New Northport Budget Info? A sign of things to come.

[Northport fury]

I apologize in advance if this has been posted already.

I have had a chance to read the newsletter that was sent home from our illustrious School District. On it they discuss the Transportation costs to the District, and also discuss the budgetary needs for the 05-06 School Year.

Here are some of the highlights:

Initial Projections for the 2005-06 School year estimate a spending increase of 11.9% and a tax rate increase of 13.87%. The causes include Pension costs, fuel oil and gasoline and enrollment. They also decided that the teachers should be better compensated, so the teachers will be recieving an additional 4% raise. (I believe they recieved a 4% raise last year as well).

The district loves to refer to the pension costs as "State Mandated", but this is a half truth, in as much as the pension is administered by the state (as is every other municipal employer) In fact the pension amounts are based on salary, something the board agrees to increase almost automatically.

Even more hilarious was the notion on this letter that "we made a decision as a community a couple of years ago to adjust teachers salaries to put them more in line with the region". Really? No one asked me. And then yet again, another example of a board disregarding the needs of the constituency. Its nice that the teachers wont leave now because they are so well compensated. It's too bad they won't have any students to teach because we will all be leaving. At the very least, the next generation will have to leave. Why didnt the district at least agree to a shorter term contract to deal with potential fiscal problems. Now we as taxpayers are stuck with decisions made years ago.

The superintendant has been authorized to devise a 10.99 budget increase for next year, and one of the items being considered is increasing the mileage to decrease busing, along with the obvious tax increases.

Please get involved and spread the word. The meetings to express ones opinion are 3/7, 3/14. 4/4, 4/18 and 5/9, and the vote is 5/17. Make sure you are aware of the rules concerning speaking or submitting letters.

[infidel]

you guys and gals were warned years ago that your taxes would increase greatly because of the towns housing practices

in your area of Northport you have houses singlefamily dwellings turned into as many a 6 dwellings in one residential building

what do you think that does to your school taxes? Its really devasting.

also your school district has over 450 houses that are single family that have accessory apartments in them (so called legally)town makes oodles of money on them but you the taxpayer and the school district pay through the teeth cause their taxes don't come from apartments they come from the one dwelling homeowner

Every house with an accessory apartment is now by law a two family house

by the way many houses in Northport that have 2 dwellings or more and not taxed for that also have kids that use the school district

the landlords and town government think people like you are suckers

[E. Npt Landlord]

I apologize in advance if this has been posted already.

I have had a chance to read the newsletter that was sent home from our illustrious School District. On it they discuss the Transportation costs to the District, and also discuss the budgetary needs for the 05-06 School Year.

Here are some of the highlights:

Initial Projections for the 2005-06 School year estimate a spending increase of 11.9% and a tax rate increase of 13.87%. The causes include Pension costs, fuel oil and gasoline and enrollment. They also decided that the teachers should be better compensated, so the teachers will be recieving an additional 4% raise. (I believe they recieved a 4% raise last year as well).

The district loves to refer to the pension costs as "State Mandated", but this is a half truth, in as much as the pension is administered by the state (as is every other municipal employer) In fact the pension amounts are based on salary, something the board agrees to increase almost automatically.

Now let's not mince words here. The Npt-E Npt school district IS quite "illustrious" despite your tongue-in-cheek reference. Teachers get contractual raises every year for longevitity, as well as increases due to increased college level coursework. These increases in turn also cause their pensions to increase, therefore, their yearly pension contributions must be increased so that the money is there when the teachers retire. The fact that the State administers and oversees the teacher's pensions has nothing to do with the fact that we have to fund them. The money comes from the district to support the pension, not the State.


Even more hilarious was the notion on this letter that "we made a decision as a community a couple of years ago to adjust teachers salaries to put them more in line with the region". Really? No one asked me. And then yet again, another example of a board disregarding the needs of the constituency. Its nice that the teachers wont leave now because they are so well compensated. It's too bad they won't have any students to teach because we will all be leaving.

Sure someone asked you. Understand, Mrs. Goldblatt, YOU aren't the voice and the opinion of the entire "community." More of US voted FOR the raises than not. That's the "community," - a vote of the entire electorate, not your one single dissenting opinion.

I wonder why it is you think the entire school district should have to cowtow to you, the lowest common denominator in the community? Should a budget fail because 2 or 3 families cannot afford but a penny more, and therefore have to sell out and move to a community which is more in keeping to their own socioeconomic strata?


At the very least, the next generation will have to leave. Why didnt the district at least agree to a shorter term contract to deal with potential fiscal problems. Now we as taxpayers are stuck with decisions made years ago.

The next generation will have to leave anyway. You see, the district doesn't have enough housing to accomodate every graduate from the district returning with a spouse to raise another family of 2.3 children. For that to happen, the quantity of homes would have to more than double. It's normal and natural for "the next generation" to seek their fortunes in other areas. Historically over 3/4 of them did that anyway. Times change, trends change, the market changes, - get with the program.



The superintendant has been authorized to devise a 10.99 budget increase for next year, and one of the items being considered is increasing the mileage to decrease busing, along with the obvious tax increases.

Surely you've mis-typed something here. Increased bussing limits will decrease, not increase the bussing budget.

[/quote]
Please get involved and spread the word. The meetings to express ones opinion are 3/7, 3/14. 4/4, 4/18 and 5/9, and the vote is 5/17. Make sure you are aware of the rules concerning speaking or submitting letters. [/quote]

[E. Npt Landlord]

you guys and gals were warned years ago that your taxes would increase greatly because of the towns housing practices

in your area of Northport you have houses singlefamily dwellings turned into as many a 6 dwellings in one residential building

what do you think that does to your school taxes? Its really devasting.

There's no doubt that more children = higher school taxes. While there are certianly a few homes in the district with more than their fair (average) share of families, this is not what's causing double-digit school tax increases.

The greatest impacts on school tax rates here are the increased pension contributions that Npt - ENpt (as well as ALL other districts) has to make in order to shore-up the pension investments lost when the tech bubble burst. These municipal pensions are guranteed, as I doubt the district or any minicipality could pull a "bankruptcy" off to dismiss it's past pension obligations like the airlines have.

Another signifigant factor is of course, district salaries. Like it or not, teachers and administrators are practically guranteed raises which at the very least, cover cost of living increases. This money doesn't come from thin air.


also your school district has over 450 houses that are single family that have accessory apartments in them (so called legally)town makes oodles of money on them but you the taxpayer and the school district pay through the teeth cause their taxes don't come from apartments they come from the one dwelling homeowner

The cost of an accessory apartment permit is 450.00 per year. That's an additional $202,500.00 to the town of Huntington which it uses to inspect these apartments on a yearly basis, as well as enforcement of housing codes on illegal, non-permitted apartments. I believe the permit fee for absentee landlords is higher, but for seniors it's much lower so the math probably about evens out.

If you were to scan over the ads for apartments within district boundaries, you'll find that just about all of the legal accessory apartments exist on the 1st floor of your typical hi-ranches. Probably a few others are on the top floor of a typical Cape-Cod style homes.

Here's a clue for ya - these are all studio or 1 bedroom apartments with "kitchen/livingroom combos." I doubt there's even 20 legal accessory apartments in single-family homes within the Npt-ENpt district with 2 full bedrooms.

In most of these ads, or if you should pick up a phone and inquire, all of these landlords want 1 single occupant, no smoking, no pets and no children. These apartments are almost always occupied by a single unmarried or divorced male or female. Generaly, with one of Long Island's many dead-end, will-go-nowhere Mcjobs.

I will concede that for every legal accessory apartment, there are probably at least 3-4 illegal, unknown apartments which either cannot be legalized because they're in basements, or do not meet the minimum requirements for "easy" legalization, like no separate entrance, bought or built after the town dis-allowed any additional absentee landlord accessory apartment permits, or the homeowner fears the apartment will call attention to the town a plethora of other non-permitted taxable property improvements the homeowner has made, like all of the new windows, above ground swimming pools, sheds, exterior basement entrances, patios, etc.

Yet these apartments also do not, as a rule, attract more families with school-aged children.

What IS causing an increase in school enrollment is the typical population trend which expands and contracts on a fairly regular basis, as well as the construction of brand-new housing units scattered throughout the district. How much did the developers of that new neighborhood off Pulaski between Old Bridge & Larkfield pay the district to add classrooms to Bellerose School and the High School? $0.00. How much is the developer who is now building about 12 McMansions right off Stony Hollow paying the school district? $0.00.

Another trend I see is small "starter" homes, typically 3 small bedrooms and 1 & 1/2 baths, (capes, split ranches) in neighborhoods built in the 60's and 70's on undersized lots - seeking and being granted variance after variance to blow-out their top floors and add porches, additional garages not 2' from the lot lines, full bathrooms and uaually separate 2nd floor entrances. (Although they're not called separate entrances, they're called "sun decks" with "french doors.")

This trend is being fueled by homeowners not ready to leave Long Island who are building up and out to accomodate their own children who cannot afford their own home on Long Island, yet refuse to leave to an area they can afford. Families will be raised in these new 2-3 bedroom additions.


Every house with an accessory apartment is now by law a two family house

"By Law?" What does that mean? A real 2-family house can accomodate 2 families. MOST accessory apartments can not accomodate a family. Most barely accomodate a single adult. 2 adults is pushing it. Children? Hardly ever.

By law, a real 2-family home (There are a few) has to have 2 electric, gas (if there's gas service) and water meters, and 2 cesspools. 2 oil tanks if it's oil heat. No utilities or services may be shared between the 2 units, like telephone, cable, etc. There has to be a 5-hour rated firewall.

That's a far cry from an accessory apartment, where a homeowner typically puts a door up in a hallway separating the 3rd or 4th unneeded bedroom, den and bathroom from the rest of the house. There's no new space, there's no additional space, and therefore, no additional taxes. Tenant uses the back door.



by the way many houses in Northport that have 2 dwellings or more and not taxed for that also have kids that use the school district


I would LOVE you to post the addresses in Northport or E Northport where there are actually 2 dwellings OR MORE with families that are sending kids to the school district.

For as long as there has been zoning, there is no such thing as 2 separate dwellings on one taxed lot.


the landlords and town government think people like you are suckers

People like you think that you, and the town government, and school districts have some kind of right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their property.

"Single family home" is simply a designation description, not a legal term defining actual uses allowable by law. I own a "single family home" split into 3 "units" each consisting of 1 bedroom, and an open living area and a bathroom and 1 or 2 closets. Only one of those 3 "units" has what the town can legally describe as a kitchen, making that unit a legal "apartment." (You're allowed one kitchen per single family home. Unless your Jewish you can have another "Kosher kitchen" or Italian with a "Summer kitchen.") The other 2 units are not "apartments" because there's no stove. No stove equals no kitchen. No kitchen = no violation of housing or land-use codes and no crime is being committed.

By the way, no children either. These tenants work in jobs like pep boys, Target and Home Depot. Some work more than one job. Some are college students.

[Northport Fury]

First of all skippy, my point was to inform my community of the meetings, along with some rantings of my own. Pay all you like. Hell, pay my taxes if youre so well off. I don't know who Mrs Goldblatt is. Youve got the name and the gender wrong. Nice try though. You must be all the rage if someone else named Goldblatt has earned your contempt. This is going to one of many illustrations of your ignorance. Quote me all you like. The fact you have broken it down in that fashion is a compliment to the comprehensiveness of my comments.

OK. I'll start with salaries and pensions. I have no problem with the teachers of this district being adequately compensated. What I have a problem with is multi year contracts being agreed to by a board that gives away the store with no consideration to future fiscal solvency. As far as getting raises every year, this is not necessarily so. There can come a point where a teacher has plateaued in longevity or has reached the required education level. You are then left with normal contracted salary increases and adjusted work rules that are the direct result of collective bargaining agreements, which, it appears to me are blank checks from the board to the teachers. Answer me this: When was the last time in the course of negotiations the teachers had gone to arbitration in search of a contract? It seems to me they do not have to fight very hard.

As far as pensions go, I only mentioned that the School District attempted, in their letter to somehow blame the state for pension costs, when you seem to agree that the teachers pension costs are based on salary, which we have to pay. The higher wages the board awards, the higher the pension payout. I feel that it was a disingenuous statement for the board to make. In other words, should the state pay for the pension based on the salary the local school board agreed to? Thats what their statement suggests.

Its a very bold and elitist statement to suggest that you are the highest common denominator while I am the lowest. I do not recall voting for raises in a public forum as the letter suggested. Perhaps it is before I moved here. And yes. A budget should fail when the board acts in a fiscally irresponsible fashion. It seems that at the end of the day, the only sacrifices being made are at the expense of the taxpayer.

It is truly presumptive of you to claim to have some inside knowledge on mine or anyone elses socioeconomic status, when you as simple minded as you are have decided for yourself that there is no price too high to shovel hard earned cash into the blackhole that is our tax bill. If you want to walk around with blinders on, fine. If recent history is any indication, then its people just like you that allowed a Roslyn School District to exist in the first place. Am I to assume that you believe that if someone, regardless of history or status feels they are becoming priced out of a community, they should leave for fear of offending your senses? You really need to get that ego in check, and join the rest of us. Its all fine until you are THAT person.

Your response about generational changes is just dumb. At this moment there are 24 houses availiable for sale in this school district right now. In the past two years, over 360 homes have been bought and sold here. And I'm not dazzled with your .3 kids.

The letter discussed reducing bus service as a cost cutting method, in addition to a proposed 10.99% budget increase.

Perhaps if you had actually read the letter I referred to, you could speak with some intelligence about it, even if you disagreed, instead you fly blind.

Deek.

[Northport Fury]

Even though I didnt mention about multi family dwellings in our area, I find it interesting how you illustrate how to exploit the rules in place. It is even more interesting how you have decided on your own on how to pigeon hole the people that rent into your convenient little categories. Its a little pattern you have, deciding who is worthy of what. Countries have fallen because of that mentality.

Are you actually seroius about the government having no say in the use of property? Ive noticed that you have mentioned others getting with the rest of the planet. You should take some of your own advice, Mr. Anarchist.

Perhaps if God Forbid, you had experienced the loss of a loved one dead in a basement fire, or the loss of all of your personal belongings, the lack of consideration from "neighbors" jammed into a house, with no regard for neighbors because they have not "invested" in the community. Maybe you have never lived next to a house that dealt drugs or engaged in other illicit activities that when removed, the parasite landlord replaces them with more of the same. I know you dont care, just by your remarks. Realtors arent even interested anymore because of the liablity. When it hits, then it'll be poor you. Boo hoo.

You pimp your property without considering anyone but yourself with your "dead end, will go nowhere" landlord mentality.

We have building codes. We have laws. The former are rarely enforced, the latter usually after it's too late.

Let me know where you maintain your hovels so I can make it my lifelong ambition to see them shut.

[E Npt Landlord]

First of all skippy, my point was to inform my community of the meetings, along with some rantings of my own. Pay all you like. Hell, pay my taxes if youre so well off. I don't know who Mrs Goldblatt is. Youve got the name and the gender wrong. Nice try though. You must be all the rage if someone else named Goldblatt has earned your contempt. This is going to one of many illustrations of your ignorance. Quote me all you like. The fact you have broken it down in that fashion is a compliment to the comprehensiveness of my comments.

You're obviously unfamiliar with any of the local rags which continuiously print Mrs. Goldblatt's dribble. Your attitude and diatribe is so close to hers it's uncanny. It doesn't seem to matter whether you are indeed Mrs Goldblatt or not.

OK. I'll start with salaries and pensions. I have no problem with the teachers of this district being adequately compensated. What I have a problem with is multi year contracts being agreed to by a board that gives away the store with no consideration to future fiscal solvency. As far as getting raises every year, this is not necessarily so. There can come a point where a teacher has plateaued in longevity or has reached the required education level. You are then left with normal contracted salary increases and adjusted work rules that are the direct result of collective bargaining agreements, which, it appears to me are blank checks from the board to the teachers. Answer me this: When was the last time in the course of negotiations the teachers had gone to arbitration in search of a contract? It seems to me they do not have to fight very hard.

So is it your position that unless a contract is forced into arbitration, the board didn't fight hard enough? The simple truth is that every single year the teachers get an added bonus for staying on another year, on top of any specific cost of living increases.

Now if you're asking do I think that it's necessary to pump up a tenured teacher's salary just to make sure they stay with the district? The answer would be no. But the fact remains that is what's in the contract and it appears to go into the contract every time it's renegotiated.



As far as pensions go, I only mentioned that the School District attempted, in their letter to somehow blame the state for pension costs, when you seem to agree that the teachers pension costs are based on salary, which we have to pay. The higher wages the board awards, the higher the pension payout. I feel that it was a disingenuous statement for the board to make. In other words, should the state pay for the pension based on the salary the local school board agreed to? Thats what their statement suggests.


Again, the State doesn't pay the pension nor does the State pay for the pension. The State simply administers the pension system. If a district agrees to a particular pension formula, based on collective bargaining agreements, it has to fund that anticipated pension based on the State's formulas which are in keeping with ERISA laws.

What occured when the economic bubble burst is much of the States municipal pension trust fund was gutted. When that happens, it must be replenished in order to ensure financial stability for current and future retirees.

Put in simple math, if it takes 100 dollars a week to fund the pension for a teacher expected to retire after 30 years, and that pension fund loses 25% of it's investments due to an unexpected and record-breaking scandalous economic crash (tech bubble burst, as well as the MCI/Worldcom and Enron scandals) then that loss has to be recouped by those who are still funding the pension and still have a promise to keep. Thats you and me, the taxpayers. Not the teacher's tough luck.


Its a very bold and elitist statement to suggest that you are the highest common denominator while I am the lowest. I do not recall voting for raises in a public forum as the letter suggested. Perhaps it is before I moved here. And yes. A budget should fail when the board acts in a fiscally irresponsible fashion. It seems that at the end of the day, the only sacrifices being made are at the expense of the taxpayer.

Sorry, I did not mean to suggest I was the highest denominator.

You (and I) don't get to vote on raises. We vote for representitives. We also don't vote on what kind of grass seed the district buys, what wattage the lightbulbs are, what brand of computer to use, or what the lunch menu will be on Fridays. We do vote for representitives who run for office on a platform we either agree with (and vote for) or disagree with (and vote against) and if none of the candidates platforms or agendas suit us we're free to run for office ourselves.

But like it or not, as a community member you are as responsible for the decisions made on your behalf whether you agree with them or not. That is what is meant by "we as a community decided." More voted for than not.


It is truly presumptive of you to claim to have some inside knowledge on mine or anyone elses socioeconomic status, when you as simple minded as you are have decided for yourself that there is no price too high to shovel hard earned cash into the blackhole that is our tax bill. If you want to walk around with blinders on, fine. If recent history is any indication, then its people just like you that allowed a Roslyn School District to exist in the first place. Am I to assume that you believe that if someone, regardless of history or status feels they are becoming priced out of a community, they should leave for fear of offending your senses? You really need to get that ego in check, and join the rest of us. Its all fine until you are THAT person.

I find it humorous to say the least, that you think the "rest of the community" is with you when the budget votes and overall community participation in the budget process is, at best, dismal.

Of course, you could also simply be one of those taxpayers who feels that no matter what the tax is, it's too much, and no matter what any government entity does, it isn't enough, and anything above starvation wages for a civil servant is just poor negotiation skills on the public's behalf.

Believe it or not, school taxes in the Northport / East Northport district average 1500.00 a year less than Elwood and 1800.00 less than Kings Park for a home with the same assessed value.

I have no fear of anyone offending my senses. I simply feel that supply/demand economics is naturally forcing many of the skaters and bottom feeders off Long Island. If they're not complaining about rising taxes (as if somehow, somewhere in history taxes ever remained stable) it's the LIPA bill or the cost of gas or whatever they feel should remain at a static, set, never-increasing sum they happen to be comfortable paying.


Your response about generational changes is just dumb. At this moment there are 24 houses availiable for sale in this school district right now. In the past two years, over 360 homes have been bought and sold here. And I'm not dazzled with your .3 kids.


So math isn't your strong point. 360 homes + 24 new = 384. (Minus the lateral moves) Northport graduates over 500 per year. Oh where WILL those other 116 go? I guess they'll have to settle for "other communities."


The letter discussed reducing bus service as a cost cutting method, in addition to a proposed 10.99% budget increase.

Yes it did. What is your point? Bussing does not constitute 100% of the school budget. In fact, it's mostly salaries and benefits.


Perhaps if you had actually read the letter I referred to, you could speak with some intelligence about it, even if you disagreed, instead you fly blind.

Deek.

[Can't read, either.]

Even though I didnt mention about multi family dwellings in our area, I find it interesting how you illustrate how to exploit the rules in place.

I see you're as adept in reading comprehension as you are with simple math. That reply was to a different post, the one after your original.

Take a look-see, "skippy."

It is even more interesting how you have decided on your own on how to pigeon hole the people that rent into your convenient little categories. Its a little pattern you have, deciding who is worthy of what. Countries have fallen because of that mentality.

I don't decide who is worthy of what. The market does.


Are you actually seroius about the government having no say in the use of property? Ive noticed that you have mentioned others getting with the rest of the planet. You should take some of your own advice, Mr. Anarchist.

4 adults sharing a divided single-"family" home does not anarchy make. Unless of course you live next door to your typical Long Island busy-body who is under the extreme and mistaken impression that there is some law which forbids it. There isn't, and that's all I pointed out.

Sure government does have a say in property usage. But there's a limit. And most of your typical Long Island homeowners have no idea what those limits are.


Perhaps if God Forbid, you had experienced the loss of a loved one dead in a basement fire, or the loss of all of your personal belongings, the lack of consideration from "neighbors" jammed into a house, with no regard for neighbors because they have not "invested" in the community. Maybe you have never lived next to a house that dealt drugs or engaged in other illicit activities that when removed, the parasite landlord replaces them with more of the same. I know you dont care, just by your remarks. Realtors arent even interested anymore because of the liablity. When it hits, then it'll be poor you. Boo hoo.


When what hits?


You pimp your property without considering anyone but yourself with your "dead end, will go nowhere" landlord mentality.

Pimp my property? I fill a void, yes... but it's quite noble and quite lucrative as well as totally legal and legit, I assure you. Neither moral nor lawful codes are broken in the process.


We have building codes. We have laws. The former are rarely enforced, the latter usually after it's too late.


More accurately, the former are rarely enforced to the satisfaction of some who feel that nothing but a traditional nuclear family may inhabit a "single family home." As I pointed out in the original post, this simply is not what the laws states and therefore, can never be enforced in the way some people expect it to.


Let me know where you maintain your hovels so I can make it my lifelong ambition to see them shut.

In order to accomplish that, you'd first have to prove there's something illegal about them. Since there isn't, your ambition would indeed be a lifelong one.

[Northport quandry]

E.Northport landlord sounds just like a typical landlord and speculator who probably works for the school district and/or town government.
Taxpayers beware. First Northport has one of the most liberal teaching and administrative staffs around. Probably explains why school district personnel never came out against the still proposed housing project for corner of Elwood and Pulaski roads. Wait until kids from this project enter your school district.See what that does to your local school taxes.
At least 70% of the people who will live there will be from out of town. Thats according to Housing Help officials who receive state aide to bring outsiders in. Not good for Huntington taxpayers but housing help has a left wing agenda and so do many school officials and the state don't care. Supreme court says they can build, so be it. Race card was used on this and the left won out to detriment of community middle class. By the way many sponsors of housing help live in secluded areas of town. Not surprising.
Whoever this landlord is maybe he owns the houses just west of the Mobil station on Pulaski road and Elwood. Where the town of Huntington allowed two family homes to be built but only one family homes should have been allowed. Some also have accessory apartments many have children and the taxes for these two and three dwelling houses are the same as for one dwelling houses in the area. Just remember when taxes for schools go up landlord still makes his/her money on the dwellings and pays no extra taxes for them. What a huge rip off.

[E. Npt. Landlord]

E.Northport landlord sounds just like a typical landlord and speculator who probably works for the school district and/or town government.
Taxpayers beware. First Northport has one of the most liberal teaching and administrative staffs around. Probably explains why school district personnel never came out against the still proposed housing project for corner of Elwood and Pulaski roads. Wait until kids from this project enter your school district.See what that does to your local school taxes.

Why would the district personnel, many of whom don't live in the district, come out against a housing project?


At least 70% of the people who will live there will be from out of town. Thats according to Housing Help officials who receive state aide to bring outsiders in. Not good for Huntington taxpayers but housing help has a left wing agenda and so do many school officials and the state don't care. Supreme court says they can build, so be it. Race card was used on this and the left won out to detriment of community middle class. By the way many sponsors of housing help live in secluded areas of town. Not surprising.

Interesting.


Whoever this landlord is maybe he owns the houses just west of the Mobil station on Pulaski road and Elwood. Where the town of Huntington allowed two family homes to be built but only one family homes should have been allowed. Some also have accessory apartments many have children and the taxes for these two and three dwelling houses are the same as for one dwelling houses in the area.

I can assure you not only don't I own them, but I have no Idea which homes you're referring to.

Please if you would, look them and their taxes up on the TOH property information module and post back here.

If the town is letting other landlords build legal 2-family homes in 1-family zoned areas I'd like to see the evidence.

http://tohgis.town.huntington.ny.us/Parcels/

http://tohgis.town.huntington.ny.us/huntingtontaxreceiver/search.asp


Just remember when taxes for schools go up landlord still makes his/her money on the dwellings and pays no extra taxes for them. What a huge rip off.

Just you remember - 99% of all accessory apartments (legal or not) are rented to single adults who place no additional burdeon on any school district.

:twisted:

what's the evil face for?

99% of renters are single adults? Is that what you are saying? where does this figure come from?

[two family houses]

Actually, the three homes are not technically legal two families.

Instead, the Town illegally allowed an absentee Corporate owner to obtain accessory apartment permits for each house, even though the houses are not owner occupied as required by a law change in 1997. These houses were clearly built after the law change, but obviously someone had influence in the Town.

The net effect is that the three houses are operating as "legal two's" but taxed as a single family home, because an accessory apartment does not raise your property taxes.

The houses are immediately west of the mobil station, on a court, with a fence behind them. The corporate owner anticipates that once the low income houses are built, many more of these dwellings will be in demand, as the neighborhood changes from single family home owners to coporate owned transient rentals..

Unfortunately, he is probably right since our Town officials are from Half Hollow Hills, and could care less about East Northport...

[address]

The three houses are relatively new on the end of Georgia Street East Northport. They are rentals, not owner occupied, so I am not sure how the have a "legal" apartment permit. I wonder if a contractor built three rentals next to Frank Petrone's house in Half Hollow, if Petrone would issue him an apartment permit. NOT in HHH, but OK for East Northport...Petrone, Mrs. Steve Israel, and Mrs. Berland, all elitest living in HHH, what a bunch..

[TOWN'S CORRUPT FELLAS]

Actually, the three homes are not technically legal two families.

Instead, the Town illegally allowed an absentee Corporate owner to obtain accessory apartment permits for each house, even though the houses are not owner occupied as required by a law change in 1997. These houses were clearly built after the law change, but obviously someone had influence in the Town.

The net effect is that the three houses are operating as "legal two's" but taxed as a single family home, because an accessory apartment does not raise your property taxes.

The houses are immediately west of the mobil station, on a court, with a fence behind them. The corporate owner anticipates that once the low income houses are built, many more of these dwellings will be in demand, as the neighborhood changes from single family home owners to coporate owned transient rentals..

Unfortunately, he is probably right since our Town officials are from Half Hollow Hills, and could care less about East Northport...


I know of several people who foiled the town on just the houses you're talking about.
The town allowed the builder of those houses to build them much to close together for two family houses.
But the builder kept certain accessories in the houses for having more appliances and such as if it were to be a two family. The builder and the town called them single family houses with accessory apartments.

Either way you look at it the town hoodwinked the local community there who fought long and hard and even wrote letters to Petrone (who never answers letters) (arrogance of power). People in the community also had original plans from builder for some of those houses before they were built.

Needless to say the builder built them bigger and a different way and was not reprimanded by the town.

East Northporters will continue to pay outrageous property taxes until they get better representation such as in councilmanic districts.

Huntington town board is in cahoots with developers and builders and housing activists to increase the human density of middleclass neighborhoods.

www.suffolkpolitics.com

how is the aforementioned website different than this forum. It sure isnt better that's for sure.

how is the aforementioned website different than this forum. It sure isnt better that's for sure.

[6 families in 1]

you guys and gals were warned years ago that your taxes would increase greatly because of the towns housing practices

in your area of Northport you have houses singlefamily dwellings turned into as many a 6 dwellings in one residential building

what do you think that does to your school taxes? Its really devasting.

There's no doubt that more children = higher school taxes. While there are certianly a few homes in the district with more than their fair (average) share of families, this is not what's causing double-digit school tax increases.

The greatest impacts on school tax rates here are the increased pension contributions that Npt - ENpt (as well as ALL other districts) has to make in order to shore-up the pension investments lost when the tech bubble burst. These municipal pensions are guranteed, as I doubt the district or any minicipality could pull a "bankruptcy" off to dismiss it's past pension obligations like the airlines have.

Another signifigant factor is of course, district salaries. Like it or not, teachers and administrators are practically guranteed raises which at the very least, cover cost of living increases. This money doesn't come from thin air.


also your school district has over 450 houses that are single family that have accessory apartments in them (so called legally)town makes oodles of money on them but you the taxpayer and the school district pay through the teeth cause their taxes don't come from apartments they come from the one dwelling homeowner

The cost of an accessory apartment permit is 450.00 per year. That's an additional $202,500.00 to the town of Huntington which it uses to inspect these apartments on a yearly basis, as well as enforcement of housing codes on illegal, non-permitted apartments. I believe the permit fee for absentee landlords is higher, but for seniors it's much lower so the math probably about evens out.

If you were to scan over the ads for apartments within district boundaries, you'll find that just about all of the legal accessory apartments exist on the 1st floor of your typical hi-ranches. Probably a few others are on the top floor of a typical Cape-Cod style homes.

Here's a clue for ya - these are all studio or 1 bedroom apartments with "kitchen/livingroom combos." I doubt there's even 20 legal accessory apartments in single-family homes within the Npt-ENpt district with 2 full bedrooms.

In most of these ads, or if you should pick up a phone and inquire, all of these landlords want 1 single occupant, no smoking, no pets and no children. These apartments are almost always occupied by a single unmarried or divorced male or female. Generaly, with one of Long Island's many dead-end, will-go-nowhere Mcjobs.

I will concede that for every legal accessory apartment, there are probably at least 3-4 illegal, unknown apartments which either cannot be legalized because they're in basements, or do not meet the minimum requirements for "easy" legalization, like no separate entrance, bought or built after the town dis-allowed any additional absentee landlord accessory apartment permits, or the homeowner fears the apartment will call attention to the town a plethora of other non-permitted taxable property improvements the homeowner has made, like all of the new windows, above ground swimming pools, sheds, exterior basement entrances, patios, etc.

Yet these apartments also do not, as a rule, attract more families with school-aged children.

What IS causing an increase in school enrollment is the typical population trend which expands and contracts on a fairly regular basis, as well as the construction of brand-new housing units scattered throughout the district. How much did the developers of that new neighborhood off Pulaski between Old Bridge & Larkfield pay the district to add classrooms to Bellerose School and the High School? $0.00. How much is the developer who is now building about 12 McMansions right off Stony Hollow paying the school district? $0.00.

Another trend I see is small "starter" homes, typically 3 small bedrooms and 1 & 1/2 baths, (capes, split ranches) in neighborhoods built in the 60's and 70's on undersized lots - seeking and being granted variance after variance to blow-out their top floors and add porches, additional garages not 2' from the lot lines, full bathrooms and uaually separate 2nd floor entrances. (Although they're not called separate entrances, they're called "sun decks" with "french doors.")

This trend is being fueled by homeowners not ready to leave Long Island who are building up and out to accomodate their own children who cannot afford their own home on Long Island, yet refuse to leave to an area they can afford. Families will be raised in these new 2-3 bedroom additions.


Every house with an accessory apartment is now by law a two family house

"By Law?" What does that mean? A real 2-family house can accomodate 2 families. MOST accessory apartments can not accomodate a family. Most barely accomodate a single adult. 2 adults is pushing it. Children? Hardly ever.

By law, a real 2-family home (There are a few) has to have 2 electric, gas (if there's gas service) and water meters, and 2 cesspools. 2 oil tanks if it's oil heat. No utilities or services may be shared between the 2 units, like telephone, cable, etc. There has to be a 5-hour rated firewall.

That's a far cry from an accessory apartment, where a homeowner typically puts a door up in a hallway separating the 3rd or 4th unneeded bedroom, den and bathroom from the rest of the house. There's no new space, there's no additional space, and therefore, no additional taxes. Tenant uses the back door.



by the way many houses in Northport that have 2 dwellings or more and not taxed for that also have kids that use the school district


I would LOVE you to post the addresses in Northport or E Northport where there are actually 2 dwellings OR MORE with families that are sending kids to the school district.

For as long as there has been zoning, there is no such thing as 2 separate dwellings on one taxed lot.


the landlords and town government think people like you are suckers

People like you think that you, and the town government, and school districts have some kind of right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their property.

"Single family home" is simply a designation description, not a legal term defining actual uses allowable by law. I own a "single family home" split into 3 "units" each consisting of 1 bedroom, and an open living area and a bathroom and 1 or 2 closets. Only one of those 3 "units" has what the town can legally describe as a kitchen, making that unit a legal "apartment." (You're allowed one kitchen per single family home. Unless your Jewish you can have another "Kosher kitchen" or Italian with a "Summer kitchen.") The other 2 units are not "apartments" because there's no stove. No stove equals no kitchen. No kitchen = no violation of housing or land-use codes and no crime is being committed.

By the way, no children either. These tenants work in jobs like pep boys, Target and Home Depot. Some work more than one job. Some are college students.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Exact Address escapes me But houses across from Ground Round Shopping center
are listed in town hall as being a single family residential with as many as 6 families living in them.
One of our many local businesses owns the house which is a gold mine.
The town assesses the house as a single family yet says there are 6 families capable of using it.
Many of the people who live in these houses use the school yards and ballfields to play soccer and other sports.
I'm sure those who have children send them to our schools.
When government finally gets their housing project in thanks to all the elitists who live in LLoyd's Neck/Harbor, watch the school district taxes really soar.

Another problem were having in Huntington is called blockbusting. But the state doesn't do a damn thing about it.

the owner of many of these local properties is an oil guy
he donates heavily to the Democrats
and Petrone Administration

[REALLY...]

the owner of many of these local properties is an oil guy
he donates heavily to the Democrats
and Petrone Administration

WHICH OIL COMPANY?

I'm failing to make the connection. Can someone draw me a roadmap to the point. EXPLANATION PUHLEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!

[Ck it out]

Ck out suffolkp0litics dot com