As various press reported this week, New York city and state legislators are moving to join other progressive locales in restricting “surveillance pricing,” a latest form of digitally tailored marketing. The sinister-sounding practice is an offshoot of chip technology to guide consumers toward what either they or the retailer would like to deal on. Digital being a two-way street, the store also knows more about the smartphone-enabled shopper these days, and–sensing a desire and capacity to buy a product–can adjust prices. Downward, claim the sellers–but upward, say consumerists. So in NY, there’s the irony of left-leaning pols protesting affluent customers being charged more. To be sure, that camp objects to a range of retail technologies, from self-checkout to biometric monitoring of prospective shoplifters (or “profiling,” as opponents call it). Better to keep to old ways. Why not? The Big Apple is sentimental for its traditional bodegas with their dusty, cluttered shelves, four-pawed vermin control…and fixed high prices for all.
Fretting Before Long Island Officials Buy the Farm
Farmland and other open-space preservations are becoming more limited opportunities on the East End of Long Island, N.Y., despite abundant tax money now available for such purchases. The main reason is a dwindling number of such parcels, even as competing bids for residential real-estate development escalate. But sometimes the hangup is disagreement over just what the preservation would entail–neighbors can often seek to impose their wishes. A case in point can be seen in this week’s Newsday report on an apparently foiled buy of 10 acres in the North Fork hamlet of South Jamesport. The land, near Peconic Bay, appears to be nothing more than a fallow farm plot of the sort that is disappearing in favor of luxury homes–in fact, four of them are on the drawing boards. Suffolk County thought it would acquire the parcel instead, but wanted the town of Riverhead (which contains the hamlet) to look after it. Some neighbors suspected the county had ideas for inviting bay beachgoers from who knows where to stage there (even though it’s quite a hike to the water). Riverhead officials, who are on a frugal bent, didn’t want the management costs, either. So the plan seems to have fizzled. Preservation deals often involve several parties, both governmental and nonprofit such as the Peconic Land Trust, whose leader knows they can be fraught. Even when they basically go through, as in the recent $56 million acquisition of a 30-acre historic farm in the East Hampton hamlet of Wainscott, the demands over how to proceed rattle on. –May 12, 2026
Suffolk County’s bid to save North Fork land falls through – Newsday
A Ticket Master Talks Olympics Sense
A few decades ago, I visited Fred Rosen, then the chief of Ticketmaster and–as now–an unrepentant advocate of market or “dynamic” pricing for commercial events. Here in this brief LA Times interview he reappears, defending the steep charge for seats to witness the 2028 Olympics–very much a commercial enterprise. The point he makes also applies to the current controversy over fees associated with the World Cup staging, soon to be held in New Jersey and elsewhere. If the aim of the “gouging” is to recoup or avoid the costs imposed on local citizens to host such spectacles, then by all means hit the fanatical followers up for a few thousand. Millions of others will be able to view most of the action on free or streaming video. Back to Rosen–I always thought that he was a business genius, in an entertainment industry that is full of phony sentiment. –May 1, 2026
https://link.latimes.com/view/65329feb25b3640666b01d18r2pt2.2j14/da996d0c
Republicans Turn Out the Lights in East Hampton
Another epitaph for the “old Republican Party” was written this week in the township of East Hampton, N.Y., where no GOP candidate has filed for the top position, supervisor, in the November election. This story in the East Hampton Star lays out the contemporary context of the party’s demise there, which mirrors what has happened in other affluent burghs across the U.S. The shift in East Hampton (which includes hamlets such as Montauk and Amagansett) began earlier than most–in the 1970s as the area grew more closely connected to New York City and land-preservation issues emerged. But the state Assembly Speaker, Perry Duryea, hailed from there, and Republican candidates were still competitive for supervisor (occasionally winning) and victorious down ballot. No supervisorial nominee was found in 2013 but the circumstances were unusual and the party still captured five town positions that year. This year another wipeout is virtually assured. ICE raids on the immigrant population have further roiled locals this year (East Hampton’s school rolls are half Latino), and campaign money is increasingly the domain of Democrats. Periodically, Donald Trump alights in Southampton town, to the west, for fundraisers–if not so many votes–but he needn’t bother trekking the extra 10 miles to Long Island’s tip. –Apr. 25, 2026
Socialist Mayor’s Surtax: An Idea for Hamptons-Like Homes?
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s push* for a “pied-a-terre tax” on the sparsely used homes of putative plutocrats is not staying in NYC. At least one legislator from the northern Hudson Valley exurbs is seeking allowance for a similar punitive levy on such properties there. That shouldn’t be surprising: Resentments toward wealthy seasonal visitors who erect massive houses in such formerly rustic areas is commonplace. The complaint is that these structures or compounds change the character of neighborhoods and drive up real-estate prices such that many locals can’t afford to reside where they grew up or work. (Worse, the places may be used for glam short-term rentals.) It’s said this can hollow out towns during the remaining months, and when the rich do show, their spending skews nearby retail toward luxury and out of reach of everyone else. No wonder NY State Sen. Patricia Fahy, D-Albany, has floated the idea of getting more (besides the basic property tax) out of these hides. Organized resistance can be expected from those in the business of building, equipping and selling such properties–a potent constituency of its own. I’m watching whether Mamdanism spreads to ground zero of conspicuous consumption: The Hamptons. Yesterday, I queried the office of Tommy John Schiavoni, an Assembly Democrat from Long Island’s East End with progressive as well as prosperous backers. So far, no response. –Apr. 24, 2026
https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2026/04/upstate-dems-push-pied-terre-tax-outside-nyc/413038/
* In tandem with NY governor Kathy Hochul.
Luckin’ Out With a Morning Joe App
Bloomberg had a story this week about Starbucks seeking to establish a technology base–perhaps outside the U.S.–where it could build out an internal team to (presumably) digitize more of the beverage-cafe business. It’s already doing that–while also following its new CEO’s mantra of re-personalizing the customer experience–but according to the article has wearied of paying outside contractors to provide such support. All of which is to say that any sustainable mocha model is going to need tech. I have seen one future of that with a visit this morning to one of the new Manhattan outlets of Luckin Coffee, China’s answer to Starbucks. All purchases, including my Coconut Latte, have to come from an app or online, which for an oldster like me meant a couple of minutes to set things up. After that, and with impressive automation, the drink appeared silently at the counter with my numbered receipt in less time than that. No need for chatter or pay swipes (or tips). I sat at one of the few bench seats and watched a few regulars pop in the door and round their orders right up, a staffer’s wish to “have a nice day!” following them out to Third Ave. Yet it was a modest morning rush–one of the three baristas told me business has been slow since this month’s opening, though it picks up at lunch. Apparently in the AM, rushing New Yorkers aren’t so geared to let their phones “call ahead”–in fact, some beef about it and walk out, I was told. This time, at least, I was more intentional and was rewarded with a good cuppa, and at the introductory app price of $1.99. (Ideally “Luckin Coffee U.S.” does not now link my mobile to the Chinese state tracking apparatus.) Luckin is far from the only coffee house streamlining its transactions now, but it is an acknowledged global pioneer at it. There was, however, one missing Starbucks element: no customer toilet. But have a nice day! –Apr. 23, 2026
Build But Don’t Park Here? A Town Says No To That
Zoning reformers want to get rid of some strictures that were written into urban and suburban planning laws in the 1900s. Mostly, these changes are pushed by New Urbanists or YIMBY* activists who seek to remove “exclusionary” regulations that deter new housing, especially for potential residents of lesser wealth or income. But, not surprisingly, these efforts can meet pushback by those who like their neighborhoods as is.
A reminder came this month in Lakewood, Colo., a western suburb of Denver (pop. 157,000) whose council had enacted more permissive allowances for small multifamily structures in previously single-family zones, even without commensurate off-street parking. Voters repealed the measures, overwhelmingly.
Colorado law, as in other statehouses, has shifted to push against tight local zoning, for reasons of “equity” and to alleviate pinched housing markets. So it remains to be seen whether popular referendums such as Lakewood’s (or local policies to the same effect) will hold up as they are challenged. The federal government under the Trump GOP has ceased to weigh in against single-family zones.
The parking aspect of the Lakewood fight attracted the attention of Reason magazine’s Christian Britschgi, who favors looser limits from a property-rights perspective but who also has a YIMBY bent for more housing production. In fact, however, a certain property right–motor-vehicle ownership–has a lot to do with many of these zoning disputes.
As zoning developed around the U.S. in the last century, the gathering effects of cars and trucks were a primary motivation. Planners sought to contain the crowding effect of too many vehicles by imposing parking requirements on land development in order to, er, curb street congestion. A related aim was to keep cars and trucks off the frontages of parcels.
New Urbanist reformers generally disparage the prerogatives accorded to motorists. The most avid among these activists seek car-free zones or high fees on possession of private automobiles. A general target, however, is “free parking.” The notion of letting someone command public curb space for their four wheels without so much as a meter is abhorrent in these circles. (And no, they don’t want them on the lawns, either.)
Putting a price on space makes theoretical sense, to some libertarians as well. But the idea of “taking back the streets” can be highly unpopular in settled communities where the familiar ways of life seem to be just fine. It’s not just parking but fears of traffic, which can seem worsened by constricting the flows along some routes–another reformist goal. For better or worse, personal transport remains the American default. Add to this whatever other apprehensions attend to a concentrated housing push, and you get popular (if underfunded) resistance as in Lakewood.
The question then becomes, should wise policy seek to “live and let live” by deferring to the wishes of a resident majority? Even when a few will be blocked from building, when some may suffer exclusion and when demographic trends suggest those residents will price out a supportive labor force or family members? Would it make for more comity, instead, to seek out “blighted” areas or entirely new ground to create better visions of modern living?
In other words–or acronyms–should NIMBY be able to shoulder aside YIMBY to enjoy breathing room? To a degree, yes, in our fractious social climate, this could be for the best. –April 15, 2026
*Yes In My Back Yard, as opposed to Not IMBY.
USPS Running Short of Cash…and Customers
The U.S. Postal Service has flashed another fiscal alert to its patrons in Congress–funds will run dry by next year without relief. The attached brief from the Cato Institute frames the falloff in usage that has precipitated the latest mail crisis. Simply put, even with the various (but limited) efficiencies this public corporation has been permitted, it hasn’t been able to shrink in tandem with its customer base. Given the already low prices for marketing mail, it’s hard to see that business being enticed back. The first-class letter, at 78 cents still a money loser, is supposed to be an American birthright but is close to being an artifact. (And, in any case, the real cost of sending meaningful content is now at least $6.08–the postage plus the cumbersome fixing of a bar-coded wrap so the USPS can track the item. I waited in the usual slow line to get that “Certified” delivery from NYC to Florida, which has now taken 4 days and counting.) The walls are crumbling on this operation and literally so in some of its thousands of antiquated post offices. The politics of postal reform remain fractious, but maybe a wave of digital-savvy congresspeople will help size this relic for today. –March 27, 2026
https://www.cato.org/blog/postal-service-out-cash
UPDATE, April 6, 2006–As of this afternoon, the mailing described in parentheses above is still “Moving Through Network” according to the USPS tracking. On Apr. 1, it was said to have reached West Palm Beach. I launched a USPS search on Mar. 30, one week after I mailed the item with a postal clerk. (It’s not clear that the item actually has been found, despite the “track.”) This exemplifies why the Postal Service is an anachronism.
The Passing of a Pine Barrens Partisan
Decades after hydrologists and other Earth scientists had identified the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island, N.Y., as sitting atop a vital aquifer and fostering a complex ecosystem, the 120,000 remaining acres were still being treated as scrublands. By the 1970s they separated the increasingly precious Hamptons and farm belt of the eastern end from the suburbs that had risen in western Suffolk County, and commercial interests had plans to put them to use: for industry or housing, generally, or odd one-offs like a fireworks factory or a huge roller rink. One golf course had already been built and others were envisioned. And that water beneath the surface? Some promoters wanted to bottle it. A trio of environmental academics took up for the forests (which include cedar and maple) and started the Long Island Pine Barrens Society in 1977. Before long they found their (foghorn) voice in P.R. man Dick Amper, an area resident and clean-water hound. The stakes were rising as the local development boom took off in the 1980s. As the society’s pugnacious director, and aided by an increasingly preservationist political bent on the East End, Amper got state protective legislation enacted in 1993. With that leverage and fitful support from surrounding town and county governments, the society by 2020 was celebrating the shielding of 100,000-plus acres from routine building–more than half of that from any disturbance at all. Amper stepped down in 2023 and died this week, one more departed warrior from the pivotal land-use battles of the Hamptons’ recent past.
Chicken or Egg: A Farm May Disturb Hamptons-Adjacent Rusticity
It’s a conceit on the East End of Long Island, N.Y., that the agricultural character of the area should be preserved. Attempts to do that go back half a century, to when land values rose to the point that farm families wanted to sell out to subdividers. But the gloss of today’s version–mostly vineyards and boutique row crops–obscures the sometimes noxious aspects of living near active plant and animal raising, which earlier generations accepted. A particular rub has developed in the North Fork town of Southold, where a 16-acre plot that had been legally preserved–though it apparently had not been farmed in that same half a century–was bought by someone who plans to tend 6,000 hens on it. Some nearby homeowners, who may have been attracted by proximity to the fallow acreage, are screaming about elements of the intended egg (or chicken) operation. As the latest East End Beacon story on the controversy explains, some unusual twists to Grant Callahan’s application exist, but then ag preserves often involve the unexpected, as on the South Fork or “Hamptons.” (Who knew that trees or horses could be a problem?) Such are the vexations in some of America’s most valuable precincts.
Tim W. Ferguson 