{ title: 'The Farmingdale observer. (Farmingdale, N.Y.) 1963-current, March 24, 1977, Page 4, Image 4', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/sn95071030/1977-03-24/ed-1/seq-4/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/sn95071030/1977-03-24/ed-1/seq-4.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/sn95071030/1977-03-24/ed-1/seq-4/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/sn95071030/1977-03-24/ed-1/seq-4/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: Long Island Library Resources Council
Editorials • Viewpoints • Comments M u 3 to u s © £ CO > School AM Since the article appeared in last week's Post an- nouncing the Farmingdale Board of Education's request for public support via letters to legislators Urging the saving of school aid, the state legislature announced a fight to do just that. We remind our readers that our local legislators, Senator Johnson, Assemblyman Healey and Assem- blyman Yevoli have been fighting to restore the governor's proposed cuts all the time. The letters we write to them is liot to enlist their support, but to give mem a club to hold over the governor's heacT. it they can show the governor the voters of their districts are concerned and watching his actions on this issue, he might think twice about cutting aid to schools or vetoing any bill the legislators may pass to restore aid. The name of the game is votes in the election. Letters from hostile voters indicating they have been hurt by a candidate and will refuse to support him in future election bids can make any candidate think twice about his position on any issue ... even a governor who has aspirations for re-election or higher office. Our local school board is doing everything in its power to keep school taxes down. It's not fair that the state should pull the rug out from under the homeowner by refusing to pay its fair share of the burden because of the whim of the governor. pays more tax anyway, but he would not be getting back any more proportionately, than the rest of us. 22% of $30,000 is naturally more than 22% of $15,000. The rebate does ab- solutely nothing, for it is a one time thing. He'll probably argue that such a thing would make the federal deficit bigger. I have some \news\ though, the federal deficit will get larger anyway with this Congress, and with this president. In fact, Carter's budget already has a bigger deficit than Ford's, as bad as that Was. But encouragement of hiring would help bring in more tax money. This very thing was done before, the latest under Pres. Kennedy. He'll argue that the jobs program will bring more employment. Yes, temporary (18 months) employment while the money lasts, money from us taxpayers. The whole program is nothing but a farce, and we are the ones to suffer, while the social engineers take our money away. Nicholas B. Aleshin Dear Editor: On Feb. 23, a bill sponsored by Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY) to grant a \permanent across the board reduction in individual income tax rates,\ a straight 22% reduction, was defeated in the House of Representatives 258 to 148. One of those voting against this tax reduction Was our own Rep. J.A. Ambro. An across the board tax reduction would have done a hell of a lot more to stimulate our economy and to encourage hiring, thereby reducing unemployment, than the one shot $50 rebate being pushed by Pres. Jimmy Carter and his liberal, Democratic congress. These are the people who, by their inaction, gave themselves a $13,000 per year pay increase, and denied anything meaningful to the rest of us slobs, who pay their salaries, and pay for all the wonderful fringe benefits they get. Some of them argued that the rich would get a \windfall\ of a tax decrease, meaning more than the poor gyy. So what? The guy who makes more money always Wsft JFarmmgMe f mt \YOUR COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER\ -Established 1920- 51 Heisser Lane, Farmingdale, N.Y. 11735 Telephone: CHapel 9-0131 -0170 Publisher Joseph Merendino Editor/Manager . Robert J. Starrett Production Mgr Steven Vid Published every Thursday by Farmingdale Post Division of Merlin. Printing Co.. Inc. Joseph Merendino, President; Steven Vid, Secretary-Treasurer COMPOSITION RESPONSIBILITY This newspaper will not be liable for errors, appearing in any advertising be- yond the cost of the space occupied by the error. By—Lined Articles & Columns are the Sole opinions of the writers &. do hot necessarily represent views of the paper. Second Class Postage at Farmingdale Post Office. SUBSCRIPTION RATE: 1 YEAR 15.00 MEMBER: New York Press Assoc. MEMBER: Nassau County Press Assoc. MEMBER: American Newspaper Repre sentative MEMBER: National Editorial Assoc. FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE RALPH G. CASO \We have here,\ concludes a study of the multi-layered governmental system within Nassau County, \an impressive monument toman'sJaeJLpTwjfin. From Assemblyman Philip Healey arranging for the satisfaction of his communal needs. It is heavy on whoever lies beneath it.\ Those words were not written this year. They were written in 1934, even before our present county charter was adopted. And they were accompanied by a graphic depiction of one homeowner in one village under the total weight of all the taxes levied on his property by all the layers of government and school and special districts within whose boundaries the property was located. The fragmentation of govern- ment, and its excessive cost, glaringly evident even 43 years ago, and since grown progressively worse, has today reached crisis proportions. When the 1934 report was written, the population of Nassau County was about 350,000 and there were already 300 units of local government - including villages, special districts and school districts. Today, our population is nearly 1.5 million and we have\hearly 400 units of government, nearly all of them with taxing authority and clearcut responsibilities. But the question we have to face is whether the responsibilities are allocated rationally, even sanely. The dilemma we have to resolve is whether a governmental structure that grew out of our rural past makes any sense for our suburban present. Within Nassau Cbunty today, there is one county government providing a variety of essential countywide services. And there are also two cities, three towns, 57 school districts, 64 villages and 272 special districts. The latter include fire districts, water districts, lighting districts, sewer districts, sewage collection and sewage disposal districts, and garbage districts - to name only a few. There is even an escalator district which levies taxes to maintain an escalator at the Hicksville LIRR station. Each level of government evolved to meet a specific need at a specific time in a specific area. Each provides one or more services. Each one collects taxes. And there's the rub, as Shakespeare said. The average Nassau County homeowner is paying about $15 less in total net county taxes this year than he did last year. But his overall tax bill - the total that he pays to all the units of govern- ment - keeps going higher and higher each year. Something has to give, either the homeowner or government, and I don't want it to be the homeowner. That is why I am forming a task force to begin taking a long, hard look at the way the various levels of government work. There has to be a better way, a saner way. We have to cut down the costs of government. And one way to do it is less government. There is no better way to find out what the residents of my assembly district are thinking than to send directly into their household a questionnaire on topics of general interest to the public which may eventually reach this session of the Legislature for consideration. I have now received\the bulk bflhe returned questionnairesrThey have been tabulated, and the results provide an interesting scenario of the philosophical climate here in the heart of suburban America. In the next two columns I will discuss the results in terms of what they could mean for the future of our state and our area - if the wishes of you, the public, were translated into'votes in the Legislature. The subject matter in which there was the most unanimous opinion or the widest spread between the \yes\ and \no\ responses, was that of crime and criminal justice. There was no doubt, for instance, where respondents stood on the issues of stiffer penalties for youngsters, under the age of 16, who are convicted of violent crimes. Those an- swering were almost unanimously in favor of stiffer penalties while a vast majority said the state courts should have access to the arrest records of juvenile offenders. Meanwhile, those responding were overwhelmingly in favor of restoration of a constitutionally acceptable death penalty for murder. The same was true with the matter of tougher penalties for those who commit crimes with the aid of a firearm. Those who answered the questionnaire had mixed feelings on prison facilities in the state. By a slim margin, they were in favor of the state investing up to $100 million in construction of new prison facilities to ease overcrowding. However, an overwhelming number were ready to endorse the concept of the present state program whereby state- owned facilities previously used for other purposes are now used to relocate minimum and medium security prisoners. On the issue of whether or not the state should continue its tem- porary release programs for prisoners having less than one year to serve, a majority felt it should continue the plan. In summary, it would appear that residents of the 11th Assembly District are very much in favor of stiffer enforcement of our laws and much tougher penalties for the more serious crimes committed. It is also obvious that we want juveniles who commit serious crimes to be dealt with in a firmer manner in order to attempt to check growing juvenile crime incidents. In some 19 assembly districts stretching from Long Island to Buf- falo, 66 per cent of those who responded to questionnaires are in favor of a federal takeover of welfare as compared to 26 per cent, who were opposed. [ GBILES? EEOSCCGCafi\) I... Remarks of Oyster Bay Town Supervisor Joseph Colby J If your household is anything like mine, you don't particularly look forward to the arrival of monthly utility bills. Like me, you probably open the bills with a bit of hesitancy, breathe a sigh of relief if they are anywhere near what you expected or, more often than not, resign yourself to paying out what seems like an ever-growing amount. I don't open the Town's utility bills, but those who do are quick to let me know about how these costs are affecting our budget. Because the necessary utility costs of government have increased, as they have in the home, we are taking steps to improve existing Town lighting and telephone systems while at the same time dropping the totals on those ever-present bills. The Town Board recently authorized the commencement f of negotiations with the Long Island Lighting Company to permit revision of present maintenance procedures regarding Oyster Bay's public street lighting system in a manner that will allow us to use saved funds for an upgrading of the system itself. This formal step by the Board was the result of considerable research by our Department of Public Works. Another Town agency, our General Services Department, is undertaking similar research regarding telephone communications costs, with a view toward developing proposals that would permit more efficient and less costly use of this necessary service. Town government is also keeping a watchful eye on major utility suppliers and their efforts to secure additional funds for the services they provide. Last month, a member of the Department of General Services spoke on my behalf and that of the other members of the Town Board at a Public Service Commission hearing, and expressed opposition to a rate hike proposed by the New York Telephone Company that, if approved, would increase annual costs to the Town and its taxpayers by about $56,000. The irony of the situation was reflected by the company's announcement about a week after the hearing that it had a 1976 net profit of $435 million, a 25% increase over the previous year. The Town was similarly represented this week at a Public Service Commission hearing held on the Long Island Lighting Company's request for approval of the first of a two-step increase that would represent a hike of more than 15%, generating more than $100 million. The dollars used by the Town of Oyster Bay are your tax dollars, and we are working to cut costs internally and to stop unbudgeted in- creases that affect both government and the average homeowner.
