Assembly Actions -
Lowercase Senate Actions - UPPERCASE |
|
---|---|
Jun 17, 2025 |
returned to senate passed assembly ordered to third reading rules cal.885 substituted for a74 |
May 27, 2025 |
referred to real property taxation delivered to assembly passed senate |
Feb 10, 2025 |
advanced to third reading |
Feb 05, 2025 |
2nd report cal. |
Feb 04, 2025 |
1st report cal.263 |
Jan 08, 2025 |
referred to veterans, homeland security and military affairs |
-
-
Floor Vote: May 27, 2025
aye (59)- Addabbo Jr.
- Ashby
- Bailey
- Baskin
- Borrello
- Brisport
- Bynoe
- Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick
- Chan
- Cleare
- Comrie
- Cooney
- Fahy
- Fernandez
- Gallivan
- Gianaris
- Gounardes
- Griffo
- Harckham
- Helming
- Hinchey
- Hoylman-Sigal
- Jackson
- Kavanagh
- Krueger
- Lanza
- Liu
- Martinez
- Mattera
- May
- Mayer
- Murray
- Myrie
- O'Mara
- Oberacker
- Ortt
- Palumbo
- Persaud
- Ramos
- Rhoads
- Rivera
- Rolison
- Ryan
- Ryan
- Salazar
- Sanders Jr.
- Scarcella-Spanton
- Sepúlveda
- Serrano
- Skoufis
- Stavisky
- Stec
- Stewart-Cousins
- Sutton
- Tedisco
- Walczyk
- Webb
- Weber
- Weik
-
Let’s finally get this passed this year! I know it’s the assembly that holds everything up.
I fully support Bill S1183. Less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those of us who do often sacrifice everything—our physical health, mental well-being, and future earning potential—for the safety and freedom of this country. For veterans with 100% service-connected disabilities, life can be a daily struggle to survive, let alone thrive.
This bill is not just about financial relief; it’s about acknowledging the immense sacrifices made by the few who gave their all. Property taxes should not be an additional burden on veterans and their families who are already navigating life with significant challenges.
This exemption would allow us to live with dignity, security, and a sense of gratitude from the country we served. Please pass this bill—it’s a small but meaningful way to honor those who have given so much.
I wholeheartedly agree with the intent and spirit behind Bill S1183, and I fully support providing meaningful property tax relief to our 100% service-connected disabled veterans. As stated, less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those who do often bear lifelong burdens—physically, mentally, and financially—on behalf of our entire nation.
However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.
This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.
If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.
Please consider strengthening this bill so it delivers on its promise and ensures that no disabled veteran is left behind due to local discretion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the intent and spirit behind Bill S1183, and I fully support providing meaningful property tax relief to our 100% service-connected disabled veterans. As stated, less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those who do often bear lifelong burdens—physically, mentally, and financially—on behalf of our entire nation.
However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.
This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.
If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.
Please consider strengthening this bill so it delivers on its promise and ensures that no disabled veteran is left behind due to local discretion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the intent and spirit behind Bill S1183, and I fully support providing meaningful property tax relief to our 100% service-connected disabled veterans. As stated, less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those who do often bear lifelong burdens—physically, mentally, and financially—on behalf of our entire nation.
However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.
This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.
If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.
Please consider strengthening this bill so it delivers on its promise and ensures that no disabled veteran is left behind due to local discretion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the intent and spirit behind Bill S1183, and I fully support providing meaningful property tax relief to our 100% service-connected disabled veterans. As stated, less than 1% of Americans serve in the military, and those who do often bear lifelong burdens—physically, mentally, and financially—on behalf of our entire nation.However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.
This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.
If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.
Please consider strengthening this bill so it delivers on its promise and ensures that no disabled veteran is left behind due to local discretion.However, I am deeply concerned about the amended language in the bill, particularly the inclusion of the word “may.” This change gives local governments the discretion to decide whether or not to offer this exemption, effectively weakening the bill’s purpose. What was meant to be a guaranteed form of relief for our most severely disabled veterans now becomes optional, subject to local budget priorities and politics.This kind of discretionary language opens the door to unequal treatment across municipalities, where some veterans might receive the exemption while others are denied—despite having made the same sacrifices. That’s not right, and it’s not in line with the bill’s original intent to honor and support our disabled veterans uniformly and fairly.If we truly want to show our appreciation, the bill must include mandatory language—“shall” instead of “may.” Anything less falls short of the commitment we owe to those who gave so much for this country.
In the past, the school district I was part of refused to provide any tax relief to disabled veterans. It wasn’t until one determined individual rallied a large coalition of voters that the district was finally pressured into slightly reducing the tax burden for disabled veterans. Recently, Connecticut passed a similar bill—but importantly, it did not include the discretionary “may” language that would allow local governments to sidestep their fiscal responsibility to 100% permanently disabled veterans. I believe New York should follow this example by ensuring that its laws contain clear and mandatory language, so our veterans are treated fairly and not left behind after sacrificing so much for their country.
Just to clarify — for sections (III) and (IV), does that mean the veteran also has to be rated as individually unemployable by the VA and either be eligible for or have received financial assistance from the government? Connecticut recently passed a similar law, but it doesn’t include language like this. Taking that part out actually makes it easier for veterans to qualify for the exemption.
The language in sections (lll) and (lV) need to be written to support all 100% disabled veterans whether they are working or not. Please change the bill to support all 100% disabled veterans.
sections (III) and (IV), does that mean the veteran also has to be rated as individually unemployable by the VA and either be eligible for or have received financial assistance from the government? Connecticut recently passed a similar law, but it doesn’t include language like this. Taking that part out actually makes it easier for veterans to qualify for the exemption. I agree with the poster above, this needs to be stricken and opened up to all 100% rated veterans whether they are working or not.
Our legislators are absolute trash. This bill is useless, and a law is not a law with words like "MAY"
18 other states offer a REAL tax exemption for ALL 100% disabled veterans. This ONLY gives it to 100% vets who get housing assistance for home modifications. Typical NYS weak sauce. It’s better than nothing, for sure. But don’t let them fool you, the bill is a lie and is misleading. It’s only for a very select few 100% vets, but not ALL 100% vets.
Let’s ALSO be clear: Assembly Bill 74-A realized this, and specifically removed that requirement for housing assistance for home modifications, and actually WAS for ALL 100% disabled vets. But just as always, these sneaky, spineless jellyfish went and RE—AMENDED the restriction back in (by substituting this Senate bill language in S.1183 for A74-A). Thought we wouldn’t notice. Well, we did. No spines. Typical politician sidestep.
100% p&t + TDIU + PECUNIARY ASSISTANCE = tax exemption? This makes no sense if reads like that, am I missing something some please help me understand.
You have to fix this bill. The amount of restrictions on this is completely unacceptable. There are many 100% Permanent and Totally disabled Vets that will not qualify for this because they didn't get a home modification. Also, this bill discourages 100% Disabled Veterans from seeking a way to meaningful employment.
This bill is a complete waste of time. It takes a subset of veterans - 100% disabled veterans - and initially gives them hope for relief, and then with the amendment - moves the goal post and tells these veterans that their 100% disabled isn't 'disabled enough'. If you so happen to meet the additional requirements, you then have to happen to live in a municipality that chooses to implement the law. This entire bill is an offensive charade. Probably fewer than 50 veterans in the entire state will get the full property tax relief. So incredibly disappointing.
I am deeply disappointed in the changes to this proposed bill. First, you have put the wording that the local County, City or School District "MAY" adopt this bill. You are the lawmakers and have taken the teeth out of this legislation.
Next, you have placed so many requirements on top of a 100% Disabled Veterans that you have created a bill that is so selective in an already selective group of Veterans.
You have established another systematic barrier for Veterans to receive some tax relief.
This bill has been watered down and does not deliver financial relief to Veterans in the State of New York. Truly disappointed and will be relaying this to all Veterans Organizations within New York.
You need to return to the original language of 100% service connected disabled veteran without all of these additional caveats and strike the work "May".
This Bill is limited at best. It is better then Nothing, which is what the 100% disabled veterans usually get in NY, but Lets dive deeper. The first concern is the "May" added to the text. This means that it will be up to the individual municipality to either accpet this or not. Meaning at best the municipalities that do accept this will give an affect in about 2 years. Local municipalities will have to pass laws allowing or adopting this exemption or not.
Next is more concerning, "“qualifying condition” means a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury made by, or an experience of military sexual trauma". No mention of any other qualifying conditions. So if you do not have PTSD, a TBI or your not a victim of trauma of Sexual nature, you do not qualify. Then to get the exemption you must proof up to the State and municipality your medical condition with a letter from your doctor. No Hippa violations here!
Now lets get into the rest of the bill. Pecurinary Assistance means you have to be recieving VA Disablity Compensation for your injury. Veterans Disability Compensation is considered pecuniary assistance from the United States Government because it is a direct monetary payment provided by the VA to support veterans with service-connected disabilities. Also SSDI is considered pecurinary assitance.
To sum this up, you have to have a TBI, PTSD or Sexual Trauma, be rated 100% P&T and have Individual umemployability (IU) and be recieving VA disablity compensation. Finally a municipality "MAY or May Not" choose to be in this, it is up to them if it passes.
So, how many veterans will meet these criteria and what the impact will be is to be determined. At best maybe a few thousand veterans will qualify and of those how many own homes. Most don't. It would open does to some to home ownership, but the very narrow aspect of this law will limit who qualifies.
There is a confict in the law. If you are rated 100% P&T you do not need IU. IU is for verterans who are not P&T and or not 100% rated. If you are shedular Rated 100% P&T you do not need IU. That will need to be clarified.
(B) (I) IS CONSIDERED TO BE PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED AS A
RESULT OF MILITARY SERVICE;
(II) IS RATED ONE HUNDRED PERCENT DISABLED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
(III) HAS BEEN RATED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS AS INDIVIDUALLY UNEMPLOYABLE; AND
This bill is performative. It allows the State Government to say they did something, point the finger at someone else when nothing happens and campaign on it while accomplishing nothing.
Please introduce and pass a bill that does something. Veterans already have a disability rating system. Base it on that. And mandate that everyone must follow it.
If you want help, I'll draft it for you.