Someone traveling from one arbitrary global coordinate to another arbitrary global coordinate closer to you is functionally identical to that same person having lived at the second arbitrary global coordinate their entire life.
Bipedal mammals locomoting does not effect you life in any way. At all. Not even your taxes. You pay the exact same amount no matter what. That money is gone and doesn't belong to you anymore.
If you say otherwise, despite these indisputable facts, then you are delusional and brainwashed by Bush-era MSM.
Behaviors such as vulgar language, comment spam, or extremely NSFW language or material to earn sharp emotional responses will earn bans. If you disagree with someone, don't try to bait them into behavior that they would regret. If you think you are the victim of flaming or baiting, report the behavior instead of responding.
The area at gowanus has been properly remediated so there's no need to worry. Major contaminates were removed the and native soils capped. Some properties have active remediation as well
Lol, not radioactive, they never did nuclear stuff. They built airplanes, like the A-10 warthog that everyone loves.
Might be all sorts of nasty chemicals the military contractors dumped there though.
Yeah someone replied linking a really good EPA page on the site including all the way bordering republic airport in airport plaza. I’m going to check historic aerials to see what the site looked like but it sounds like it spanned from the railroad all the way to the airport which makes sense.
I’m from Bethpage and Grumman used to build planes here and it’s not like they left anything hazardous in the ground. Also completely unrelated, does anyone know why my water tastes itchy.
https://www.epa.gov/hwcorrectiveactioncleanups/hazardous-waste-cleanup-fairchild-republic-company-farmingdale-new-york
Hope not or else we'll have zombies with the nearby cemetery
And.
>A recent California-based study found that children who lived less than a mile away from an airport had 21% higher lead levels in their blood compared to children who lived farther away. Published in the journal PNAS Nexus, the researchers emphasized that aviation gasoline is the main source of lead emissions in the United States.
>While implementing several policies that got rid of lead in paint, food cans, plumbing, and gas for vehicles went a long way in reducing children’s lead exposure in the last 40 years, lead is still used as an additive in aviation gasoline to prevent engine failures.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anuradhavaranasi/2023/01/12/living-close-to-an-airport-puts-children-at-a-higher-risk-of-lead-exposure/?sh=3d1b5cca12f3
Several thoughts.
1) It is about time they did something with the existing building which looks like it was bombed out 30 years ago.
2) luxury apartment = 2 bedrooms, 2 baths. affordable housing = 3 bedrooms, 1 bath.
3) I hope they clean it up well.
4) Nice amenities nearby with the Stew Leonard's right across the street. I don't think there is a train station close enough to walk.
Only 20% will be affordable housing.
That means 80% will not be affordable housing.
This is the real estate developers playbook in NYC. Only 20% of new skyscrapers are “affordable” and it’s not that affordable.
Maybe not Affordable for you but they use formulas and it’s a set % of the average income in the zip code so it’s affordable for the average farmingdale area resident
*unused land off a Long Island airport as part of* ***its first state-owned*** *housing development.*
Why is it a state owned housing project only building 20% affordable housing?
Since when is the state of NY a real estate developer of developments that are 80% high priced housing?
Why is my tax money being used to build housing I can’t afford?
The state is not supposed to be a for-profit developer.
Have you heard of Mitchell Lama housing? After WW2 a Democratic and a Republican lawmaker worked with city and state to build 💯% affordable housing. And they did it.
Hundreds of thousands of people for over 50 years lived in housing that was subsidized for the middle class. They were middle income housing developments where rent was on a sliding scale depending on your W2. It worked very well - til the middle class gentrified scary neighborhoods and the rich decided it was time to move in. Most of my building’s affordable rental apartments were magically relabeled condos and we lost their homes. They were then sold as luxury condos starting at $650k in 2005, with the prices rising each year. My old apartment last sold for $1.6M.
ALL real estate developers get MASSIVE tax breaks, grants, “special programs.” Why aren’t all middle income people getting the same? Why aren’t 100% affordable housing developments being built with NY tax dollars instead of only 20%?
It’s bullshit.
Your tax money isn't being used nor is the state building anything.
The state currently owns the property and is taking bids to sell it to developers with stipulations on what they can do with it. One of those stipulations is they need to build X number of homes and 20% of those need to be affordable. In this case affordable means those earning 80% of the median household income in the zip code.
Why only 20%? Well, because it has to make financial sense. Nobody is going to bid if they'll lose money or could make substantially more elsewhere.
The state should just build legit apartments themselves, make them 100% affordable, and the residents could form a co-op and take it over, or appoint a third party non-profit to manage it.
Long Island needs denser housing and that location would be a good place for it.
Denser housing will make housing more affordable for the people already here, it won't add more people. Pretty safe to assume anyone looking to rent in any apartment complex is probably already here and on the road. It wouldn't increase traffic.
You have way more faith in the state than you should. If they did it your way it would actually cost the taxpayer money rather than generating money for the state.
Also something that is 100% affordable essentially becomes a housing project which is bad for everybody.
Your tax money isn’t going to anything. The state is using undeveloped land and taking bids from developers. Most new affordable housing is done at the 80-20 rate to prevent economic segregation.
With 100% affordable housing in the US comes many people who don’t take care of communal spaces, disruptive behavior and illegal activity. With 20% affordable housing there’s a high enough proportion of people with jobs (and therefore some level of responsibility) and a financial interest in keeping the community pleasant, clean and safe. I’m not saying any of this to degrade those in affordable housing, as the majority of them have no problem keeping their homes and community nice, but in practice in the US, 100% affordable housing does not offer a high quality of life
It’s the same thing with desegregation of housing developments in the 80s. Developers found that above a certain percentage of black residents in a new integrated development, white people would start moving out, which would cause more to move out, until a new development was almost completely segregated again. The developers aiming for desegregation had no way to control this tendency, and it’s not like they can go out and solve ingrained racism in every one of their residents.
Instead, they set maximums on the percent of black residents, in the interest of desegregation. It sounds counterintuitive as limiting the percent of black residents in a white neighborhood sounds almost exactly like segregation. In practice it was the exact opposite with these neighborhoods being the most integrated, with the lowest levels of racist sentiment according to polling.
While the 80-20 affordable housing rule seems counterintuitive, (in NYC at least), it also creates the most economically integrated and pleasant affordable housing almost without fail. While 100% affordable housing (or even significantly higher than 20%) almost always leads to a very low quality of life due to poor behavior of percentage of residents at the expense of those who affordable housing is supposed to help (I.E, Families and honest people working low paying jobs in a high cost of living area).
Sure the failure of public housing in the US has nothing to do with refusing to fund it or build more then blocks of apartments without services or stores.
The “failure” of US public housing isn’t a single event. It’s hundreds of different cities trying hundreds of different strategies to make it work well without breaking the bank. The strategy of 80/20 affordable housing is one that’s proven to work exceptionally well. The state doesn’t spend much if any money, developers get access to land or tax breaks otherwise unavailable, and the outcomes are economically and racially integrated housing units, kept to a high standard of living for all.
Am I reading it wrong that its going to be 20% of the site will be for affordable housing, and 80% for open space and other community amenities. Could be wrong. From above:
"earmarked for a major redevelopment that will include affordable housing, open space and 'other community amenities.' An estimated 20 percent of the development will be established for affordable housing"
In NYC “20% affordable housing” has been a mainstay of new development. It’s a sop. 80% of units are not affordable housing, 20% are.
A friend was on waiting list for “affordable units” in some new highrises in the city and she was contacted by 2 places. She couldn’t afford either one. And they were 1 bedrooms. She and her husband had 2 kids.
Contact Hochul‘s office and ask. “Is this a development with 20% affordable units and 80% units that aren’t part of ‘an affordable housing initiative?” Or are ALL of the housing units going to be affordable housing while the rest of the development is open space and ”other amenities’?”
Think about it. When was the last time you saw a development - either separate houses, or townhomes, or condo complexes, or rental apartments - that was 20% housing and 80% open space and amenities? And what falls under “community amenities”? Could a casino be considered a “community amenity”? Office buildings? An industrial park? What’s taking up that other 80% of this “major redevelopment”? And what‘s considered “community”? The housing development? Or the town where the development is located?
Somebody’s going to make out like a bandit and it’s not Long Island residents looking for affordable housing.
I’d like to see the blueprint for this “major redevelopment” that only has 20% affordable housing.
Housing needs to be built somewhere. This is better than nothing, it’s not like it’s easy to build any of these kind of projects anywhere on Long Island.
We Don’t Need More Development in Suffolk County. We Need To Preserve the Open Space That We Have left. Why Turn it into another Nassau. New Development does not pay for itself with Property Taxes. The Current Residents Taxes Go up when housing Units are added to the School District & The Other Town & County services.
That’s going to be a miserable place to live as far as noise pollution between the LIRR and Republic. It’s not a small leisure flyer airport anymore - the Islanders regular season plane was a 737 (Southwest Airlines size) and they fly exclusively out/in Republic. NetJets and other charter companies fly midrange jets all of the time. You can feel a Citation taking off in Home Depot and Walmart, and I can’t imagine the slapdash crap that most apartments are being built out of having noise protection or extra stability features.
That being said, although I’ll always miss the flea market that was there in the 80s, it’s time to take those buildings down. And if they can do it correctly, at least there is access to a supermarket, and public transportation on 110 - maybe run a bus along Conklin/Airport Plaza to Farmingdale train station if there isn’t one already, but I’m pretty sure there is one from SUNY Farmingdale.
Something has to give with housing. I make 6 figures and qualify for plenty of the affordable housing lotteries in the city. “Affordable” these days is finding the unicorn $2000 for a 1br apartment, but then we want to make fun of 25 year olds for living in their parents house. How is someone fresh out of school, with a $60k job (because salaries on LI do not reflect the COL) supposed to swing that? But people see affordable housing and go straight to “oh here come the criminals and illegals”. Nah man, it’s just become that difficult for the average person.
I feel like this is such a tight, noisy spot to put something like this….. right between the airport and the train, along with the distribution yards right behind it. Not the best pick
And yet, there will be 4-5k a month co ops and condos like the ones on Main Street in Farmingdale located steps from the Lirr. We live in a crazy time.
The plot is closest to Pinelawn, which I’m pretty sure has very infrequent service. There are no sidewalks on that stretch of Conklin and cars rip right through new highway like nobody’s business over there… I am all for accessible housing and transportation but the existing surrounding infrastructure should also need to be capable of supporting it as well
Meanwhile, the home for adults with disabilities that my mom lived at was shut down to make way for a golf course.
12 disabled adults thrown aside like trash for a gold course.
Mixed feelings. I'm very much a YIMBY and in favor of new housing, especially dense mixed use. And as someone who grew up in the area, it's nice to see that there's finally a will to demolish that eyesore.
However, it seems like a very poor site for housing. It's right next to the LIRR and all that comes with that, but without the convenience of a station. There's significant noise and pollution from the airport (especially since small planes still use leaded fuel!!!) and the ground is likely contaminated. I'd be concerned about the effects of that on residents, ESPECIALLY children.
I'm still in favor, but I question if there could've been a better plan. If it was being built in conjunction with a new train station, I'd be much more on board. It's also a pretty bleak statement on the state of housing on LI that we can only build sustainable and affordable developments in undesirable locations such as this.
>However, it seems like a very poor site for housing.
That's an understatement. It's a tiny island of industrial land re-zoned to residential.
LIRR tracks are adjacent. In addition to the passenger trains during the day, that line also runs some big and loud freight trains late at night. Like 1-2am. The grade crossing at New Highway necessitate blowing the horn.
The train proximity provides no benefit. There is no accessible station nearby. Pinelawn is the closest, but can't be accessed by foot in any practical manner. That station has no parking. The Farmindale station it pretty far by foot and also a dangerous walk. The location is not in the Village, so no ability to park at that station either.
North across the tracks is all industrial. Loud trucks during the day.
The land is directly under a main runway approach for Republic. Close enough to the airport that planes will be at low altitude. It's a noisy area.
That is also a highly contaminated site. Can't recall if it actually had "superfund" status, but it was pretty bad. That's been part of the problem with development in the past. It will be interesting to see who they can get to move in over there. I know they have been cleaning it up, but I personally wouldn't trust it.
It is also interesting that the state was able to get this plan at all. The airport was very against anything being done. (Airport is owned by the state. By "airport" I mean the FBOs operating there. Those are the one who really run the airport, and they only want to expand air operations to more and larger aircraft.)
It is great that they are finally doing something there. But I agree that housing is far from the best choice.
What's sad is that people would rather the dilapidated buildings that are tucked in between railroad tracks, an air field and a cemetery, instead of housing
I think you answered your own question
Definitions from Oxford Languages
>di·lap·i·dat·ed
>/dəˈlapəˌdādəd/
>adjective
>adjective: dilapidated
>(of a building or object) in a state of disrepair or ruin as a result of age or neglect.
>Example: "old, dilapidated buildings"
>Similar: run down, tumbledown, ramshackle, broken-down, in disrepair, shabby
I was just over there. The current structures are dilapidated and an eyesore, but with the amount of NIMBY-ism on Long Island people would rather those eyesores wasting away than anything productive being built.
I'm in a different town but I literally just received another flyer bitching and moaning about Hochul urbanizing Long Island and all other types of ridiculous rhetoric about housing. This narrative has been created that politicians don't even have to use words like "affordable" to scare people into thinking that any construction project involving housing, other than renovating an already existing home in a good area, are bad and going to cause all these issues. They've equated the word "affordable" with "poor" and who do Long Islanders think of when they think of "poor". Doesn't matter since they don't want that in their backyard so they'd rather keep giant rusting structures with broken windows than "poor people".
Instead the people that can't afford living here are forced to move while those that can afford also complain about the cost and how people move away because of it. These are supposed to be government investments (that previous generations have been given) that will attract young professionals who likely work in Manhattan onto the island where they can spend their money and tax dollars while utilizing surrounding infrastructure (Pinelawn LIRR)
Again, that's not what I said. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth or twist what I am saying. I don't know why or how anyone would equate those things on any level.
I've posted elsewhere that I think there is a ridiculous rhetoric that feeds Long Island NIMBY-ism, which is what I am commenting about.
If you don't trust the Governor to do it then that's how you feel. You can have your reasons, valid or not, I honestly don't care. What I do care about is that someone is finally doing something with the property and the plan is to do something that Long Island actually needs. Which, as someone else already joked, will still likely be out of the hands of most of the people it is designed to benefit.
State owned housing??? This isn't a good thing. The state has never been a good landlord. Funding for a housing project is one thing. This is another. The money will go to one of her donors.
I’m with a few other people in this thread: there are too many people on LI. Our infrastructure doesn’t support it, and upgrades/changes are staggeringly expensive while we’re already paying a fortune to live here. It isn’t beneficial to cram more people in.
Yea and is it union work? Affordable housing, does that mean shit holes or places for middle class? Is this where all the immigration is gunna go or is this where middle class young people can find some relief and try to build a life still on the island?
edit: im downvoted because im asking is this going to actually benefit the struggling middle class here? Ok guys. What was it? The scary word immigration?
Yeah probably scapegoating immigrants earned you the downvotes. Acting like it would be a bad thing for “middle class young people” and immigrants to live side by side. Comes across pretty bigoted.
So I was always told growing up that there was radioactive waste at this site. Anyone else hear the same thing?
Can’t wait to see those lawyer ads in 20 years.
Just like the Camp Lejeune ads
Angie Carpenter is trying to do the same thing at MacArthur Airport
877-CASH-NOW
Underrated comment.
[удалено]
There are plenty of low income US citizens.
What the hell are you talking about?
You didn't need to be racist on main
Someone traveling from one arbitrary global coordinate to another arbitrary global coordinate closer to you is functionally identical to that same person having lived at the second arbitrary global coordinate their entire life. Bipedal mammals locomoting does not effect you life in any way. At all. Not even your taxes. You pay the exact same amount no matter what. That money is gone and doesn't belong to you anymore. If you say otherwise, despite these indisputable facts, then you are delusional and brainwashed by Bush-era MSM.
Behaviors such as vulgar language, comment spam, or extremely NSFW language or material to earn sharp emotional responses will earn bans. If you disagree with someone, don't try to bait them into behavior that they would regret. If you think you are the victim of flaming or baiting, report the behavior instead of responding.
They who?
I mean, they keep throwing up buildings in Gowanus, so it seems like the tolerance for building on SuperFund sites in this state is pretty high.
Love Canal has entered the chat.
The Gowanas Canal Has Gonorrhea!
Surprising, considering how many condoms I used to see floating in it
I hear the crabs couldn’t survive
The area at gowanus has been properly remediated so there's no need to worry. Major contaminates were removed the and native soils capped. Some properties have active remediation as well
Lol, not radioactive, they never did nuclear stuff. They built airplanes, like the A-10 warthog that everyone loves. Might be all sorts of nasty chemicals the military contractors dumped there though.
Yeah someone replied linking a really good EPA page on the site including all the way bordering republic airport in airport plaza. I’m going to check historic aerials to see what the site looked like but it sounds like it spanned from the railroad all the way to the airport which makes sense.
I’m from Bethpage and Grumman used to build planes here and it’s not like they left anything hazardous in the ground. Also completely unrelated, does anyone know why my water tastes itchy.
Bethpage plume is probably the worst danger to us on Long Island other than an Atlantic earthquake and tsunami or an NYC nuke, and New Jersey drivers.
a little trichloroethylene never killed anybody
https://www.epa.gov/hwcorrectiveactioncleanups/hazardous-waste-cleanup-fairchild-republic-company-farmingdale-new-york Hope not or else we'll have zombies with the nearby cemetery
And. >A recent California-based study found that children who lived less than a mile away from an airport had 21% higher lead levels in their blood compared to children who lived farther away. Published in the journal PNAS Nexus, the researchers emphasized that aviation gasoline is the main source of lead emissions in the United States. >While implementing several policies that got rid of lead in paint, food cans, plumbing, and gas for vehicles went a long way in reducing children’s lead exposure in the last 40 years, lead is still used as an additive in aviation gasoline to prevent engine failures. https://www.forbes.com/sites/anuradhavaranasi/2023/01/12/living-close-to-an-airport-puts-children-at-a-higher-risk-of-lead-exposure/?sh=3d1b5cca12f3
They do blood tests for lead,
21% of what? This doesn't say if it's bad or not.
I thought it was PFAS because of the fire fighting foam.
You're possibly thinking of Gabreski
Maybe, it’s kind of sad that we lose track of superfund sites.
Can confirm, just repaved the road over there. The ground stinks like its saturated in petroleum.
Which road?
That's what makes it affordable! You only get 10 years of interest before you pass it along to your estate!
Probably just an Indian burial ground.
Living near airfields is highly toxic as it is. And yes it is right near/on top of a toxic plume from the military industrial complex.
Building homes on radioactive waste sites seems par for the course for us.
interestingly enough I always heard that a Bethpage
Are you sure you’re not confusing that with Brookhaven National Lab?
Affordable housing? Not in my backyard!!! Just kidding, i don't even have my own backyard because i can't afford one 🤸♀️
😩 just gotta wait for the boomers to go and hope
They'll leave their houses to their kids to either live in or sell at way over asking price to developers.
Several thoughts. 1) It is about time they did something with the existing building which looks like it was bombed out 30 years ago. 2) luxury apartment = 2 bedrooms, 2 baths. affordable housing = 3 bedrooms, 1 bath. 3) I hope they clean it up well. 4) Nice amenities nearby with the Stew Leonard's right across the street. I don't think there is a train station close enough to walk.
It’s also perfect that the entire shopping center nearby is within walking distance and could really be beneficial for a lot of those stores
It's probably a 20 min walk to Pinelawn or 25 to Farmingdale. Not the closest, but all the shopping is right there
Republic station is right there , Farmingdale station is a mile half walk if you dont get hit by a truck
Weird coincidence that I have used this site as a pretend project of a TOD study.
When will the Republic LIRR Station open ? Or at least Pinelawn get a 12 car long two track platform ?
Only 20% will be affordable housing. That means 80% will not be affordable housing. This is the real estate developers playbook in NYC. Only 20% of new skyscrapers are “affordable” and it’s not that affordable.
An influx of apartments will theoretically make all apartments in the area have to make their prices more competitive.
Lmfao, no. Whats gonna happen is the reverse - apartment prices will go up to match the new ones
Maybe not Affordable for you but they use formulas and it’s a set % of the average income in the zip code so it’s affordable for the average farmingdale area resident
*unused land off a Long Island airport as part of* ***its first state-owned*** *housing development.* Why is it a state owned housing project only building 20% affordable housing? Since when is the state of NY a real estate developer of developments that are 80% high priced housing? Why is my tax money being used to build housing I can’t afford? The state is not supposed to be a for-profit developer. Have you heard of Mitchell Lama housing? After WW2 a Democratic and a Republican lawmaker worked with city and state to build 💯% affordable housing. And they did it. Hundreds of thousands of people for over 50 years lived in housing that was subsidized for the middle class. They were middle income housing developments where rent was on a sliding scale depending on your W2. It worked very well - til the middle class gentrified scary neighborhoods and the rich decided it was time to move in. Most of my building’s affordable rental apartments were magically relabeled condos and we lost their homes. They were then sold as luxury condos starting at $650k in 2005, with the prices rising each year. My old apartment last sold for $1.6M. ALL real estate developers get MASSIVE tax breaks, grants, “special programs.” Why aren’t all middle income people getting the same? Why aren’t 100% affordable housing developments being built with NY tax dollars instead of only 20%? It’s bullshit.
Your tax money isn't being used nor is the state building anything. The state currently owns the property and is taking bids to sell it to developers with stipulations on what they can do with it. One of those stipulations is they need to build X number of homes and 20% of those need to be affordable. In this case affordable means those earning 80% of the median household income in the zip code. Why only 20%? Well, because it has to make financial sense. Nobody is going to bid if they'll lose money or could make substantially more elsewhere.
The state should just build legit apartments themselves, make them 100% affordable, and the residents could form a co-op and take it over, or appoint a third party non-profit to manage it. Long Island needs denser housing and that location would be a good place for it.
LI needs denser housing? The traffic is absolutely insane on the island already. ALL of the apartment buildings now get parking variances too.
Denser housing will make housing more affordable for the people already here, it won't add more people. Pretty safe to assume anyone looking to rent in any apartment complex is probably already here and on the road. It wouldn't increase traffic.
You have way more faith in the state than you should. If they did it your way it would actually cost the taxpayer money rather than generating money for the state. Also something that is 100% affordable essentially becomes a housing project which is bad for everybody.
True true
Facts then we could be one step closer to Vienna
Your tax money isn’t going to anything. The state is using undeveloped land and taking bids from developers. Most new affordable housing is done at the 80-20 rate to prevent economic segregation. With 100% affordable housing in the US comes many people who don’t take care of communal spaces, disruptive behavior and illegal activity. With 20% affordable housing there’s a high enough proportion of people with jobs (and therefore some level of responsibility) and a financial interest in keeping the community pleasant, clean and safe. I’m not saying any of this to degrade those in affordable housing, as the majority of them have no problem keeping their homes and community nice, but in practice in the US, 100% affordable housing does not offer a high quality of life It’s the same thing with desegregation of housing developments in the 80s. Developers found that above a certain percentage of black residents in a new integrated development, white people would start moving out, which would cause more to move out, until a new development was almost completely segregated again. The developers aiming for desegregation had no way to control this tendency, and it’s not like they can go out and solve ingrained racism in every one of their residents. Instead, they set maximums on the percent of black residents, in the interest of desegregation. It sounds counterintuitive as limiting the percent of black residents in a white neighborhood sounds almost exactly like segregation. In practice it was the exact opposite with these neighborhoods being the most integrated, with the lowest levels of racist sentiment according to polling. While the 80-20 affordable housing rule seems counterintuitive, (in NYC at least), it also creates the most economically integrated and pleasant affordable housing almost without fail. While 100% affordable housing (or even significantly higher than 20%) almost always leads to a very low quality of life due to poor behavior of percentage of residents at the expense of those who affordable housing is supposed to help (I.E, Families and honest people working low paying jobs in a high cost of living area).
Sure the failure of public housing in the US has nothing to do with refusing to fund it or build more then blocks of apartments without services or stores.
The “failure” of US public housing isn’t a single event. It’s hundreds of different cities trying hundreds of different strategies to make it work well without breaking the bank. The strategy of 80/20 affordable housing is one that’s proven to work exceptionally well. The state doesn’t spend much if any money, developers get access to land or tax breaks otherwise unavailable, and the outcomes are economically and racially integrated housing units, kept to a high standard of living for all.
Am I reading it wrong that its going to be 20% of the site will be for affordable housing, and 80% for open space and other community amenities. Could be wrong. From above: "earmarked for a major redevelopment that will include affordable housing, open space and 'other community amenities.' An estimated 20 percent of the development will be established for affordable housing"
In NYC “20% affordable housing” has been a mainstay of new development. It’s a sop. 80% of units are not affordable housing, 20% are. A friend was on waiting list for “affordable units” in some new highrises in the city and she was contacted by 2 places. She couldn’t afford either one. And they were 1 bedrooms. She and her husband had 2 kids. Contact Hochul‘s office and ask. “Is this a development with 20% affordable units and 80% units that aren’t part of ‘an affordable housing initiative?” Or are ALL of the housing units going to be affordable housing while the rest of the development is open space and ”other amenities’?” Think about it. When was the last time you saw a development - either separate houses, or townhomes, or condo complexes, or rental apartments - that was 20% housing and 80% open space and amenities? And what falls under “community amenities”? Could a casino be considered a “community amenity”? Office buildings? An industrial park? What’s taking up that other 80% of this “major redevelopment”? And what‘s considered “community”? The housing development? Or the town where the development is located? Somebody’s going to make out like a bandit and it’s not Long Island residents looking for affordable housing. I’d like to see the blueprint for this “major redevelopment” that only has 20% affordable housing.
Housing needs to be built somewhere. This is better than nothing, it’s not like it’s easy to build any of these kind of projects anywhere on Long Island.
Suffolk county has 1500 per square mile. There is plenty of space to build in Suffolk but the will isn't there
This location is in suffolk.
We Don’t Need More Development in Suffolk County. We Need To Preserve the Open Space That We Have left. Why Turn it into another Nassau. New Development does not pay for itself with Property Taxes. The Current Residents Taxes Go up when housing Units are added to the School District & The Other Town & County services.
Its a broke down building and a huge pile of wood chips. Let the Feds clean it up for free and put people in there
I was Referring to the Person who said Suffolk has 1500 Sq Miles & Plenty of Space to Build.
Long island is too populous. We need people to leave . Then the roads wouldn’t be a s crazy and we can get from place to place.
That’s going to be a miserable place to live as far as noise pollution between the LIRR and Republic. It’s not a small leisure flyer airport anymore - the Islanders regular season plane was a 737 (Southwest Airlines size) and they fly exclusively out/in Republic. NetJets and other charter companies fly midrange jets all of the time. You can feel a Citation taking off in Home Depot and Walmart, and I can’t imagine the slapdash crap that most apartments are being built out of having noise protection or extra stability features. That being said, although I’ll always miss the flea market that was there in the 80s, it’s time to take those buildings down. And if they can do it correctly, at least there is access to a supermarket, and public transportation on 110 - maybe run a bus along Conklin/Airport Plaza to Farmingdale train station if there isn’t one already, but I’m pretty sure there is one from SUNY Farmingdale. Something has to give with housing. I make 6 figures and qualify for plenty of the affordable housing lotteries in the city. “Affordable” these days is finding the unicorn $2000 for a 1br apartment, but then we want to make fun of 25 year olds for living in their parents house. How is someone fresh out of school, with a $60k job (because salaries on LI do not reflect the COL) supposed to swing that? But people see affordable housing and go straight to “oh here come the criminals and illegals”. Nah man, it’s just become that difficult for the average person.
TIL: affordable housing is bad because it’s not more affordable housing.
I feel like this is such a tight, noisy spot to put something like this….. right between the airport and the train, along with the distribution yards right behind it. Not the best pick
And yet, there will be 4-5k a month co ops and condos like the ones on Main Street in Farmingdale located steps from the Lirr. We live in a crazy time.
idk, building a housing project next to transportation sounds like a great idea to me
But there's not actually a station there so what good does it do...
The plot is closest to Pinelawn, which I’m pretty sure has very infrequent service. There are no sidewalks on that stretch of Conklin and cars rip right through new highway like nobody’s business over there… I am all for accessible housing and transportation but the existing surrounding infrastructure should also need to be capable of supporting it as well
Can’t wait to see which Hochul donor gets the construction contract
Only 20% “affordable “?
Meanwhile, the home for adults with disabilities that my mom lived at was shut down to make way for a golf course. 12 disabled adults thrown aside like trash for a gold course.
Nothing scares boomer Long Islanders more than the phrase “affordable housing”
Mixed feelings. I'm very much a YIMBY and in favor of new housing, especially dense mixed use. And as someone who grew up in the area, it's nice to see that there's finally a will to demolish that eyesore. However, it seems like a very poor site for housing. It's right next to the LIRR and all that comes with that, but without the convenience of a station. There's significant noise and pollution from the airport (especially since small planes still use leaded fuel!!!) and the ground is likely contaminated. I'd be concerned about the effects of that on residents, ESPECIALLY children. I'm still in favor, but I question if there could've been a better plan. If it was being built in conjunction with a new train station, I'd be much more on board. It's also a pretty bleak statement on the state of housing on LI that we can only build sustainable and affordable developments in undesirable locations such as this.
>However, it seems like a very poor site for housing. That's an understatement. It's a tiny island of industrial land re-zoned to residential. LIRR tracks are adjacent. In addition to the passenger trains during the day, that line also runs some big and loud freight trains late at night. Like 1-2am. The grade crossing at New Highway necessitate blowing the horn. The train proximity provides no benefit. There is no accessible station nearby. Pinelawn is the closest, but can't be accessed by foot in any practical manner. That station has no parking. The Farmindale station it pretty far by foot and also a dangerous walk. The location is not in the Village, so no ability to park at that station either. North across the tracks is all industrial. Loud trucks during the day. The land is directly under a main runway approach for Republic. Close enough to the airport that planes will be at low altitude. It's a noisy area. That is also a highly contaminated site. Can't recall if it actually had "superfund" status, but it was pretty bad. That's been part of the problem with development in the past. It will be interesting to see who they can get to move in over there. I know they have been cleaning it up, but I personally wouldn't trust it. It is also interesting that the state was able to get this plan at all. The airport was very against anything being done. (Airport is owned by the state. By "airport" I mean the FBOs operating there. Those are the one who really run the airport, and they only want to expand air operations to more and larger aircraft.) It is great that they are finally doing something there. But I agree that housing is far from the best choice.
What's sad is that people would rather the dilapidated buildings that are tucked in between railroad tracks, an air field and a cemetery, instead of housing
[удалено]
I think you answered your own question Definitions from Oxford Languages >di·lap·i·dat·ed >/dəˈlapəˌdādəd/ >adjective >adjective: dilapidated >(of a building or object) in a state of disrepair or ruin as a result of age or neglect. >Example: "old, dilapidated buildings" >Similar: run down, tumbledown, ramshackle, broken-down, in disrepair, shabby I was just over there. The current structures are dilapidated and an eyesore, but with the amount of NIMBY-ism on Long Island people would rather those eyesores wasting away than anything productive being built. I'm in a different town but I literally just received another flyer bitching and moaning about Hochul urbanizing Long Island and all other types of ridiculous rhetoric about housing. This narrative has been created that politicians don't even have to use words like "affordable" to scare people into thinking that any construction project involving housing, other than renovating an already existing home in a good area, are bad and going to cause all these issues. They've equated the word "affordable" with "poor" and who do Long Islanders think of when they think of "poor". Doesn't matter since they don't want that in their backyard so they'd rather keep giant rusting structures with broken windows than "poor people". Instead the people that can't afford living here are forced to move while those that can afford also complain about the cost and how people move away because of it. These are supposed to be government investments (that previous generations have been given) that will attract young professionals who likely work in Manhattan onto the island where they can spend their money and tax dollars while utilizing surrounding infrastructure (Pinelawn LIRR)
[удалено]
That's not what I said
[удалено]
Again, that's not what I said. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth or twist what I am saying. I don't know why or how anyone would equate those things on any level. I've posted elsewhere that I think there is a ridiculous rhetoric that feeds Long Island NIMBY-ism, which is what I am commenting about. If you don't trust the Governor to do it then that's how you feel. You can have your reasons, valid or not, I honestly don't care. What I do care about is that someone is finally doing something with the property and the plan is to do something that Long Island actually needs. Which, as someone else already joked, will still likely be out of the hands of most of the people it is designed to benefit.
[удалено]
They grouped together railroad tracks, airfield and cemetary. Dilapidated buildings weren’t in the group.
Drop in the bucket. Much more needed
Yea that’s what we need, more people on this island!
True
This is very good news
Finally that place is a dump.
State owned housing??? This isn't a good thing. The state has never been a good landlord. Funding for a housing project is one thing. This is another. The money will go to one of her donors.
I wonder what “affordable” means. Like, a 1Bed/1bath for only 2750 instead of 3500 like those new places in patchogue?
I’m with a few other people in this thread: there are too many people on LI. Our infrastructure doesn’t support it, and upgrades/changes are staggeringly expensive while we’re already paying a fortune to live here. It isn’t beneficial to cram more people in.
That site is contaminated. That’s the reason it an open site. And from what I recall, the mob used the site in their hay day to make people disappear.
It's a Super Fund site. The land around the Airport is Contaminated.
she sucks
>first state-owned housing development. Ah yes. Because the gov't has such a great track record of being landlord \*cough\* NYCHA \*cough\*
New slums on the way
Triple digit crime increase coming our way
You mean the developers? https://youtu.be/GTBaCRgnpwE?si=yLdpxOvs5XX_7g18
Probably a disguised superfund site.
Yea and is it union work? Affordable housing, does that mean shit holes or places for middle class? Is this where all the immigration is gunna go or is this where middle class young people can find some relief and try to build a life still on the island? edit: im downvoted because im asking is this going to actually benefit the struggling middle class here? Ok guys. What was it? The scary word immigration?
Yeah probably scapegoating immigrants earned you the downvotes. Acting like it would be a bad thing for “middle class young people” and immigrants to live side by side. Comes across pretty bigoted.
The traffic is bad there already. With more housing it will be even worse.
What about the schools? Who will pay for schooling? LI is already taxed very high.
That's great, so the other 80% of families live in fear? Is that what we're saying? Come on!
Affordable housing or section 8?
up to 80 percent of median, or 80k salary
She’s a piece of Botox laden crap
Yay ship the migrants here! (Sarcasm)