The Town Board's announcement that they're reestablishing a committee to evaluate the 485-b commercial tax exemption is a step worth taking seriously.
But before that committee convenes, two fundamental misstatements need to be corrected — because good policy can't be built on a faulty foundation.
Misstatement #1: "The board reviews applications." At a recent Town Board meeting, it was stated that the board reviews 485-b exemption applications. I addressed this at Courtesy of the Floor: the exemption is granted as of right to any eligible applicant once the local law is adopted as written. There is no meaningful discretionary review — if an application meets the criteria, it's approved. Characterizing that as a board "review" overstates the oversight actually taking place.
Misstatement #2: "The state offers 100% exemption." In response to my comments, Supervisor Ed Lachterman said that the state offers a 100% tax exemption. It does not. State law begins at 50% of the increase in assessed value in the first year and declines by 5% annually over 10 years. It never reaches 100% at any point. Furthermore, the state law is specifically written to allow municipalities to target the exemption strategically — restricting it by business type and by geographic area to ensure it serves genuine community and economic development goals. Yorktown has chosen none of that precision. We offer the exemption broadly, to any eligible applicant, anywhere in town — which is a local policy choice, not a state requirement.
Correcting these misstatements matters because the entire justification for our current 485-b policy rests on them. Once you understand that we choose the maximum exemption and that applications receive minimal scrutiny, the policy looks very different.
Yorktown doesn't need to choose between welcoming development and protecting residents. Those goals are compatible — but only when development is guided by a clear, community-driven vision rather than reacting to whatever application lands on the board's desk.
A residents-first approach to development means asking a few basic questions before any incentive is granted: Does this project fill a genuine community need? Is it in the right location — near transit, in a walkable area, consistent with how neighbors want their community to grow? Does it include components that serve the public — affordable housing, green building standards, preserved open space? And critically: what does it cost taxpayers, and does the public benefit justify that cost?
An updated Comprehensive Plan — something Yorktown has needed for years — would answer these questions in advance, giving both residents and developers a clear framework. Instead of case-by-case reactions, we'd have a shared vision: what kinds of projects belong where, what incentives are warranted, and what trade-offs the community is willing to make. Developers actually benefit from this clarity too. It reduces uncertainty and allows them to design projects that will have genuine community support.
The environmental dimension of this matters as well. Directing development to appropriate locations reduces sprawl, preserves natural areas and positions Yorktown for a more sustainable future. That's not anti-development. That's smart development.
A tax incentive should do exactly that: incentivize something the community wants more of, in places the community wants it. Our current 485-b policy, as applied, doesn't meet that standard.
When the same maximum exemption is available regardless of project type, location, or public benefit, it isn't a strategic tool — it's a giveaway. Over the past several years, these exemptions have cost Yorktown homeowners nearly $1.7 million in cumulative revenue. That's not a small number, and there's been no systematic accounting of what the community received in return.
Meanwhile, the oversupply created by years of incentivizing new commercial space — regardless of whether the market could support it — has consequences we're only beginning to reckon with. New commercial buildings go up, but the tenants filling them are often businesses simply relocating from one Yorktown address to another. No new jobs, no new economic activity — just a new building collecting a tax exemption while the previous location sits vacant. As empty storefronts accumulate and property values soften, commercial property owners file tax certiorari challenges — essentially the commercial equivalent of grieving your home assessment — arguing their property is worth less and their tax bill should be reduced. When successful, the town must refund taxes already collected and lower future bills. The fiscal exposure adds up quickly, and homeowners make up the difference.
I genuinely hope this review leads somewhere meaningful. A serious committee would examine whether existing 485-b projects delivered on their promised benefits, compare our incentive levels to neighboring municipalities, and recommend reforms that tie any future exemptions to specific, measurable community outcomes — affordability, sustainability, genuine economic need.
Most importantly, I hope this process includes the community. Residents should have a voice in defining what "good development" means for Yorktown before the next application is approved, not after.
Yorktown can be a place that grows thoughtfully — welcoming the right projects in the right places, protecting what makes our community worth living in, and ensuring that when we offer public incentives, the public genuinely benefits. That's the standard our policy should meet.
Jann Mirchandani is running for Yorktown Supervisor.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here