Showing posts with label Long Island. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Long Island. Show all posts

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Broadwater rehearing denied by feds

By Denise Civiletti

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday denied requests by New York, Connecticut, Suffolk County and the towns of Riverhead, Southold, Brookhaven, East Hampton and Huntington to reconsider its approval of Broadwater Energy's permits to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound, nine miles off the coast of Wading River in the Town of Riverhead.

FERC on March 20 issued conditional approvals to Broadwater Energy, a joint venture of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines, to site, construct, and operate a 1,215-foot-long LNG import terminal in Long Island Sound. The commission also issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Broadwater Pipeline LLC, an affiliate of Broadwater Energy, to construct, own, and operate a 21.7-mile-long pipeline subsea lateral from the LNG terminal to he Iroquois gas transmission system pipeline in Kings Park.

Both approvals were conditioned on a determination by the N.Y. secretary of state that the terminal would be consistent with New York's coastal management policies. Gov. David Paterson announced on April 10 that the N.Y. secretary of state had found Broadwater's proposed terminal inconsistent with state coastal policies.

The states of New York and Connecticut, as well as Suffolk County and four municipalities, subsequently asked FERC to reconsider its permit approvals after the New York secretary of commerce ruled on April 10 that the off-shore LNG storage and regasification terminal was inconsistent with New York's coastal management policy.

On Thursday, FERC said no.

What legal action the states, county and towns may pursue following FERC's denial was not immediately apparent.

Meanwhile, Broadwater Energy has appealed the N.Y. Department of State's consistency determination to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who has the authority to override the state's consistency ruling upon finding that the terminal is in the interest of national security. That appeal is pending before the U.S. commerce secretary. A ruling on that appeal is expected in early 2009, according to Ted Beuttler, a staff attorney in the commerce department's office of general counsel for ocean services.

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

Friday, June 06, 2008

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Gay on the North Fork

We've started a month-long series in Suffolk Times and News-Review this week (to coincide with gay pride month) about being gay on the North Fork.

This week, I've written an article about local reaction among gays and lesbians to the governor's executive order requiring NY state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Next week, I'm writing about federal issues affecting local gay people, focusing on immigration. The following week, I'll be writing about gay parents raising families on the North Fork. And the week after that, I'm writing about "then vs. now" — how things have changed, how they haven't.

If you've got a story to share for any part of this series, I'd love to hear from you. Please send me an e-mail at denise@timesreview.com. I can protect your identity if you want to remain anonymous (though I will need to verify your identity myself.)

Also, please visit our Web sites www. timesreview.com and vote in this week's online poll question: Should NY legalize same-sex marriage? (The poll is at the bottom of the home page, on the right.)

Friday, May 30, 2008

Chopped liver on the North Fork

It must be nice to run a giant utility. You just do whatever you please, the people be damned, and if enough of the right people get mad enough, you can get them to pay you to stop doing what's making them mad.

At least that's how things have played out with our friendly electric company, the Long Island Power Authority, and the upper crust on the South Fork.

LIPA and Southampton Town have cut a deal whereby LIPA will bury all of a new nine-mile-long 69-kilovolt transmission line through Southampton -- and Southampton rate payers will pick up the extra cost associated with going underground by way of a "scenic view preservation" surcharge. The new surcharge will raise about $10 million to bury the entire line. LIPA was planning to bury part of it, but string 45-foot-tall poles through some of Southampton's most scenic farm vistas.

If this sounds familiar, don't fret. It should. LIPA has buried new power lines on the South Fork before: more than 22 miles worth nearly a decade ago at a cost of more than $70 million. Meanwhile, it insisted on erecting big, ugly new poles on the North Fork, in spite of vocal opposition here. That prompted Southold Supervisor Jean Cochran to ask, "What are we, chopped liver?" A few years back, Riverhead actually sued to stop the erection of a new aboveground power line. And it won the suit because LIPA failed to conduct the proper environmental review mandated by state law. But Riverhead and LIPA eventually came to an agreement under which LIPA buried a small portion of the new heavy-duty line on its easternmost end, near the new substation in Northville.

But the scenic farm vistas of the North Fork continue to be blighted by the towering, unsightly high-tension power lines. And the once-magnificent old trees lining the Sound Avenue historic corridor and the Main Road continue to be "pruned" -- to protect the LIPA lines -- into distorted figures, some so drastically that they become diseased and must be taken down altogether.

Now why didn't we think of absorbing the cost of burying new power lines with a surcharge, like our neighbors to the south?

For one thing, LIPA didn't give us the option. We're not as rich or influential as those Hamptonites, even with the influx of the new, wealthier second-home owners around these parts. More of us are less able to afford the extra $44 a year most Southampton residents are going to cough up to pay for the underground line. And if they don't pay their bills, the town has guaranteed to pony up the money. (Maybe this is an acceptable use of the community preservation fund dough they're apparently flush with over there?)

But who wants to pay another LIPA surcharge, anyway? The power company already has effectively doubled our energy costs by adding, without review or approval by any regulatory agency, a "power supply" charge on top of the per-kilowatt hour rate approved by the Public Service Commission. And now LIPA is planning to increase the power supply surcharge because of skyrocketing oil prices, even though LIPA has overestimated fuel costs -- and overcharged its customers -- by hundreds of millions of dollars over the past couple of years. Indeed, LIPA's financial statements show "excess income" over expenses of $93 million for 2007 and $118 million for 2006. If LIPA were a private company, that would be called a profit -- and a tidy profit at that. So what's the pubic power authority doing with all that "excess" dough? Hopefully, the audit begun by the state comptroller earlier this month at the insistence of North Fork Assemblyman Marc Alessi will give us rate payers a definitive answer.

Meanwhile, if we want to enjoy scenic farmland vistas unspoiled by towering utility poles, we'll have to brave summer traffic in the Hamptons and take a ride through Southampton. Unless, like the rich folk on the south side, we can afford to charter one of those noisy helicopters buzzing overhead and do a flyover. It's much more civilized than sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic on County Road 39 -- even in the back of a limo.


Monday, June 04, 2007

Long Island's death by taxes

Tallgrass The magnitude of it takes your breath away. Set in the context of the lot lines of surrounding properties and roadways, the Tallgrass PDD map makes your jaw drop. At least it did mine.

Three hundred seventy-eight homes, 175,000 square feet of retail space, and an 18-hole golf course set on 320 acres. High density but “smart” development, at least according to proponents who say the overall environmental and economic impacts of the 283 single-family homes the developer could build as-of-right under current zoning. A Hobsian choice.

Small wonder many Shoreham residents were clamoring for the government to buy the land for preservation, and why Shoreham Councilman Kevin McCarrick tried to maneuver a moratorium to give the preservation effort time to bear fruit.

Is preservation the right thing for Tallgrass? I’m not so sure. Public funds for preservation are scarce and must be spent according to a well-thought-out plan that prioritizes properties according to objective criteria — which, in the best of all worlds, shouldn’t include “not in my backyard.”

When it comes to development, we’ve gotten a lot wrong on Long Island. We’ve carved this place up into large lots and built big homes surrounded by a lot of lawn, kept green and pretty by high doses of fertilizer and pesticides. We’ve shunned public transportation, and made being a pedestrian a life-threatening endeavor. We’ve constructed “The American Dream” on this fragile spit of barrier beach, and we’re learning that the dream is, in some ways, more of a nightmare.

Astronomical property taxes stalk us in our nightmare. Taxes have driven businesses and people off Long Island. They’ve made it hard to hire qualified employees from other places. I speak from hard experience in this. I lost a great editor because he got fed up with his $12,000 annual property tax bill. In his new home in the Midwest, he’s got a bigger house and his property taxes are around $2,000. I lost the opportunity to hire, over the past couple of years, two great editors — one from Virginia and one from Missouri — because of Long Island’s property taxes. Both were flabbergasted by the amounts we have to shell out every month to pay property taxes around here. Their tax bills now, they told me, are under $2,000 a year, an amount that would at least triple if they came to work for me here on Long Island. As an employer, I’m struggling to be able to pay employees enough to afford to live here. And it hurts.

Taxes, taxes, taxes. They were the talk of the town at the Republican convention last week. The Republicans, who arrived at the convention in cars bearing “Hi-Tax Foley” bumper stickers, would have us believe that property taxes were invented by Brookhaven Democrats. But there isn’t a thoughtful person alive on Long Island who would buy into that oversimplified poppycock. (Advice to Brookhaven Republicans: Don’t insult the voters’ intelligence.)

Property taxes — along with electric rates — are indeed killing us. Most of the property tax burden (around two-thirds) is the tab for education. Developers, in recognition of this fact, have crafted proposals to limit impacts on our schools, and, therefore, on our tax bills. These are often ultra-high-density projects like Tallgrass, but the pitch — now a familiar refrain — is that the project won’t bring a lot of children into our schools, either because ownership is limited to the over-55 set or because the housing units contain fewer than three bedrooms. So a plan with 378 homes developed with (theoretically) child-limiting housing stock is “better” than one with fewer, bigger homes, a large retail development and a golf course.

I find this all very sad. For one thing, children are not one of the seven plagues (though as the mother of teenagers, sometimes I wonder). And housing developments that don’t “add” children to the schools are not, by definition, automatically wonderful. Senior citizen housing comes with its own burdens — ask hospital administrators and our volunteer ambulance squads about that. Besides all that, the health of our local economy depends, in large part, on young workers who need to be able to buy houses and raise families.

We need the right mix of housing; single-family homes, townhouses, condos and rental units are all an important part of the mix. Sometimes it requires biting the bullet on a gargantuan housing project, like Tallgrass or the one being planned for Yaphank. Sometimes it means tacking a TDR component onto an open space bond or transfer tax.

But we also desperately need tax relief, and it can’t come from limiting the child-bearing-age population. It must come, in part, from the frugal administration of governments at all levels, from Albany down to the local school districts. And it must come from a wholesale restructuring of how we fund public education, one that shifts the burden from property taxes to income taxes. Without such a shift, property taxes here have nowhere to go but up; let’s not allow ourselves to be fooled by shallow promises of politicians willing to cook the books to win elections. (Did somebody say “tax holiday?”)

We’re in trouble here, folks. Who has the chutzpah to admit it and the backbone to tackle the crisis head-on? That’s what we need. As County Executive Steve Levy, a scrappy Democrat and self-described fiscal conservative, told the Republican convention when he accepted their cross-endorsement last week, taxes are not a partisan issue. Quality of life is not a partisan issue. These things transcend party politics. They are the stuff of the American Dream, things that are important to all of us, regardless of which box we check off on the voter enrollment form.

“Hi-Tax Foley” may sound good to Republican campaign strategists, just as the refrain of government reform in “Crookhaven” was sweet music for Democratic operatives two years ago. But voters will be looking beyond campaign slogans to the meat-and-potatoes of candidates’ plans to control property taxes and their ability to make the tough decisions that need to be made — to deliver government services efficiently, protect the environment, preserve our quality of life and allow the next generation to pursue its dreams in the place we call home.