carpetman, hamptons, flooring

258 Comments by Craigcat

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  >>  

KKK Recruitment Fliers Found In Westhampton Beach And Quogue Villages

Save the rocks, throw out the flyer. " Jul 25, 16 5:32 PM

Speonk Affordable Housing Project On Agenda For Thursday's Southampton Town Board Work Session

The town board received over 100 emails stating "No zoning change" as that area already has density issues by way of as of right projects looming. However, we do support an affordable housing model, just not by way of the density monster that is the MF44 zone change. We'll ask our town board to work with us in finding a solution that addresses the need for affordable housing without adding the kind of density Georgica Green is looking for. Woodfield Gables, Serenity Estates and The Estates at Remsenburg alone will bring our community 70 new homes. Those are as of right projects. So we really do have significant density concerns. If the town enforces its own rules, 7 of those 70 homes are supposed to be affordable. The as of right yield at 41 N Phillips is approx 28 units. So the conversation in Speonk is not community vs. affordable, as we embrace an affordable model, The conversation is zoning changes vs. responsible development. All of our civic groups are in agreement on this. Again, we have expressed a desire to work with the town and find as of right models to address affordable housing. Overdevelopment in our area is a very real concern." Jul 28, 16 7:14 AM

I live right by that area. My friend will literally have a sewage treatment system in her back yard. That property has unique zoning 6 R20 1/2 acre lots + village business frontage w/ 16 accessory apartments. We'd like to see the 6 homes built for seniors w/ 6 workforce housing accessory apartments added. Then do the VB section + 16 affordable apartments. That would help a lot of people (28 units) and maintain current zoning.
Sadly, we haven't had this conversation and Georgica Green and TSHA maintain they have to do 51 units / 67 bedrooms in order to get funding. That's debatable. " Jul 28, 16 7:20 AM

Proposed Speonk Affordable Housing Project Met With Community Opposition

That area has a number of as of right projects that will be bringing the community significant density increases. Holding out hope that there's a better solution at 41 North Phillips that includes attainable units. " Jul 29, 16 7:06 AM

Unfair to compare bagel stores and pizzerias on Montauk Hwy with 51 units/67 bedroom apartments on N. Phillips Ave? Look at the overall big picture in our area. We are going to have a real density problem here. The last thing we need is to be down zoning parcels that already have as of right density yields that exceed anything else on N. Phillips. So far we've seen 1 proposal from Dave and Curtis. You aren't working with us, you are working at us. We've asked the town board to help change that dynamic. I think that is fair. Your starting point with our community is a willingness to accommodate a workforce housing model. Don't blow this opportunity by trying to make us villains. You'll be surprised how rational most of us are. " Jul 29, 16 12:21 PM

How many 6 BR homes exist on N Phillips or in Speonk for that matter? The notion that the 6 homes would have 6 bedrooms is false. The R20 home segment = 6 units, a single family home on ea .5 acre parcel. The VB yield = 16 apartments. By adding an accessory apt to each R20 segment the total yield becomes 28. I'm not sure how the pre-existing nonconforming plays into as of right yields, but maybe they get 2 more? Anyway, before accepting 51 units and 67 bedrooms as the only solution here, I think we should examine what lower density models exist. We've heard 1 proposal. This shouldn't be one choice or bust. " Jul 31, 16 8:35 AM

At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, I think some equitable solution will be found. GGV has shown us one model to date. Like anything in life, we shouldn't assume that 41 NP is a single solution issue. The alarming thing about the installation of sewage treatment systems is they can be tapped into. With a developer already looking to down zone 85 NP from 7 single family on 7 acres to 44 3 BR unit apts, we need to consider if 41 NP makes that scenario more likely. " Aug 1, 16 8:37 AM

Mostly the cumulative density. I think down-zoning N. Phillips is a tragically flawed idea. Imagine a scenario where we have Hampton Villas on the corner, 51 units at 41 NP and another 44 units at 85 NP. That's crazy density for this area. N. Phillips Ave being the main connector of Montauk Hwy and Old Ctry Rd will be a complete mess. It already is without the added density.
The owners at Woodfield Gables are motivated to do something. That's 38 homes. Serenity Estates got beat twice by the town in down-zoning attempts. He's now as of right 13 homes. If 41 NP gets the MF44, I'd expect the land owner at Serenity to take issue. Anyway, a myriad of issues. Spe-Rems need to fight down-zoning regardless of motivator. So much more to this than anyone should post on a public forum. Nor do I want this to look like my personal crusade. I want a solution." Aug 1, 16 8:44 PM

I appreciate the respectful dialogue. The irony here being GGV/TSHA have made our community examine the perils of overdevelopment here, and our group has helped create awareness and acceptance for attainable housing. Honestly, the lines of division aren't that great. We are talking about zoning and density, not people. I think that's a good thing. " Aug 2, 16 1:33 PM

Hearing Officer Expected To Decide Fate Of Remsenburg Teen With Down Syndrome Soon

To know Aiden is to love Aiden. Hoping that WHBSD allows themselves the opportunity to love Aiden. Your school will be a better place for it. " Aug 9, 16 1:46 PM

Father Of Remsenburg Teen With Down Syndrome Warned To Stay Off School Grounds Or Face Arrest

Imagine if WHBSD used the resources for establishing a program instead of spending it on lawyers to prevent one. This is all really sad. " Aug 23, 16 2:14 PM

"Slowed down by Aiden"
No student is slowed down by Aiden. Actually students learn some important lessons when kids with special needs are among them. Compassion, care, selflessness, community, to name a few. You may not agree with how the Killorans are pursuing this, as is your right. However, pointing out that WHBSD is outsourcing kids with special needs is a good thing. Awareness is a good thing. More, the Killorans are actually trying to break down barriers, which could be for the benefit of many. I have a child on the Autism spectrum. He'll be going to ESM next year. He has an older brother that will eventually be in WHBSD. At some point my son will ask why he's going to a different school than his brother, and I'll have explain that. Those who look upon splitting up siblings like this as "selfish" and "slowing other students down" are actually fostering a mindset that some kids belong and some kids don't. From my perspective, and I assume the Killoran's perspective, you are arguing for exclusion. The time and money spent trying to keep Aiden out could have and should have been invested in welcoming him in. Actually, it would have been a lot cheaper to do so. So ask yourself who is being selfish and not showing regard for taxpayers." Aug 24, 16 9:31 AM

Southampton Town Supervisor Takes To Facebook In Affordable Housing Search

The truth is prior town boards failed to enforce rules and fines on developers who were supposed to build 10% affordable on developments of 5+ homes. Sadly, the town never established a plan for affordable housing, and this board inherited a crisis. The fastest solution is to down-zone parcels, max out density per acre and build apartment complexes. This approach creates sudden and severe impact wherever it is applied. More, it is completely out of character with the beauty and charm of the hamlets that make up Southampton Town.
Thankfully, we have town board members that are aware of the issue and are looking into alternatives. Accessory apartments, restoring distressed homes, smart development in concert with any given community to name a few.
I think our communities should work directly with the town. Let the town formulate the plan and dictate that plan to TSHA and developers. Right now the approach is upside down in that the town is reacting to what TSHA and developers are bringing them. What we need is a town-wide plan, where each hamlet steps up, and the leaders are our town board, not developers who address the need for affordable housing by way of profit margins. The Remsenburg-Speonk community continues to reach out to the town, and some board members are reaching back, looking for ways to address affordable housing equitably and with majority community support. We'll keep trying. Perhaps we can become the model. " Aug 28, 16 9:28 AM

We shall see, CH, Jr. My community has a town board and will communicate our concerns and wishes directly to them. TSHA is tasked with managing Section 8 vouchers for SH town. Beyond that TSHA is owed nothing by the town, nor does it answer to the community. End result is there are no reasons to engage TSHA, who's exec director is listed as co-developer on the 41 NP app, in conversation until TSHA is willing to back off this density adding monster that is 51 units and 67 bedrooms on a little over 4 acres. I invite anyone who's interested to visit that property. Imagine 90 or so people living there. Watch as the cars already back up when the train is in station. Look at the train schedule and tell me how the 9:43 eastbound helps get them to work. Talk to the home owners at Sherri Ct about how they thought they were purchasing homes in a quiet hamlet only to have 90 neighbors move in on the same day. This is an apartment complex that is way too large for that parcel. End of story. We are asking for fairness, TSHA is delivering 1 model with no room for flexibility. No, thank you. We'll talk to our town board now. We said yes, and TSHA/GGV is trying to roll us. TSHA is blowing an opportunity and people will notice. This is not how you treat a community that is looking to work with you. " Aug 29, 16 9:25 AM

FNMA Home Ready helps finance low to moderate income level homeowners by using rental income from accessory apartments to assist in qualifying for a mortgage. It's a 2 for 1 approach to affordable housing, with the bonus of having an ownership model included. It speaks directly to Jay Schneiderman's accessory apartment approach, and could be a great way of keeping our young people and seniors here.
Explore solutions.
" Aug 29, 16 9:36 AM

Ninety properties that Suffolk County gave to towns and villages to build affordable housing have sat undeveloped for more than seven years. Vacant properties, by municipality:

Southampton: 7" Aug 29, 16 9:42 AM

Southampton Town Supervisor Takes To Facebook In Affordable Housing Search

Can you share details of those 7 lots? Size / zoning / single family / accessory apartment etc..." Aug 29, 16 12:35 PM

Doesn't require a refinance. Could be a nice option for some of those 72H sites throughout Suffolk. Also could be a nice hybrid approach to properties with unique zoning. " Aug 29, 16 1:57 PM

In hear you. TSHA/GGV want to put roughly 9% of Speonk's population on 4 acres right next to your development. We ask the town board to take the lead and work with us in finding a way to accommodate 28 units without changing the zoning. I hear you. Hopefully your town board will hear you. " Aug 29, 16 8:51 PM

Good point though, but here's the difference:
Hampton Villas is ownership based with Montauk Hwy access. You can actually own one of those units for approx $1200/ month, thus making them as or more affordable than many of the units that TSHA/GGV are proposing. Google the real estate listings if you don't believe me.
More, Speonk has a 30 unit trailer park on Speonk Riverhead Rd. There's a 5 unit apartment on Nidzyn Ave. Multi-unit apartments behind The Old Speonk Inn. Additionally, over 40 duplex or bungalow style homes throughout Speonk-Remsenburg. Many of these homes are rentals. So the notion that this area isn't housing it's workforce is entirely false. Actually, the Speonk area offers a rather diverse range of homes. TSHA doesn't consider them affordable because they aren't part of TSHA inventory. That doesn't make them any less affordable though.
That said, with the greater need, we still welcome an affordable model at 41 NP. We just ask that it maintains current zoning. TSHA/GGV state that they can't plug in their model and get the tax credits etc under current zoning, yet they claim it is the perfect site. A perfect site wouldn't require zoning changes and doubling density on a property that already can accommodate 28 units. So you have a community looking for compromise, yet at every turn we are being accused of being irrational. Please remember that we have asked for nothing. TSHA/GGV are asking for special consideration, not us. So continue to be angry if you like, but it doesn't change anything. I'd imagine your perspective being different if you owned a home on Sherri Ct.
" Aug 30, 16 8:56 AM

You do realize we aren't against affordable housing, right? We aren't against it at 41 NP. We asked why they aren't developing the VB section as of right with 16 affordable apartments, and doing the R20 with 6 homes and 6 accessory apartments. We asked the planning board to look at this as well. We were told that you need a willing land owner. Ok, so the current land owner ran the place to the ground and allowed that property to become an eyesore. Now the same owner links up with GGV/TSHA and all of a sudden the place becomes a must do 51 unit apartment complex or nothing at all. The only rights GGV/TSHA have are to ask. They are no greater than our rights to ask for no change in zoning. Perhaps the town stands by our community and says no zoning change. Then the pressure is on the landowner to decide if he/she is willing to find alternate approaches. GGV/TSHA are dug in. Worse, they dug in while we were sleeping. Curtis himself stated that it will be no more than 50 units, if that much, and only after community input. Really??? TSHA has not, will not, does not care what our community wants or thinks. This is the fight that should never be, and I refuse to allow anyone to roll our town just because they have decided that their model fits anywhere they plug it in. Affordable housing - yes. Affordable housing with the town's lead and community input and support. When TSHA/GGV come knocking, run. MF44-330-8 is sure to follow and resistance = NIMBYism, bigotry, irrationality, and callousness. " Aug 31, 16 1:46 PM

And as you work for the the developer your point of view is not skewed at all, right? It's funny how the few people who post here in favor of turning a 4 acre parcel into a 51 unit / 67 BR apartment complex are connected to TSHA or the builder. In short, my community doesn't support the size and density of this project. Your team submitted 1 proposal. We don't like it, so instead of actually being creative and working with people you attack them. Brilliant. So this is now a conversation between my community and the town board. Good luck and may the details of 41 NP follow you everywhere you may go. " Aug 31, 16 3:02 PM

Sure. I had a conversation with a land use atty for an affordable housing developer. Maybe you know him. He was ranting about how we need affordable housing. I asked that if 41 NP got developed, and CAEC then came looking to do something similar, if that would be cause for concern. He said, "Nah, you just hire me and I'll protect you claiming saturation." I found it odd how his compassion and concern were limited to the projects that he was directly tied to and profited from. It's hard to tell who's honest these days. That's why my name is on these posts. I stand by what I say and what I'm doing. My goal is to find an equitable solution at 41 NP. Sadly, only one party is willing to dance. " Aug 31, 16 3:30 PM

I speak on behalf of the 400+ and growing members of RESCU. Again, the message is that we support affordable housing, but we ask the town to take the lead and address it together with our community. We would like to see 41 NP developed and welcome an affordable model there, with the town taking the lead and working directly with our community.
We ask that the town establishes a plan for affordable housing with an equitable distribution throughout each hamlet. We ask that the parameters of said plan are dictated to entities like TSHA and GGV so we stop reacting to down-zoned, density adding apartment complexes brought to us by people with varying motivators, be them profit, political, or job security. I personally see this as the right course of action that will help the town and communities address affordable housing, and hopefully avoid more Sandy Hollow/41 NP battles. I also look forward to all of this being over so I can get back to being a small business owner, husband and father. If you or anyone else determine this to be irrational, then I don't think you have truly witnessed irrational yet. Trust me, the continuation of the TSHA/GGV model throughout SH Town will result in battle after battle. This should be a town initiative, not a TSHA/GGV initiative. TSHA/GGV are entitled to ask, and nothing more. " Sep 1, 16 10:04 AM

Thank you for supporting the project with your name on it. TSHA - sponsor, Curtis Highsmith - co-developer. As you don't represent the town of Southampton, nor does Georgica Green, and insist on forcing 1 model, your model, upon our community, it's awfully hard to see your agency as a willing partner in addressing affordable housing. Remember, it is you who are asking for special consideration on this. My hope is that our town board realizes that this issue is too important to outsource, and really examines who they are outsourcing to. If the town is serious about addressing affordable housing, it should be their plan and it should be dictated to the likes of TSHA. " Sep 1, 16 10:19 AM

Affordable housing in Southampton should be a town-wide initiative. The town needs to take the lead. The town needs to dictate the parameters to developers. Affordable housing through the lens of outside entities needs to end.
We have town board members that care very much about this issue. I hope that they are realizing that they need to establish a plan. Speonk could be the first step.
" Sep 1, 16 10:25 AM

I supported Mr. Citarelli's as of right project.
You post hypothetical scenarios, yet those who want to build 51 units at 41NP argue away our density concerns based on hypothetical scenarios.
I personally boycott the business of a person who escorted Mr. Gallo to a community function that had nothing at all to do with business promotions. 41 NP wasn't a part of our local summer celebration. When people asked me who that person was, I decided to not answer. I even took the post down where I mentioned it because I thought it was unfair. I made a mistake, and I apologize for that. That said, if you want to bring up the tactics that TSHA have been using then be prepared for a long and dirty list. I choose not to go there on a daily basis. It'll make for a bigger divide and that is pointless.
The CAC's apparent support of 41 NP doesn't reflect that of my community. A few of us have joined to make sure our voices are heard. That's just common sense.
I know people who called HUD to validate the things Mr. Highsmith says, and to look at TSHA track record. As they want to build an apartment complex here, due diligence seems prudent.
So disagree with what we are doing. That's fine. In the end it comes down to one proposal, take it or leave it, and if you leave it you are irrational. You support it as is. I think it's too big. That's our difference. You want to talk about it or do you want continue to light each other on fire?" Sep 1, 16 2:22 PM

and for the record, I very much want to see 41 NP get developed, and I always thought it would be developed as affordable.
Frankly, the state of that property is a crime and the land owners should be fined to the gills. " Sep 1, 16 2:31 PM

We heard the same argument at Sandy Hollow, "It has to be 34 units!!! We can't get the funding!!!"
Somehow they got the funding with a 17% reduction in yield.
Now at 41 NP, "It has to be 51!!! We can't get the funding!!!" But we are the crazy irrational ones... sigh.
" Sep 1, 16 3:35 PM

I'll pass this request over to CEHJR too. He may want to know ;)
You guys are too funny." Sep 1, 16 4:37 PM

A very concerning post from Curtis posting as TSHA this time. He brought the proposal to the town knowing that if they reject or reduce it significantly, the town would be vulnerable to fair housing suits. So the board that appointed Curtis as Exec Director of TSHA is repaid by him bringing them a proposal that threatens the entire SH town.
That is delicious. " Sep 1, 16 4:57 PM

Repeat: We support affordable housing. Our only issue with 41NP is the size of the project. No over-development please.
I'll post this 1000 times if I have to. GGV/TSHA have brought us 1 proposal. According to them, and I guess you, acceptance of the single choice = being for affordable housing and rejecting the single choice = being against affordable housing.
Let's go car shopping together. You get a single choice. Buy it and you drive. Don't buy it and you are clearly against driving.
Absolutes are fun." Sep 2, 16 9:26 AM

We have met with town board members and discussed a number of ideas. The conversations continue. More importantly, you may want to question your blind faith in what TSHA is selling and how they are going about doing it. tenn tom, if you really are from Remsenburg then perhaps you should put some effort into looking at alternatives that could help prevent over-development in your town. Feel free to contact us at anytime. Enjoy the rest of your weekend." Sep 4, 16 10:28 AM

Hampton Bays Superintendent Expresses Concerns Over Town Supervisor's Accessory Apartment Idea

Affordable housing will be addressed through some combination of accessory apts and apartment complexes like Sandy Hollow. I think the town really needs to do some long range planning and take the lead on the issue. Gather up the CAC's and Civic Associations and try to bang out an equitable plan. At the moment it appears the burden will be put on a few hamlets, which isn't fair and doesn't make sense. Pump the brakes. Figure it out. Implement a plan with each community. " Sep 6, 16 3:41 PM

Sigh...what a mess. It's really frustrating. " Sep 6, 16 4:28 PM

They are looking to build 51 units / 67 bedrooms on a little over 4 acres in Speonk. That's pretty west of the canal IMO. More, they claim that the train will help alleviate traffic. The train leaves at 9:43am, thus negating most of the benefit. That's why we are going nuts over here looking for the town to take the lead and formulate a plan. If not these apartment complexes will start popping up everywhere. IMO the town should own an initiative. " Sep 7, 16 2:55 PM

Councilwoman Lofstad is working diligently on looking into affordable housing equitably spread out through each hamlet. Let's give her time and support her on that." Sep 8, 16 7:18 PM

Residents Worry That Flood Of Applications Could Forever Alter Hamlets Of Remsenburg And Speonk

Pump the brakes. Do a block study, please. " Sep 23, 16 4:17 PM

Town Board Requests More Information About Speonk Apartment Plan; Schedules Meeting In Community For October 6

The planning dept came in with an as of right yield at 27 units. The MF44 / article 330-8 proposal yields 51 units.
The entire argument at this point is based on the zone change and density yield, not about whether or not an affordable model should be there. Most people in my community understand this.
GGV and TSHA claim that they can't get 27 units funded, so now we use the town to arbitrate. Do they allow 51 units due to the GGV funding model, which surely won't sit well with the community, or do they somehow find a way to get 27 units done and maintain current zoning? The latter would meet majority community acceptance. There will always be a few that won't accept anything. " Sep 28, 16 11:48 AM

Southampton Supervisor Pitches New Housing Division

Town-wide equitable distribution per hamlet. Reinforce the ownership model by utilizing the Fannie Mae HomeReady program that yields 2 for 1 in affordables (owner + accessory).
Apartments over Village Business areas. Identify and refurbish "zombie" homes.
This can be done." Oct 5, 16 3:42 PM

Residents Criticize Scale Of Speonk Commons Proposal At Work Session Thursday Night

Respectful meeting where both sides presented points of views in a calm and dignified manner. Hopefully we are on our way to solutions that work for all. " Oct 8, 16 4:36 PM

UPDATE: Southampton Town Board Votes To Consider Affordable Housing Zone Change In Speonk

That's not true. Stan and Christine voted no because they felt as though more communication was needed in coming up with that 38 number. They also wanted more time for the community to discuss it. I think they are the opposite of weak.
In the end I hope we all come together now, entire town board included, and discuss this 38 unit concept.
If the actual number of people is the same using an as of right model, then the last major hurdle is the zoning mechanism. I think we are making positive steps. " Oct 27, 16 4:03 PM

UPDATE: Southampton School Board Does Not Plan To Revisit Columbus Holiday Name Change At Next Meeting

Remember the South Park non-offensive Christmas episode? Doesn't seem like much of a stretch anymore. " Jan 30, 17 5:58 PM

UPDATE: Protesters Say Weekend Rally At Zeldin Event Was Peaceful

I don't blame him. Recent events have shown us that "protest" has quickly devolved into rage and vandalism. Oddly, those demonstrating in the name of free speech and fairness are doing nothing but stifling free speech and fairness. The hypocrisy is almost comical. " Feb 3, 17 9:43 AM

Town Supervisor Says He Is Hesitant To Entertain Second Apartment Complex Proposal For Speonk

A good part of community was willing to work with the town on the 38 unit concept at 41 N. Phillips. That parcel already had unique zoning that allowed for increased density. The town did the right thing by communicating with us, and working with us on a compromise that keeps the 38 unit density fairly close to the as of right density. Beyond that, we are done with down-zoning. No more density increases.
The Chiffert proposal is a different animal. It's not a blighted parcel, but a pristine wooded lot. The current zoning allows for single family homes on 1 acre parcels. IMO, this project should be DOA. It was not received well when presented to CAC-West. The resistance from the community will likely be rather significant. We've been talking about it for over a year already. " Feb 11, 17 1:53 PM

Most of the money comes from the state. It's rather confusing, but the state grants money to developers who bid on 100% affordable housing developments and sets all the financial criteria as well. To me that's the biggest issue here. The state needs to offer more flexibility so that these projects can be done a much smaller scale, and include ownership and rental hybrids. Anyway, it's the state $ that keep these things affordable." Feb 12, 17 10:43 AM

That it is. " Feb 12, 17 1:36 PM

Southampton Town Approves 38-Unit Affordable Housing Complex For Speonk

The town is motivated to address the need for workforce housing using a spread out approach, where each hamlet does its fair share. 41NP was always designated as an ideal location for this kind of model. You don't have to agree with it, but please understand that the dollars and the pressure to get these projects done actually comes from the state. Speonk has now done its fair share in addressing workforce housing. We have a lot of vacant land to protect. Other developers will not be met with the same spirit of compromise. The zoning anomaly at 41 NP already allowed for similar density. Other parcels do not have the same higher density zoning. " Mar 26, 17 12:44 PM

The town master plan and subsequent hamlet study stated that the mixed use zoning at 41 NP made it an ideal location for multi-family, transit oriented, affordable housing. Again, you don't have to agree with the premise, but the facts are the facts in this case, and that is due mostly to the existing mixed use / higher density zoning. Max occupancy using this 38 unit concept = 71 people. There is no max occupancy with the "as of right" model, but we estimated approx 64 people would live there if developed as such. The "as of right" apartments over the village business segment could have yielded market rate, or affordable rentals using the section 8 voucher program. In short, there were no controls or vetting under the as of right model. The controls and vetting using the state funded program are significant, and income levels will range from a low of $37K to $87K annually." Mar 27, 17 3:05 PM

Earth, and your concerns are valid and have been discussed at length. I can write a dissertation on this file as I spent a year and a half fighting it, talking to town board members, looking for alternatives, learning about the funding and state influence, etc. In the end it was the existing as of right / mixed use use density at 41 N Phillips that changed my thinking on this proposal. If developed as of right, the impact on the school could be worse, and the controls over the rental portion above the VB segment non-existent. In short, no perfect outcome existed. At least with this one we do have some controls, checks and balances, and design input. What I do know for sure is we'll never get consensus on this. Just giving one point of view." Mar 30, 17 5:16 PM

There is that risk. We have a lot of land to protect over here. If there was one parcel that was primed for multi-family, it was 41 NP. Now we have to protect the others. Does 41 NP give us some leverage in defending the other parcels? I think so. Whatever the case may be, we'll need to be diligent and protect the area pretty much forever.
I appreciate the respectful debate.
" Mar 31, 17 11:14 AM

Zeldin Votes In Favor Of ACA Repeal; Schumer, Gillibrand Say They Will Work To Defeat Replacement Plan In Senate

ACA exchange: Care Connect monthly premium for family of 4 = $1200+ / month.
Individual deductible = $6000
Family deductible = $12,000
Hospital network = limited and insufficient.
Prescription plan? No.
Dental? No.
Vision? No.
So it's $14,400 just to sign up and hope like heck you don't get injured or sick.
Take politics out of the equation and ask if this is fair, makes sense, and is sustainable at the current annual premium increase trajectory.
" May 5, 17 1:09 PM

Dr. Chris Gobler Shares Opinion, Concerns Over 'The Hills' Proposal

The potential risks to water quality should outweigh the perceived need for a golf course, which very few Southampton town residents will ever use, or even care to use.
It's not like there's some overwhelming demand for this golf course. The demand is actually imported in this case.
This risk/reward scenario, where the reward benefits so few, and the risk could potentially impact so many, should make this version of the Hills project DOA.
" May 7, 17 5:54 PM

<<  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  >>