To: Riverhead Industrial Development Agency
CC: Riverhead Town Board
Subject: Formal Opposition to the Proposed Riverhead Town Square Hotel Tax Abatement and 20-Year PILOT
Dear Chairman Farley and Members of the Riverhead Industrial Development Agency:
I am writing to formally oppose the proposed financial assistance, tax exemptions, and 20-year Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement being sought by J. Petrocelli Riverhead Town Square LLC for the proposed hotel development.
As a Riverhead taxpayer, I am deeply troubled by the prospect of granting a private developer substantial tax relief for the next 20 years when the residents of this town are already carrying an increasingly heavy financial burden.
Quite frankly, Riverhead taxpayers cannot afford to continue subsidizing private development while being forced to pay for the mistakes and financial decisions of our own town.
We are already paying significant additional costs resulting from assessment errors, lawsuits, and settlements. These are not expenses created by the average homeowner. Yet the financial consequences are being passed along to us through our tax obligations.
Furthermore, taxpayers are facing another anticipated settlement resulting from additional assessment issues. Before the IDA considers granting another lengthy tax abatement, I believe the public deserves a complete accounting of these existing and anticipated financial liabilities.
Now we are being asked to consider:
• Approximately $1.36 million in sales tax exemptions.
• Approximately $147,028 in mortgage recording tax exemptions.
• An additional 20-year property tax abatement with no disclosed dollar amount.
The combined sales and mortgage tax exemptions alone total approximately $1.5 million. The actual financial impact of the 20-year PILOT remains unknown to the public.
How can the IDA responsibly consider approving this agreement when the proposed PILOT schedule is blank and the economic impact analysis is still pending?
Twenty years is not a short-term incentive. It is a long-term financial commitment that could affect taxpayers, schools, and other taxing jurisdictions for an entire generation.
The developer projects 54 full-time and 10 part-time jobs. While job creation is a consideration, it does not automatically justify granting millions of dollars in public financial assistance or sacrificing potential property tax revenue for two decades.
The developer's assertion that the project may not proceed without assistance should not, by itself, determine whether taxpayers should finance that assistance.
Where is the independent financial analysis demonstrating that the long-term public benefit outweighs the tax revenue being surrendered?
Where is the transparency regarding the actual amount of the 20-year abatement?
And where is the consideration for the residents who are already struggling to afford their homes and the rising cost of living?
It is particularly frustrating that the public hearing reportedly drew no members of the public, and that the agency subsequently extended the opportunity for written comments. A lack of attendance should never be interpreted as public support or approval.
Residents deserve a meaningful opportunity to understand the financial consequences before any decision is made.
I am not opposed to economic development, investment, or job creation in Riverhead. However, economic development must benefit the community as a whole, not place an additional burden on the very taxpayers who are already funding the town's operations.
The residents of Riverhead should not be expected to pay more so that private developers can pay less.
I respectfully demand that the IDA:
1. Postpone any approval of the proposed PILOT or tax exemptions until the complete financial impact analysis is publicly available.
2. Disclose the projected dollar value of the 20-year property tax abatement.
3. Provide a year-by-year comparison of the taxes the project would pay under a PILOT versus full taxation.
4. Disclose the anticipated impact on the Town, Riverhead Central School District, and other affected taxing jurisdictions.
5. Consider the cumulative financial burden of existing and anticipated assessment-related settlements before granting additional tax concessions.
6. Provide a clear explanation of the measurable public benefits that justify this level of financial assistance.
Riverhead residents deserve responsible fiscal management, transparency, and accountability.
We should not be asked to continually absorb the financial consequences of government errors while simultaneously being asked to subsidize private projects for the next 20 years.
Enough is enough. Our taxpayers cannot continue to be treated as the financial backstop for every costly decision made on their behalf.
I urge the IDA to reject the proposed tax abatement as currently presented and put the financial interests of Riverhead's residents and taxpayers first.
Respectfully,
Riverhead Taxpayer
9/29/2026
Dump the local IDA and let everyone seeking IDA benefits go through the Suffolk County IDA. Maybe they will listened to the concerns of our schools, fire department, downtown business owners and residents, and the economically challenged (The hit of tax repayments, young kids, senior citizens etc.) taxpayers. If the aquarium and the other two hotels have not sparked major revitalization in downtown why does anyone think that another hotel and playground will miraculously draw investments here to make us a Westhampton Beach or Patchogue? J Pertrocelli and his companies are successful and experienced hoteliers and builders in Riverhead. So, is it incorrect as a taxpayer to expect that they should be able to manage their own risk/reward with a similar investment project and not expect the taxpayers to subsidize them with no financial return on their investment to us? Personally, I would rather see our tax dollars invested in green space downtown for community events like the Bryant Park Winter Village, Art shows or any community event that will benefit our community and support and encourage potential future business owners in downtown. (Artists, crafters, cooks etc.) P.S. To my knowledge, after looking at posted photos during and after the recent storm, it doesn't seem that we have addressed the flooding problem in the downtown parking lots. Petrocelli's submission letter from his attorneys to the IDA in June 2026 seems to address the parking issue in downtown on page 2 , paragraph 4, with "a fee agreement with the Town of Riverhead for parking for additional employee and guest parking at an "off-site" location north of the hotel on East Street." Is there a signed agreement to this effect in place??? ( ROFL...the IDA meeting in October will likely be held long before I get a response to the FOIL on the parking that I submitted today!)
The IDA's malfeasance fits within a pattern of misinformation, insider dealing and potential corruption with the whole Petrocelli-Thomas hotel project. That deserves a fuller discussion and will be part of my presentation to the IDA on October 5th. A small personal note, I went to the scheduled meeting on September 14th but left when chairman Farley told me there would be nothing during the meeting about the Petrocelli application. Scheduling a special hearing date is hardly nothing. Although I had been in written contact with him and Board member Lee Mendelson before and after the 14th, neither had the courtesy to inform me that an issue in which I had abiding interest had been scheduled. I had even told them that I would be away from Riverhead on the weekend of September 26th. What does it mean to close the hearing? Will comments on October 5th have as much weight as if they were made at the "scheduled" meeting? This is self-interested nonsense and the usual corporate blackmail: "Petrocelli says the project is unlikely to proceed without IDA assistance, citing extraordinary upfront costs, high interest rates and operating expenses. The company says the requested financial assistance is necessary to make the project economically viable." What he means is that he wants to make a bigger profit from his exploitation of public resources, not to mention the $150,000 a year the town will pay him to protect and beautify the front yard of his hotel. Could we see the profits from his current hotels, the Hyatt and Preston House? It is also not clear how much independence and integrity the IDA has on this topic. The agreement with Mr. Petrocelli, wearing his hat as Master Developer, approved by the Supervisor and the full Board guaranteed he would receive IDA subsidies. We need a big and vociferous turnout at the IDA Board meeting on October 5th. They listened to the public in rejecting the Ghermezian EPCAL scam. Let's try for a second round of civic responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment