the odd shapes of the newly drawn districts – a T-Rex, a telephone receiver –  the fact that in one district, you would have to travel over water (no bridge) and through two other districts to get to the other side – as the very definition of gerrymandering. (Later, Republican Legislator Francis X Becker admitted as much.)

Ciampoli and Schmitt kept insisting that the census shifts mandated the County act immediately to change the boundaries.

No one actually disputed that the new census figures required reapportionment. The only point that was made, over and over, is that the county charter allows six months for this first step (of a three-step process), and that the process requires input from local communities, with consideration for alternate plans. That’s what happened in 2001, when Democrat Judy Jacobs was in charge, with a final plan adopted in 2003 after a series of hearings and alternative plans with the result that 50,000 people were shifted, compared to 544,000 in this plan.

Ciampoli had pointed out that all around the state, counties had come up with new maps – but he failed to mention that each and every one, including Westchester, Rockland, Erie, Albany, had has many as 11 public hearings before adopting their new map.

After the public had cleared out, around 6 pm, the Legislature reconvened just after 8 pm. with Ciampoli now answering questions from the Legislators. None of the Republicans asked questions – reserving their comments to attacks on Democrats who did.

The Democrats attempted, with little success, to get at what process, what method was used to derive this map, when Ciampoli began the process and whether he had discussed reapportionment with the County Executive or Republican leadership at the county or state level.

Campoli conveyed the impression that the map and the 200-page legislation to define the new districts were accomplished in a mere three-weeks time, after the 2010 Census data was reported on April 1,  but gave contradictory statements. At one point he said he had been working on the plan for a year, then he said he had been “thinking about it” and studying case law, but began the process of actually re-drawing maps on his own initiative, before receiving an official request from Schmitt, on April 15. He at first said he had no discussions with Republican leadership and then said he probably did “in passing.”

But there were questions I wanted to ask, and I was disappointed that the Democrats didn’t. For example, Ciampoli indicated that he relied on more than the census data – demographics, ages of people – and was fully well aware of voter registrations and voting patterns in terms of “making sure” the sanctity of the minority/majority districts were preserved. He knew exactly what proportion of a district voted for Obama, Schumer, Rice, Weitzman in 2008 and under the new plan. But no one asked how he applied that information to redrawing Great Neck, the Five Towns, and the other Democratically-controlled districts, particularly the district represented by David Denenberg, who is a particular target for elimination.

In fact, no one has explored the difference between population – which is what the Census is all about – and voter numbers at all.

Indeed, LD2 district is being split so that black sections are being sent to a predominantly white (and affluent) district, while a section that is Hispanic and known to have a large non-citizen (therefore non-voting) population is being kept in.

As Legislator Judi Bosworth pointed out in her questioning of Ciampoli, the shifts proposed by his map, changing from a north-south to an east-west configuration, seemed more calculated, than just trying to reach the ideal population of 70,637.

“Our District 10, has 70,502 population, when 70,637 is the target, so it is off by 135 people, which is 0.2% deviation. So for a point-2 deviation, you are changing almost half the district,” she asserted.

“In District 11, where there is 72,724 population, the deviation is 3.2%, after redistricting. In fact, though the 10th actually was almost at ideal, after redistricting, there would now be difference of only  1,557 with a deviation of 2.2%, so it would be worse in the 10th, and the 11th would be only marginally better. So it is difficult to understand.”

Ciampoli argued that the overriding issue was to “protect town lines” – and reduce the number of cuts from 7 in the 2003 redistricting, to only 3.

Legislator Wayne Wink challenged Ciampoli on his justification of carving up districts in order to reduce the number of town “cuts,” noting that throughout New Yor State, most townships have 10,000 to 15,000 population – akin to Long Island villages – but here in Nassau, 250,000 is the smallest township. “This is not matter of town lines being sacrosanct, because village lines are more closely akin to town on state level, when village lines being severed, but that apparently doesn’t merit consideration by town attorney.”

Ciampoli replied, “Town lines are part of guidelines enshrined in state law; village lines don’t have the same deference, and accordingly I followed that hierarchy.”

“It’s hard to believe that though you are now respecting the town line, because you have not only cut Great Neck Peninsula in half, but also divide villages, which is unthinkable,” Bosworth retorted. Great Neck Plaza is just one-third square mile, but it is the downtown, the transportation and commercial hub for the entire Peninsula. Yet,  under Ciampoli’s plan, this tiny village is split along Middle Neck Road, the main shopping street and thoroughfare. “That is  very problematic for the mayor and one could understand why.”

Pleading for More Time, More Input

But that is the bigger point that all the opponents made during the course of this solitary public hearing:

“It might have been nice to see different choices, so with public input, we might have been able to avoid splitting Great Neck Plaza, Great Neck Estates and Thomaston in two, and splitting Lake Success off entirely. That’s of great concern to my community. This is what happens when you don’t have the benefit of proper community involvement, or understand new boundaries, which from my perspective, don’t have any rhyme or reason.”

She was being kind, suggesting it was just Ciampoli’s lack of familiarity with the communities he was slicing and dicing, rather than a more politically strategic intention.

Consider, though, what diluting Great Neck’s votes and our political clout that comes with being a unified community would mean: County Executive Ed Mangano would have been able to close the 6th Precinct and shut down Long Island Bus service (still a possibility with Mangano’s plan to privatize the service), and Tom Suozzi would have been able to force us to shut down our waste treatment plant here and pipe our waste to Cedar Creek on the south shore.

Ciampoli, the Karl Rove of Nassau County politics, knows that Great Neck Peninsula is one of the most unified communities in the country and splitting Great Neck also dilutes one of the most significant power bases for the Democratic party left on Long Island.

Legislator Judi Bosworth stated, “Mr. Schmitt and the caucus are attempting to rush redistricting whereby more than half-million voters, 44% would be moved to new district. It’s plain wrong, most likely illegal, and should not be lauded by the county attorney who has a long history of voter suppression.”

Meanwhile, Democrat Robert Troiano, Legislator for LD 2, with a sly smile at Vincent Muscarela, the Republican Legislator for LD 8, warned that he is in for a new world, should he pick up that portion of LD 2 that is presently virtually entirely minority.

Amazingly, with all the census data that Ciampoli said he used, he said he did not consider median income when drawing the new districts, and did not see any problem, whatsoever, in pulling out a portion of Old Westbury into LD2, the minority/majority district, or breaking off the Village of Hempstead, and putting it in the same district as Garden City.

Ciampoli tried to divert attention away from the process or underlying strategy used to create the new map, telling the lawmakers this was “irrelevant”. The only thing that should is relevant, he claimed, was the map itself, that it comply with constitutional requirements and standards for “one-man-one-vote” so that the County not be subject to a lawsuit. He said the fact that the 2nd LD, now represented by Democrat Robert Troiano, had a 14% deviation (that is, 14 percent more population than the ideal number of 70,637), was sufficient “crisis” to warrant immediate action – not even waiting the allowed six months, as per the County charter.

Legislator Wayne Wink, though, pointed out the flaw in that argument, citing Supreme Court decisions which disregarded the “deviation” (by as much as 80% in Wyoming), in favor of an opportunity for public input and due consideration. He said that the case law all pointed to the fact that Sec 112 required only that the county demonstrate that it was acting to remedy the disparities in the districts; that the creation of a bipartisan commission to create the new lines in a deliberative way, would be sufficient to shield the county from a lawsuit. but more significantly, Sec 112 which Ciampoli and Schmitt keep citing as the imperative to adopt the new map now, without bipartisan or public input, allows for six months to act.

“This is intended to be a roadmap with public participation, with a bipartisan commission, and you are obviating that by denying public participation outside the 18 hours today…and you expect 7 days from now we will make this law,” He called the public hearing “a charade” and then said Ciampoli’s legal “counsel” was suspect.

“Ever since the hearings to appoint you, we have heard time and again about voter suppression and voter intimidation you have participated in directly, that’s what taints this entire process,” Wink said. “You, without any public input, shift 44% of entire population, 544,000 shifted under your tutelage, your guidance, with no public input, and based on your record on voter intimation in Yonkers, at Bard College, and all over the state, that is what has pre-ordained the outcome of these lines- your involvement in them, your history.”

This prompted moans from the Republican side and a rebuke of Wink from John J. Ciotti (R-LD 3), who otherwise asked no other probing questions of the County Attorney.

Schmitt said he fully expected a lawsuit over the reapportionment map, and in fact, “That’s fine with me too.”

This is the guy who justifies cuts in programs that benefit the poor, the elderly, children, disabled, and would happily see cuts to bus service because Nassau county is broke (another “crisis”), and yet has money to fritter away on a failed lawsuit to keep out NIFA, and now a reapportionment plan where the new districts look like a Rorschach test.

Ciampoli indicated that with his handy-dandy computer program, he could probably make amendments to the map PDQ (“I live to serve,” he quipped in answer to a question from Legislator Kevan Abrahams). Schmitt, who during the hearing professed no understanding of the term “bloodsoaked” used by a Hempstead resident to reflect concern over loss of voting rights, also gave the barest hint that he might be open to making some changes in light of the virtually unanimous opposition expressed during the public hearing.

“Based on the outpouring of folks,  it’s quite possible you will be taking a look at different avenue?” Abrahams said hopefully “It’s quite possible,” Schmitt replied, possibly more to end the hearing. “I am well aware I am taking my cue from tenor and tone of public comment – the Democrats comments, Great Neck, Uniondale. They are not too happy with what is proposed, I am aware.”

But Schmitt also steeled himself, manifesting that wonderful (that is, obnoxious) machismo that Republicans are strutting around the country, saying d he fully expected a lawsuit over the reapportionment map, and in fact, “That’s fine with me too.”

At points, the public hearing disintegrated into a shouting match, and the comments turned on Schmitt and the way he was handling the hearing.

“I am shocked and appalled at how you have addressed the public with no concern for our needs,” declared Regis Thompson, NY Democratic club. “It shows me hatred, not love prevails on this committee… Your neighbors must be shocked you have taken off the sheets.”

To which Presiding Officer Schmitt retorted, “if you are the best that the Hempstead Democratic Club can offer….” sparking a huge uproar. Two Hempstead men rallied to her side, Ramel Smith and Dennis Jones and police were summoned, threatening to arrest them, and escorted them out to the lobby. The situation cooled off  and all three returned.

Later, Ramel Smith addressed the board from the podium saying, “My grandmother and grandfather were Gertude and  Johnny Smith. In the 1960s, they were beaten by police with bolts at the bottom of their clubs. They fought for me to have a right to have my vote heard, as well as my mother and my son. You telling me today, to hell with my grandparents, mother, son.”

More Highlights from the Hearing

Here are some highlights from the testimony at Monday’s sole public hearing on the plan for reapportionment:

Minority Leader Diane Yatauro: “As I look out at huge crowd gathered, I am both encouraged and deeply angered – encouraged to see so many of constituents care so deeply about what is about to transpire, and are here to fight to stop this madness: cynical, hastily drawn map, in secret by couple of Republican operatives, Ciampoli at the direction of County Executive Ed Mangano and Presiding Officer Peter Schmitt, angry at so-called public hearing is held at the County seat rather than out in the community, and on a weekday morning, when most can’t attend because of work, angry because this hearing is nothing but a farce. The Republican caucus are going to hear you out, make some nice dip0lomatic phrases.

“The move of over 44% of the population, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, ishurried in direct contradiction of the charter, but business as usual [for the Republicans]. This is how the self-serving Republican protection plan will play out.

“I know Schmitt will claim to be the great protector of minority, despite voting against their judges, commissioners and community interests… He would turn the Five Towns into 2 ½ towns, sever villages, dilute communities, and the rights of veterans, union workers…

“This will end up again, in court – that’s where we will fight. We want to use the right process – a nonpartisan redistricting commission, with hearings in the very communities that are affected and redraw the lines for 2013,” Yatauro said.

County Attorney John Ciampoli: “This is a historic moment in this County’s history. It presents an opportunity for enfranchisement and empowerment, this is not a county subject to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, yet this legislature pursuant to your directive has chosen to create a new minority/majority district in the western end, and to level the playing field in that part of the county to choose a representative of their choice.”

Valerie Fineman, Great Neck: “I appalled at what is being done here today… This redistricting is proposed with undue haste, rushing the allowed time available from the 6 months you have available…. It also demonstrates the blatant, unlawful, and illegal power grab…. This doesn’t represent the will of the people involved. The equal franchise is not represented by this plan, every community is hurt or divided by it. Time is needed to respond to local community needs and interests.”

Louise Hochberg, Great Neck United Parent Teacher Council: “The County Attorney relies on Sec 112, but it is Sec 113 that tells us how to accomplish the redistricting mandated by 112: 113 says there shall be a temporary redistricting advisory commission established each legislative term in which the legislature is required to apportion the county legislative districts as a result of the federal decennial… You can’t pick and choose which sections of the charter you will follow and when you will follow… Why are  you circumventing the bipartisan spirit in which our charter tells us to approach the redistricting issue?”

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Nassau County GOP ram through redistricting plan aimed at securing majority rule – Long Island populist | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-long-island/nassau-county-gop-ram-through-redistricting-plan-aimed-at-securing-majority-rule#ixzz1MAHxjCnP

MTA proposes putting the brakes on many LI Bus routes

(03/02/11) HEMPSTEAD – The Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans to cut more than half of Long Island Bus routes this summer in an effort to close a $400 million deficit.

Out of Nassau’s 48 bus lines, 25 could be eliminated, leaving entire communities such as Great Neck and Elmont without bus service.

County Executive Ed Mangano (R-Nassau) says since the county owns the buses and the terminals, maybe now is the time to privatize the system.

Mass transit expert Lisa Tyson, of the Long Island Progressive Coalition, says the service cuts could force 16,000 bus riders to drive, increasing congestion on local roads.

Public hearings on the Long Island Bus cuts are scheduled for March 23 at Hofstra University.

If approved, the proposed cuts would go into effect in July.

Groups oppose MTA's plan to yank funding for LI Bus

Updated: Jul 23, 2010 07:30 PM

A coalition of civic, transportation, business, labor, planning and environmental groups is opposing the MTA’s plan to pull its funding from Long Island Bus.

In a statement issued Friday, the coalition said the Metropolitan Transportation Authority ‘s plan to withdraw about $40 million in funding from the Nassau County-owned bus company is misguided and a “system killer.”

“The MTA’s proposed cuts will obliterate the LI Bus system as we know it,” said Kate Slevin, executive director of the nonprofit Tri-State Transportation Campaign , which supports bus service. “These cuts could very well mean that Nassau County will not have a viable bus transit system as soon as the next few years.”

MTA officials said this week they can no longer afford to make up the deficit it says is created by Nassau’s low contribution. Nassau County contributes $9.1 million toward LI Bus’ $133-million annual budget.

Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano has said the county cannot afford to substantially increase its subsidy to the system. He says the county is paying the MTA more than ever as part of a newly created payroll tax.

The groups called on the MTA to retract the proposal, and for Mangano and state elected officials to work together to find a long-term solution to the bus agency’s funding problems.

“If ultimately LI Bus would cease operating, it would have a devastating effect on the business community in Nassau and Queens County as well as their workforce,” said Daniel R. Perkins, vice president of government affairs for the Long Island Association business group. “Let’s hope that the MTA, the state of New York and Nassau County can work together to find a solution so that doesn’t happen.”The Regional Plan Association, Long Island Progressive Coalition, the smart-growth group Vision Long Island, and the Long Island Federation of Labor AFL-CIO , also joined in decrying the MTA’s plan.

Mangano has said he is exploring the possibility of privatizing LI Bus, which serves more than 100,000 riders a day.


New York— A coalition of civic, transportation, business, labor, planning and environmental groups joined together to oppose MTA cuts to Long Island Bus.

In particular, the groups called the MTA’s proposal to eliminate its funding contribution entirely to Nassau County’s LI Bus system a misguided attempt to balance its budget and a system killer.  If enacted, thousands of bus riders would be left with no alternative to get to work and school, possibly forcing riders to pay for expensive taxis or lose their jobs. 

“The MTA’s proposed cuts will obliterate the LI Bus system as we know it,” said Kate Slevin, executive director of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.  “These cuts could very well mean that Nassau County will not have a viable bus transit system as soon as the next few years.”

“But the MTA is not the only entity at fault,” continued Slevin. “Nassau County and the State are not living up to their obligation to fund Long Island Bus and ensure riders have affordable and reliable transit service.”

She noted that Nassau County is contributing half as much as it was in 2000. Both the County and State cut support last year resulting in the service cuts that were implemented in June. 

LI Bus serves over 32 million riders a year, over 100,000 riders a day, and is an integral cog in Nassau County’s transit system, fostering economic development, reducing congestion and protecting the environment.

The groups called on the MTA to retract the proposal, and for Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano and state elected officials to work together to find a long term solution to Long Island Bus’ funding problems.

“If ultimately LI Bus would cease operating, it would have a devastating effect on the business community in Nassau and Queens County as well as their workforce,” said Daniel R. Perkins, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Long Island Association. “Let’s hope that the MTA, the State of New York and Nassau County can work together to find a solution so that doesn’t happen.”

“Yet another moment of crisis offers us the opportunity to rethink the way that bus service is delivered and paid for in the metropolitan region,” said Bob Yaro, President of Regional Plan Association. “The current inefficient and fragmented bus system should be consolidated into a single Regional Bus Authority, as was recommended by the Ravitch Commission. Until then, the MTA and Nassau County need to come up with solutions that don’t leave riders stranded.”

Eric Alexander, Executive Director of Vision Long Island said “Brainstorming can be a useful tool. However, some ideas have unintended consequences for the health and economic well being of working Nassau County residents. This is one idea the MTA should scratch from their list.”

“This is outrageous. This is a very short sided proposal. Long Island roads will be plagued by horrible congestion and people are not going to be able to get to work. The MTA cannot balance their budget problems on the backs of Nassau bus riders,” stated Lisa Tyson, Director of the Long Island Progressive Coalition.

“For thousands of working people in Nassau County, Long Island Bus is irreplaceable,” said John Durso, president of the Long Island Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. “It is essential for the economic health of our region that a viable transportation system is available for people who need it.”

“These service cuts will impact over 100,000 Long Islanders who commute to and from work,” said Sarah Lansdale, Executive Director, Sustainable Long Island.  “The idea is an unrealistic approach to help funding woes that the MTA faces. The people of Nassau County deserve better, they deserve available mass transit that is safe and affordable.”

Sources: Compromise plan may keep LI Bus rolling

Updated: Jul 20, 2010 07:09 PM

While the MTA does not plan to set any money aside to fund Long Island Bus in the future, agency officials may be willing to keep the system moving temporarily if Nassau County shows a commitment to stepping up its financial support for the ailing bus company, transit sources said Tuesday.

Transit sources said Monday that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority intends to withdraw all financial support from Long Island Bus in its 2011 budget. Long Island Bus is owned by Nassau County but largely subsidized by the MTA.

Without the $40 million that the MTA usually kicks in – roughly a third of LI Bus’ budget after fare revenue – experts say the system could afford to maintain only sparse service, or it could cease to exist altogether.

But transit sources said Tuesday that the MTA may soften its stance if Nassau agrees to a schedule of increased subsidies over the next several years that would eventually lead to the county covering the full $40 million.

Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano has not said whether he would consider increasing the county’s subsidy to Long Island Bus, but has noted that, when including the state payroll tax enacted last year to support public transportation, Nassau is paying more than it has in years to the MTA.

Until about 10 years ago, Nassau County made up the difference of Long Island Bus’ budget after fare revenue and state aid. But over the years, the county has gradually decreased its subsidy. Last year, Nassau cut its subsidy for the bus system from $10.5 million to $9.1 million.

The MTA has made up the difference for years, but has said that in its current economic crisis, which includes an $800-million budget deficit, it can no longer afford to do so.

While Nassau may look to the state for help in paying its share, Assemb. Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), who chairs the Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, said the request would come as several other counties, which receive far less state aid for their bus systems, are also looking for help.

New York State contributes about $44 million a year to Long Island Bus. Suffolk gets about half that for its bus system, and no help from the MTA.

“They do better than any other county in the state,” Brodsky said of Nassau. “I just think other counties are starting to ask why they have to pick up the burden of their own system, plus Nassau’s.”

Lisa Tyson, executive director of the nonprofit Long Island Progressive Coalition, said it would be “irresponsible” for the MTA and Nassau not to reach a resolution.

“Nassau County would shut down without the bus system,” Tyson said. “With the amount of cars it takes off the roads and the amount of people it brings to jobs, it would clearly devastate the county.”

Suozzi pushing Lighthouse for Nassau growth

Originally published: September 23, 2009 8:23 PM
Updated: September 23, 2009 10:41 PM
By WILLIAM MURPHY  william.murphy@newsday.com

Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi sketched out his vision for economic growth Wednesday, and made yet another pitch for the Lighthouse project, one of the key components of that vision.Suozzi made his presentation on what he calls “new suburbia,” on the lower level of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, which would be renovated as part of the megaproject.

The event was meant to promote Suozzi’s broad plan, but the setting, the participants and the comments were all Lighthouse related. And the session came on the heels of a daylong hearing on Islanders owner Charles Wang‘s project before the Hempstead town board.

After the scripted panel discussion on the overall plan, Suozzi said the Lighthouse was “the symbol of the whole thing,” then corrected himself to call it, “one of the symbols.”

He was once again critical of the Town of Hempstead for not moving faster to approve the project, which was one of the four large projects he hopes to pull off in the next few years.

But Suozzi’s Republican opponent for county executive, Legis. Edward Mangano of Bethpage, said Suozzi’s comments about the town were “yet another installment of the Suozzi blame game, where he blames every other level of government for his own shortcomings.”

“A real leader, after eight long years in office, would be talking about his accomplishments rather than recycled Election Day sound bites,” Mangano said.

Suozzi’s other projects — much less advanced — are the redevelopment of Belmont Park and the adjacent area of Elmont, the 105-acre Grumman plot in Bethpage where he envisions an incubator for high-tech business, and the redevelopment of the Glen Cove waterfront.

The presentation formalized comments Suozzi has been making for several months about 90 percent of the county being “what people love about the suburbs” and should remain unchanged, while 10 percent should be redeveloped.

That would include the four megaprojects, proposed or existing “cool downtowns” near transportation hubs, and upgrades to existing commercial strips around the county.

Suozzi announced the formation of a “90/10 Coalition” that includes planners, educators, community groups, labor and others.

However, Lisa Tyson of the Long Island Progressive Coalition said at the presentation that she had not seen plans to make a grass-roots connection. “How do we get to my cousin, who doesn’t go to these things?” Tyson said.