So, I thought a little research might be in order to find out if there is any poverty in the Hamptons. Here’s what I found out:

According to NationMaster.com, data from the 2000 Census (the latest data available) shows that in the Town of Southampton, “The median income for a household in the town is $53,887, and the median income for a family is $65,144. Males have a median income of $47,167 versus $32,054 for females. The per capita income for the Town is $31,320. 8.3% of the population and 5.3% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 10.2% of those under the age of 18 and 6.0% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.“

In the Town of East Hampton in the year 2000 (again, according to NationMaster.com) the situation was similar. “The median income for a household in the town is $52,201 and the median income for a family is $60,743. Males have a median income of $42,041 versus $31,732 for females. The per capita income for the Town is $31,300. 9% of the population and 6.7% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 11.2% of those under the age of 18 and 6.2% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.“  (This data was corrected by me to reflect actual U.S. Census data for the Town of East Hampton. The NationMaster article reported data for the East Hampton CDP  — Census Designated Place — which is different than the Town. Don’t ask me how it’s different; I only have so much patience for research.)

The government uses a table to determine the poverty level for households of differing compositions. Here are two examples for the year 2000: A household of four people, two of them under 18 years of age, would be classified as poor if their annual income was below $17,463; a household of two people where the “householder” is over sixty-five would be classified as poor if their annual income was below $10,419. (Those figures were increased to $21,550 and $12,027 respectively for the year 2007.) Combined, the two towns comprising the South Fork had a population of 74,431 in the year 2000, of which 6,126 individuals lived in government-defined poverty. That’s 8.2% of the population, over 1,000 families, who were living in poverty in the Hamptons in the year 2000.

As a point of reference, a couple who are both employed full time (37.5 hours/week) in minimum wage ($7.15 p.h.) jobs, working 51 weeks a year (1 week unpaid vacation, no sick days, no personal days) would gross $27,349 for that year. If they have two children, they would be slightly above the 2007 poverty level — assuming neither one misses much work due to personal or family illness, or other obligations.

So, clearly, the answer is yes, there is poverty in the Hamptons. Who is poor? My research abilities do not extend to that level of detail, but I’m guessing I know at least one family, probably more, who are struggling to make ends meet here in one of the nation’s wealthiest communities. I’m also guessing a few of my retired friends may be close to the poverty borderline too, especially now, after the recent economic meltdown has either jacked up their mortgage rate, devastated their invested retirement funds, or both.

Then, of course, we have the sad state of affairs, often commented on in this blog: the complete lack of affordable housing. This dearth of reasonably priced places to live  is driving lower- and middle-class people out of the area. Even with what might be considered adequate incomes elsewhere, these folks can’t find a place to live in Sag Hampton. Now, compounding this crisis — and a crisis is what it is for reasons that have been documented elsewhere on this blog — we have the credit crunch, which makes getting a mortgage impossible even for those half-dozen or so lucky individuals who have actually found a home they can afford to buy.

But, I digress. From a poverty perspective, the “affordable housing” problem is not about the folks who can’t find a place to live, it’s about those who have managed to find a place to call home, but in order to afford it have to devote an impossibly high percentage of their income to paying the rent or mortgage. At the end of every month they then find themselves without enough money to pay for other necessities of life. The result is a class of people who, while earning incomes substantially above the government’s poverty level, still can’t afford to both eat and get healthcare; pay their taxes, and buy fuel oil; buy work clothes and buy gas to get to work. It’s poverty Sag Hampton style, but the effects are nonetheless debilitating. Ultimately, these families are forced to make a decision as to whether they want to stay here, in the communities in which they were nurtured, close to family and friends, or to move somewhere else where they will be able to afford all the necessities of life.

So, poverty comes in different forms. I wouldn’t think of comparing the plight of cash-strapped homeowners in Sag Harbor, to the refugees in Darfur. The suffering faced by refugees and the victims of war, famine, despotic governments, and natural disasters, the world over is several orders of magnitude more severe than anything seen in Sag Hampton. Yet, poverty on any level has serious repercussions for both the individual and the community. Our towns and the people in them are not immune to this disease; it’s here among us and requires a personal response from each of us. In the land of the $10.00 bowl of oatmeal, no one should be cold or hungry.

Do something:
The Sag Harbor Food Pantry
Long Island Cares
Peconic Habitat for Humanity

If you know of other worthwhile local organizations, please add their contact information in the comments. Thanks.

A very obvious example of how the important issues we face often intersect is the seeming conflict that exists between open space preservation and the creation of more affordable housing. In a nutshell, that conflict can be stated as every acre of open space that is preserved is an acre of land no longer available as a possible site for affordable housing. One might also say the inverse is true as well: more affordable housing equals less open space. Of course, it’s not that simple. Nothing ever is. The real conflict is not between open space and affordable housing; it’s really between high-end housing and open space. Rarely is affordable housing proposed in an area that is also desirable for preservation. Has anyone heard of a plan to put affordable housing in the farm fields of Sagaponack? Not likely. But those fields are definitely vulnerable to subdivision into lots suitable for a new crop of McMansions. When affordable housing is proposed, which as we all know is not very often, it is almost always in areas that are already well developed, and so not in conflict with open space preservation.

So, all is well, or so it would seem; but this happy little scenario gets turned on its head when viewed from the perspective of the aforementioned “well developed” area. Take for instance, Sag Harbor Village, which is almost at the complete build-out stage. In the Village, open space is at a premium, and many of those who live in the Village would certainly like to see as much as possible of what’s left preserved. So when, as recently happened, the owner of one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels proposes a mixed use development — one that will include both offices and housing — all of it affordable — we are faced with quite a conundrum. Adding to the complication is the fact that the parcel abuts the northern end of the Long Pond Greenbelt, and that it may be part of the migratory range of the endangered Tiger Salamander. So, do we encourage the Town to offer to purchase this property with money from the Community Preservation Fund, or do we encourage the developer to go ahead with his plans to create some desperately needed affordable housing for the community’s police, firefighters, teachers and others in the endangered species known as the middle class?

In my mind that’s a tough call. But, so far, we’ve only examined the intersection of open space preservation and affordable housing. If you thought it was going to be that simple, think again. What about that other major East End headache, traffic? As you undoubtedly already know — unless you never drive in the morning, mid-day, or afternoon — commuting workers are one of, if not the most, significant factor contributing to the congestion on our roads. Why do so many area employees commute to work here? Because, they can’t afford to live here due to a lack of affordable housing. So, it stands to reason that one way to reduce traffic would be to make more affordable housing available in the Sag Hampton area. And, where should this affordable housing be? Well, if we really want to reduce traffic, the housing should be as close as possible to businesses and other major public resources like schools, stores, and professional offices. Ideally this new housing stock would be built within walking or biking distance of the aforementioned community resources, i.e., in hamlet centers like Sag Harbor. All perfectly sensible, unless your priority is to preserve the tiny bit of open space that remains in the Village.

However, if you take a slightly broader perspective, it makes perfect sense to encourage hamlet centers such as Sag Harbor, East and Southampton Villages, and downtown Bridgehampton, among others, to accept both additional housing and businesses, because doing so reduces suburban and commercial sprawl and takes the development pressure off the more pristine outlying areas. This makes sense from a public transportation perspective too, as the more people that live and work in an area, the easier it is to serve those people with public transit. A public bus in Northwest doesn’t make a lot of sense; there just aren’t enough people and businesses there to make it worthwhile. But a bus that serves the Villages of East Hampton, Sag Harbor and Southampton, as well as the hamlets of Wainscott, Bridgehampton and Water Mill (especially if each of those hamlet centers also has some new affordable housing within walking or biking distance of downtown) makes a lot of sense. Buses such as these would not only ease congestion on our roads, but also reduce stresses on the environment such as motor vehicle-created air pollution. And, as we focus more  development in the hamlet centers we reduce the pressure to develop farm fields and wooded areas throughout the East End.

The scenario I’ve just been describing is sometimes known as smart growth. It’s a highly-regarded strategy among planning professionals, but not always so popular among our local politicians. To be fair to the politicians, there are valid reasons for this lack of popularity, including the additional stress on our schools, sewage treatment plants, and other public services that come along with increased density. Unhappily, there’s always a trade-off. Housing affects open space. Open space affects transportation. Transportation affects the environment. Or, looked at another way, housing affects transportation. Transportation affects open space and the environment. Take your pick, or come up with your own formula. The combinations are endless…but not insoluble. The key is to start somewhere. We may not be able to say which of our concerns is the “most” important, but we can acknowledge that it is important to get started working wherever possible.  As we proceed we must pay attention to the collateral impact that any action we take will have in other equally important areas.

So, in the end, I told the candidate that affordable housing was “my issue.” It’s what I care about the most right now. I chose it because it is the most neglected of the major issues confronting Sag Hampton. I also told her I was concerned about the impact any development would have on open space preservation and the character of the Village, as well as being very concerned about threats to the environment. So, while I did pick one issue,  in so doing, I actually picked them all.

As I write this, it’s late, so I’m going to give you the shorthand version of that conversation. The Commuter Connection is similar to the light-rail/feeder bus network proposed by Five Towns Rural Transit (5TRT) as a mass-transit system for our area. 5TRT is an outgrowth of the East End Transportation Council (EETC – dontcha just love acronyms?). EETC commissioned the SEEDS  (Sustainable East End Development Strategies) Study. Boiled down to one important bullet point, SEEDS stated that  you cannot separate regional transportation problems from regional land-use issues (zoning). Get it? No? OK, I’ll elaborate a bit.

In order for mass transit to be successful, you need to have relatively large groups of people who are all moving between the same places — say, from where they live to where they work. That puts the mass in mass transit. If you don’t have these concentrations of people all in one place, than the trains/buses don’t get used, ’cause you can’t lay track to, or put a bus stop at everyone’s front door. Unfortunately, for decades zoning policies in our area have encouraged us to build houses on large plots of land spread around on every buildable acre. At the same time, we’ve encouraged businesses to locate all along our highways and byways, between the hamlets. In general, this type of development is known as suburban sprawl. From a transportation perspective, there’s no there there.

But, the SEEDS study tells us that in order to get people to use mass transit — thus keeping their cars off our over-burdened highways — mass transit has to be convenient. Otherwise, people won’t use it. Duh! So, SEEDS says in order to fix the transportation problem, you need to first address the zoning problem by encouraging a mild increase in hamlet center density,  (through a variety of strategies) while upzoning the areas farthest away from the hamlet centers, so that fewer homes are built in outlying areas. SEEDS also suggests putting an end to strip mall development along our highways, while encouraging “infill” and redevelopment in existing business centers. (Please remember, this is a very simplified explanation of the SEEDS recommendations.) The idea is to make it possible for more people to live and work closer to transportation hubs, so that it’s actually convenient to use mass transit.

That got us talking about Sag Harbor, and more particularly about Bulova, because if you think about our transportation issues, and the solution suggested by SEEDS, then you realize that the place where we should be encouraging more of our workforce to live is in the Village center. But, the Bulova developers are saying we should put our workforce housing somewhere else — not in their development — which just happens to be the largest parcel left anywhere near our hamlet center that’s available for (re)development.  Its location and size makes Bulova the ideal place for workforce housing. Yet knowing all the facts, Village government is sitting on their hands and letting the Bulova developers’ need for financial gain trump both the community’s need for affordable workforce housing and a potential solution to our regional transportation issues. A million+ bucks in a “workforce housing fund” sounds nice, but is beside the point since the donors are dictating that the one place where it actually makes sense to put workforce housing is off limits. This opportunity to address two important regional issues at once won’t come around again.
———————————————————
Currently listening to: Boom Town by Greg Brown.

The problem I see can best be stated as a question. Would Sag Harbor actually be “saved” if chain stores were outlawed here? And, that question leads me to another: what would a saved Sag Harbor be like? Let’s start with the easy stuff. Clearly, there would not be a CVS here. With CVS out of the picture, Sing City, the liquor store and 7 Eleven would be able to stay. Did I say 7 Eleven? That’s odd. 7 Eleven is definitely a chain, and a few short years ago nobody wanted them here either. I thought I was starting with the easy stuff, but I’m already running into difficulty. Fortunately for Sag Harbor, 7 Eleven’s original franchisee, the Young family, was determined to prove that 7 Eleven could be a good, if not perfect, neighbor. They obviously succeeded, since no one talks about keeping out 7 Eleven anymore. Quite the opposite. We want them to stay. Times change, as does our perception of a “saved” Sag Harbor.

I know it sounds like I’m revving up to defend CVS, Starbucks and their ilk. Trust me, I’m not. I just want to point out that one has to think carefully about the issues facing our little village. Nothing is ever quite as straightforward as it seems. Another example of this is historic preservation. Everyone’s for that. Right? A saved Sag Harbor would certainly retain its place in the National Register of Historic Places. Well, yes, but I have a couple of quibbles with Sag Harbor’s Architectural Review Board. It seems they are, to put it mildly, resistant to alternative power generation devices, such as solar panels and wind turbines. I find this attitude quaint, which I guess is appropriate for people whose mission is to preserve the past. However, I pose this question to the ARB: how quaint will Sag Harbor be when the entire historic district is under water? It’s pretty clear that the world’s best hope for preventing the polar ice caps from melting is for many people to take many small steps to conserve energy and reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately for the historic purity of our village, that includes people who live in historic homes. Which is worse, solar panels or homes under water? In my version of a saved Sag Harbor, there are solar panels on many roofs.

Now for my other quibble with the ARB. In spite of the fact that I’m in favor of allowing solar panels and/or modest wind turbines to appear on the roofs of historic homes in our village, I really am strongly in favor of historic preservation; so much so, in fact, that I question whether the ARB and the other agencies that regulate the look of our Village are too. As I walk down our lovely streets, I find my sensibilities assaulted by what appear to be charming historic homes with huge inflated cancers growing on them. What the heck is up with 168 Main Street? Is Ira Rennert moving to Sag Harbor? What about the house across the Street from 168 Main where a small cottage was expanded to three or four times its original size, all of which expansion is clearly visible from the street?  How can one say the historic look of that house has been preserved? Clearly the codes governing the expansion of historic homes are not adequate in the face of today’s “bigger is better” home owners. In my version of a saved Sag Harbor, this trend will not only be stopped, but reversed.

Unfortunately, the questions only get harder. What to do about traffic? Sag Harbor is a delightfully walkable community; or it would be if there were fewer cars on the roads. Have you ever tried to cross at the intersection of Jermain and Madison on foot? Clearly, until we get people out of their cars, Sag Harbor will continue to suffer from ever increasing traffic woes. An integrated network of light rail, buses, and…gasp!…passenger ferries would go a long way toward enabling people to come to Sag Harbor while leaving their cars at home. Can we truly say that Sag Harbor is saved if we don’t address the traffic problems?

Another tough one: affordable housing. I’ve always believed that what sets Sag Harbor apart from the surrounding communities, and made it the best place to live in the Hamptons is its heterogeneous mix of social, economic and ethnic populations. Not only was there a healthy mix of different types and classes of people, but also, these groups were not divided. Everyone lived side by side in the same neighborhoods. As in a classroom where students of differing abilities are mixed together, everyone benefits. In a village, it’s the year-round, working families that provide the necessary infrastructure, and a good deal of the character of the place. They, in turn benefit from the culture and economic opportunity provided by the second-home owners. Cultures mix and something new and better emerges. Homogeneity — in this case represented by a community of only the wealthy — results in inbreeding and an ultimately sterile environment, lacking in all the charm that attracted people here in the first place. Unfortunately, the “free” market in real estate has killed any hope of retaining the mixed economic neighborhoods of Sag Harbor past. Artificial life-support in the form of mandated affordable housing units is the only hope of preserving some remnant of this tradition. To really save it though, the affordable units must be integrated into all new housing developments, not segregated in affordable-only sub-divisions. In a saved Sag Harbor, there are affordable units in the Bulova condo renovation too.

Speaking of condos, I would say that without a doubt the monstrous and obtrusive condo development proposed by Michael Maiden for Ferry Road near Long Wharf has no place in a saved Sag Harbor. This property clearly must be acquired and preserved by local government for use as a public space. If allowed to go through, the impact of those condos on the character and livability of Sag Harbor’s downtown will be overwhelming, maybe even a tipping point beyond which “Saving Sag Harbor” becomes an empty rallying cry.

There are, of course, other issues that need to be addressed before Sag Harbor can be considered saved: bike lanes and sidewalks, the library, open space preservation (yes, even in Sag Harbor) and more — too many to address in one sitting at the keyboard. None of this is simple; all of it is interrelated. Saving Sag Harbor requires action on many fronts by an informed and concerned populous. It is not now, and never will be a one-issue campaign.

————————————————————-
Currently listening to: Who Will Save Your Soul? by Jewel

Powered by ScribeFire.