Taxes Out Of Control

To the Editor:

Property taxes throughout Nassau County are out-of-control.

While the Department of Assessment does not set municipal, school district or special district operating budgets or tax rates, mail out tax bills, or collect taxes, property assessments that reflect the escalating real estate market are often blamed for tax hikes to divert taxpayer frustration and scrutiny from increasing budgets.

Since assuming office as the Chairman of the Board of Assessors in January of 2004, I have never shied away from issues that I thought demanded the attention of elected officials at all levels of government - whether that issue was finding new ways to combat the growth of illegal and unsafe multi-family houses throughout the County, advocating the elimination of sanitation taxing districts, proposing that a statewide committee be convened to study my suggestion that the residential school property tax be eradicated and replaced with a modest income tax, finding ways to share the assessed commercial value within a town to help ease the fire district property tax burden, or lobbying the State legislature for a phase-in of assessment increases and elimination of fractional levels of assessments.

It's easy for naysayers to sit in criticism and argue for the continuation of the status quo. I can't. I hear the cries of residents every day who can no longer afford to live in Nassau County because of the high property taxes.

Many have called me an "activist assessor" because I have focused on issues that have never been addressed by an assessor. Activism for the sake of the common good, for our communities' quality of life, and for our children's future is not a negative.

With the knowledge that my legislative initiative calling for a phase-in of assessment increases was left to die in a State Senate Committee, despite its overwhelming support by both parties in the Assembly, I introduced a resolution at the June 7 meeting of the Board of Assessors calling for the restoration of a six percent cap on assessment increases for residential properties for the 2007-08 tax year.

By passing this resolution, the Board of Assessors is complying with Article 18 of the New York State Real Property Tax Law that was written by Senator Kemp Hannon (R - Garden City) and signed into law in 1982, which mandates a six percent cap for Nassau homeowners. This is the law.

Unfortunately, when the previous administration negotiated and agreed to the terms of the New York State Supreme Court Order in March of 2000, no-one advocated that assessment increases be phased-in when Nassau County moved from its archaic construction-cost assessment system to one that measures the fair market value of a home. What is often overlooked is the fact that the lack of a phase-in resulted in tremendous and arduous school property tax increases in middle class communities. In fact to "get around" the six percent cap provisions or phase-in, the previous administration - with the approval of New York State Supreme Court - set a level of assessment at fractional levels (one, one-half, and one-quarter percent of full market value) for the ensuing rolls covered under the Court Order.

Until the Senate agrees to cooperate with its colleagues in the Assembly and passes the initiatives I proposed in 2004, I have no option but to comply with existing State law.

Harvey B. Levinson

Chairman, Board of

Assessors

Editor's Note: Mr. Levinson is a resident of Garden City.

Keep Existing Zoning

To The Editor:

I want to respond to the front page article in the May 27th edition of the GC News titled ' EPOA ask for a Zoning Change'. My position is the existing commercial zoning status should remain for the old Newsday complex on Stewart Avenue for a number of reasons:

1) The area for the most part is surrounded by commercial properties (retail, offices, Keyspan facilities, military, etc.), so it will not be unusual for an office building to be built on these parcels.

2) The Village will receive sufficient infusion of new tax revenue from office space development. (The builders prefer residential.. that was their slant when they presented at an EPOA meeting a number of months ago, but they concurred that office space would also provide a reasonable tax base increase)

3) The idea that traffic will increase to much higher levels if offices are built is not exactly true if looking at the big picture. (And I question a traffic study commissioned by the new owners vs. an independent study). Yes traffic will likely be greater during the rush hours, but it is reasonable to assume traffic will be heavier regardless whether office or residential will be built. And the fact is, as is works today since traffic is currently heavy at rush hours, the traffic lights will properly regulate movement of vehicles through the area. If there's additional cars, which will be the case in either scenario, this traffic will be regulated similarly as it is today. There will also likely be additional lights to aid in the movement of cars going into and out of the parcels. Keep in mind other than rush hour (7-9am and 5-7pm M-F) all business traffic will be virtually non existent, including Saturdays and Sundays. On the other hand, 36 new single family houses and 1

50 units of condos worth of vehicles will be coming and going 7 days a week at any hour.

4) Most significant would be the impact to our already overcrowded schools. With an additional 186 new housing units, you could estimate that we'd see 100 new students. Add to that number the new students from the housing planned in the future for the eastern section along Washington Ave by the court houses, and I believe we're acting unwisely, stressing out the school system unnecessarily and impacting our children's quality of education.

5) On a positive note, concerning aesthetics, it is clear that office space can be designed to add beauty and enrich the look and feel of a community if it is done right. An 'eastern entrance' to Garden City can be created, and a 'green' office plaza that can enhance the whole area including the Raymond Court homes is a reality. Public space beautification can be accomplished under any development scenario with oversight and input from the community.

Regarding the decision to make a request to the Trustees to change the zoning, I am interested to know where the person who made the statement referenced in the article that the Eastern residents 'do not want commercial zoning in this area got this information. Where is the data that this is the sentiment of the majority of the eastern property owners?

It is my belief the zoning should remain commercial and unchanged for the reasons cited above, and if any village resident agrees, he or she should contact their Trustee to voice their opinion against this zoning change and ask them to press for a sensible, innovative and aesthetically pleasing office space development plan.

RJ Sauchelli

Resident if the Eastern

section and EPOA member