Suffolk County Executive Ed Romaine (R-Center Moriches) signed a bill on Tuesday that requires new apartment developments to section off at least 5% of their units – or ten units, whichever is less – specifically for fire and EMS personnel.
The bill was crafted by Suffolk County Legislator Dominick Thorne (R-Patchogue) and co-sponsored by Legislators Rebecca Sanin (D-Huntington Station), Jason Richberg (D-West Babylon), Chad Lennon (C-Rocky Point), and Catherine Stark (R-Riverhead). The legislation was unanimously approved by the eighteen-member Legislature.
The bill is one of many that aim to ease the housing crisis in Suffolk in specialized, piecemeal approaches. Last year, Romaine signed a bill by Legislator Nick Caracappa (C-Selden) to require workforce housing parcels in any new developments, capped at 80% area median income (AMI). In autumn 2023, Legislator Steve Flotteron (R-Brightwaters) headed an initiative to open the County’s first-time homebuyer downpayment assistance program to volunteer EMS personnel.
Thorne’s bill accomplishes two tasks: 1) set aside affordable housing units for volunteer fire and EMS personnel; and 2) keep volunteers near their home companies.
The biggest amendment to the bill was the residency requirement. This not only allows personnel to find living space near their home stations, but it maintains a balance to the initiative, instead of the search for housing being a complete free-for-all.
A realistic take also says that personnel would be prevented from parachuting into a development with a lower cost of living compared to their home base that could theoretically have a higher cost that the personnel in question could maintain. We’re not insinuating that all fire and EMS personnel would do this – therefore, set the residency requirements – but it would prevent that type of hamlet-hopping that could see volunteers priced out in lower-income areas.
Ideally, the number of set-aside units per complex could be higher, but the balance seems calculated enough to make a noticeable difference in a local housing market for volunteer first responders while also not being cost-prohibitive to developers.
“Developers” is also a toxic word nowadays. We don’t entirely disagree, but developers, like any other sect of the population, are not monolithic, nor are all of them faceless corporate entities.
However, for those who have significant revenue streams from rental units, it makes sense to make them pony up some benefits if they are seeking tax credits. We think that there is certainly probable cause for some reevaluation of how much in subsidies certain large developers receive, and while we wouldn’t want to chase them away entirely, a balance must be struck.
This bill includes such a balance, even if it is for a concentrated percentage of Suffolk’s population. And while it certainly won’t solve the housing crisis overnight – hardly anything will – it makes a dent and makes living at least a little bit easier for our volunteer first responders.
And that’s the crux of the issue, we think. Besides recruitment, retention is often where most resources in volunteer fire and ambulance companies are dedicated. Right now, the biggest issue for Suffolk is population retention. This bill, depending on the circumstances of the individual, could create another reason for a native Long Islander to stay on his or her stomping grounds and stay close to family.
Additionally, volunteer personnel are just those – volunteers. Paid first responder companies would be ideal, but it would cost the state billions upon billions to finance it. The price tag for Suffolk alone would likely reach exorbitant figures.
Some say that the bill promotes further hurdles for others to access housing, specifically along other demographic lines.
We say that this bill recognizes an under-heralded profession that’s often taken for granted, and fire and EMS personnel could include any Suffolk resident. Keeping Long Islanders here is one mission, but retaining some of our most valuable contributors is another.
