Too often, the Town of Southold treats the Village of Greenport as its poorer stepchild barely worth acknowledging, rather than recognizing it as a vibrant and essential part of the town itself — a center of tourism, history, culture, commerce and critical services whose thriving businesses and infrastructure benefit the entire community of the Town of Southold. This dynamic has been on full display in the ongoing debate over how Community Preservation Fund (CPF) money is allocated.
Although the Village of Greenport occupies only about 2% of the town’s land area, it is home to nearly 10% of the town’s population and has a population density more than four times that of the rest of Southold. This concentration of residents, businesses and infrastructure makes Greenport unique and vital to the town’s fabric — demographically, economically, culturally and socially.
For years, every property transfer in Greenport Village has generated CPF tax revenue that goes directly into the town’s fund. Yet since CPF’s inception, not one dollar has been spent within the village. This exclusion is justified by the town’s focus on agricultural land preservation — a worthwhile goal, but hardly the only purpose authorized under New York state law. It’s also important to note that while Greenport’s property values once lagged behind the rest of Southold, that is no longer true. On a per-square-foot basis, residential sales prices in the village now often exceed those in many other hamlets. This means Greenport is contributing more than its proportional share to the CPF fund, making its exclusion from funding all the more unjust.
New York state law clearly allows CPF funds to be used not only for farmland protection but also to improve water quality and preserve historic resources. Other East End towns have updated their CPF programs accordingly. Southold, however, remains tied to a narrow, outdated approach.
At a recent meeting, Southold representatives acknowledged that water quality is a priority and cited multiple projects near Greenport Village funded through other sources since the town has chosen to reserve CPF funds for land preservation. While this may be manageable for Southold with its deeper administrative capacity and larger budget and fiscal resources, Greenport does not have that luxury. The village’s far more limited personnel and budget mean it relies on every available funding source Z— including, potentially, CPF — to meet pressing needs. Denying Greenport CPF access for water quality projects or historic preservation (both of which fall squarely within objectives set forth in the Town of Southold’s comprehensive plan) because the town chooses to use other funds essentially dictates how the village should manage its affairs and deprives it of a vital fiscal tool.
Greenport’s working waterfront and surrounding bay waters are as central to the North Fork’s identity and prosperity as its farmland. Safeguarding water quality is a priority that deserves equal standing with preserving open space.
The town’s CPF project plan is nearly a decade old — last updated in 2016 — despite state guidance recommending updates every five years. This refusal to modernize isn’t bureaucratic inertia; it’s an intentional choice that deprives Greenport residents of benefits from funds they help generate year after year.
In 2024, village trustees raised these concerns at a joint meeting, noting that expanding the CPF plan to include water quality and historic preservation projects would finally allow Greenport — Southold’s only disadvantaged community under New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) — to compete for funds. A year later, nothing has changed.
At the most recent meeting, the overall posture of the town supervisor and the Town Board clearly sent a message that it wasn’t really interested in Greenport’s ability to access CPF funding. Town officials failed to offer a real path forward and deflected responsibility, suggesting Greenport submit open space proposals — despite everyone knowing that the village has negligible open space — or water quality projects, even though the CPF project plan does not currently authorize such use. Lillian McCullough, the executive assistant overseeing land preservation and the town’s CPF project plan, further deflected by indicating that recent amendments of the CPF legislation by the state were ill-defined and poorly thought through, and that the town had not been given a reasonable opportunity to weigh in or review these amendments prior to enactment. She indicated that the town was likely to be unable to update its CPF project plan until there was further clarity from the state and discussions with the other towns in the East End. This is not leadership; it’s deflection.
It is also part of a broader pattern of dismissiveness toward Greenport’s legitimate concerns. When asked about police resources for Greenport, the town supervisor joked that he thought the village was about to announce that it was reinstating its own police force. Rather than working constructively, the town often brushes off the village’s role and needs. As Southold Town’s elected representatives, the Town Board holds a fiduciary duty to serve and fairly represent all Southold Town residents — including village residents — ensuring equitable access to essential services and resources under the town’s jurisdiction, including, among other things, police services and the opportunity to access CPF funds.
This is especially troubling given recent state legislation requiring towns with disadvantaged communities to ensure at least 10% of CPF funds directly benefit those communities. The Legislature’s intent is clear: Funds must meaningfully support the Village of Greenport.
Preserving farmland and open space elsewhere in Southold offers some indirect benefits to village residents, but that is insufficient. Greenport should not be expected to accept secondary benefits while being excluded from CPF-supported projects that address its critical needs and are clearly allowed under state law. Southold’s stance forces the village to seek other funding while contributing to a fund it cannot access. This is neither fair nor acceptable.
While Town Board Member Anne Smith’s expressed willingness to work with town employee Lillian McCullough and Greenport Trustee Lily Dougherty-Johnson to find a path forward is greatly appreciated, more is needed. Beyond that, the town offered no concrete proposals — only deflection — leaving Greenport with neither a clear path forward nor any assurance that its concerns would be addressed in good faith. The town supervisor and entire Town Board must commit to a timely update of the CPF project plan to ensure the town complies with New York state law requiring that at least 10% of CPF funds be set aside for disadvantaged communities as defined under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), and including the ability for such funds to be used for water quality and historic preservation projects. Only then will Greenport finally have a fair chance to access funds for projects clearly required and permitted under state guidelines.
Running out the clock and hoping the issue fades away isn’t good municipal partnership. It’s time for the Town Board to show it values all residents equally by modernizing policies and committing to a fair, transparent allocation of public resources — just like every other East End town has done. This issue won’t disappear. Greenport Village residents will remember how the town handles it in upcoming elections.
Patricia Hammes is chair of the Greenport Village Planning Board.
Please email guest opinion columns and letters to the editor to letters@northforksun.com.
