In my first month back on the job, I've been reacquainting myself with Long Island. After having been away on a day-to-day basis for over a decade, I'm discovering the changes that have occurred in the interceding years. On my seemingly frequent trips thus far out to the Eastern End, I'm spotting a slew of development projects that did not exist in my memories. I'm not exactly surprised, as the push had commenced way before I left for the "mainland." But aside from relearning the geography, I'm also engaging once again in the daily realities that comprise the land use process. At the top of this list, as it is no doubt for many land use practitioners, is the contact one has with the decision makers and administrative officials filling the seats and positions at the municipalities within which one operates. By and large, these folks are committed public servants who, despite the travails of working with us professional types (and the not-so-professional applicants from the residential realm), perform their duties amiably and competently.
Of course, every now and then, as in any social realm, there will be conflict and personality clashes. I try to avoid such messiness, as it serves to only muddle an already muddy process. But every now and then, I scratch my head at the operation of things. Over the past month or so, Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, has been running stories that have exposed the practice of granting land use board members generous perks in furtherance of their duties. For instance, in the Town of Hempstead, the Town Council, despite outside pressure, preserved full medical benefits for the members of the zoning board of appeals for their part-time work. This fabulous compensation supplements the $38,000 a year each member already makes. Incidentally, one of the board members happens to be Katuria D'Amato, wife of former Senator and power broker Alfonse D'Amato.
Coming from New Jersey, where the vast majority of land use board members serve for nothing in return except a pat on the back, or maybe a paltry stipend, the news made me question any fond memories I may have had in connection with a bucolic Long Island of yore, or even the shopping centers that replaced it. But looking past the obvious shock value which Newsday sought to exploit, I thought deeper on the subject to consider whether these thankless public servants should get more than a sense of satisfaction. Why not pay board members to listen to application after application, until the clock contorts to the wee hours of the night? Why not attract people to the process who aren't just friends of the politicians who happen to control Town or Village Hall? If this were a formal study, it would first be intriguing to find out what the current state of affairs is across the country. The next step would be to analyze how the various approaches have fared. But at this inquiry's core, if the process is meant to be one of peers judging peers, like a jury, or each individual voter, how does money change the process? Sure, jurors get paid, but not enough to pay for an addition to the house. They also aren't covered if they happen to require medical attention during their service.
Where do I fall on all this? Well, for me, it's about the system working. Take the Hempstead example again. In the Village of Hempstead, an incorporated area within the Town of the same name, progress continues ahead to rebuild the municipality after years of decay. One such example, the renovation of Cedar Valley Apartments, has attempted to attract homeowners back to the Village by offering low-income buyers assistance through federal grants to buy back into the community. Spearheaded by Mayor Wayne Hall, County Supervisor Thomas Suozzi and the developer, ABC Properties, the plan is to use this success as a springboard for others. This is what the process is all about -- everyone working together. The question is, how much should it cost to get something like this done?
No comments:
Post a Comment