Transforming Riverhead’s downtown into an attractive, inviting place to visit, live and work is a laudable goal. And town government over the past dozen years or so has made strides toward achieving it.
Riverhead’s “downtown revitalization” goal proved elusive for decades, with many of the buildings lining Main Street being large vacant relics of a bygone era, owned by absentee landlords who showed little interest in upgrading and renting them. On top of that, much of the rental housing stock in the downtown area — on both sides of the river — was (and still is) owned by absentee landlords, many of whom well-deserve the label “slumlord.” The combination was disastrous for downtown as it tried to reinvent itself once retailers abandoned downtown for shopping centers and mom-and-pop shops were put out of business by national chains.
The town has done a lot to set the table for revitalization: adopting zoning that allows high-density residential uses on floors above ground-floor commercial uses, spurring significant private investment; securing federal “opportunity zone” status for the downtown area, also spurring significant private investment; buying and demolishing blighted buildings for the creation of a town square; securing a $10 million state grant to fund public improvements and assist private developers; and increasing police presence and investing in security cameras in the hope of changing public perception of downtown Riverhead as a high-crime area.
Yes, more remains to be done. And we believe town officials, both elected and appointed, are earnestly trying to fix what’s broken: high levels of storefront vacancies, long stretches of streetscape that are visually unappealing, offer little of interest to visitors and not much in the way of functional necessities for downtown residents, poorly lit sidewalks, alleys and other passages and code violations by property owners.
But the town’s most recent effort is one we find troubling. The Town Board is scheduling public hearings on two proposed code amendments that officials say will further downtown revitalization efforts by making downtown more “family-friendly.” The codes would ban certain uses deemed not “family-friendly” and beef up law enforcement authority in a newly expanded “zero tolerance zone.”
We believe these two proposed codes are really about the same thing: pushing out of the way the people town officials view as impediments to the rebirth of a downtown that’s attractive, prosperous, middle class — and mostly white.
We believe this requires us, collectively as a community, to do some serious self-reflection.
When we talk about improving the admittedly false “perception” that downtown Riverhead is a dangerous place, what are we really saying? Whose perceptions are we trying to improve? Are we aiming to “sanitize” the landscape to make middle-class white people visiting downtown Riverhead more comfortable by not having to look at people they perceive to be inherently dangerous? People who live in poverty, perhaps? A homeless person lying on a bench? Mentally ill people who wander the streets? Addicts waiting outside a methadone treatment facility? Clients at healthcare clinics? People with brown or black skin? People whose native tongue is Spanish? People with body-piercings and tattoos? People who need a laundromat to clean their clothes?
For many people — the visitors and more prosperous residents town officials want to attract and the customers local businesses want to serve — merely having to see some of downtown Riverhead’s current residents, or be near them in parks or on sidewalks, makes them uncomfortable. Their perceptions are negative.
Maybe we as a community should be pondering how we can change perceptions rather than coming up with codes that will allow some of us to remain in our comfort zones, while others are penalized as the neighborhood “gentrifies.”
Banning uses that are seen as encouraging the presence of people other people don’t want to see is not the answer.
We think downtown zoning and other public policies should also serve the people who actually already live there, instead of focusing on making Riverhead into something it’s not. That means grocery stores, family-friendly restaurants, and yes, laundromats. It also means better enforcement of existing codes to penalize landlords who don’t obtain the required rental permits and/or maintain their rental properties in safe, habitable condition. It means, frankly, making the business of slumlord less profitable.
The proposed “zero tolerance” code amendment is, at the very least, a federal civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen. That may be good for one or more of the law firms the town will have to hire to defend this wrongheaded legislation — which in our opinion essentially codifies illegal profiling.
For example, it establishes different law enforcement standards for a “known unlawful drug user” than for other people. A “known unlawful drug user” is someone known to a police officer to have a past drug conviction, or “within the knowledge of the officer” has used or possessed illegal drugs, whether or not they have ever been arrested for it or someone who has “needle tracks” or otherwise “displays the physical characteristics of drug intoxication or usage.” Such a person shall not remain in any public place within the zero tolerance zone “in a manner and under circumstances manifesting a purpose to engage in drug and/or prostitution related activity,” according to the proposed code.
This is also the kind of law enforcement empowerment, allowing officers to target individuals — we believe illegally — for special enforcement tactics. For an example of how this can go awry, look no further than how the now-infamous specialized enforcement squad called “Scorpion,” charged with “cleaning up” the most troubled neighborhoods in Memphis, terrorized and assaulted residents — and eventually murdered a man.
This strikes us as the very opposite of the Community Oriented Policing Enforcement (COPE) methods the Riverhead Police Department has prided itself on for years — methods that seem to be working, if one looks at data rather than relies on “perception.”
Finally, why is the town yet again proceeding headlong into adopting new codes even as it is just rebooting its aborted comprehensive planning process? Downtown issues are included in the comprehensive plan update proposal by BFJ Planning and part of the town’s contract with BFJ. Why move forward (again) with new zoning now — before BFJ is given the opportunity to perform the job it’s being paid to do? This is completely illogical.
Also, part of BFJ’s scope of work is public outreach. That’s a key component completely lacking in how these two code proposals were crafted. The town should open a dialogue with the people who actually live and work downtown, to find out what they want and need — and learn about their perceptions of life and commerce there.
It’s fine and proper to listen to the opinions of business owners and developers, but theirs should not be the only voices heard. This will take effort and the town needs to do a better job than it did in the first round of “hamlet meetings” during the first iteration of the comp plan update process — when the downtown hamlet meeting was held in Aquebogue at 6 o’clock on a weeknight. That made it inaccessible to most of the working people who live downtown, especially if they lack private transportation. This smacked of just going through the motions, or setting it up so that only certain voices are heard, to attain a predetermined outcome.
The survival of local journalism depends on your support.
We are a small family-owned operation. You rely on us to stay informed, and we depend on you to make our work possible. Just a few dollars can help us continue to bring this important service to our community.
Support RiverheadLOCAL today.