LOBBY DAY 2011
Legislative Talking Points
The below quick reference guide outlines the main topics and “asks” we would like you to cover in your meetings with both the Senate and Assembly. Following are detailed analyses of each bill, along with voting records, and specific talking points on the reasons why NYSAR supports or opposes a particular bill or proposal. All members should speak to their Assemblymembers and Senators about these key issues.
Quick Legislative Reference Guide
SENATE
1.
Property Tax Cap
Property Tax Capa.If your Senator voted in favor of the Property Tax Cap legislation, please thank them for their support. If your Senator voted against the Property Tax Cap, encourage them to reconsider their position if similar legislation is introduced. (Please see attached vote sheet).2.Private Transfer Fees
Private Transfer Feesa. Ask your Senator to co-sponsor S.5203 by contacting Senator Thomas Libous and if presented with the opportunity – please vote in support of this bill!3.Bills NYSAR Opposes
Bills NYSAR Opposes a. Please ask your Senator to oppose the following bills:
i Payment of Independent Contractors – S.4129(Golden)ii. 500 Feet Agricultural Disclosure – S.4958(Ball)iii.Mandatory Well Water Testing – S.2709(Grisanti)iv.Expanded Wetlands Oversight – S.4617(Avella)ASSEMBLY
1.Property Tax Cap
Property Tax Capa. Please ask your Assemblymember to encourage Speaker Silver to allow A.3982 to come to the floor for a vote and SUPPORT a property tax cap. 2.Private Transfer Fees
Private Transfer Feesa. Ask your Assemblymember to co-sponsor A.7358 by contacting Assemblyman Joseph Morelle. Also, if presented with the opportunity – please vote in support of this bill! i. Current Sponsors: Members Morelle, P. Rivera, Simotas, Zebrowski, Benedetto, Reilly, Galef, Bronson, Jaffee, Abinanti, Gibson, Weisenberg3.Bills NYSAR Opposes
Bills NYSAR Opposesa. Please ask your Assemblymember to oppose the following bills:i. Payment of Independent Contractors – A.6698(Silver)NYSAR SUPPORTS ENACTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING
Property Tax Cap
A.3982(Silver)/S.2706(Skelos)
Status: Assembly Ways and Means/Passed the Senate
Overview: NYSAR strongly supports Governor Cuomo’s proposal to cap the annual growth of real property tax levies at 2 percent, or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. In order to reverse the outward migration of businesses, young professionals, working families and seniors from New York, the Legislature must enact a property tax cap.
Why NYSAR Supports the Tax Cap:
•The median property tax levy in New York is 96 percent higher than anywhere else in the nation, making homeownership unaffordable and economic development unattractive.
The median property tax levy in New York is 96 percent higher than anywhere else in the nation, making homeownership unaffordable and economic development unattractive. •NYSAR’s 51,000 REALTOR® members are on the front lines of the housing market, seeing first hand, the devastating impact of New York’s soaring property taxes on communities across the state.
NYSAR’s 51,000 REALTOR® members are on the front lines of the housing market, seeing first hand, the devastating impact of New York’s soaring property taxes on communities across the state. •As evidenced by the 2010 census, homeowners and businesses are leaving New York, uprooting their families and operations to move to states that are more affordable and economically viable.
As evidenced by the 2010 census, homeowners and businesses are leaving New York, uprooting their families and operations to move to states that are more affordable and economically viable. •When measured by assessed valuation of homes, the top 15 highest taxed counties are in NY.
When measured by assessed valuation of homes, the top 15 highest taxed counties are in NY. •When measured by absolute dollars Nassau(1st), Westchester(2nd) and Rockland(5th) are in the top five.
When measured by absolute dollars Nassau(1st), Westchester(2nd) and Rockland(5th) are in the top five. •All counties in New York are in the top 20% nationally for property taxes.
All counties in New York are in the top 20% nationally for property taxes. •In a survey conducted by The Business Council of New York State, Inc., manufacturers were asked what they perceived to be the biggest government hurdle facing manufacturers in New York. Nearly one-third of respondents thought that property taxes were the most significant barrier, and 75 percent rated property taxes as an important hindrance to the sector.
In a survey conducted by The Business Council of New York State, Inc., manufacturers were asked what they perceived to be the biggest government hurdle facing manufacturers in New York. Nearly one-third of respondents thought that property taxes were the most significant barrier, and 75 percent rated property taxes as an important hindrance to the sector.•A new survey by Chief Executive Magazine of 550 CEOs ranks New York’s business climate 49th in the nation.
A new survey by Chief Executive Magazine of 550 CEOs ranks New York’s business climate 49th in the nation.Simply, New York’s tax burden has become unsustainable.
What to ask from the Assemblymember at your meeting: Please ask your Assemblymember to encourage Speaker Silver to allow A.3982 to come to the floor for a vote and SUPPORT a property tax cap.
What to ask from the Senator at your meeting: If your Senator voted in favor of the Property Tax Cap legislation, please thank them for their support. If your Senator voted against the Property Tax Cap, encourage them to reconsider their position. (Please see attached vote sheet).
Talking Points Regarding the Property Tax Cap
•The tax cap does NOT apply to New York City.
The tax cap does NOT apply to New York City.•A tax cap will NOT hurt the state’s ability to educate our children. According to US Department of Education, New York ranks between 17th and 34th on basic reading and math scores. Neighboring Massachusetts has had a tax cap for more than 30 years and ranks from 1st to 8th in the nation on those same tests. Massachusetts’ tax cap has captured efficiencies without harming schools. Additionally, since enactment of a tax cap, Massachusetts has dropped from 3rd to 33rd in state and local tax burden.
A tax cap will NOT hurt the state’s ability to educate our children. According to US Department of Education, New York ranks between 17th and 34th on basic reading and math scores. Neighboring Massachusetts has had a tax cap for more than 30 years and ranks from 1st to 8th in the nation on those same tests. Massachusetts’ tax cap has captured efficiencies without harming schools. Additionally, since enactment of a tax cap, Massachusetts has dropped from 3rd to 33rd in state and local tax burden.•A property tax cap is NOT designed to defund our schools or harm teachers. A property tax cap is about making our communities affordable for taxpayers. The proposal is not rooted in animosity toward any group of people. It is designed to force local governments and school districts to hold the line on spending. As REALTORS® we want communities to prosper and an important part of a strong community is a good school district.
A property tax cap is NOT designed to defund our schools or harm teachers. A property tax cap is about making our communities affordable for taxpayers. The proposal is not rooted in animosity toward any group of people. It is designed to force local governments and school districts to hold the line on spending. As REALTORS® we want communities to prosper and an important part of a strong community is a good school district.•A tax cap will NOT guarantee a two percent tax increase every year. While a cap will not reduce the tax burden, it also does not guarantee increases either. Local officials who answer to voters create the budgets that drive local taxes. Voters are ultimately responsible for electing people who will create responsible budgets. The cap would simply ensure that property tax payers will never see more than a two percent increase from year to year.
A tax cap will NOT guarantee a two percent tax increase every year. While a cap will not reduce the tax burden, it also does not guarantee increases either. Local officials who answer to voters create the budgets that drive local taxes. Voters are ultimately responsible for electing people who will create responsible budgets. The cap would simply ensure that property tax payers will never see more than a two percent increase from year to year.•A tax cap cannot be skirted by simply having local assessors raise assessments. The tax cap proposal is on the overall tax levy of a local government or school district. Since the overall amount that could be raised would be capped by law, raising any individual’s assessment will have no impact on the overall tax rates. So there is no incentive for the local government to raise assessments in this manner.
A tax cap cannot be skirted by simply having local assessors raise assessments. The tax cap proposal is on the overall tax levy of a local government or school district. Since the overall amount that could be raised would be capped by law, raising any individual’s assessment will have no impact on the overall tax rates. So there is no incentive for the local government to raise assessments in this manner.•A so called “circuit breaker” will NOT protect the public against high property taxes. Expanding New York’s current property tax circuit breakers would simply shift the tax burden from local governments to the state government. With the state government facing large out-year deficits and sluggish tax revenues, circuit breakers are not an affordable option for taxpayers.
A so called “circuit breaker” will NOT protect the public against high property taxes. Expanding New York’s current property tax circuit breakers would simply shift the tax burden from local governments to the state government. With the state government facing large out-year deficits and sluggish tax revenues, circuit breakers are not an affordable option for taxpayers.•A property tax cap will NOT hurt low-wealth school districts. Raising property taxes to cover a potential shortfall in state funding is not a realistic option for most low-wealth school districts. These districts have a limited tax base, and recent historic increases in state aid have been targeted to these districts. Moreover, the least wealthy districts on the average increase local revenues by 1 percent a year. Thus, for these districts a cap set around 2 percent would, typically, have no impact.
A property tax cap will NOT hurt low-wealth school districts. Raising property taxes to cover a potential shortfall in state funding is not a realistic option for most low-wealth school districts. These districts have a limited tax base, and recent historic increases in state aid have been targeted to these districts. Moreover, the least wealthy districts on the average increase local revenues by 1 percent a year. Thus, for these districts a cap set around 2 percent would, typically, have no impact.•The property tax cap does not include exemptions that local governments will use to get around the limit. It is true that the Governor’s bill does include some limited exemptions including extraordinarily large one-time expenditures, some legal settlements and building projects. For counties, there would be some exceptions for state-mandated social service programs. However, the Governor’s property tax cap, as proposed, would provide taxpayers with cost-certainty that currently does not exist.
The property tax cap does not include exemptions that local governments will use to get around the limit. It is true that the Governor’s bill does include some limited exemptions including extraordinarily large one-time expenditures, some legal settlements and building projects. For counties, there would be some exceptions for state-mandated social service programs. However, the Governor’s property tax cap, as proposed, would provide taxpayers with cost-certainty that currently does not exist.Property Tax Cap
A.3982(Silver)/S.2706(Skelos)
Status: Assembly Ways and Means/Passed the Senate
Senate Vote: 1/31/2011
AYES - 45
Adams(D); Alesi(R); Ball(R); Bonacic(R); Breslin(D); Carlucci(D); DeFrancisco(R); Farley(R); Flanagan(R); Fuschillo, Jr.(R); Gallivan(R); Gianaris(D); Golden(R); Griffo(R); Grisanti(R); Hannon(R); Huntley(D); Johnson, Owen(R); Kennedy(D); Klein(D); LaValle(R); Lanza(R); Larkin(R); Libous(R); Little(R); Marcellino(R); Martins(R); Maziarz(R); McDonald(R); Nozzolio(R); O'Mara(R); Oppenheimer(D); Ranzenhofer(R); Ritchie(R); Robach(R); Saland(R); Sampson(D); Savino(D); Seward(R); Skelos(R); Smith, M(D); Stewart-Cousins(D); Valesky(D); Young(R); Zeldin(R)
NAYS - 17
Addabbo, Jr.(D); Avella(D); Diaz, Sr.(D); Dilan(D); Duane(D); Espaillat(D); Hassell-Thompson(D); Krueger, L(D); Kruger, C(D); Montgomery(D); Parker(D); Peralta(D); Perkins(D); Rivera, J. Gustavo(D); Serrano(D); Squadron(D); Stavisky(D)
PRESENT-NOT-VOTING - 0
ABSENT - 0
DemocratRepublican Votes% Votes%Yes:134332100
134332100No: 17570 0
17570 0NYSAR SUPPORTS ENACTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING
Prohibition on Private Transfer Fees
A.7358(Morelle)/S.5203(Libous)
Status: Assembly Judiciary Committee/Senate Judiciary Committee
Overview: NYSAR strongly supports A.7358(Morelle)/S.5203(Libous), which prohibits the use of private transfer fees by developers and provides notice, disclosure and remedy procedures for exiting private transfer fee obligations.
Private transfer fees are fees of typically1% or more, that are automatically inserted into the contract of sale on real property and are paid by the buyer to the original developer of the property, or their designee, every time the property is transferred for up to 99 years. As of 2009, records indicate that private transfer fee covenants imposed for 99 years in 45 states had an estimated total value of $488 billion.
Why NYSAR Supports this Legislation: REALTORS® want to protect consumers from additional fees and taxes that make it more difficult for them to experience the American dream of homeownership. A.7358/S.5203 addresses the problem of private transfer fees by implementing disclosure and transparency requirements on existing private transfer fee obligations and prohibiting the future use of private transfer fees by developers, with limited exceptions, such as home owners associations and cooperatives.
What to ask your Assemblymember at your meeting: Ask your Assemblymember to co-sponsor A.7358 by contacting Assemblyman Joseph Morelle. Also, please ask lawmakers to urge the Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair Helene Weinstein to report the bill from Committee. And finally, if presented with the opportunity – please vote in support of this bill!
Current Sponsors: Members MORELLE, P. RIVERA, SIMOTAS, ZEBROWSKI, BENEDETTO, REILLY, GALEF, BRONSON, JAFFEE -- Multi-Sponsored by – Members ABINANTI, GIBSON, WEISENBERG
What to ask your Senator at your meeting: Ask your Senator to co-sponsor S.5203 by contacting Senator Thomas Libous. Also, please ask lawmakers to urge Senate Judiciary Committee Chair John Bonacic to report the bill from Committee. And finally, if presented with the opportunity – please vote in support of this bill!
Talking Points Regarding Private Transfer Fees
•Definition: Private Transfer Fee Obligations are a 1% or more fee inserted into the contract of sale on real property that is paid by the seller to the original developer or builder of the property, or their designee, every time the property is transferred for 99 years. Essentially, someone with no ownership stake or interest can continue to collect revenue off on property they may have built up to 99 years ago.
Definition: Private Transfer Fee Obligations are a 1% or more fee inserted into the contract of sale on real property that is paid by the seller to the original developer or builder of the property, or their designee, every time the property is transferred for 99 years. Essentially, someone with no ownership stake or interest can continue to collect revenue off on property they may have built up to 99 years ago.•New PTFs: The proposed legislation would impose a ban on all new private transfer fees. Any contract containing a private transfer fee as described is unenforceable and any person who records or enters into a private transfer fee agreement in their favor after the effective date would be liable for any damages resulting from that obligation including transfer fees, attorney’s fees and other costs to clear the title.
New PTFs: The proposed legislation would impose a ban on all new private transfer fees. Any contract containing a private transfer fee as described is unenforceable and any person who records or enters into a private transfer fee agreement in their favor after the effective date would be liable for any damages resulting from that obligation including transfer fees, attorney’s fees and other costs to clear the title. •Existing PTFs: The bill requires the full disclosure of existing private transfer fees to buyers. Failure to do so would result in the agreement being unenforceable. The bill also sets up a process by which an individual transferor can free the property of the private transfer fee obligation. Finally, the bill requires that a person entitled to the private transfer fee (builder/developer) must register with the County Clerk a document containing their contact information, the current owners of the real property, the fee amount and other information; failure to do so could result in the automatic expiration of the private transfer fee.
Existing PTFs: The bill requires the full disclosure of existing private transfer fees to buyers. Failure to do so would result in the agreement being unenforceable. The bill also sets up a process by which an individual transferor can free the property of the private transfer fee obligation. Finally, the bill requires that a person entitled to the private transfer fee (builder/developer) must register with the County Clerk a document containing their contact information, the current owners of the real property, the fee amount and other information; failure to do so could result in the automatic expiration of the private transfer fee.•Implications of Private Transfer Fees generally:
Implications of Private Transfer Fees generally:They do not serve any public benefit.
They do not serve any public benefit.They could hurt real estate values in the future if buyers are reluctant to purchase properties that have a PTF attached.
They could hurt real estate values in the future if buyers are reluctant to purchase properties that have a PTF attached. The PTF will cost consumers money when the home is sold and will depress home prices.
The PTF will cost consumers money when the home is sold and will depress home prices.PTFs have no positive impact on an assessment.
PTFs have no positive impact on an assessment.They create an additional disincentive to sell or purchase property in a depressed housing market.
They create an additional disincentive to sell or purchase property in a depressed housing market.They reduce transparency for buyers, create lien issues for lenders, and increase the risk of title claims.
They reduce transparency for buyers, create lien issues for lenders, and increase the risk of title claims.•Other states: To date at least eight states have enacted legislation prohibiting private transfer fees and many other states are currently considering legislation similar to A.7358/S.5203.
Other states: To date at least eight states have enacted legislation prohibiting private transfer fees and many other states are currently considering legislation similar to A.7358/S.5203. •Federal: At the federal level, on February 1, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency issued a plan to limit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks from dealing in mortgages that have private transfer fee covenants attached to the properties.
Federal: At the federal level, on February 1, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency issued a plan to limit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks from dealing in mortgages that have private transfer fee covenants attached to the properties. •Condos and Co-ops: A.7358/S.5203 exempts private transfer fees paid to homeowners associations, condominiums, cooperatives and certain tax-exempt organizations that use private transfer fees for the benefit of the property and the tenants.
Condos and Co-ops: A.7358/S.5203 exempts private transfer fees paid to homeowners associations, condominiums, cooperatives and certain tax-exempt organizations that use private transfer fees for the benefit of the property and the tenants. NYSAR OPPOSES ENACTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING
Payment of Independent Contractors
A.6698(Silver)/S.4129(Golden)
Status: Assembly Labor/Senate Labor
Overview: NYSAR strongly opposes A.6698(Silver)/S.4129(Golden) which gives the Department of Labor greater oversight over employment contracts involving independent contractors. The bill would require independent contractors to be compensated within a specified time period; all contracts to be reduced to writing with specified terms; empowers the Commissioner of the Department of Labor to pursue violations; and sets forth penalties for violations.
Why NYSAR Opposes: This bill has many technical problems as it relates to the real estate industry. Additionally real estate licensees and their activities are already regulated and monitored closely by the Department of State.
What to ask from the Assemblymember at your meeting: Please ask lawmakers to REJECT A.6698(Silver) and/or amend the bill to specifically exempt real estate licensees.
What to ask from the Senator at your meeting: Please ask lawmakers to REJECT S.4129(Golden) and/or amend the bill to specifically exempt real estate licensees.
Talking Points Regarding Independent Contractors
•Real estate professionals are already licensed, regulated and monitored by the NYS Department of State which oversees real estate licensees in the conduct of their business and, where appropriate, prosecutes licensees for alleged misconduct. Real estate licensees are obligated to act ethically and professionally in their business transactions. Giving the Department of Labor oversight into the conduct of real estate licensees is unnecessary and costly.
Real estate professionals are already licensed, regulated and monitored by the NYS Department of State which oversees real estate licensees in the conduct of their business and, where appropriate, prosecutes licensees for alleged misconduct. Real estate licensees are obligated to act ethically and professionally in their business transactions. Giving the Department of Labor oversight into the conduct of real estate licensees is unnecessary and costly. •This legislation would require independent contractors be paid compensation no later than the last day of the month following the month in which compensation is earned. The courts have found that a real estate broker earns their commission when they produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase the subject property under the terms offered by the seller. In the absence of an agreement providing to the contrary, the broker's right to compensation is not dependent upon the performance of the realty contract or the receipt by the seller of the selling price. As a courtesy to clients, brokers almost universally delay receiving the agreed to commission until closing, even though it is due when the broker produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase the property. Often closings do not occur for months. Mandating that real estate commissions be paid in the month following the month which compensation is earned will fundamentally alter the way real estate licensees conduct business and the entire real estate transaction.
This legislation would require independent contractors be paid compensation no later than the last day of the month following the month in which compensation is earned. The courts have found that a real estate broker earns their commission when they produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase the subject property under the terms offered by the seller. In the absence of an agreement providing to the contrary, the broker's right to compensation is not dependent upon the performance of the realty contract or the receipt by the seller of the selling price. As a courtesy to clients, brokers almost universally delay receiving the agreed to commission until closing, even though it is due when the broker produces a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase the property. Often closings do not occur for months. Mandating that real estate commissions be paid in the month following the month which compensation is earned will fundamentally alter the way real estate licensees conduct business and the entire real estate transaction.•This bill does not provide an exemption in circumstances where a broker is not paid the commission due. If the broker is not paid, the independent contractor/real estate licensee cannot and should not be paid.
This bill does not provide an exemption in circumstances where a broker is not paid the commission due. If the broker is not paid, the independent contractor/real estate licensee cannot and should not be paid. •NYSAR is unaware of any problems within the real estate industry where independent contractors are not being paid and therefore feel this legislation is overbroad and ask that real estate licensees be exempted from its provisions.
NYSAR is unaware of any problems within the real estate industry where independent contractors are not being paid and therefore feel this legislation is overbroad and ask that real estate licensees be exempted from its provisions.NYSAR OPPOSES ENACTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING
500 Ft. Agricultural Disclosure
A.5825(Gunther)/S.4958(Ball)
Status: Passed the Assembly/Senate Agriculture Committee
Overview: NYSAR strongly opposes A.5825(Gunther)/S.4958(Ball) which amends the agriculture and markets law and the real property law in relation to agricultural disclosure requirements for properties located within 500 feet of an agricultural district.
Current law requires sellers of property located partially or wholly within an agricultural district to provide prospective purchasers with a statutorily proscribed disclosure statement that farming occurs in the agricultural district within which the property is located. The proposed legislation would expand the current disclosure requirements to properties that are partially or wholly within five-hundred feet of an agricultural district.
What to ask from the Assemblymember at your meeting: If your Assemblymember voted against this legislation, please thank them for their support. If they voted in favor of this bill, please express your concerns and the potential ramifications this legislation will have on buyers, sellers and real estate professionals throughout New York State. (Please see attached voting record).
What to ask from the Senator at your meeting: Please ask lawmakers to REJECT S.4958(Ball) which amends the agriculture and markets law and the real property law in relation to agricultural disclosure requirements for properties located within 500 feet of an agricultural district.
Talking Points Regarding Agriculture Disclosure
•Most sellers do not have the ability to accurately determine where five-hundred feet beyond their entire property line extends and whether that additional 500 feet runs into an agricultural district.
Most sellers do not have the ability to accurately determine where five-hundred feet beyond their entire property line extends and whether that additional 500 feet runs into an agricultural district. •The legislation only requires the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets to assist county governments in making information about agricultural districts available “to the maximum extent practicable.” This limiting language is ineffectual and will result in liability for sellers who cannot get accurate information from their county governments.
The legislation only requires the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets to assist county governments in making information about agricultural districts available “to the maximum extent practicable.” This limiting language is ineffectual and will result in liability for sellers who cannot get accurate information from their county governments.•Buyers, sellers and the real estate professionals representing them in the transaction need to be able to definitively state that “yes” or “no” the property in question is in, or within five hundred feet of, an agricultural district. Without this definitive knowledge, sellers or sellers’ representatives will be forced to hire survey experts which will add additional expenses to the closing and could possibly delay the entire transaction.
Buyers, sellers and the real estate professionals representing them in the transaction need to be able to definitively state that “yes” or “no” the property in question is in, or within five hundred feet of, an agricultural district. Without this definitive knowledge, sellers or sellers’ representatives will be forced to hire survey experts which will add additional expenses to the closing and could possibly delay the entire transaction.•The classification of property as agricultural, residential, commercial or vacant can frequently change without surrounding property owners’ knowledge. The local zoning maps often cannot keep pace with these changes which could lead to potential discrepancies in the disclosure process and a possible increase in litigation.
The classification of property as agricultural, residential, commercial or vacant can frequently change without surrounding property owners’ knowledge. The local zoning maps often cannot keep pace with these changes which could lead to potential discrepancies in the disclosure process and a possible increase in litigation.•Sec. 5 A.5825 imposes an effective date of “immediately.” If enacted into law, this would make it literally impossible for affected parties to comply with the disclosure requirements.
Sec. 5 A.5825 imposes an effective date of “immediately.” If enacted into law, this would make it literally impossible for affected parties to comply with the disclosure requirements.Assembly Vote 5/4/2011
AYES - 124
Abbate, Jr.(D); Abinanti(D); Amedore(R); Arroyo(D); Aubry(D); Barclay(R); Barron(D); Benedetto(D); Bing(D); Blankenbush(R); Boyland, Jr.(D); Boyle(R); Braunstein(D); Brennan(D); Bronson(D); Brook-Krasny(D); Burling(R); Butler(R); Cahill(D); Calhoun(R); Camara(D); Canestrari(D); Castelli(R); Castro(D); Ceretto(R); Colton(D); Conte(R); Cook(D); Crespo(D); Crouch(R); Curran(R); Cusick(D); Cymbrowitz(D); DenDekker(D); Destito(D); Dinowitz(D); Duprey(R); Englebright(D); Farrell, Jr.(D); Finch(R); Fitzpatrick(R); Gabryszak(D); Galef(D); Gantt(D); Gibson(D); Giglio(R); Glick(D); Gottfried(D); Graf(R); Gunther(D); Hawley(R); Hayes(R); Heastie(D); Hikind(D); Hooper(D); Jacobs(D); Jaffee(D); Jeffries(D); Johns(R); Kavanagh(D); Kellner(D); Lancman(D); Latimer(D); Lavine(D); Lentol(D); Lifton(D); Linares(D); Lopez, P(R); Lopez, V(D); Lupardo(D); Magee, W(D); Magnarelli(D); Maisel(D); McDonough(R); McEneny(D); McKevitt(R); Meng(D); Miller, D(R); Miller, J(R); Miller, M(D); Millman(D); Molinaro(R); Morelle(D); Moya(D); Murray(R); O'Donnell(D); Oaks(R); Ortiz(D); Paulin(D); Perry(D); Pheffer(D); Pretlow(D); Ra(R); Rabbitt(R); Raia(R); Ramos(D); Reilly(D); Rivera, J(D); Rivera, N(D); Rivera, P(D); Roberts(D); Robinson(D); Rodriguez(D); Rosenthal(D); Russell(D); Saladino(R); Scarborough(D); Schimel(D); Schimminger(D); Schroeder(D); Silver(D); Simotas(D); Smardz(R); Spano(D); Stevenson(D); Sweeney(D); Thiele(D); Titone(D); Titus(D); Tobacco(R); Weinstein(D); Weisenberg(D); Wright, K(D); Zebrowski(D)
NAYS - 15
Corwin(R); Friend(R); Goodell(R); Hanna(R); Jordan(R); Katz(R); Kirwan(R); Losquadro(R); Malliotakis(R); McLaughlin(R); Montesano(R); Palmesano(R); Reilich(R); Tedisco(R); Tenney(R)
PRESENT-NOT-VOTING - 0
ABSENT - 9
Clark(D); Hevesi(D); Hoyt(D); Kolb(R); Markey(D); Nolan(D); Peoples-Stokes(D); Sayward(R); Weprin(D)
DemocratRepublicanVotes%Votes%Yes:90933467
90933467No: 00 1529
00 1529NYSAR OPPOSES ENACTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING
Well Water Testing
A.667(Jaffee)/S.2709(Grisanti)
Status: Passed the Assembly/Senate Environmental Conservation Committee
Overview: NYSAR strongly opposes the above referenced legislation that requires exhaustive and costly well water quality testing as a condition to the transfer of real property, and prevents the closing of title on the sale of property served by a well unless both the buyer and seller have received and reviewed a copy of the well water test results.
Why NYSAR Opposes: NYSAR supports clean, drinkable well water. What NYSAR opposes is the use of the real estate transaction as a vehicle to implement a well water testing program for the Department of Health. Rather than New York State undertaking a comprehensive approach towards this laudable goal, this legislation outsources New York’s clean water objectives in an inconsistent and piecemeal effort on the backs of homeowners.
What to ask from the Assemblymember at your meeting: If your Assemblymember voted against this legislation, please thank them for their support. If they voted in favor of this bill, please express your concerns and the potential ramifications this legislation will have on buyers, sellers and real estate professionals throughout New York State. (Please see attached voting record).
What to ask from the Senator at your meeting: Please ask lawmakers to REJECT S.2709(Grisanti) which duplicative, overreaching, financially burdensome and will delay or prevent real estate closings.
Talking Points Regarding Well Water Testing
•This legislation is duplicative:
This legislation is duplicative: oIn almost every residential real estate contract there is a water inspection contingency that requires the testing of the quality and flow rate of the water source if the property is serviced by a well.
In almost every residential real estate contract there is a water inspection contingency that requires the testing of the quality and flow rate of the water source if the property is serviced by a well. oLending institutions will not provide the financing for the purchase of a home serviced by a well unless the purchaser has a well water test done to ensure that it is potable.
Lending institutions will not provide the financing for the purchase of a home serviced by a well unless the purchaser has a well water test done to ensure that it is potable.oThe current statutorily required Property Condition Disclosure Statement has several questions required to be completed by the seller regarding the water source, water quality and flow rate for the property under consideration (questions number 26 and 27 of the form).
The current statutorily required Property Condition Disclosure Statement has several questions required to be completed by the seller regarding the water source, water quality and flow rate for the property under consideration (questions number 26 and 27 of the form).•The level of testing required by this legislation is far beyond the scope of what is considered a necessary well water test:
The level of testing required by this legislation is far beyond the scope of what is considered a necessary well water test: oThis bill mandates that the well water be tested for bacteria, sodium, nitrates, nitrites, iron, manganese, pH, all volatile organic compounds for which maximum contaminant levels have been established pursuant to public health regulations, and lead. DOH and DEC can also require testing for arsenic, barium, mercury, methane, radium and radon. While these tests may be desired by some buyers, requiring this laundry list of testing for all properties will unnecessarily increase costs to buyers and sellers.
This bill mandates that the well water be tested for bacteria, sodium, nitrates, nitrites, iron, manganese, pH, all volatile organic compounds for which maximum contaminant levels have been established pursuant to public health regulations, and lead. DOH and DEC can also require testing for arsenic, barium, mercury, methane, radium and radon. While these tests may be desired by some buyers, requiring this laundry list of testing for all properties will unnecessarily increase costs to buyers and sellers.•The testing outlined in this proposal must be performed by a New York State “certified” laboratory. It is unclear if New York State has a sufficient number of “certified” labs to timely and effectively administer this program.
The testing outlined in this proposal must be performed by a New York State “certified” laboratory. It is unclear if New York State has a sufficient number of “certified” labs to timely and effectively administer this program. •This legislation is silent as who pays for the test and how and when the results will be provided to the owner of the property and the prospective purchaser. If not implemented properly, this bill will have the effect of indefinitely delaying or preventing real estate closings while the seller and buyer wait for the well water test results.
This legislation is silent as who pays for the test and how and when the results will be provided to the owner of the property and the prospective purchaser. If not implemented properly, this bill will have the effect of indefinitely delaying or preventing real estate closings while the seller and buyer wait for the well water test results. Assembly Vote 5/2/2011
AYES - 93
Abbate, Jr.(D); Abinanti(D); Arroyo(D); Aubry(D); Barron(D); Benedetto(D); Bing(D); Boyland, Jr.(D); Boyle(R); Braunstein(D); Brennan(D); Bronson(D); Brook-Krasny(D); Cahill(D); Camara(D); Canestrari(D); Castelli(R); Castro(D); Clark(D); Colton(D); Conte(R); Cook(D); Curran(R); Cusick(D); Cymbrowitz(D); DenDekker(D); Destito(D); Dinowitz(D); Englebright(D); Farrell, Jr.(D); Galef(D); Gantt(D); Gibson(D); Glick(D); Gottfried(D); Gunther(D); Hevesi(D); Hikind(D); Hooper(D); Hoyt(D); Jacobs(D); Jaffee(D); Jeffries(D); Johns(R); Kavanagh(D); Kellner(D); Lancman(D); Latimer(D); Lavine(D); Lentol(D); Lifton(D); Linares(D); Lopez, V(D); Lupardo(D); Magnarelli(D); McEneny(D); McKevitt(R); Millman(D); Molinaro(R); Morelle(D); Moya(D); O'Donnell(D); Ortiz(D); Paulin(D); Peoples-Stokes(D); Perry(D); Pheffer(D); Pretlow(D); Ra(R); Ramos(D); Reilly(D); Rivera, J(D); Rivera, P(D); Roberts(D); Robinson(D); Rodriguez(D); Rosenthal(D); Russell(D); Scarborough(D); Schimel(D); Schroeder(D); Silver(D); Simotas(D); Spano(D); Stevenson(D); Sweeney(D); Thiele(D); Titone(D); Titus(D); Weinstein(D); Weisenberg(D); Wright, K(D); Zebrowski(D)
NAYS - 45
Amedore(R); Barclay(R); Blankenbush(R); Burling(R); Butler(R); Calhoun(R); Ceretto(R); Corwin(R); Crouch(R); Duprey(R); Finch(R); Friend(R); Gabryszak(D); Giglio(R); Goodell(R); Graf(R); Hanna(R); Hawley(R); Hayes(R); Jordan(R); Katz(R); Kolb(R); Lopez, P(R); Losquadro(R); Magee, W(D); Malliotakis(R); McDonough(R); McLaughlin(R); Miller, D(R); Miller, J(R); Miller, M(D); Montesano(R); Murray(R); Oaks(R); Palmesano(R); Rabbitt(R); Raia(R); Reilich(R); Saladino(R); Sayward(R); Schimminger(D); Smardz(R); Tedisco(R); Tenney(R); Tobacco(R)
PRESENT-NOT-VOTING - 0
ABSENT - 10
Crespo(D); Fitzpatrick(R); Heastie(D); Kirwan(R); Maisel(D); Markey(D); Meng(D); Nolan(D); Rivera, N(D); Weprin(D)
DemocratRepublicanVotes%Votes%Yes:8588816
8588816No: 44 4180
44 4180NYSAR OPPOSES ENACTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING
Wetlands Oversight
A.3374(Sweeney)/S.4617(Avella)
Status: Passed the Assembly/Senate Environmental Committee
Overview: NYSAR opposes the above referenced legislation that would expand the scope of regulatory authority of the NYS Department of Conservation over wetlands which could bring a halt to most new housing and commercial real estate development without providing a commensurate environmental benefit.
The Department of Environmental Conservation currently regulates all wetlands that are 12.4 acres or more, and wetlands determined to be of “unusual local importance.” A.3374/S.4617 would further expand the scope of DEC’s regulatory authority to all wetlands that are 1 acre or more.
What to ask from the Assemblymember at your meeting: If your Assemblymember voted against this legislation, please thank them for their support. If they voted in favor of this bill, please express your concerns and the potential ramifications this legislation will have on economic development throughout New York State. (Please see attached voting record sheet).
What to ask from the Senator at your meeting: Please ask lawmakers to REJECT S.4617(Avella) which expands the definition of wetlands and increases DEC’s regulatory authority over wetlands.
Talking Points Regarding the Wetlands Bill
•This proposal is overbroad and unnecessary.
This proposal is overbroad and unnecessary. •The DEC already has authority over any and all wetlands determined to be of “unusual local importance” and municipalities regulate wetlands of 1 acre or more.
The DEC already has authority over any and all wetlands determined to be of “unusual local importance” and municipalities regulate wetlands of 1 acre or more. •There is no need for overlapping regulation by federal, state and local government entities.
There is no need for overlapping regulation by federal, state and local government entities. •The bill does not specify how DEC is going to afford the additional regulatory responsibilities. The legislation does not provide a fiscal impact statement.
The bill does not specify how DEC is going to afford the additional regulatory responsibilities. The legislation does not provide a fiscal impact statement. •The potential negative impact of this legislation on affordable housing and economic development should not be overlooked. We do not believe that the scales are currently tipped in favor of development over conservation, but fear that such a significant expansion of the state’s regulatory authority could create an unnecessary imbalance with significant negative ramifications for homebuyers and the overall economy.
The potential negative impact of this legislation on affordable housing and economic development should not be overlooked. We do not believe that the scales are currently tipped in favor of development over conservation, but fear that such a significant expansion of the state’s regulatory authority could create an unnecessary imbalance with significant negative ramifications for homebuyers and the overall economy.Assembly Vote 5/2/2011
AYES - 90
Abbate, Jr.(D); Abinanti(D); Arroyo(D); Aubry(D); Barron(D); Benedetto(D); Bing(D); Boyland, Jr.(D); Boyle(R); Braunstein(D); Brennan(D); Bronson(D); Brook-Krasny(D); Cahill(D); Camara(D); Canestrari(D); Castelli(R); Castro(D); Clark(D); Colton(D); Conte(R); Cook(D); Cusick(D); Cymbrowitz(D); DenDekker(D); Destito(D); Dinowitz(D); Englebright(D); Farrell, Jr.(D); Galef(D); Gantt(D); Gibson(D); Glick(D); Gottfried(D); Hevesi(D); Hikind(D); Hooper(D); Hoyt(D); Jacobs(D); Jaffee(D); Jeffries(D); Johns(R); Kavanagh(D); Kellner(D); Lancman(D); Latimer(D); Lavine(D); Lentol(D); Lifton(D); Linares(D); Lopez, V(D); Losquadro(R); Lupardo(D); Magnarelli(D); McEneny(D); Miller, M(D); Millman(D); Molinaro(R); Moya(D); O'Donnell(D); Ortiz(D); Paulin(D); Peoples-Stokes(D); Perry(D); Pheffer(D); Pretlow(D); Ra(R); Rabbitt(R); Ramos(D); Reilly(D); Rivera, J(D); Rivera, P(D); Roberts(D); Robinson(D); Rodriguez(D); Rosenthal(D); Scarborough(D); Schimel(D); Silver(D); Simotas(D); Spano(D); Stevenson(D); Sweeney(D); Thiele(D); Titone(D); Titus(D); Weinstein(D); Weisenberg(D); Wright, K(D); Zebrowski(D)
NAYS - 48
Amedore(R); Barclay(R); Blankenbush(R); Burling(R); Butler(R); Calhoun(R); Ceretto(R); Corwin(R); Crouch(R); Curran(R); Duprey(R); Finch(R); Friend(R); Gabryszak(D); Giglio(R); Goodell(R); Graf(R); Gunther(D); Hanna(R); Hawley(R); Hayes(R); Jordan(R); Katz(R); Kolb(R); Lopez, P(R); Magee, W(D); Malliotakis(R); McDonough(R); McKevitt(R); McLaughlin(R); Miller, D(R); Miller, J(R); Montesano(R); Morelle(D); Murray(R); Oaks(R); Palmesano(R); Raia(R); Reilich(R); Russell(D); Saladino(R); Sayward(R); Schimminger(D); Schroeder(D); Smardz(R); Tedisco(R); Tenney(R); Tobacco(R)
PRESENT-NOT-VOTING - 0
ABSENT - 10
Crespo(D); Fitzpatrick(R); Heastie(D); Kirwan(R); Maisel(D); Markey(D); Meng(D); Nolan(D); Rivera, N(D); Weprin(D)
DemocratRepublicanVotes%Votes%Yes:8285816
8285816No: 77 4180
77 4180
