Several in the audience said they own rental housing, and the rents O’Connor cited are way out of line compared to what they are able to charge.
State Assemblyman Pete Lopez told the group that he has researched state laws regarding affordable housing at the request of people at a previous meeting. A provision titled 581a was added to the housing laws in 2005 with the aim of encouraging builders to construct housing for low-income residents, he said. This provision resulted from a recognition that “the rents that are received from low income housing would not be on par with other rental buildings, so developers would not be interested in building.” The law gives landlords a break on their assessment by using a different calculation, based on income rather than the value of the property, he said.
The law does specify that an agreement must be secured between the municipality and the developer, Lopez said. A payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement is usually used to encourage desirable development.
At this point there is no formal agreement between the town and the developer, town board members said. However, Councilman Fred Costello asked whether a developer could arrange a 581a assessment reduction directly with the assessor, without the town board even knowing about it. Vagianelis acknowledged that the property owner could go directly to the assessor, and the assessor would be required to assess the property based on the law.
Patti Kelly asked Vagianelis “do we have the authority to refuse a project if it fulfills the requirements of the state environmental laws and in our case being properly zoned and going through the planning board process? Can a community say we are not going to follow the law?”
“As a lawyer, I would say no one should break the law,” Vagianelis said.
Lopez said he would work with residents to get the law changed. The community should have some say in what projects are built there, he said. He asked that the residents help him to identify the issues and draft the legislation.
whatever the idealistic goal may be, the reality is that NO ONE really benefits from this except the developer! And once it’s built, it won’t go away! we need JOBS JOBS JOBS, not more housing … if people are losing their homes, new apartments that they can’t afford anyway won’t help.
Why exactly is it being called Workforce Housing? And if u figure what a single family house owner on average pays in taxes – how is this tax deal remotely adequate or equitable? Shame!