By Steve Levy
Once again, we see a developer proposing the construction of a large housing complex on Long Island and local civic associations are coming out against it.
I am referring to the proposal for 890 units to be built on the 114-acre site of the former Island Hills golf and country club in Sayville. Of these units, 576 are for homeownership and the remaining 314 for rentals.
This proposal has been languishing for about a decade. The original mammoth plans have been scaled down a bit, but local residents still feel that the size and scope of the project is too much for the local roads and schools to bear.
It’s a constant refrain throughout the island. But most of us agree that there is a need for more housing, especially the type that would help our young people in their 20s establish a foothold on the Island.
Each side has legitimate concerns. That hasn’t changed much in the last few decades. It’s why, as county executive, I proposed adopting a new paradigm when it comes to housing construction.
Where developers were going to be constructing a new self-contained development, I recommended that they be encouraged to build two-family housing.
That would provide the same amount of units sought by the developers, but with a smaller footprint. More importantly, it helps accomplish a number of goals at the same time.
The first is that it would open the door to homeownership for various couples who otherwise might be shut out because they couldn’t afford the mortgage. Showing the bank that you’ll have an additional $2,000 a month coming in from your rental could now qualify you for that loan.
And, of course, it would provide needed rental housing, which we are so sorely lacking on Long Island. Nearby, the New York City suburb of Westchester has rental stock comprising 38% of all the county’s housing. Here in Long Island, it’s about 15%. This is why our rents soared into the stratosphere.
But homeowners are understandably concerned that allowing every home in their existing neighborhood to have rentals could dramatically change the concept of the neighbor into which they originally moved.
That’s not what we’re talking about here. In this case, we’re referring to self-contained gated communities not existing at this time. Why not allow for 450 units of these two-family homes on the premises rather than 900 sought by the developer?
Concerns about renters not having a stake in the property would be unfounded, given the fact that the owner of the home would have to live on the premises if they rent out the apartment unit. No homeowner is going to allow their renter to engage in improper activities or to allow the premises to degrade, when they themselves are living on the site.
This concept can reserve more buffer and open space within the community and have a good mix of the young and the old.
I get it that people don’t want two-family housing in their existing single-family neighborhoods, but when it’s new construction, why not encourage two family housing? It’s a win-win for all.
I tried to get such a project passed in Yaphank during my tenure as county executive. We would’ve had 1,000 units of two-family homes with a nice community center and possibly a convention center and a small soccer stadium for sports and entertainment.
Unfortunately, not-in-my-backyard legislators killed the project. It’s not too late to try it now. A smart developer will latch onto it and so will be a smart town board. And the local residents will have a place where their 25-year-olds can go rather than their basements.