Schools vs housing, Blakeman's public funding rejection

Builders must pay schools fair share

Mike Florio’s essay unfairly positions school districts as an obstacle to Long Island’s growth [“Districts can’t afford to oppose housing,” Opinion, April 3]. As a Half Hollow Hills parent, I want to be clear: Our school districts welcome all new students. However, we must ensure the costs of educating them are covered by the development generating them.

The narrative that declining enrollment makes development “free” for districts is a fallacy. While raw head counts may have dipped, the complexity of student needs has surged, requiring more specialized staffing and resources per pupil. Additionally, school district expenditure increases have significantly lagged inflation, further stretching district budgets.

According to Niche.com, Long Island has nine of the top 10 school districts in the state. We should be protecting our institutions, not undermining them with one-sided industrial development agency incentives.

While developers seemingly view IDA tax abatements as a birthright, residents and schools should not be forced to subsidize high-density projects for a purported “regional benefit.” Rather than attacking districts that are doing an admirable job with the reality they are dealt, organizations like the Long Island Builders Institute should collaborate on real solutions such as liability waiver “hold harmless” agreements and lobbying for changes in IDA and school budget law.

— Daniel Bryant, Melville

This essay was misleading. School districts are only concerned about residential building when it means that no taxes would be contributed to the education of the children who live in the new apartments. Developers are granted tax abatements, which means that little or no taxes are provided to the districts. The costs then fall on the existing homeowners to cover new teachers, custodians, buses, and other things that the new students need. Declining enrollment has provided room for the new students, but that is not the issue. School districts do not want to revert to austerity, which hurts all students.

The community knows that new housing is needed, but the developers do not want to build the type of housing we have been asking for. We want more small apartments, possibly some studios with efficiency kitchens and Murphy beds, which would be more affordable. But those types of units do not make enough money for the developers. Claiming that development isn’t financially feasible without tax abatements translates to greedy developers wanting to make a bundle.

— Nancy Cypser, Farmingdale

Missed deadline means no state funds

For the first time, New York’s Public Campaign Finance Program will administer matching funds to candidates running for comptroller, attorney general, and governor and lieutenant governor. Candidates for governor and lieutenant governor have an important distinction, as these two offices will appear as a single ticket on ballots this November [“Approve Blakeman for public funding,” Editorial, March 31].

To qualify for matching funds, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor were required to file joint certifications by Feb. 23, either on a single existing certification form or through separate submissions. This process was agreed upon at a bipartisan Public Campaign Finance Board commissioners meeting on Dec. 9; it is essential, as both candidates stand to jointly receive up to $7 million.

Several gubernatorial candidates, including Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, failed to submit the required certifications for their chosen running mates by the statutory deadline, thus disqualifying them from the program.

While some are painting this as a technicality, paying out millions of dollars of taxpayer funds should never be taken lightly. The law required that both candidates file, and these candidates failed to do so.

For this program to be successful and for the board to be good stewards of public money, we must follow the law.

— Essma Bagnuola, Huntington

The writer is a commissioner on the New York State Public Campaign Finance Board.

Your editorial and the article “Blakeman denied matching funds for campaign” [News, April 1] illustrates the absurdity of New York politics. Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a campaign finance law that benefits her opponent but refrains from participating in the program.

Meanwhile, Bruce Blakeman wants to dip into the public trough after Republicans rightly opposed the giveaway for years. Neither candidate seems to want to protect taxpayer dollars.

— Josh Paul, Islip Terrace