Editor's note: News12 ran a story on Monday about environmentalists protesting the Diocese of Rockville Centre's decision to use property it owns as a cemetery. See the story at the end of this piece for more details.
By Michael Watt
When I first saw about a dozen or so people, led by Dick Amper and Adrienne Esposito, on the news protesting outside the Diocese of Rockville Centre about the Church’s plans to use its property in Old Westbury as a cemetery I thought, “these people have finally gone too far.”
Then, being a fair and open-minded fellow, I thought about it some more and realized that the protestors had a point. It would be a sin to allow Long Island’s deceased a rightful resting place.
Look at the facts. Cemetery proponents argue that dead people do not produce those nefarious school children who wreak havoc on local school districts. Of course they don’t. But what about the families of the dead people? They have children, and more often than not those families drive through local neighborhoods to get to the cemetery. Is the Old Westbury school district ready to run the risk of dozens of families deciding Old Westbury might be a nice place to raise a family as they drive through town on the way to the cemetery?
And what about those funeral processions? Sometimes as many as two dozen cars can be seen following a gas-guzzling limousine and a hearse. Most of those cars have only one or two people in them, tops. And the real problems start once those processions get to the cemetery. Noise-level studies have shown that grieving families at grave-sites, especially the “ethnics” from Queens, generate enough of a racket to interfere with the mating habits of the hoot-eared grey spotted owl. And the less said about the Irish and THEIR funerals, the better.
The protestors also have legitimate concerns about over-crowding. Surveys show that the 65 and over crowd is the fastest growing segment of Long Island’s population. Where are they going to go? To the cemetery no doubt, at least eventually. And don’t let that “senior citizens make the best residents” argument fool you. Go to any cemetery on Long Island and there is a good chance you will find individuals under the age of 65. Try as you might, there’s no realistic way to enforce the “nobody under 65 is allowed to die” rule.
Now, a case could be made for the need to honor those American men and women who saved the world for democracy by winning World War II. But was winning World War II really such a great thing? The Germans are wonderful when it comes to preserving open space – you can travel for miles in Germany and see nothing but beautiful vistas interrupted only by the occasional castle. And does anyone do more with less space than the Japanese? Besides, when those same “veterans” were done “winning” the war, the vast majority of them then came to Long Island and plowed over the beautiful potato farms of Levittown for their own selfish needs. Need we remind anyone of all the construction that had to happen to accommodate those people?
If not cemeteries, then what? We could advocate for cremation, but that creates a whole new problem: what to do with all that ash. We could ship it to Brookhaven but that might undercut the town of Babylon’s price points at its landfill. Perhaps we could put the deceased into those satellites that are constantly being shot into space. Wouldn’t that be a creative use of all that available space in those rockets?
The irony in all this is that if the protestors had their way only the people who already have their houses on Long Island would be allowed to live here. It almost doesn’t matter where they get buried because their descendants will have moved to other regions and therefore unable to visit them when they’re gone anyway.
Opponents call Old Westbury cemetery a grave mistake
02/16/09) OLD WESTBURY - Environmentalists are lining up against a plan to build a 97-acre cemetery in Old Westbury, saying it’s dangerous to put grave sites over the drinking supply.
The Catholic Church wants to build a new 42,000-plot cemetery on land located between Hitchcock Lane and Powell's Lane off Jericho Turnpike in Old Westbury.
Adrienne Esposito, of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, says the proposed cemetery is within the state-designated ground water protection area. She says corpses and coffins leak bacteria and lethal toxins like formaldehyde, which ultimately will end up in the water supply.
The diocese claims the environmentalists don't understand the chemistry involved, and have no proof that toxins will leak.
The Village of Old Westbury will hold a public hearing about the proposed cemetery on Feb. 23.
Public Hearing
Monday, February 23
7 p.m.
Old Westbury Village Hall
1 Store Hill Road
Old Westbury, NY 11568
Showing posts with label Adrienne Esposito. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adrienne Esposito. Show all posts
Friday, February 20, 2009
Monday, October 6, 2008
We Paid How Much?????????
If you have not read Rick Brand's column in yesterday's Newsday - do so right away! In fact, I have posted it below. It's must reading.
The numbers are staggering. Dick Amper can say all he wants about deer not going to school but the facts remain clear: Suffolk County has preserved plenty of property at an extreme cost to the Suffolk County taxpayer. Sadly, some of the money that went to taking property off the tax rolls could have been used to sewer the 70 percent of Suffolk County that is without sewers. Had this taken place, Suffolk County could have progressed in such a way that the developers could have built with the kind of density that would have enabled local municipalities to preserve nearly as much acreage - AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER!
Think about that as you contemplate just how much money $3.5 billion is.
Newsday.com
Cost of Suffolk land preservation programs questioned
Rick Brand
October 5, 2008
After three decades, Suffolk's smorgasbord of land preservation programs have delivered 34,000 acres into the public domain, but they've come at an eye-popping price tag of $3.5 billion. Or so says Martin Cantor, head of Dowling College's Long Island Economic and Social Policy Institute.
Cantor says it may be time to rethink new land purchases, especially in these tough economic times. Warning Long Island is at a crossroads, Cantor says government should redirect far more money to sewers to protect groundwater and bays and allow downtowns to develop more densely for young and old.
Those are the controversial conclusions of a new 29-page report, which Cantor acknowledged was funded with $20,000 from the real estate industry.
"The numbers we're talking about are very big," said Cantor. "And there should be a public debate before we take the next step. Up to now, we've only had discussion from people who want to buy land."
Environmentalists, who telephone conferenced Friday over Cantor's impending report, called the findings superficial, skewed and bought and paid for.
"Tobacco companies tell you smoking is good for you, oil companies say 'don't go renewable' and developers say 'don't save land,'" said Adrienne Esposito of Citizens Campaign for the Environment. "Marty Cantor is the Darth Vader of Dowling. He's gone to the dark side."
However, some are taking notice. "The findings are certainly eye-opening," said Suffolk Comptroller Joseph Sawicki, who was briefed by Cantor on preliminary findings. "And they have to cause any official to pause and seriously analyze how much deeper we want to go in purchasing open space, particularly with the economic crisis we are facing."
The Dowling report, which will get its first public airing Friday at a breakfast on the college's Oakdale campus, is likely to create an intense and lasting debate. The report is a new offensive by the real estate industry, which had success last year in helping to defeat a proposal to create a preservation fund in Brookhaven based on a real estate transfer tax. It was the first environmental defeat in 24 local land referendums.
In his report, Cantor maintains Suffolk and its towns have spent $1.3 billion in property, sales and real estate transfer taxes to borrow the money to acquire 34,000 acres - about the same acreage as Long Island's state parks. - and has lost an estimated $700 million in property taxes from lands taken off the tax rolls.
Cantor adds the county legislature has authorized $366.8 million for open space purchases through 2013, costing another $1.1 billion in property taxes.
The preservation, he said, will cost the average Suffolk household at least $10,000. When the county completes its plan to buy another 35,000 vacant acres by 2031, it will have cost the average homeowner an additional $71,000 and remove nearly 32,000 homebuyers from the residential marketplace.
But Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society, called Cantor's numbers "ridiculous," saying land purchases so far have cost $1.2 billion, and that when divided by Suffolk's population the cost is only $454.61 per person. He called Cantor's projections of lost tax revenues wrongheaded.
"The reason Long Islanders are paying 2 1/2 times the national average in taxes is the cost of government greatly exceeds the taxes collected from residential development," he said. "Preserving open space controls taxes because deer do not go to school."
Amper said the reason developers have gone on the offensive is to protect themselves amid the financial crisis. "They are flat on their back and don't want the land to disappear before they can get up off the canvas," said Amper.
Cantor said he expected controversy but feels the region needs to reinvent itself for the good of the next generation, especially when there's no federal money for sewers, and experts say land already saved can protect the water supply into the next century.
"We're not against open space," said Cantor, "But you have to ask the hard questions."
THE PLAYERS
Dowling institute's Martin Cantor
Environmentalists Richard Amper and Adrienne Esposito
THE ISSUE
Cost and future of public land preservation
WHAT NEXT
Roundtable forum Friday in Oakdale
The numbers are staggering. Dick Amper can say all he wants about deer not going to school but the facts remain clear: Suffolk County has preserved plenty of property at an extreme cost to the Suffolk County taxpayer. Sadly, some of the money that went to taking property off the tax rolls could have been used to sewer the 70 percent of Suffolk County that is without sewers. Had this taken place, Suffolk County could have progressed in such a way that the developers could have built with the kind of density that would have enabled local municipalities to preserve nearly as much acreage - AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER!
Think about that as you contemplate just how much money $3.5 billion is.
Newsday.com
Cost of Suffolk land preservation programs questioned
Rick Brand
October 5, 2008
After three decades, Suffolk's smorgasbord of land preservation programs have delivered 34,000 acres into the public domain, but they've come at an eye-popping price tag of $3.5 billion. Or so says Martin Cantor, head of Dowling College's Long Island Economic and Social Policy Institute.
Cantor says it may be time to rethink new land purchases, especially in these tough economic times. Warning Long Island is at a crossroads, Cantor says government should redirect far more money to sewers to protect groundwater and bays and allow downtowns to develop more densely for young and old.
Those are the controversial conclusions of a new 29-page report, which Cantor acknowledged was funded with $20,000 from the real estate industry.
"The numbers we're talking about are very big," said Cantor. "And there should be a public debate before we take the next step. Up to now, we've only had discussion from people who want to buy land."
Environmentalists, who telephone conferenced Friday over Cantor's impending report, called the findings superficial, skewed and bought and paid for.
"Tobacco companies tell you smoking is good for you, oil companies say 'don't go renewable' and developers say 'don't save land,'" said Adrienne Esposito of Citizens Campaign for the Environment. "Marty Cantor is the Darth Vader of Dowling. He's gone to the dark side."
However, some are taking notice. "The findings are certainly eye-opening," said Suffolk Comptroller Joseph Sawicki, who was briefed by Cantor on preliminary findings. "And they have to cause any official to pause and seriously analyze how much deeper we want to go in purchasing open space, particularly with the economic crisis we are facing."
The Dowling report, which will get its first public airing Friday at a breakfast on the college's Oakdale campus, is likely to create an intense and lasting debate. The report is a new offensive by the real estate industry, which had success last year in helping to defeat a proposal to create a preservation fund in Brookhaven based on a real estate transfer tax. It was the first environmental defeat in 24 local land referendums.
In his report, Cantor maintains Suffolk and its towns have spent $1.3 billion in property, sales and real estate transfer taxes to borrow the money to acquire 34,000 acres - about the same acreage as Long Island's state parks. - and has lost an estimated $700 million in property taxes from lands taken off the tax rolls.
Cantor adds the county legislature has authorized $366.8 million for open space purchases through 2013, costing another $1.1 billion in property taxes.
The preservation, he said, will cost the average Suffolk household at least $10,000. When the county completes its plan to buy another 35,000 vacant acres by 2031, it will have cost the average homeowner an additional $71,000 and remove nearly 32,000 homebuyers from the residential marketplace.
But Richard Amper, executive director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society, called Cantor's numbers "ridiculous," saying land purchases so far have cost $1.2 billion, and that when divided by Suffolk's population the cost is only $454.61 per person. He called Cantor's projections of lost tax revenues wrongheaded.
"The reason Long Islanders are paying 2 1/2 times the national average in taxes is the cost of government greatly exceeds the taxes collected from residential development," he said. "Preserving open space controls taxes because deer do not go to school."
Amper said the reason developers have gone on the offensive is to protect themselves amid the financial crisis. "They are flat on their back and don't want the land to disappear before they can get up off the canvas," said Amper.
Cantor said he expected controversy but feels the region needs to reinvent itself for the good of the next generation, especially when there's no federal money for sewers, and experts say land already saved can protect the water supply into the next century.
"We're not against open space," said Cantor, "But you have to ask the hard questions."
THE PLAYERS
Dowling institute's Martin Cantor
Environmentalists Richard Amper and Adrienne Esposito
THE ISSUE
Cost and future of public land preservation
WHAT NEXT
Roundtable forum Friday in Oakdale
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
