Huntington's ADU proposal is dead, but housing crisis persists
Residents debate allowing basements and garages as accessory dwelling units during a crowded town board meeting in Huntington June 13. Credit: Newsday/Steve Pfost
Earlier this year, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced her plans to compel municipalities to supersize their efforts to increase housing. Lawmakers like me didn’t need to be convinced of the urgent need to expand housing opportunities and affordability.
Which is why I found myself standing at a news conference among elected leaders of all persuasions and levels of government. We said, “stand down, governor, please don’t tell us how to manage housing in our municipalities. We got this.”
But do we really?
All it took was a proposal to amend Huntington’s ADU code to see how the tides have turned in a town that once defined its strength in its diversity.
Huntington’s ADU proposal was long in the making, with collaborations dating back to early last year between myself and three colleagues on the town board. Our goal: to encourage and incentivize the creation of safe, town-regulated apartments in owner-occupied homes, while also providing a mechanism for residents to age into, or otherwise, remain in their homes.
Our bipartisan collaborative recognized that illegal apartments are cropping up in our residential neighborhoods, no matter what. We needed to create a path to increase safe, town-regulated rental housing.
It was a fruitful collaboration. Until it wasn’t.
ADUs are not new in Huntington. They’ve been on the books since 1991 and have never been a problem. Of the town’s 2,047 ADUs, 12.8% are in basements, all of which continue to conform with the strict program requirements that include a homeowner’s consent to ongoing inspections. If not, the town can and will pull the plug.
Our June 13 public hearing on ADUs was contentious. Many who opposed it did not hesitate to share their opinions of how and why ADUs open the door to hordes of people we don’t want in our town, among them, pedophiles, criminals, migrants or others from the boroughs who would change the “complexion” of our community. One speaker asked if the tenants who lived in an ADU could vote.
While I recognize the legitimate concerns expressed about illegal apartments that evening, ones with which I have been personally involved over the years in reporting and writing legislation to combat, I remain resolute that the town’s proposed ADU amendments would have served to help by ensuring the safety of homeowners, tenants and first responders.
But our once four-member bipartisan bill and collaboration has died on the vine.
What has not died is the mounting crisis of housing affordability for homeowners and tenants, safety concerns for our first responders, and the lack of adequate housing supply to serve and protect all of the above.
No doubt, the ADU measure was but one tool in the town’s toolbox to address the urgent need. But it was a start, and, something we could control locally.
Did this lengthy public hearing on June 13 demonstrate that divisive rhetoric or uninformed opinion can win the day? Only time will tell.
What I do know is the losses to our town in letting such days dictate town policy are incalculable. Just ask the Latino mother who, in the aftermath of June 13, tearfully told me that her young son, who just earned an engineering degree and great-paying job to go with it, will be leaving Huntington because he no longer feels welcome.
Proposals, they will come and go. But words, they remain.
This guest essay reflects the views of Joan Cergol, a member of the Huntington town council, has worked for more than two decades in various town housing and economic executive roles.
This guest essay reflects the views of Joan Cergol, a member of the Huntington town council, has worked for more than two decades in various town housing and economic executive roles.
