Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe topography has anything to do with it.
For up-to-date information and answers to your many questions, why not subscribe to nixle--it'll give you the information as soon as police release it. No guessing, no presumption, just facts directly from the police! Nixle | Building Stronger Communities Together - select whatever zip code you're interested in and subscribe to the updates.
I haven't been to Huntington Village since we moved away from Long Island - where are they putting the apartments? Last time I was there they had built some over by Book Revue/Pancho Villas.
I'll try to remember them all for you!
1) They are currently building and have almost finished two floors of apartments over small retail stores on Gerard St. in the village, directly across from Renaissance/Dairy Barn.
2) Plans have been approved for I think 27 apartments above retail on Stewart Ave. in the village, where the old ice house used to be.
3) Townhouse type housing is currently being built behind CVS in Halesite, north of the village, across from King Kullen. I wouldn't want to live there as the water table is high, even though they've tried to contain the spring that flows right behind it.
4) Approval has been given for apartments over retail on NY Ave near High St. in the village, next to Larry's Gas, across from the old Aboffs Bldg.
5) Not sure if you've already seen the apartments, two floors, built over the Wells Fargo Bank, the old Rubin's Dept. Store, in the village.
6) Approval given for two apartment complexes to be built on Nathan Hale Drive, next to the existing Nathan Hale apts, in the village, directly behind the old Brush home on the corner of West Neck Rd.
7) Small apts approved over retail on NY Ave, north of Gerard St., across from Chase Bank.
8) Apts. approved over retail on side street that heads east (can't remember the name, sorry) north of the village off of NY Ave, across from the fire dept.
Have I forgotten any? I'm sure there are more in the works that we haven't heard of yet.
While I agree that people need a place to live and housing is expensive here, I don't believe that it all has to be concentrated in the village or the station area! The Town(ship) of Huntington includes many other villages and towns who have not gotten even one apartment forced on them! This affects the population in the schools, it affects the taxes we pay for the schools. All these apartments in a concentrated area affects parking for everyone, even without all the apartments built yet, we have parking problems. With 25A going through the middle of the village, the traffic is horrendous at times and all the added cars will only makes things worse. I already find ways to go around the downtown area to avoid the traffic and lights - which I'm sure the local neighborhoods don't appreciate, but it's bound to happen.
Precedent has been set. I'm sure all building owners are looking into the viability of adding apartments above their existing retail stores. Huntington Village will end up being Queens in 10 once it's all said and done. That will be very sad.
To UsAll, your intellectually curious questions are most surely trying to illicit a response, if I'm reading you correctly. Seems to me you are trying to get people, me, to start screaming against allowing more racially diverse people from moving into our area. You are attempting to illicit a racially charged response. You won't get that from me as that is not my objection. Had you read my posts, you would have realized where I was coming from - the overwhelming concentration of approvals of apartments in the village/station area, and nowhere else, in this town.
I grew up here, I'm used to "diversity", I feel it is beneficial for children to grow up along people who are different from them, etc. I do not like when landlords rent houses illegally so multiple families or many single men all live under one roof that was meant for a single family, and is coded that way. I do not like that the police cannot go after crime and violence in the station area the way we'd like them to, and the problem is with the town not going after the illegal housing that houses many of the criminals as well.
I don't like that our village has so many bars and restaurant/bars that attract far too many out-of-towners who come here to party, get drunk and high and cause problems with others trying to have a nice night out. Sure, the revenue is great for the business owners, but it has changed our village from a place where you could shop for everyday items to an entertainment center, along with the highly popular Paramount Theater with concerts. Change is inevitable, but some changes are not always good.
Wow, it's going to look like a little city there. It was hard to park in the village 30 years ago. if I had errands to do I would not delay getting there on a Saturday morning.
I cannot believe they are seriously considering building by the King Kullen in Halesite. May as well make the first floor a swimming pool.
I cannot believe they are seriously considering building by the King Kullen in Halesite. May as well make the first floor a swimming pool.
They're past considering building apartments, they're already up and some have siding on them. I can't imagine the traffic on narrow Creek Road from these apartments (not sure if they're condos or apartments to be rented). It's going to be a tight squeeze.
To UsAll, your intellectually curious questions are most surely trying to illicit a response, if I'm reading you correctly. Seems to me you are trying to get people, me, to start screaming against allowing more racially diverse people from moving into our area. You are attempting to illicit a racially charged response.
To UsAll, your intellectually curious questions are most surely trying to illicit a response, if I'm reading you correctly. Seems to me you are trying to get people, me, to start screaming against allowing more racially diverse people from moving into our area. You are attempting to illicit a racially charged response. You won't get that from me as that is not my objection. Had you read my posts, you would have realized where I was coming from - the overwhelming concentration of approvals of apartments in the village/station area, and nowhere else, in this town.
I grew up here, I'm used to "diversity", I feel it is beneficial for children to grow up along people who are different from them, etc. I do not like when landlords rent houses illegally so multiple families or many single men all live under one roof that was meant for a single family, and is coded that way. I do not like that the police cannot go after crime and violence in the station area the way we'd like them to, and the problem is with the town not going after the illegal housing that houses many of the criminals as well.
I don't like that our village has so many bars and restaurant/bars that attract far too many out-of-towners who come here to party, get drunk and high and cause problems with others trying to have a nice night out. Sure, the revenue is great for the business owners, but it has changed our village from a place where you could shop for everyday items to an entertainment center, along with the highly popular Paramount Theater with concerts. Change is inevitable, but some changes are not always good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreaII
You're not the only one To UsAll is targeting -
Just ignore them and they'll slither away.
PLEASE FORGIVE MY VERBOSITY HERE . . . AND ALSO, I DON'T WISH TO TAKE THE OP's THREAD ANY MORE OFF-TOPIC OR OFF-TRACK BY GOING FURTHER INTO MY INTERESTS HERE. BUT THIS IS WELL-WRITTEN AND WORTH READING TO CLEAR UP ANY MISUNDERSTANDING (HOPEFULLY):
You are both quite misreading my character and motivations here in this thread. My questions are trying to understand the essential nature of opposition to the availability of so-called "affordable housing". The fact of the matter, quite contrary to what appears to be your interpretation of me, is that I am VERY VERY strongly opposed to ANY individuals or populations among us that foster criminality and uncivil behavior patterns which threaten public safety and bring down the quality-of-life and strongly enough will and sometimes do speak out against such individuals or populations who engage in such behavior patterns. I do not care what their race or ethnicity or nationality or age or gender or any other category they fit into is. I only want to live among people who engage in only civilized behaviors at all times, whatever categories they fit into or their external trappings. I only care about the inner character of each single individual and how that manifests in their choice of behaviors in the public arena -- NOT AT ALL what they look like or what stereotypical labels have become affixed to their grouping over history. If you knew me, you'd likely find me to be just as much a vociferous opponent of living amongst individuals or populations prone to fostering criminality or anti-social/uncivil behaviors that you are or anyone else here is (regardless of their categories). By the way, I myself happen to be Caucasian and Jewish (in case you were wondering what my categories are and am now a senior) and am not a party-line liberal nor conservative or any other category. I am a pure intellectual, not an ideologue towing some party line or advancing a particular agenda. My views on varied social and political issues are rather nuanced (likely like yours, from what you have shared).
BUT I don't necessarily translate one being prone to engaging in criminality or uncivil behavior patterns to one's source of regular (legitimate) income nor to one's racial/ethnic/nationality category. Any discerning and intellectually-honest person knows and will acknowledge that there are both civil and uncivil individuals in EVERY SINGLE race, ethnicity, nationality, creed, et al. My overarching point and thrust is that just because a particular individual or family considers taking advantage of so-called "affordable housing" being made available in whatever locale or jurisdiction does NOT NECESSARILY equate to them being prone to being a societal sociopath. By the way, I am ALSO opposed to irresponsible and uncaring landlords who foster so-called "illegal housing" as you describe it . . . but this does not mean that housing affordable for lower-than-middle-class persons shouldn't be made available AT ALL in the larger jurisdiction of the Town of Huntington or elsewhere in the county or in Long Island at-large. Just that it should abide by strictly-enforced code and severe consequences for violating that code.
Putting aside any mentions brought up of one's race/ethnicity and similar categories (of which I very carefully stated in my last posting the following and all in boldfaced capital letters: "THIS IS MERELY BEING ASKED JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE PHENOMENON AND ITS MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS . . . NOT TO FOMENT RACIAL OR ETHNIC STEREOTYPES, ANIMOSITIES, OR BIGOTRY"), my questions were guided by pure intellectual curiosity as to how people truly think about this issue. That is, I was intellectually curious if the perpetration of crimes and incivility in the jurisdiction mentioned by yourself or other posters WAS, in fact, committed by persons from the populations typically thought of as being the perpetrators of such behaviors and if they DID, in fact, happen to be persons from the adjoining Huntington Station. For after all, I am one who always aims to be intellectually honest with myself as well as with others and to therefore acknowledge reality and truth as it presents itself (not simply how I think it is or imagine it to be). As I conveyed earlier, I have no outright agenda to advance or pursue in this thread but am just trying to address my own intellectual curiosity about the issue (like if I were writing an impartial and neutral academic book on the issue). My questions were trying to gauge what exactly IS the nature or foundation of opposition to the availability of so-called "affordable housing".
In case you or others were curious about what policies I myself would support: How I would approach the issue of making "affordable housing" available in the jurisdictions spoken of and then whom to allow to take advantage of said "affordable housing" (if I myself were assigned to be in charge of the town or county or state), is that perhaps the approach to offering "affordable housing" in the territory is that each single individual and/or family who wishes to reside here should FIRST, beforehand, have to register with the authorities and sign a type of "social contract" formulated and rigorously enforced by the law (the courts, the police, the county, et al) where it is verbally and in-writing laid out for them that, if the applicants are to be allowed at all to be residents here in the first place, each single individual and each member of any household or family will have to agree in writing and on video recording, and take an oath, to ALWAYS conduct him or herself or themselves in a civilized, appropriate manner and ALWAYS, without failure or lapse, engage in only lawful activity and behaviors . . . and, if they don't do so (even having one single lapse), they are subject to the severest consequences of the law and are FOREVER banished from residing in or even visiting that jurisdiction ever again (if they even try to visit, they are subject to being arrested for trespassing or worser charges). In other words, a rather iron-fisted no-nonsense approach. I don't care if the perpetrators are white or black or Hispanic or any other racial or ethnic category or whatever age or gender or immigration status or whatever else they are or any other circumstances. While you are here (if you are allowed at all to be here in the first place), you are to ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS behave yourselves as everyone else here (or nearly everyone else here) does.
Does THAT elucidate for BOTH of you (or anyone else) where MY OWN thinking lies?
Putting my own supported policy positions aside, what I was trying to discern and gauge by my questions and to therefore understand is "So does having the availability of so-called 'affordable housing' ALWAYS equate in many or most people's minds to inviting in the uncivil and criminal elements of society-at-large? So, for example, if I myself (who happens to be Caucasian and Jewish, by the way . . . and a senior) am a person who doesn't make $80,000.00 or $100,00.00 a year or greater, then I simply have to rule out living in Huntington Station or Huntington Village or much of Long Island for that matter altogether because most others or varied others are concerned that I will be prone to fomenting criminality and bad behavior by virtue of taking advantage of 'affordable housing'?" Note that "affordable' doesn't necessarily have to translate to Section 8-eligible (which I have never collected, nor have I ever been a public welfare recipient of any type at all but rather a working person).
Again, note that, in my very first set of questions touching on these matters, I said " My question(s) is/are purely of intellectual interest. I have no pro or con viewpoints and no agenda of any type to advance." and then later, also in careful and measured wording, I stated:
"Note that these questions are not trying to put words in your mouth or to be accusatory in any way (there are no right or wrong answers here). Rather, I'm trying to understand intellectually (like if I were a university professor doing a research project or study on the subject) what underlies your particular thinking and those who think like yourself. Again, there are no right or wrong answers here. I'm just trying to tease out your true thinking so as to illuminate my understanding of the premise of objections to the existence of so-called 'affordable housing' . . . so my wording may be a bit verbose. It is just my attempt to have you understand precisely what I'm asking without any ambiguity or misunderstanding."
Is my choice of language and phrasing not careful enough and measured enough (and honestly phrased enough) to not have any of you misunderstand where I am coming from? If I were a professor doing a funded research project on these issues on behalf of the U.S. Government or the Ford Foundation or whatever other non-biased funding party, I'd have to ask such questions to understand both the opposition as well as the support for the prevalence of affordable housing . . . and this would entail touching on ALL aspects of the issue (including racial and ethnic aspects at times). You see how easily that I myself can talk about all dimensions of these issues and in a rather plain-talking manner? People should be able to see and gauge where I am coming from and where my own heart is by the choice of words and phrasing I use . . . and if they are not clear where I am coming from, I can and will just spell it out for them in rather calm yet plain language (as I have done here in this posting). So I operated on the premise that all others with whom these issues would be discussed can ALSO speak plainly about the subject matter (as I myself do).
Nothing that you yourself said in your own postings needs any apologies or justifications to be made to me. They ARE rightful concerns that you express in your own measured way and you yourself have used your own degree of measured, nuanced language that I could pick up on and clearly read to know that you are not simply a bigot of some type but, like myself, simply don't wish to accommodate or tolerate criminality and uncivil behavior patterns on ANYONE'S part nor to settle for the wholesale destruction of the quality and character of the jurisdictions discussed. If I can read that from what you have shared thus far, how could you not read that MY OWN intentions are merely benign and intellectual rather than polemical or out to advance an agenda? Was MY OWN choice-of-language-and-words not measured and nuanced enough to convey this to you?
IN SUMMARY: You don't need to address this posting nor the previous postings of mine in this thread anymore if you don't wish to. For I am not trying to be some polemicist or agenda advancer here but merely an intellectual-type trying to understand the stated issue and the history and development of the jurisdictions discussed (yet also personally interested because I wish I could readily afford to live in select locations of Long Island such as Huntington Village and/or nearby environs . . . so I also had a personal interest in my questions).
If I don't hear from you again, thank you for all your input thus far and I do respect your experience and views and appear to concur with them (at least in good part, as much as I can tell).
Ok, fine, so you're not pushing an agenda and I'm not racist.
The problem with affordable housing is people's interpretation of what "affordable" is meant by the developers and the town government. It can mean anything from housing that young people just starting out can afford to seniors on a limited income to poverty level affordability - at least that's what has happened in Huntington. And yes, any of those groups could be very good people or people who don't give a damn about how they take care of their property or whether they commit crimes.
So simply using the term "affordable" illicits different responses from everyone depending on what definition they believe it means.
And as I've stated several times, the development of affordable housing of any type has been oversaturated in the station area as well as the village of Huntington. Too much of it ends up affecting the revenue for the local schools, especially when those renting or owning allow more than one family to live there resulting in many more children than would normally be produced from that one unit. All the apartments in the village are going to be taking up much needed parking, since they all are getting variances from the town. Sure, new apartments will probably bring in nice revenue for the local businesses. That's fine. Just don't allow every building in the village to end up with two and three story apartments on top, it will be like driving through a canyon, totally losing the former historic value of many of the stores that have been in town for centuries, yes, centuries.
There is no one answer to all of your questions. Criminals come from all over, not just from the station. Criminals are not all from one or two races as is assumed by many. We've got just as many wealthy kids committing crimes of a different variety!
Huntington and Huntington Station are not the only places on LI where this phenomenon is happening, they just seem to be "picked on" a lot lately because some of the good people in town are rebelling, and rightly so, against a town government that seems to do little to nothing about the problems.
Ok, fine, so you're not pushing an agenda and I'm not racist.
The problem with affordable housing is people's interpretation of what "affordable" is meant by the developers and the town government. It can mean anything from housing that young people just starting out can afford to seniors on a limited income to poverty level affordability - at least that's what has happened in Huntington. And yes, any of those groups could be very good people or people who don't give a damn about how they take care of their property or whether they commit crimes.
So simply using the term "affordable" illicits different responses from everyone depending on what definition they believe it means.
And as I've stated several times, the development of affordable housing of any type has been oversaturated in the station area as well as the village of Huntington. Too much of it ends up affecting the revenue for the local schools, especially when those renting or owning allow more than one family to live there resulting in many more children than would normally be produced from that one unit. All the apartments in the village are going to be taking up much needed parking, since they all are getting variances from the town. Sure, new apartments will probably bring in nice revenue for the local businesses. That's fine. Just don't allow every building in the village to end up with two and three story apartments on top, it will be like driving through a canyon, totally losing the former historic value of many of the stores that have been in town for centuries, yes, centuries.
There is no one answer to all of your questions. Criminals come from all over, not just from the station. Criminals are not all from one or two races as is assumed by many. We've got just as many wealthy kids committing crimes of a different variety!
Huntington and Huntington Station are not the only places on LI where this phenomenon is happening, they just seem to be "picked on" a lot lately because some of the good people in town are rebelling, and rightly so, against a town government that seems to do little to nothing about the problems.
Thank you for your well-thought-out and stated response.
I'll drop out of here now, as I don't wish to any further risk being possibly perceived as "hijacking" the OP's intent in starting this thread in the first place. Good day to everyone!
In answer to the original question and specific location specified: Look elsewhere (if you have options, IMHO)'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
