« March 2004 | Main | May 2004 »
April 27, 2004
I can drive 65
Speed Limit Raised on Some Roadways
By AL BAKER, 2004 April 27
The New York Times
ALBANY, April 26 - Gov. George E. Pataki announced on Monday that the speed
limit would be increased to 65 miles per hour along 134 more miles of New York
State highways, mostly in upstate counties.
Since 1995, the limit has been raised to 65 m.p.h along nearly 1,369 miles of
roadway statewide. The latest changes will take effect as soon as the new limits
are posted.
Allowing drivers to go faster is part of a larger strategy to improve travel times,
enable businesses to ship products more quickly between cities and "enhance
overall transportation mobility and reliability,'' the governor said in a news
release.
The largest stretch of highway to be affected is a 29-mile span of Interstate 684,
between Interstates 84 and 287 in Putnam and Westchester Counties. But many
smaller sections are also getting the increased speed limits. For instance, 24
miles of State Route 17 in Orange County and 26 miles of that same road in
Broome and Delaware Counties will now permit speeds of 65 m.p.h.
Elliot G. Sander, director of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and
Management at New York University, said that raising the limit would help to
create a more uniform and user-friendly highway system.
Previously: 65 could be the law.
Posted by dc at 01:23 AM | Comments (0)
April 24, 2004
Greens at Half Hollow
The developer of the nearly completed Greens at Half Hollow housing
development has been dropped from a suit brought by a Huntington-based
housing advocacy group and the NAACP, but the related development of
affordable housing units on Ruland Road has been called into question as
discriminating against families, according to an amended suit.
See also Orchard Park.
MELVILLE: New Suit Charges Town With Discrimination
Housing advocates claim town cuts out affordable housing for families
By Peter Sloggatt, petersloggatt@longislandernews.com
2004 April 23
Huntington officials dropped the ball when they approved a developer’s plans for
The Greens at Half Hollow housing development in Melville, say local affordable
housing advocates in an amended lawsuit filed in federal court last week.
The Fair Housing in Huntington Committee announced last week that it has been
joined by the NAACP and several individuals as plaintiffs on a lawsuit filed April 8
in US District Court, Central Islip, and that the national office of the NAACP has
joined the Boston-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in
representing the plaintiffs.
The suit is an amendment on one filed previously that charged the Town of
Huntington discriminated against minority families in its approval of the 1300-plus
unit Greens at Half Hollow senior housing development and the related Sanctuary
project located on Ruland Road.
According to the suit, the Sanctuary project — originally a 150-unit affordable
rental project — has been modified to exclude multi-bedroom units, effectively
shutting out families with children from renting there. The project was originally
conceived to create affordable housing off site from the Greens, whose 1375
units are nearly all age-restricted for sale to senior citizens. Of 72 homes not age
restricted, prices range from $700,000 to more than $1 million.
“They excluded all affordable family housing from the Ruland Road site,” said
Housing Committee spokesman Robert Ralph, noting that the project was
originally conceived to meet town mandates for creation of affordable housing in
high-density rezonings. But according to Ralph, school district concerns over
rising enrollments resulted in the project being reconfigured for one-bedroom
units.
“When the school district raised Cain, they excluded the two and three bedroom
units,” said Ralph, adding that in its approval of the rezoning, the town noted the
impact of multi-bedroom units on schools.
“That’s unprecedented in Huntington — maybe everywhere,” said Ralph.
Greens developer SBJ Associates was named in the previous lawsuit filed in May
2002 but not in the recently amended suit filed April 8. “We’ve always maintained
that they had no allegations of fact against us,” said attorney John Harras of
Morton Weber & Associates, who represents SBJ. “They focused a little more on
Ruland Road I think because it’s hard to allege that the Greens, being a senior
complex expressly permitted and authorized under the Fair Housing Act, violates
that act.”
Harras explained that the Sanctuary development as currently proposed is for
116 units of entirely one-bedroom workforce housing at affordable rents.
With their newest suit, the plaintiffs are hoping to require the inclusion of
affordable family housing at the Greens and at the Ruland Road complex.
James Ryan, an attorney with Cullen & Dykman, the Garden City law firm hired
to defend the town, said that while he had time to review the suit in detail, he is
confident that the town will prevail.
"We feel that the town board acted appropriately under the circumstances. We
increased the pool of affordable housing in Huntington," he said, noting that both
the Greens and Sanctuary properties were originally zoned for more "upscale
development." The Greens was zoned two-acre residential while the Ruland Road
project would have yielded seven or eight houses. Instead, "We added another
100 affordable senior low incomeand when Ruland Road is finished will have
added 100 more," Ryan said.
© 2004 Long Islander Newspapers, Inc.
Posted by dc at 12:22 AM | Comments (2)
April 05, 2004
Red light cameras
ON THE ROADS: Lawmakers need to give green light on cameras
Plan your next event with Caterer Search
John Valenti
2004 March 21
It was almost three years ago that Assemb. Patricia Eddington stood at an
intersection in Medford dubbed "Crash Corner" and declared war on
red-light-running drivers in Suffolk County.
Dangerous, she called drivers who act as if green means go, yellow means go
faster and red means nothing. Dangerous, she called the growing trend of drivers
running red lights.
She called for the installation of cameras at dangerous intersections - red-light
cameras - to take license plate photographs of vehicles that entered those
intersections after the light had turned red. She called for an automated system
to ticket those vehicle owners.
This was three years ago, come August. Still, drivers wait for something to be
done to stop red-light runners.
The bill proposed by Eddington (D-Medford) - a bill that would change state law
and allow red-light cameras to be installed in Suffolk - passed the Assembly only
to be sent back for amendment. A similar bill proposed by state Sen. Caesar
Trunzo (R-Islip) passed the Senate, only to be sent back, too.
The political wheel has turned slower than the wheels of red-light runners.
Sometimes not only is justice blind, but so are its lawmakers.
So the Senate and Assembly argue wording, while victims of red-light runners get
added to the list of casualties: a mother and a daughter, killed by an alleged
red-light runner on William Floyd Parkway; a 16-year-old girl, killed by an alleged
red-light runner on Route 58 in Riverhead.
These are just two fatal accidents in the past year that come to mind. There are
more.
"Things move very slowly in Albany," Eddington said last week. "Sometimes, they
only move when there is a great groundswell of constituent concern. Red-light
running is a big issue. I think we have a problem with running red lights on Long
Island."
As a spokesman for Trunzo said: "The real tragedy is that this can be addressed.
This is a problem with a solution."
But the solution has been sidetracked to date by concerns of "Big Brother."
Some state politicians have argued red-light cameras will infringe upon our rights
as Americans. There are concerns about civil liberties.
There are fears that red-light cameras will be used to take photographs of
drivers. There are fears about racial profiling. The fact is all this is wrong.
Red-light cameras photograph license plates - not drivers. The program has been
used on a "test" basis in New York City since 1994 - and red-light violations are
down 50 percent.
The fact is that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that each
year 200,000 motorists are injured and about 1,000 are killed nationwide by
red-light runners. The fact is that most safety experts consider running a red light
the single-most egregious driving violation - other than DWI.
"We oppose the use of photo radar to enforce speed limits," AAA Automobile Club
of New York governmental affairs expert John Corlett said. "But, we make a
distinction between photo radar and red-light cameras - because with red-light
running the balance starts to shift against due process. Red-light running is
clear-cut dangerous conduct. No question. And, it's out of control. Something
needs to be done."
A recent AAA study, in fact, found that 67 percent of AAA members in the
metropolitan area - a membership, Corlett said, considered "conservative" -
favored the use of red-light cameras for enforcement.
"People want this program," Corlett said.
Under current state law, only cities with a population of at least 1 million can
implement a red-light camera system. This is the main reason it has only been
used in New York City. Installed on an experimental basis in 1994, the program
was due to expire in 1999. It was extended into 2004 - and figures to be
extended again.
The ticket issued using red-light cameras would carry about a $100 fine. But it
would not be a moving violation - and no points would be assessed to a driver's
license. Specific language in the law would prohibit insurance companies from
increasing premiums to the vehicle registrant.
It has been almost three years since Pat Eddington stood at that intersection in
Medford, Patchogue-Holbrook Road and Greenbelt Parkway. Almost three years
since she stood there with a mother of three who was almost killed when the
driver of a sport utility vehicle allegedly ran a red light and struck her minivan.
Still, the debate ambles on - while people continue to be injured or killed by
red-light runners all across Long Island.
"It's very frustrating," Eddington said. "Very."
Posted by dc at 12:32 AM | Comments (0)
April 04, 2004
North Suffolk news by Newday
Newsday's North Suffolk news
Posted by dc at 10:19 PM | Comments (0)
New Cassel
New Cassel, First for a Change, 2004 April 04
By VIVIAN S. TOY
WHEN Mildred Little first moved to New Cassel, in 1959, it was a place of great
promise for young black families like her own.
Turned away from Levittown and other Long Island communities because of the
color of their skin, the Littles happily settled in New Cassel, even though the main
thoroughfare, Prospect Avenue, was just a dirt road.
The hamlet grew into a solidly middle-class black community, and although
Prospect Avenue never became a thriving downtown, it provided some essential
services - a grocery store, a bakery, a hardware store, gas stations.
"We came out here for a better way of life, and we had it for some time," Ms.
Little said. But by the late 1970's, drugs and gangs had become a problem and
absentee landlords had devalued the area with illegal and overcrowded
apartments. "Gradually, people started giving up and moving out," she said.
Today, Prospect Avenue is a forlorn 20-block strip lined with vacant lots where
blighted homes and businesses once stood. Community-development efforts over
the years produced some new homes, but otherwise the street has seen little
investment, aside from a few bodegas and storefront churches.
Officials of the Town of North Hempstead and local community leaders are
convinced, though, that a new revitalization effort will finally turn things around
for New Cassel and make it a model for urban renewal. Last month, the town
approved four redevelopment proposals on town-owned land that will bring in $42
million in new development, create nearly 170 units of low-income housing and
new commercial space that will include a pharmacy and a restaurant.
The projects include an apartment building with retail space on the ground floor,
condominiums for first-time homebuyers and apartments designed for older
residents. Two of the developers expect to break ground this fall and the town
hopes to soon take control of the road from Nassau County and receive federal
funds to redesign the street.
"We're not just revitalizing a downtown, we're building a new one," said Jonathan
Kaiman, the supervisor of the Town of North Hempstead. "Within four years, we
hope to see a traditional yet sustainable and walkable main street on Prospect
Avenue. And if this works the way we think it will, my guess is other communities
will follow our lead."
Ms. Little is skeptical but hopeful. "I've lived through so many studies and so
many proposals for this community and nothing has changed," she said. "If this
really comes to fruition, of course I'd be pleased. I hope I see it."
This effort is unlike previous failed ones, Mr. Kaiman said, because it takes a
comprehensive approach, with the town offering eight different sites for
development along Prospect Avenue and nearby Union Avenue, thus assuring
each individual developer that its project would be complemented by others. He
also said it has helped to have strong partnerships among parties that have not
always worked well together.
Town officials have worked closely with county, state and federal officials. Other
important partners include Sustainable Long Island, a nonprofit advocacy group
for community revitalization, and the Unified New Cassel Community
Revitalization Corporation, a local group that has helped marshal local support for
the redevelopment program.
Elsewhere on Long Island, residents often oppose mixed-use and low-income
housing developments for fear of what they might do to property values, but
through a series of community meetings known as a "visioning process" New
Cassel homeowners supported, and even demanded, this kind of development.
Residents also supported the town when it rezoned all of New Cassel as an urban
renewal area last year, which makes it eligible for state and federal grants and
also gives the town added code-enforcement powers.
...
Longtime residents like James Smith, who has lived in New Cassel since 1956,
said that years ago, residents probably would not have approved of the
apartment buildings and mixed-use buildings that are now planned for New
Cassel because they fled New York City to leave that lifestyle behind. But the
decline of Prospect Avenue has changed that.
"It all happened before you realized it," he said. "It was like you woke up one
day and suddenly there were people hanging out on the street and not working,
and gangs were running around. I didn't see this coming."
Posted by dc at 01:53 AM | Comments (0)
April 03, 2004
JFK AirTrain review
TRAVELERS using Kennedy Airport have had nearly four months to try the new
AirTrain connecting the airport to local railroad and subway lines - enough time to
weigh in with their opinions about how well it works.
Based on my trip on the AirTrain on a Friday evening last month, and feedback from
others who have taken the train, I'd say it's definitely an improvement over the
buses that used to carry passengers between the airport and nearby train and
subway stations. The biggest advantage of the AirTrain is that it provides a way to
get to J.F.K. entirely by rail, eliminating the variable of road traffic from the complex
calculation of how long it will take to get there.
Visitors unfamiliar with the city's transportation system - say, the right way to
swipe a MetroCard or how to interpret an announcement like, "The rear two cars
will not platform at Jamaica" - might find the experience rather stressful.
There are several ways to get to the AirTrain, so the time and cost of the trip
depends on how you make that connection. From Manhattan, the quickest route is
generally the Long Island Rail Road from Penn Station, which costs $6.75 during
peak periods and $4.75 off peak (more if you buy from a conductor on board)
and takes about 20 minutes. Trains run between Penn Station and the Jamaica
AirTrain terminal every 10 to 15 minutes most of the day. When you get off the
Long Island Rail Road, you may have to hunt for signs to the AirTrain - take the
stairs up.
You can also take the E train ($2) to the Sutphin Boulevard-Archer Avenue stop
in Queens, which connects you to the same Jamaica AirTrain terminal. One
potential pitfall: the E train stations before and after Sutphin Boulevard both have
the word "Jamaica" in their names, as if designed to puzzle the uninitiated. My
return trip on the E, also on a Friday evening, took about 20 minutes from
Sutphin Boulevard to midtown, although the subway is less predictable than the
Long Island Rail Road, so that trip could take longer.
According to the AirTrain J.F.K. brochure, the longest passengers should have to
wait for a train is 12 minutes (late at night), with a 4- to 8-minute wait typical
during the day. Travel time from either Jamaica or Howard Beach to the farthest
airline-terminal stop is 15 minutes. It stops at six airline terminals; look for the
signs inside each train with the inexplicably small print to find your airline's
terminal.
Most people I surveyed spoke positively about the AirTrain, but there were a few
common complaints and cautionary tales: the challenge of dragging luggage up
and down stairs or onto a crowded commuter train, the lack of adequate signs
throughout the system (Mr. DiFulco said more are being added), and the fact that
late at night, an unfamiliar subway station isn't the best place to be standing
around with your suitcase or asking for help.
"Coming in at night on the A train as a New Yorker, it's not a big deal," said Maki
Isayama of Manhattan, who has taken the AirTrain several times. "But if you're
coming in from out of town and you've got this guy talking to himself in the
corner, you wonder how people would react to that."
"If you're taking mass transit anywhere, you sort of have to accept that as part
of the package," Mr. Isayama added. But he said he'll take the AirTrain again
himself. "I'm all for options."
Previous: JFK Airtrain is coming in 2003; also: JFK AirTrain reviewed.
Posted by dc at 03:15 AM | Comments (0)