Jan 30, 2013 11:38 AM
- RELATED ARTICLES
- > Oceanfront Residents Approve $25 Million Beach Rebuild Feb 6, 2013 11:10 AM
- > Southampton Beach Rebuilding Work Delayed Until Next Fall Oct 10, 2012 11:52 AM
- > Town Will Seek Tax Exemption For Family And Club From Beach Project Burden Sep 26, 2012 10:56 AM
- > Oceanfront Homeowners In Wainscott Are Also Exploring Beach Rebuilding Sep 18, 2012 3:41 PM
- > Beach Rebuilding Project Will Go To Voters In Affected Areas Of Oceanfront Southampton Town Sep 5, 2012 11:04 AM
more
Oceanfront property owners in Water Mill, Bridgehampton and Sagaponack will cast votes this weekend to decide whether Southampton Town should embark on a $25 million project—largely funded by those same taxpayers—to rebuild beaches along a six-mile stretch of Atlantic Ocean coastline that has long suffered from chronic severe erosion.
Voting will take place on Saturday, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., at Town Hall, though many of the 193 eligible voters had already cast absentee ballots by early in the week.
The mammoth beach reconstruction, if approved, would be funded with a municipal bond from Southampton Town, repaid over 10 years through a special tax levied only on those oceanfront properties within the project’s reach, by way of two oceanfront taxing districts. Southampton Town would contribute $1.5 million to the cost of... more
Voting will take place on Saturday, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., at Town Hall, though many of the 193 eligible voters had already cast absentee ballots by early in the week.
The mammoth beach reconstruction, if approved, would be funded with a municipal bond from Southampton Town, repaid over 10 years through a special tax levied only on those oceanfront properties within the project’s reach, by way of two oceanfront taxing districts. Southampton Town would contribute $1.5 million to the cost of... more
This must not be allowed to confer any new or additional rights whatsoever on the oceanfront property owners, just because they are to contribute toward the beach replenishment.
[Aside from the fact that putting sand on the beach is sheer folly!]
Yea... about that. It's not a "reserve" fund. It's a fund which is paid into by developer's who are REQUIRED to make a contribution in liue of constructing a public park as part of their developments. The article certainly implies that it's extra money sitting around, but that money is supposed to be used for making ...more new parks in areas that have seen increased development. I'm sure there's legal language somewhere restricting what can and cannot be done with this money, but the press wouldn't want to look into that would they?
Btw, that bond is a pretty big number that essentially the tax payers of the Town are on the hook for incase things go south. Ok ok, the property owners in the taxation district are ultimately responsible - and given the ridiculous value those lots have, if people refused to pay their share of the tax, it could be re-couped easily, but in tihs day and age the more money the town bonds the worse our credit rating becomes and the more interest we have to pay.
It's ridiculous that the Town has to pay $1.5 million into this for the town beaches, because guess what, no matter WHAT there will always be beaches at the end of the road. It's simple geography/oceanographic physics. So why should Town funds be spent to put sand on a beach that will always be there? Pretty silly if you ask me.
:Lastly, please please PLEASE can the Press give us an idea of how much $$$$$$ Mr. Terchunian is making off of this. When in doubt - follow the money, and he is surely making a boat load off of this project. No one else is qualified? Anyone else get to bid? I smell something - must be low tide.
In addition to written contracts covering the SH Town Trustees' rights and a hold harmless provision (see above), each property owner should be required to post a performance bond for his or her entire obligation for the full course of time in question. Plus an undertaking to reimburse the Town for its legal expenses (which promise should be rolled into the performance bond).
And the bond companies underwriting such performance bonds should ...more be rated well by Moody's, S&P, etc..
In other words, all bases should be covered thoroughly.
Chances are quite good that the pumped sand will be gone well before the duration of the bond pay out, as may the houses!
Sheer Folly to think we can stop Mother Nature!
There's already an erosion control district within the Town of Southampton (Hampton Bays and East Quogue). They pay an extra tax every year that goes into a fund held by the Town. When they install snow fencing or order sand to be put on their beach from the local mine - they make a withdrawal from that fund. They've never refused to pay their taxes and they've never filed a lawsuit against the Town - and guess what, their erosion control measures ...more get destroyed year after year but they keep on paying.
The people in Bridgehampton and Sagaponack already re-build their beaches and dunes and install snow fencing on their own. They are spending the money - LOTS of money. The reason they are "for" this is that they can spread their costs out over ten years and they have access to a project that is impossible under their current "every-man-for-himself" setup. For the property owners, it's not about the money, it never ever is about the money because they have plenty of it. It's about protecting their properties and this will be more protective (albeit temporarily) than the actions they take individually year after year.
A bond is completely unnecessary. First of all, the residents are VOTING for this - it's not something being imposed by the Town, so that in and of itself makes it very hard to "over-turn" this process once it's put into place. Additionally, since it's a tax, if they refuse to pay, the Town puts a Lein on it. If they don't pay for long enough, the Town can seize their property. You really think someone who owns a $10,000,000 home will let the government take it away over a few thousand dollars? No. My point is that there's already mechanisms in place (legitimate, time-proven mechanisms) that make the need for a bond unneeded.
Same goes for the Trustees - the easement exists and has been held up for hundreds of years. These property owners have been restoring their beaches for decades and the Dongan Patent has never been usurped. The only thing to be upset about in this instance is the fact that the Town has to pay $$$ for this and that there are two property owners (includine one FOR PROFIT enterprise) that gets to skirt their share of expenses.
What if the worst-case scenario happens?
What if there IS NO PROPERTY left after the next "Super-Storm Mother Nature?" [or two or three or four . . . such super-storms]
What if the East End as we know it does not exist, and its current residents are living elsewhere?
Am I being melodramatic only to be melodramatic? No. Someday Long Island is not going ...more to exist, and we have, in my opinion, turned the corner climate-wise toward that inevitable end. The problem is that most everyone has their heads in the sand, so to speak! Most are in DENIAL about this.
Anyway, even if the suggestions I have made are redundant or seemingly unnecessary, there is no harm in getting them in writing once again as an "insurance policy" for the time when the homeowners obligated to pay out the bond over 10-20-30 years are making their payments from their new oceanfront homes in Philadelphia, etc..
Never say never?
Your love affair with the performance bond is onerous in every instance you suggest it. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
What to one person may be "onerous" might be "protective" to others?
This gift of public assistance to private property owners SHOULD come with strings attached, including a performance bond.
BTW what is so onerous about a bond, if this "solution" ...more saves the properties in question? Would not any additional costs simply be rolled into the capital cost of the property (which you say these people can well afford)?
It's onerous because it's completely unnecessary and ridiculous - especially considering how many property owners it involves.
The Town has to bond out money for snow removal during certain years - should every property owner put up a bond incase they decide not to pay their taxes?
You seem to have an edge about this performance bond issue, and your comment above seems to refer back to previous situations in which a performance bond ...more was suggested. It might be easier if you would "vent" about any such previous instances instead of making hot-headed replies and veiled references to the past. ["Your love affair with the performance bond is onerous in every instance you suggest it."]
While we are at it, maybe you could disclose whether you or someone you know would be adversely affected by a performance bond here. You seem to have more energy in this discussion than is logical. [Please forgive me if I have misread the situation.]
This situation is totally different - the property owner's aren't required to do any work. They simply have to pay their taxes. This tax is the exact same as their police taxes, their snow removal taxes, their library taxes etc. etc.
If these houses all get destoryed and the property loses all value (for every home along the ocean) then the Town has WAY bigger problems and the Town will be financially screwed because those properties will all be off the tax rolls (do you know how much Mr. Rennert pays in taxes?) and it will mean that there has been a serious disaster (or series of disasters) on the east end that will have caused widespread damage.
You didn't answer my question on wether or not homeowners should have to put up a bond for snow removal. Seems like it's exactly the same situation to me. The Town has to bond out money for future work that benefits the residents... the "hope" is that the residents pay their taxes.
Additionally, while some of these properties are owned outright by individuals - there are many many properties held in LLC's or other corporate entities and/or are under the burden of bank financed loans. If the property is rendered useless - it doesn't absolve the holding companies or banks of their financial obligations.
Most of your answers to the possibility of big drops in property values would require the Town to pursue remedies after the property owners bail out (assuming this would happen).
This fiscal clean-up operation by the Town would cost money! In legal fees, staff time, etc., and IMO the homeowners should be required to cover, proactively, ALL possible costs for what is, let us emphasize, a GIFT to them to save their ...more arsses after they built in a risky location. They assumed the risk, but now they want to be bailed out with, in part, Town money.
Keep in mind that these properties, especially if the federal government steps in to line Long Island with jetties ("never say never" to this possibility IMO), will grow in value like crazy.
In other words, the rich will get richer and it will be public money which at least facilitates, or catalyzes, this enrichment.
It sticks in my craw.
BTW on a broader scale, IMO the legal fiction "corporation" should be cut back as well, so that business owners would be personally liable for the actions of their companies. Piercing the Corporate Veil would do wonders for a resurrection of personal responsibility all around.
People are too insulated from taking responsibility for ...more their actions, pure and simple.
The Town is not bailing these people out - the Town is simply the facilitator for a large-scale project that could not be done without the Town. The ...more property owners could not get approval for a dredging program and for placing sand on the beach without government being the intermediary. Like I said preivously, the property owners have been conducting their own counter measures for years - this is simply a more effective means. They know that the sand gets washed away. They know the dunes get destroyed. They don't care - they just want something in place to keep there house there for another year.
Ocean front property in the hamptons is way way way too valuable (financially and socially) for these property owners to ever walk away from. Look no further than WHD. That land was UNDERWATER and it was brought back. You really think a storm destorying an ocean front home is going to make these millionaires and billionaires run away with their tails between their legs?
10 homes destoryed at Davis Park this October in the hurricane. Those ten property owners are already trying to rebuild their homes (and they are way less financially prepared for such an undertaking as homeowners out east are).
I'm failing to see how snow removal is any different... but it's easy enough for you to not expand on it so ok, we'll drop it.
If they don't pay, their property gets seized. That's a pretty good incentive for them to pay their taxes.
This job could not be done without Town approval due to the complexity/agencies involved/approvals needed. It's up to the prpoerty owners, it's not being forced on them they are voting for it. Like I stated previously they are all paying tens of ...more thousands of dollars/year to put sand on their beach now. They know their money is being washed out to sea, but they want to keep their house and the property and will do what it takes to maintain that.
I actually will agree with you re: whites. It makes no sense. They sold the development rights - doesn't mean they don't reap the benefits of sand placed infront of their property.
The flip side of this wealth argument is that they can afford to walk away from an "unreal" property and leave the Town holding the bag. What is it you don't get about this possibility, albeit remote?
Are you sure you don't have a hidden agenda ...more here of some kind?
I'm also a realistic person with a full understanding and knowledge of taxation districts (particularly erosion control districts). ...more I know that if they don't pay, their properties can be seized. I know these property owners have been paying for their own erosion control measures (which, let's face it, we all benefit from) and that this is an attempt to undertake a project that will be far more productive than individual property owners doing their own jobs with all of the government restrictions that are currently in place.
The Town takes risks everytime they issue a bond for ANY project. The town never requires bonds by the taxpayers, ever ever ever. If anyone should be posting a bond in this instance, it's Aram. What if he just doesn't do the work? Then the property owners are stuck paying taxes for something that never happend.
You sure can get argumentative!
Have a good weekend.
I'm all for arguing (and you and I can keep it quite civil) but I tend to utilize facts. You tend to utilize opinion and while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. Truthiness is the fault of many a passionate argument.
The entire East End will not be re-buildable -- get it? Or at least the shoreline has moved so far inland that the standard solutions do ...more not work. Get it?
You keep looking in the rear view mirror!
Turn your gaze into the future and see the sh.t which may be about to hit the fan!
Are you incapable of abstract futuristic thinking about possibilities?
Of course there are no "facts" to support forward-looking thinking. Why then do keep asking for facts about a new world with no precedent (except maybe the dinosaurs)?
THINK!
PS -- Obviously the worst may not happen for a long time, but Long Island is going to be a dream someday. Get used to that as a concept, and then ask "when?"
PS2 -- "Global Warming" is a given for the above. If you are not willing to assume, for the sake of discussion, this, then that may be our problem here.
I'm aware that we are a sandbar, I'm aware that re-building is futile and beach re-nourishment is futile. But they want to do it, so let them, if anything it gives me more of a beach to utilize thanks to the Dongan Patent.
Furthermore, if the properties are all under in 10 years under your doomsday scenario ...more - that means Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens will be under meaning we have WAYYYY bigger problems then millionaires and billionaires losing their homes.
Peace out PBR - it's been real. Maybe I'll see you @ the beach!
Please sign the attached performance bond for your 10-year warranty.
Have a good weekend.
The Islip Town board Tuesday set a date for a public hearing to consider a $19.9 million sand replenishment project for beaches in the town’s portion of Fire Island.
Fire Island beach replenishment usually occurs every two years, said Janessa Trotto, an attorney for the Town of Islip, and the need is greater this year after superstorm Sandy battered the barrier ...more island.
The towns of Islip and Brookhaven as well as the villages of Saltaire and Ocean Beach are collaborating on the islandwide project, and are going through the bidding process to find one company to do an environmental assessment of the beaches and another company to replenish the beaches, should sand replenishment be deemed necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE: newsday.com/townofislip | Sign up for community newsletters
SOCIAL: @CandiceRuud | @NewsdayTowns | Google+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Islip’s portion of Fire Island, the project would be paid for by the beach erosion districts of Kismet, Fair Harbor, Dunewood, Atlantique, Lonelyville, Corneille Estates/Summer Club and Seaview. While Ocean Beach and Saltaire are in Islip, both are villages, and they would pay for their own portions of the project.
Since Islip collects taxes for the seven beach erosion districts, the town would float a five-year bond for the project, Trotto said, so Fire Island taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for the money upfront.
Trotto said the only way mainland Islip property owners would end up paying any project costs through their taxes would be if an environmental assessment determined that a town beach or other town property on Fire Island — such as town-operated Atlantique Beach — needed work.
The public hearing will be held at the next regular meeting of the town board, on Feb. 12, at 2 p.m. at Islip Town Hall, 655 Main St.
With "heads in the sand," how easily we forget and fantasize about the way things are . . .
We are at a climatic [intended] turning point, but most will stay in denial about this IMO. In the meantime, our debts will grow until we have to gag on them.
Sad.
If this sand replenishment had been done a week ago, I wonder how much would be gone already? Let's see, what would it equate to in "millions of dollars" per hour?
Someday human beings will learn about Mother Nature . . . . .
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?zoneid=ANZ350
PS -- High tide is around 10 PM tonight.
While CfAR respects the property owners along the shoreline and their rights to restore and protect their property, we ...more strongly urge all owners and contractors performing work along the shoreline to apply to the proper agencies to obtain all the permits necessary to legally perform the work and to abide by the laws and regulations pertaining to construction along the waterfront. While CfAR realizes that there may be cases of emergency where the work needs to be done immediately, CfAR hopes that all permits for that work will be applied for in a timely fashion, that the work being done is in compliance with the laws and guidelines governing our shorelines, and that all work performed and permits issued are done so in an open manner with the full knowledge of all agencies involved.
CfAR overall mission is to see a continued right of public beach access on the east ends shoreline. We hope that this is also a mission of this proposed beach rebuilding.