Someone was quoted recently in a local paper as saying -- and I paraphrase -- "sure we need affordable housing in Sag Harbor, but it wouldn't be appropriate to put it in the new condos that are going up on the waterfront or in the Bulova building." This was not the developer speaking. Well, if not there, where?

It's not like we've got an abundance of choices. Sag Harbor's a small place...hell, the whole East End is a small place. In the panel discussion on affordable housing that took place last Sunday, NYS Assemblyman Fred Thiele made the point that open space preservation and affordable housing are not in competition. He correctly noted that most of the land that is being preserved is not where we would want to see new development, affordable or otherwise. On the other hand, open space preservation does reduce the stock of buildable land, thus limiting the possibilities for new development of all kinds. In an area such as this, where geography has already limited the supply of buildable land, preserving open space increases the pressure on developers to make the most of what remains. I'm not saying preserving open space is bad, just that it has an impact.

So, back to Sag Harbor; where you can virtually count the buildable lots on the fingers of one hand, and workforce housing is disappearing faster than parking spaces on Main Street on a summer Saturday. If the Village is going to increase the supply of moderate-price housing, can they afford to be picky about where those units are located? Can they in effect say, it's OK to put affordable units here, but not there? The answer is no, and there are many good reasons why, some of them (alright, most of them) are legal, but some relate to good planning, preservation of the character of the village, and, of course, economics.

Most importantly, though, legally it just can't be done. Any law designed to create more affordable housing must apply even-handedly to all property owners. Singling out properties in a certain area for affordable housing is certain to bring about a successful legal challenge to that law in court. Developers have rights, and they are usually not shy about exercising them.

It's a bad idea on a social level too. Do we want to turn Sag Harbor into a village where all the rich folks live on one side of town and the rest of us (not just the poor, but everyone who's not rich) lives on the other? Bad idea. Sag Harbor has always been an economically integrated town. Mess with that and you destroy the character that makes people want to live here. You also end up putting an unfair economic burden on land owners in one place, while bestowing a financial windfall on developers in another. In short, trying to manage where the affordable housing will be is a non-starter.

Mayor Ferraris and Trustee Scarlatto announced not long ago that they were undertaking a review of the Village's zoning code, with an eye toward amending it in some way that might include creating more affordable housing units. I have a suggestion that will help them avoid some of the pitfalls mentioned above, and also has a fair chance of actually creating a significant amount of affordable housing even in Sag Harbor. It's called mandatory inclusionary zoning, and I'm convinced it's the best way to go.

Mandatory inclusionary zoning is hard to say, but not that hard to understand. What it means is that the Village modifies the zoning code to say that in all new developments that include over a certain number of units, a certain percentage of those units must be affordable. The number of units that triggers the law, and the percentage are up to the Village to decide. Hopefully, they will come up with some sort of "fair share" formula so that the burden of including affordable units is evenly spread among developers and among developments in all areas of the village.

I came to the conclusion that this is the best way to go, after reading an extensive legal note entitled Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning--The Answer to the Affordable Housing Problem, written by Brian R. Lerman of Boston College Law School. Published this year in the Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, it includes an analysis of current laws on the books in various states, cities and counties around the country, and the legal decisions that have upheld or limited those laws. His review of virtually everything that has been tried to date, leads to the inescapable conclusion that only mandatory inclusionary zoning is both effective at creating a substantial number of affordable units, and able to withstand legal challenges from all sides. Mr. Lerman concludes: "To effectively create affordable housing, a community should adopt a mandatory inclusionary zoning regime."

By the way, I've singled out Sag Harbor, because of the Trustees' stated intention of  reviewing the zoning code and of trying to find ways to create more affordable housing. However, everything mentioned above applies equally well at the Town, County, and especially at the State level. I know Assemblyman Thiele is an active advocate for affordable housing, and is pushing hard in Albany. However, his efforts are being stymied by an few intractable State Senators, Ken Lavalle among them. If this issue is important to you, I suggest giving Mr. Lavalle a call and explaining to him how urgent the need for affordable housing is in his district and urging him to rethink his position.