Editorial: Surprise town tax hikes are cowardly

Taxpayers in Oyster Bay and Islip have a choice. They can view their elected town leaders as either dishonest or incompetent.

If the officials were both honest and competent, these town governments would not have introduced tentative budgets for 2015 that did not include tax increases -- and then passed, without any warning or discussion, budgets that include whopping hikes.

Oyster Bay increased its property tax 8.8 percent on Tuesday. Islip jacked up rates 5.8 percent the same day. In each case it was trickery, plain and simple.

Oyster Bay held public hearings in October on its preliminary budget, the one with no tax increase, and hardly anyone showed up. Would that have been the case had residents known the average homeowner was going to see a $90 hike in property taxes next year, on top of the 8.8 percent jump this year?

Islip held a public hearing two weeks ago on a budget that included no tax increase. Not surprisingly, no residents attended. Again, would that have been the case if residents had known they'd be paying an average increase of $25.71 per home, on the heels of a 28 percent tax increase in 2013?

Oyster Bay Supervisor John Venditto, who told a Newsday reporter he didn't decide until Friday to raise taxes, has had a pretty good idea for months that he would have to. That's why he got authorization from the town board in August to pierce the state's property tax cap, and why he has been so coy, even as he presented this flimflam budget, about whether bills would increase.

He knows the town has been spending far too much for years and relying on reserves and one-time revenues. He knows such options have been played out. He just hasn't wanted to talk about hiking taxes, or to defend the move.

In Islip, Supervisor Tom Croci is moving on to a State Senate seat in January. He abstained on the budget vote Tuesday that included a tax hike. The increase was submitted by Councilman Steve Flotteron, a Republican, and opposed only by Anthony Senft, a Conservative.

So the towns passed their budgets and tax hikes with no warning, no debate and in front of few residents. That suggests the increases were discussed at length by the boards -- but not publicly. There are ways to flout the legal requirement that governance be public, particularly in towns dominated by one party. Board members and supervisors can get together behind closed doors for "caucus meetings," or discuss items in one-on-one encounters. It's not against the law, but it is a cowardly move against the interests of residents.

So, Oyster Bay and Islip residents, this is how your town is treating you. The elected officials knew they needed more revenue than the current tax rate would provide. They also knew that making this fact public might enrage residents. Whether the tax increases should enrage residents is complex: People want services, but they aren't always so willing to pay for them. What isn't complex is whether residents should be enraged at the way these increases were adopted.