Hello, friends!
I hope this post finds you all well. Before we get into the news, I just want to note that the subject of our previous article, Hitler-cheerleading Carl Paladino, appears to have lost his primary. I figured I'd start with that good news.
New York Attorney General Sues Freeport.
Well, we can start with a link to the court document (hat tip to Dawn de le Llera for posting the link on FB) which appears to have been filed yesterday by NYS Attorney General Letitia James. I invite you to read it for yourself, but being as neither of us are lawyers (except those of us who might be reading this who might be lawyers? In which case, hi! Feel free to gently correct me where I'm wrong), I think both of us are going to labor in analyzing it.
Here's what I gathered from it:
Paragraph 22 sets out that the Village Board approved a "negative declaration," basically saying that there would be no negative environmental impact to what's apparently a 15-acre industrial development over previously green space.
According to Paragraph 24, the Village did not perform a required type of environmental impact study on their proposed sale of the park to developer PDC . In fact, if I'm reading it right, Paragraph 24 lays out that Freeport did nothing whatsoever - no study, no research, nothing - to support its negative declaration.
First and foremost is that the sale simply doesn't pass the environmental sniff test. Paragraphs 29-31 certainly lay this issue bare, but it also hits on another issue: That the sale would have a negative impact primarily on lower-income residents of color.
Diving Into The Lawsuit Against Freeport
New York's lawsuit seems to have two main thrusts, then. The first is about the environment, the second is social equity. In many ways, these two are connected: "What will the impacts be, and who will bear the brunt of them?"
One thing I found impressive about this briefing was found in Paragraphs 19-20, in that it has a familiarity with both Freeport's history (the Moxey Rigby's experience during Hurricane Sandy) as well as it's accurateness with regards to the hydrological cycle.
NY AG James seems to be asking Freeport, "Hey, have you studied how paving over a bunch of open space is going to impact the immediate neighborhood during a flood like, say, Hurricane Sandy's future reincarnation?" And while Freeport's official answer is yet to be published (to my knowledge), the fact remains that so far, their answer appears to be "no."
I remember one of the earliest issues The Weekly Freeporter covered was Mayor Hardwick's proposal to build an incinerator in Freeport. In the linked article, I paraphrased Trustee Robert Kennedy from a community meeting citizens had organized in neighboring Merrick.
At the time, Robert Kennedy understood that it was incumbent on a business making a developmental proposal to evaluate the environmental impacts the building would have. NOT taxpayers. In this case, it should fall upon PDC to perform a legitimate environmental impact study using independent experts and labor.
But, really...
All in all, this is an issue that should not exist. Robert Kennedy from a decade ago recognized that this needed to be done. Did Robert Kennedy of today forget? Did the Board? If so - how?!
Seems like this is just another fight that didn't need to happen, and you'd better believe that reading that brief has further moved me in the "no, I'd prefer we keep the open space" camp. I've vacillated, mainly because the alleged tax savings would be a huge benefit to many families in Freeport (I'm certainly happy to pay less in taxes), but I also strongly doubt that apartments Village-wide are about to drop their rent by a commensurate percentage, and it's clear which parts of the community are going to make sacrifices and which other parts will be reaping the rewards.
It just seems rushed, and I don't like being rushed into deals.
No comments:
Post a Comment