One of the privileges of this campaign has been the conversations it’s opened. Not just with Yorktown residents, but with business leaders, restaurateurs, developers, and community stakeholders across Westchester County. What I’ve heard has validated my conviction that Yorktown has a genuinely exciting future, if we’re willing to pursue it with intention.

I am glad the Board has recently established a committee to reevaluate the Comprehensive Plan. This is something I have been calling on them to do for years. But updating a plan without a clear vision and the tools to enforce it is just paperwork that risks being merely performative. 

Yorktown’s Unique Position, and the Risk of Getting It Wrong

Yorktown sits at a distinctive geographic crossroads. The Taconic Parkway runs north-south through our community; Routes 202 and 6 run east-west. That positioning makes us attractive to big-box retailers, fast-food chains, and other high-volume commercial developments. And that’s precisely the problem.

If we don’t plan deliberately, we risk becoming exactly that: a corridor of high-volume retail that bears all the burdens of traffic, noise, and air pollution while losing the green spaces and residential character that make Yorktown worth living in. Commercial development that overwhelms our residential nature doesn’t enhance our quality of life. It diminishes it. And once that character is gone, it doesn’t come back.

Our geographic assets, our parks, our hiking and biking paths, the North County Trailway, our history and hamlet identities are not obstacles to economic development. They are our contribution to the regional economy. The question is whether we’re strategic enough to leverage them.

What I’ve Learned from Westchester’s Business Community

In conversations with a successful restaurateur who knows our community well, a few things became clear.

First, blighted and vacant buildings are a drag on our economy that we have the power to address. Right now, tax write-offs can make it financially comfortable for a property owner to leave a building empty. Other communities have eliminated those write-offs, turning a passive incentive to do nothing into an active incentive to invest. We should explore doing the same. A vacant storefront isn’t just an eyesore; it’s a missed opportunity for economic activity, tax revenue, and community vitality.

Second, we also have tools we’re not using as effectively as we could. The 485-b commercial real estate tax exemption was designed by the state to encourage investment during urban renewal. Our local version of that law currently casts too wide a net, rewarding development broadly rather than targeting the redevelopment we actually need. We should tighten it to direct those tax benefits toward owners who improve or repurpose existing buildings rather than those clearing green space for new construction. And since municipalities can leverage the state law directly, the committee currently reviewing our local law should also ask a more fundamental question: do we need our own law at all, or does the state framework already give us the tools to do this right?

Third, and most importantly, Yorktown doesn’t need to go it alone. Working with neighboring communities to support a regional economy that builds on what makes each town unique is smarter than competing with them. 

Cortlandt has been investing in its “MOD”, its Medically Oriented District, for years already. Peekskill has been leveraging millions of dollars from state and federal sources as part of its downtown revitalization efforts for over a decade. 

Yorktown boasts an extensive trail system, including FDR Park, Downing Park, Sylvan Glen, Granite Knolls, and others. We have the North County Trailway drawing cyclists, runners, and walkers from across the region. We have our Shrub Oak hamlet and the Yorktown Grange with historic character. What we lack is a coordinated effort to market these assets, connect them to each other, and make Yorktown a place visitors seek out and linger in, spending time and money in local businesses along the way.

And our natural assets extend beyond our trails. Mohegan Lake and Osceola Lake offer something genuinely rare: accessible, scenic waterfronts in an inland community. State and federal grant programs have historically focused waterfront revitalization on river towns, but that’s changing, and our state representatives have been working to extend those opportunities to communities like ours. Reinventing our lakefronts as recreational destinations could draw visitors directly to the businesses and restaurants already lining those corridors.

Our contribution to that regional economy is clear: we are a residential community with extraordinary natural assets. We should be positioning ourselves as a destination, not a throughway.

My Vision: Building on What Makes Yorktown Unique

The thread running through all of these conversations is the same: Yorktown’s greatest assets are the ones we already have. Our trails and parks draw visitors from across the region. Our hamlets have genuine character worth preserving and building on. Our geographic position, managed thoughtfully, can work for us rather than against us. And our relationships with neighboring communities, once cultivated, can open doors to funding and partnerships that no single town can access on its own.

None of this requires reinventing Yorktown. It requires seeing clearly what we already are, and making deliberate choices that build on it. A streetscape improvement here. A blighted building transformed there. A forum that brings the right people to the table. Each step is modest on its own. Together, they add up to a community with a coherent identity and a plan to strengthen it.

Those conversations I mentioned at the outset, with restaurateurs, with regional business leaders, with residents who love this town, have only deepened my belief that Yorktown’s best chapter hasn’t been written yet. But it requires leadership that understands where we’re going before we start driving.

I have attended the public hearings, read the technical reports, and reviewed the letters submitted by residents and advisory boards. What I found was a community that showed up informed, prepared, and unified. What I also found was a process that had already eliminated the most important question before residents ever had a chance to weigh in.

A Gift to the Community Turned Into a Development Site

The parcel at the center of this controversy was donated to the Town of Yorktown precisely because a private owner could not develop it. The land is constrained by significant wetlands, the same wetlands that now make it an ecologically sensitive and irreplaceable asset. It was conveyed to the town to be preserved as green space, a gift from a private citizen to the community.

That context matters enormously. If a private landowner could not build on this parcel, it is deeply troubling that the Town Board is now considering permitting a commercial cell tower, an industrial use, in the same location, in a residential neighborhood, adjacent to a highly vulnerable ecosystem. This reflects a fundamental misalignment of values and obligations.

The Sequence of Events Is Wrong

Not only is repurposing a gift of land for industrial use wrong, but it has also been handled badly. The Town Board alienated the parkland before the project proposal had been fully assessed. That sequence, alienation first and evaluation second, inverts the proper order of responsible governance.

At the most recent public hearing, it was suggested that the parkland alienation was driven by “Albany.” Technically, state approval was required. But the process was initiated at the Town Board’s request. Residents deserve clarity on that distinction. “Albany did it” is not an explanation; it is a deflection.

The Ecosystem Must Be Protected

The Board is now tasked with deciding whether to issue a wetland permit authorizing construction of a road through the wetland to access the tower, should the project be approved.

The proposed site is adjacent to a highly vulnerable ecosystem. The wetlands and wetland buffers serve critical environmental functions, including stormwater filtration, wildlife habitat, and flood mitigation, that benefit the entire surrounding community. Once damaged, these systems do not simply bounce back. Trees can take years to reestablish and decades to reach maturity. The negative impacts are felt immediately, in stormwater runoff, in lost habitat, in increased flood risk, while any mitigation plays out over decades. That asymmetry is precisely why protection must be proactive. We cannot afford to authorize harm now and hope that remediation catches up later.

Adding to the complexity, there is active disagreement between the applicant’s experts and residents’ experts over where the wetland and wetland buffer boundaries actually lie. That dispute has not been resolved. Before any permit decision is made, a clear and proper delineation of those boundaries is essential. When the science is contested, the only responsible posture is to err on the side of caution.

To summarize where we are: land was donated as green space, the Town Board passed a resolution in April 2024 to request alienation of the parkland for a proposed project with no permits or approved plan, and the Board must now decide whether to permit a road through a vulnerable wetland to support a cell tower in a residential neighborhood. The full weight of that sequence deserves to be stated plainly.

Homeland Towers has argued that the project would meaningfully improve cell service for residents and emergency services, and has submitted reports in support of that claim. But residents have gone on record disputing that need. They presented their own maps showing existing cell towers already serving the area, and pointed to their own experiences, both with everyday calls and with calls to emergency services, as evidence that current coverage is adequate.

Homeland has also noted that it is providing free space on existing towers, $25,000 for public safety equipment for the VAC and Fire Department, and has already contributed $128,000 in equipment, representing roughly $100,000 in annual savings to the town. These are not insignificant claims. But Yorktown has learned this lesson before. The garbage contract from just a few years ago is a recent and painful reminder of what happens when vendor commitments are taken at face value without proper vetting. Residents were left with shoddy service and ultimately a higher bill. The same scrutiny must be applied here before any of Homeland’s promises are treated as settled benefits.

My Position

The arguments made against this project, by residents and advisory boards alike, were thoughtful, well-researched, and reasonable. Aside from the applicant, virtually no community support emerged during the public hearing process. That near-unanimity of opposition is not noise. It is a signal, and it should weigh heavily in any responsible decision.

The Board must vote against granting a permit for this development within the wetland and its buffer. The proposal’s advancement to this stage was fundamentally flawed, particularly since it involved alienating parkland before a proper community evaluation of its merits. And it certainly should not set the precedent for how Yorktown treats its environmental assets going forward.

By the time you read this, the Town Board will have held another public hearing on the proposed Homeland Towers cell tower project on Granite Springs Road. As of this writing, the outcome is unknown. But whatever the Board decides, one thing is already certain: Yorktown’s residents showed up.

Over 1,000 people signed a petition opposing this project. Volumes of letters were submitted to the Town Board. Neighbors, parents, environmentalists, and advocates took time out of their lives — evenings, weekends, work days — to attend hearings, research the issues, and make their voices heard. Some became amateur environmental lawyers. Others learned more than they ever expected to about wetland buffers, parkland alienation, and telecommunications infrastructure. All of them did it because they love this community and believe their voices should matter.

That is democracy. And it is something to be proud of.

The concerns driving this community to organize were never subtle. The proposed tower site sits in a wetland buffer. It involves alienated parkland — land set aside for public use and enjoyment, which carries legal protections that don’t simply dissolve because a private company wants a prime location. Proponents have cited public safety as one justification for the project — a concern worth taking seriously. But residents were right to ask questions about the nature and urgency of that need, and to seek a fuller understanding of whether this particular solution, in this particular location, is truly the right answer.

But here is what I want every Yorktown resident to take away from this experience, whatever the outcome: your participation matters, and it doesn’t end when a public hearing closes.

Local government is where decisions are made that affect your daily life most directly — the roads you drive on, the taxes you pay, the open space you enjoy, the character of the community your children grow up in. Yet local government is also where civic participation is lowest. School board meetings, town board meetings, planning board hearings — these are the rooms where Yorktown’s future is actually being shaped, often with very few residents watching.

The residents who organized around the Homeland Towers project understood something that more of us need to: you don’t have to wait for a crisis to get involved. In fact, the earlier you engage, the more influence you have. The time to weigh in on a project is before it gains momentum — when questions about siting, environmental impact, and alternatives can still shape the outcome, rather than after a community has to mobilize just to be heard.

So whether you signed the petition, attended a hearing, wrote a letter, or simply followed this issue from the sidelines — I encourage you to stay engaged. Come to a Town Board meeting. Sign up for the town’s email updates. Read the agenda before your next meeting. Ask questions. Run for a committee seat. Talk to your neighbors about what’s happening in your community.

One thousand people raised their voices on this project. Imagine what Yorktown could look like if that energy carried into every decision this town makes.

Transparent, accountable government doesn’t happen automatically. It happens because residents demand it — consistently, persistently, and not just in moments of crisis.

There is work to do. And it starts with all of us.

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.

Setting the Record Straight

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, the Supervisor said that the state offers a 100% tax exemption. It does not. The 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.

What Responsible Development Policy Actually Looks Like

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.

Why the Current 485-b Policy Falls Short

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.

What I Hope This Committee Will Do

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.

Longtime resident and small business owner brings decades of financial, nonprofit, and consensus-building experience to the race

YORKTOWN, NY — The Yorktown Democratic Committee today announced its unanimous endorsement of Jann Mirchandani as its candidate for Yorktown Supervisor in 2026. The endorsement reflects the committee’s confidence in Mirchandani’s proven leadership, deep roots in the community, and her commitment to bringing steady, transparent governance to Yorktown.

Mirchandani, a 20-year Yorktown resident, small business owner, and mother whose children attended Yorktown schools, has spent her career building the skills that the Town Supervisor’s office demands: 10 years in the financial services industry, 25 years running her own business in Yorktown, and 35 years of nonprofit board leadership overseeing multi-million dollar budgets.

“Jann is exactly the kind of leader Yorktown needs right now,” said the Yorktown Democratic Committee in a statement. “She doesn’t just talk about bringing people together—she has a proven track record of doing it. Her ability to build consensus is not theoretical; she recently led a task force that closed a $640,000 budget gap by bringing together all stakeholders to find solutions everyone could support.”

A Platform of Accountability and Smart Planning

Mirchandani’s campaign is centered on ensuring that developers are held to the same standards as residents. She has pledged to fight overdevelopment that benefits a handful of developers at the expense of the broader community, and to ensure that developers pay their fair share for the traffic and infrastructure impacts their projects create—rather than passing those costs on to taxpayers.

Mirchandani had also pledged to end what she calls “budget whiplash”—the pattern of reactive budgeting that saw Yorktown raise taxes 7% in 2025 followed by a budget freeze in 2026. With $24 million sitting in excess funds while the town creates this kind of budget volatility, Mirchandani argues that Yorktown deserves better.

Dedication and Commitment

Mirchandani’s decision to run for Supervisor for a fourth time underscores a deep and unwavering commitment to the community she calls home. “There is work to do in Yorktown,” Mirchandani said. “I’m not a politician—I’m your neighbor. And I’m the person who won’t give up because I know what this town can be when we have leadership that plans, that governs, and that puts your family’s budget ahead of developer profits.”

The Yorktown Democratic Committee expressed full confidence in Mirchandani’s candidacy. “Jann’s persistence is her strength. She keeps showing up because she believes in this community, and we believe in her. Yorktown is ready for the kind of thoughtful, experienced, consensus-driven leadership that Jann will bring to Town Hall.”

###

About the Yorktown Democratic Committee

The Yorktown Democratic Committee works to support Democratic candidates and promote good governance in the Town of Yorktown, New York. For more information, visit the committee’s website or social media pages.).

The Town Board is advertising a 0% property tax increase for 2026. Sounds great, right? But here’s what they’re not putting in the headlines.

We’ve Seen This Trick Before—And It’s Already Planned Again

Look at the pattern:

Year	Tax Rate	Change	Election Year?
2024	$165.78	0%	✓ Yes
2025	$178.14	+7.45%	No
2026	$178.14	0%	✓ Yes
2027 (projected)	$190.75	+7.08%	No

Your taxes aren’t staying flat—they’re delayed until after the election.

Freezing Maintenance = Future Costs

The Board’s budget says inflation is 3.3%, yet approximately 150 line items show 0% growth: building maintenance, vehicle maintenance, equipment maintenance, and heating costs.

That seems like very poor planning, given the reality of tariffs, supply chain issues, and other economic drags projected for next year.

Prudent planning suggests that these costs should be increasing.

Your Recreation Fees Are Increasing

While advertising “no tax increase,” here’s what IS increasing:

• Pool memberships: +11%
• Summer camp: +8%
• Youth programs: +6%
• General recreation fees: +15%

The Board is raising nearly $90,000 from recreation fees. That means that fees are going up, or the Board is making very optimistic assumptions about our participation rates increasing. Given the pushback from families about the current fees, that seems unlikely.

Leadership Raises vs. Everyone Else

Over three years (2023-2026), the Board voted themselves much larger raises than other town employees:

Position	2024	2025	2026	Total
Supervisor	+8.87%	0%	+7.54%	18.68%
Council Members	+18.00%	0%	+11.74%	38.18%
Comptroller	+5.02%	+7.54%*	+7.97%	23.74%
Average employee	+2.44%	+2.91%	+2.91%	8.74%

*This number is not shown in the preliminary budget but is reflected as the 2025 salary in the 2026 tentative budget.

The Bottom Line

When we defer maintenance, put off much-needed infrastructure improvements, and increase fees for town services, double-digit salary increases are a slap in the face to residents and town employees alike.

The 0% property tax increase is an election-year illusion. The Board’s own budget projections prove they know this isn’t sustainable.

Your facilities. Your money. Your choice.

---

All figures are from the Town of Yorktown’s budget reports. 2026 Tentative Budget. 2025 Preliminary Budget (approved). 2024 Preliminary Budget (approved).

The current Supervisor is seeking re-election based on claims of revitalizing downtown and improving infrastructure.

After seven years on the Town Board—including two as Supervisor—these claims deserve scrutiny.

When Good Timing Isn’t Good Leadership

The recent influx of businesses downtown is welcome, but it’s largely the result of long-term leases from the old A&P and Kmart spaces finally expiring—allowing property owners to attract new tenants. This is how private real estate markets work. It’s not the product of Town Board action, and frankly, it shouldn’t be.

At the March 18th Town Board meeting, the Supervisor himself acknowledged: “…we don’t have a large say in what stores come and what stores go.” This candid admission stands in stark contrast to his campaign rhetoric claiming credit for revitalizing Yorktown Heights and the necessary commercial expansion for our tax base. After all this “revitalization,” our taxes went up 7.4% last year.

Missed Opportunities in Development

Underhill Farms, also part of our “revitalization,” received additional density under our overlay zoning, designed to improve walkability in our hamlet hubs. Yet Underhill Farms sits at a four-way intersection with no direct crosswalk. To reach the opposite corner, pedestrians must cross three busy streets in a circuitous route—or trespass through private property. And taxpayers are footing the bill for paving shoulders, adding turn lanes, and installing new traffic lights; solutions that are barely adequate for current needs, woefully underwhelming as a plan to mitigate this latest development, and are ill-equipped to address future growth. 

A Pattern of Deferred Maintenance and Good Money After Bad

Old Crompond Road tells a similar story. At the September 10, 2019 Board meeting, at the end of the Gilbert administration, the town engineer identified this culvert as a priority in 2019. In late 2025, it remains closed. The incumbent has been on the Board and a participant in every budget cycle for this entire seven-year period.

The pickleball courts are another example—taxpayers paid twice for the same work. They needed a complete redo because they were built atop cracked tennis courts that eventually destabilized, requiring excavation and proper drainage installation.

My Approach: Build on Solid Foundations

As they say, “if you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll probably end up someplace else.” Yorktown needs a roadmap to ensure we get back on course.

Update Our Comprehensive Plan. Our current plan is 15 years old. We need an accurate blueprint that creates a strong sense of community identity while preserving each hamlet’s unique character. This update must address sustainable energy transitions and carbon footprint reduction—changes that will lower both environmental impact and long-term expenses. 

Align Development with Community Goals. Every development proposal should be measured against our comprehensive plan. Does it advance our community’s vision? Does it contribute to walkability, affordability, and hamlet character? Or does it simply maximize developer profit while shifting infrastructure costs to taxpayers? We need enforceable standards that ensure developers deliver on their commitments.

Build Strategic Partnerships. I’ll host an economic development forum working with our advisory boards to bring together community organizations, developers, unions, and potential partners who want to be true community stakeholders—not just extract value. These relationships will help us identify projects that genuinely serve community needs.

Position Yorktown for Success. By updating our comprehensive plan and building strategic partnerships, we’ll be better positioned to compete for state and federal grants. Combined with strategic investment of our excess fund balance for real improvements and proactive maintenance, this approach maximizes every taxpayer dollar while building infrastructure that serves us for decades.

Revitalize Our Hamlets with Purpose. Each hamlet needs context-appropriate development. Yorktown Heights should leverage its proximity to the North County Trailway—creating inviting connections that draw cyclists and walkers into our downtown. Railroad Park could be transformed with the streetscaping improvements that were promised but never delivered to better connect the Trailway to our downtown shops and restaurants. Shrub Oak already has the bones of a walkable hamlet—we need to build on that character with careful infill development. Imagine finally transforming that blighted tire center into a community gathering space.

I don’t have all the answers. No one person does. I know none of this is a quick fix. Strategic planning takes time and genuine community input. It’s hard work.

But the alternative is settling for what developers are willing to give us.

The incumbent has had ten years to provide a vision and leadership for Yorktown.

I believe it’s time for change.

Yorktown is facing its share of challenges. But we also have choices in how we deal with them. From establishing a vacant building registry to reviewing costly tax exemptions to updating our 15-year-old Comprehensive Plan, we need both immediate action and long-term vision. Today, I want to highlight specific policy initiatives that can move our town forward.

Establishing a Vacant Building Registry

Walk through any of Yorktown’s hamlet centers, and you’ll likely notice buildings sitting empty for months or even years. But under current federal and state tax law, property owners can deduct expenses and depreciation on vacant buildings, creating incentives to leave properties empty while waiting for higher rents.

A Vacant Building Registry would eliminate these perverse incentives and create accountability. Buildings vacant beyond a set period must be registered, with owners paying fees and submitting mitigation plans.

This approach has proven successful across New York. Yonkers established its Vacant Building Registry in 2010 and requires owners to register within 30 days of a building becoming vacant, submit annual renewals, and provide a performance guaranty to cover potential city costs of correcting violations. The law’s stated purpose: “to speed the rehabilitation of vacant properties.”

The benefits are clear: registered properties must be maintained, owners face real financial consequences for prolonged vacancies, and our hamlets become more attractive to businesses and residents. Most importantly, it makes it more advantageous to occupy and invest in buildings rather than let them deteriorate.

Reviewing the 485-b Tax Exemption Law

Yorktown’s 485-b tax exemption law gives developers tax breaks for any commercial construction—breaks that have cost taxpayers nearly $1.7 million to date. While tax exemptions can be valuable economic development tools, this one deserves a fresh look.

The question is straightforward: are these tax breaks actually necessary to attract development? Consider the two largest beneficiaries. Optum was already consolidating multiple Yorktown locations to reduce operating costs—would they really have gone elsewhere without a tax break? And Lowe’s, a major national retailer, was seeking a prime location in a growing market—did they need taxpayer subsidies to make it work?

During the 2024 budget process, Supervisor Lachterman said he was open to reevaluating this law. Yet nearly a year later, nothing has been done.

A responsible review means analyzing whether current market conditions justify these exemptions and comparing what we’re giving away against what we’re gaining.

Updating Our Comprehensive Plan

Yorktown’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2010—fifteen years ago. To put that in perspective, when that plan was written, the first iPad had just been released.

Planning experts across the country recommend updating comprehensive plans every 5 to 10 years to remain relevant and effective.

Here’s the urgency: Comprehensive plans typically take 2-4 years to develop, from initial community engagement through final adoption. Yorktown’s current plan took three years to create. If we start the update process now, we won’t have a new plan in place until 2027 or later. An outdated plan means we’re making today’s decisions based on yesterday’s reality.

An up-to-date plan helps prioritize infrastructure, addresses climate resilience, and is often required for state and federal grants.

A Path Forward

These tools are proven. The vacant building registry incentivizes productive use of commercial spaces. The 485-b review ensures we’re not giving away tax revenue unnecessarily. The comprehensive plan update provides the strategic framework we need.

The question isn’t whether we can afford to implement these policies—it’s whether we can afford not to. Every day we delay is another day our hamlet centers struggle, another day property owners benefit from vacancy over occupancy, and another day we make decisions based on outdated assumptions. Inaction is no longer a viable option.

At the Town Board meeting on September 2nd, Supervisor Lachterman started the meeting by canceling a vote to exclude the Navajo Fields project from the Osceola overlay district. A mere two weeks later, however, he attempted to stoke fear about Democrats and their supposed unbridled drive towards affordable housing. He made vague, ominous references to laws being decided “in Albany”—itself a veiled threat—that would create dire circumstances here in Yorktown. 

If the Supervisor was truly concerned about development in Yorktown, he had the power to act. Instead, he chose to leave the door open. The Navajo Fields project remains eligible for special zoning treatment because the Board—led by Lachterman—chose not to vote. To be clear, the developer has the right to return at any time, but by not voting, the board ensured that they don’t lose time by beginning the process all over again.

The Laws He’s Warning You About Don’t Exist

Lachterman appears to be fear-mongering about “home rule”—the idea that Albany will take away local control over zoning.

Here’s the truth: Those laws never passed. Governor Hochul proposed a housing mandate that could have overridden local zoning back in 2023. It faced massive opposition and Hochul abandoned the entire approach by November 2023.

Lachterman is either deliberately misleading you or hasn’t read the news since 2023.

The Fine Print He Hopes You Won’t Read

The other law he might be referencing is the Faith-Based Affordable Housing Act, which is still just a proposal in committee. Even if it eventually passes, it would only apply to religious organizations developing property they already own—and there don’t appear to be any in Yorktown that qualify.

Here’s the irony: The bill he’s warning about is very similar to the overlay zoning he’s repeatedly voted to support. One of the main differences is that the Faith-Based Housing Act includes an affordable housing benefit that Yorktown’s overlay zoning laws lack.

Look at what is already happening. Underhill Farms has density well in excess of the surrounding area, with buildings standing at 4.5 stories tall. The townhomes on Route 202 are going for nearly a million dollars. The first project was approved as part of an overlay district, the other as part of transitional zoning. Both allow for increased density. Neither includes any condition for affordability standards.

What This Really Tells Us

This isn’t about protecting Yorktown from overdevelopment. If it were, Lachterman would have voted to exclude Navajo Fields from special zoning and pushed for housing diversity that benefits working families and seniors looking to downsize—not just luxury developments that maximize developer profits.

Instead, he’s created a smoke screen—scaring residents about laws that don’t exist while quietly enabling the very development he claims to oppose.

What Yorktown Deserves

Yorktown deserves leaders who protect our community from real threats, not gin up imaginary ones. We deserve honest conversations about development that benefits our community and developers, not political theater designed to distract from failed leadership.

Most importantly, we deserve leaders who will actually vote to protect our neighborhoods—not politicians who warn about affordable housing that might help our neighbors while voting for developer giveaways that don’t.

The facts are clear. It’s time for leadership that matches words with actions.

A Guest Column by Jann Mirchandani, submitted to Yorktown News

This week, Cait Conley, Candidate for Congressional District 17, and I hosted a community discussion about Yorktown’s infrastructure and housing challenges. What became clear is that our town is stuck in a costly cycle of crisis management when we should be investing in proactive solutions.

The Real Cost of Waiting

Take our sewer issues. We’ve been talking about this problem for decades. Money was allocated years ago, but no action was taken. Now costs have skyrocketed, and we’re still talking. Research shows that every dollar spent on preventive maintenance saves five dollars later—yet we continue to defer essential upgrades until they become emergencies.

Meanwhile, our current leadership celebrates paving the high school commuter parking lot as a major “infrastructure improvement” and “beautifying our parks.” While maintaining parking lots is certainly necessary, calling routine pavement repair a significant infrastructure achievement highlights exactly what’s wrong with our approach. When parking lot repaving gets social media posts with exclamation points, but our sewer system gets years of inaction, our priorities are clearly misaligned.

This reactive approach isn’t just inefficient; it’s expensive. According to a study completed by Utah State University in December 2023, every water main break costs us approximately $10,000 in emergency repairs when you factor in labor, materials, traffic management, and emergency response. And with utility rate hikes looming—NYSEG is seeking 35% increases for delivery rates starting in 2026—the fact that we’re not investing in renewable energy sources for our municipal buildings is particularly short-sighted.

Other communities are doing better. Croton-on-Hudson partnered with Columbia University and private developers to install a solar canopy at their train station—at no cost to taxpayers. The village now receives annual lease payments totalling $500,000 a year, while residents can subscribe to community solar and save on their electric bills.

Housing: The Hidden Infrastructure Crisis

With average home prices in Westchester at $833,161 and over 41% of households paying more than half their income on housing, we’re facing a workforce crisis. Our teachers, police officers, and nurses can’t afford to live here. This isn’t just a housing problem—it’s an economic development problem.

Federal programs like Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and HUD grants can help private developers build affordable housing locally without requiring large municipal investments. But accessing these programs requires proactive planning and coordination.

Our current leadership’s response to the housing crisis has been to approve high-density developments under the banner of addressing housing costs. But when these projects—like the proposed Navajo Fields development in a wetland area—include no affordability requirements whatsoever, they’re not solving the problem for working families.

Building luxury units in environmentally sensitive areas doesn’t make housing more affordable—it just makes developers richer while potentially damaging our natural resources and exacerbating flooding concerns.

What Yorktown Needs Now

We need leaders who understand that investing in infrastructure isn’t just about fixing what’s broken—it’s about building systems that work for the future. We need to:

• Pursue federal resilience grants for proactive infrastructure upgrades
• Coordinate with Westchester County on regional solutions like our sewer system
• Leverage programs that help developers build housing that is affordable at a variety of price points
• Implement community solar projects that benefit renters and homeowners alike

Time to Lead

Ten years is a significant tenure in local government—long enough to implement meaningful change, complete major projects, and move a community forward. Instead, Yorktown has been stuck in crisis management mode, celebrating parking lot repairs while real infrastructure challenges go unaddressed.

The question isn’t whether we can afford to invest in our infrastructure and housing—it’s whether we can afford not to.