Greenport Business Improvement District president Rich Vandenburgh presented the Village Board last week with a plan to spend some of a one-time pool of roughly $100,000 in FEMA reimbursements to the BID on a slate of village initiatives, including storefront vacancies, streetscape improvements and public safety.
Before making his proposal, Vandenburgh voiced support for the newly-created Greenport Business Owners Alliance, which intends to run this year’s Maritime Festival, saying “the BID is 100% going to support any entity that can run it,” as long as it receives “communication, feedback [and] involvement.” He said that there are about 250 businesses in the BID with “roughly 50 regularly participating.”
Vandenburgh said the BID’s current opportunity stems from a post-COVID reimbursement effort that, he told the board, was largely driven by former Greenporter Hotel owner Deborah Rivera. After Rivera approached him about a process by which the BID could seek FEMA reimbursement for COVID-related expenses. Vandenburgh credited Rivera with doing the hard work.
“I, for one, will remain forever grateful for Deborah’s efforts, and we owe her a great debt of gratitude for all the work that she did and made that so,” Vandenburgh said, “and then the next question really should turn on how we get those funds to work in our district, and where best they might help our membership?”
That money, Vandenburgh said, is separate from the BID’s normal operating budget and tax revenue. The proposals he presented would be funded “solely from these FEMA resources,” he said, and would be subject to a member vote. The BID has been surveying members and plans to continue outreach, then conduct “a voting process [in March] that will determine if these initiative options … will be accepted or not.”
He said the BID plans to spend about $50,000 of the $100,000 on initiatives that could go a long way in changing the narrative that the village is “headed in the wrong direction.”
“When there’s a will, there’s a way, and I believe these initiatives present a tangible effort to adjust any current narrative about our village business district, and are intended to make it stronger, more prosperous and safer for everyone.”
A “vacancy initiative” anchored by a brokerage partnership
The first and most detailed proposal focused on storefront vacancies. Vandenburgh said the BID’s “current count” is approximately 17 commercial storefronts or businesses that are either vacant or for sale,” which he called “a significant number for our small district.”
To address it, he said the BID issued a request for proposals (RFP) and chose Brown Harris Stevens’ commercial real estate arm as a partner — insisting it would not sideline local brokers. “They will be working with any and all local brokers,” Vandenburgh said.
His broader pitch was for a “multifaceted” strategy blending “public—private partnerships, marketing [and] storytelling,” along with incentives and practical support for new businesses. He floated the idea of a “village business concierge liaison” to help prospective tenants navigate zoning, planning and permitting.
Vandenburgh also said the plan would “prioritize year-round businesses … small neighborhood groceries, specialty markets, hardware and marine oriented retail and community health support,” plus “the bike shop repair outdoor gear services… and even child care and early learning services.” He described seasonal pop-ups to take advantage of large empty spaces while longer-term tenants are secured, imagining “temporary New York style, Chelsea Market areas and attractions.”
The BID’s suggested seed money for this strategy is a “maximum spend” of $5,000, Vandenburgh said, adding he wanted Brown Harris Stevens to present directly to the board, the BID membership and the community.
Board discussion turned to what the village can realistically offer in incentives. Mayor Kevin Stuessi cautioned that tax abatements would be “an enormously challenging conversation,” noting the board was already scrutinizing the tax roll and rising costs.
Vandenburgh replied that he understood “the bar is high,” but urged the board not to default to “rushing to no,” arguing there are “creative ways” other villages have used to “turn the tide on increasing vacancy.”
Year-round lighting
His second proposal aimed to extend the welcoming vibe created by holiday lighting. He said the BID raised over $15,000 from sponsorships toward a $20,000 cost for seasonal lights, he said, and he argued a year-round approach could be cheaper over time, as installations “can be expanded beyond a mere four months to 12 months for less than half that amount.”
Vandenburgh suggested that programmable lighting, ideally funded by a sponsor, could mark different holidays and events — “green for St Patrick’s Day, red for Valentine’s, fireman’s parades and multicolored” for July 4. “If there is a will, there’s a way to celebrate our streets all year long.”
Mobile security units spark surveillance and privacy debate
The third initiative — “security and street lighting” — drew the sharpest exchanges.
Vandenburgh said BID members have raised concerns about “loitering, harassment, sometimes illicit activity” that can make parts of the district feel unsafe. He argued the village cannot rely on constant police presence.
He noted that behavior that could warrant a code violation ticket from police had to be witnessed by the officers themselves or “no arrest or enforcement can occur.”
“We can and should continue to advocate for assistance from the Southold Town Police,” Vandenburgh said, “but the reality is we … cannot have an officer on every corner or in every spot.
“Complaining … is not enough. There is no solution in complaining when growing concerns are getting worse. We need to consider alternative ways to create an effective dissuasion for such activity and empower the police to enforce the law even when they are not physically present.”
Vandenburgh went on to propose an alternative: mobile security devices that could be placed in problem areas and monitored by police, with suggested locations including the Adams St. parking lots, the public parking lot behind the Whiskey Wind and Mitchell Park.
Vandenburgh also addressed, directly and at length, the anxiety many communities have about surveillance — especially amid heightened immigration enforcement.
“The BID board certainly acknowledges the potential debate over concerns of heightened monitoring and fears of surveillance,” he said. “We also recognize the current climate of immigration enforcement practices and disturbing activities of federal law enforcement in recent cases.
“But the pri0rity concern voiced from our members, which seeks a solution on how to remediate the occurence of illegal behavior and fears for safety has to be weighed against mere words of concern and no effective alternative.”
He said that, if advanced by a member vote, BID would push for a “clear policy document” and stated that video from the units would “not be shared with any federal agency for immigration enforcement purposes.”
He said that the “BID board certainly acknowledges the potential debate over concerns of heightened monitoring and fears of surveillance,” he said, calling it “not a simple one.”
On costs, Vandenburgh said a unit is “$20,000” to purchase, and “monitoring by the local police is as little as $92 per month.” He proposed a “tri ownership structure between” police, the village and the BID, with the BID suggesting $10,000 from FEMA funds as its share.
‘Extreme concerns’
The mayor responded that he had “extreme concerns” about any new surveillance equipment in the village, and said that he “literally spit the coffee out” when he first heard the idea.
He argued such systems are “extremely problematic,” pointing to cities “including Denver, Colorado and Mountain View, California” that he said are “getting rid of these” systems. He referenced the Electronic Frontier Foundation and The New York Times as sources he’d read and warned that even if a local policy says footage won’t be shared with the federal government, it could be.
Vandenburgh disputed that characterization, saying, “We’re not … on a central station monitor,” and described it instead as “an individual program that we subscribe to that is proprietary to the village and the police department.”
He also said police could access feeds on “patrol car laptops,” enabling an officer to “see an offense… and then go and make that … enforcement.”
Stuessi appeared dismissive of the proposal, suggesting that addressing “low-hanging fruit” could go a long way towards solving the problems Vandenburgh was presenting.
“One thing I’ve often thought … would be great for you to talk to the businesses about is the alleyways that run from Adam Street parking out to Front Street,” the mayor said. “There’s an alley that could be made better by some twinkly lights above it .. I think there’s some real low-hanging fruit if we can get people hanging some twinkly lights above those alleyways.”
Last spring, an intoxicated, machete-wielding local from the Adams St. parking lots — well-known to Southold police — allegedly threatened to kill a Front Street business owner, among others. Another was arrested twice last year on sexual assault charges, two of seven arrests in the span of a year.
Individuals who congregate in the area regularly urinate, occasionally defecate, and pass out in the alleyways the mayor was describing, according to dozens of police reports and interviews with longtime Front St. business owners. Police officials tell the Sun that unless officers personally witness violations, they cannot take enforcement actions.
Stuessi himself turns up often in Southold police reports as a complainant against individuals who congregate on Adams St. Last fall, the machete-wielding local described above was arrested for menacing the mayor with a broomstick outside Village Hall.
Trustee Mary Bess Phillips suggested further study.
“We all need to educate ourselves on the topic,” she said, while Trustee Julia Robins raised concerns about privacy, hacking and liability, saying that video monitoring “can be abused … it can be hacked … I think it could be a liability for the village.”
Village has ‘stalled’ on $1.2M ice rink grant
Vandenburgh also urged village officials to move forward on the $1.2 million grant to build a permanent skating rink in the village that was announced by Gov. Kathy Hochul back in August, 2024. “While the village has been granted that preliminary, wonderful grant [of] $1.2 million, that was 19 months ago,” he said. “The village has stalled in the execution of this process that could be accomplished in as little as six months.”
The village BID president told the board he had recently connected with a rink builder, Precision Ice Rinks, which he described as a “family-owned, Buffalo-based business and argued the village could avoid “hiring engineer firms or designers to reinvent this wheel.” He said that if the village “could get organized in time to consider a contract by April, we could have it installed and functioning in November [2026] and in time for our next winter season,” adding that the work could be done “for less than $700,000 … [but] we need to act, and we need to act now,” he said.
Stuessi responded that the grant “is for a permanent ring,” but suggested that for the coming season the village might consider renting a rink from Precision or another provider. Vandenburgh pushed back, saying that, based on his discussions, “it’s cheaper to buy,” and said he planned to bring Precision Ice Rinks representatives to Greenport on March 19 “at the BID’s expense” to meet the board and answer questions.
Stuessi asked him to “get a quote from them on whatever cost is deployed for one season and follow up,” and Vandenburgh replied that he would.
Throughout the presentation, Vandenburgh emphasized the BID is still in a listening-and-vetting phase. The initiatives, he said, will go back to members for a March vote. If members endorse any of the proposals, he told the board, the BID would return for further discussion — and, in the case of the vacancy strategy, bring the broker team in to “answer some of these questions” directly.
