One sure sign that the election campaign season is in full swing is the proliferation of one party or another pitching its "issue de jour" as the solution to whatever ills may be plaguing the current political landscape. This election year, what with Nassau County's $25 million budget deficit and $2 billion debt, the problem is money and the "answer de jour," at least according to Nassau Democrats, is the Storm Water and Sewer Authority. Yet anyone who follows politics to any extent, and this issue in particular, knows that this issue has no easy answers, only questions whose answers may not be fully known if and until the "Authority" is approved. And if it turns out to have been the wrong answer, you can bet it will be a lot harder to change than an error on the SAT answer sheet.

Question #1: How does passing the Storm Water and Sewer Authority initiative serve the interests of 18,000 households on the North Shore of Nassau County who seem on the verge of being rid of two unfair sewer taxes they have been paying for some 30 to 40 years for no sewers, when it would subject them to a whole new category of tax (i.e. storm water tax)?

Question #2: How can instituting an autonomous "Authority" that is accountable to, and regulated by nobody, be in the interest of the general public? Quoting from the bill: "Neither the public service commission nr any other board or commission of like character nor any municipality of state agency, shall have jurisdiction over the authority in the management and control of its properties or operations or any power over the regulation of rates fixed or charges collected by the authority.

Question #3: How can a governmental body expect approval of its request to create a taxing authority without first giving an indication of what kind of a tax burden it will be imposing on the taxpayers, by at least hinting at an initial tax rate it intends to apply to the storm water and/or the sewer portion of the newly created tax scheme?

Question #4: Certainly, it is logical that the county would want to refinance sewer-related debt in this low interest climate to save millions of dollars in finance charges. But how can the average taxpayer be sure that all the other stipulations of the sewer authority bill are not part of a larger political agenda when the budget deficit is a mere $25 million of a $2.3 billion budget and the county wants the prerogative to transfer or sell public assets such as sewage treatment plants and sewage collection lines that are worth billions and are already paid for.

Let's hope the county has answers for such questions. And let's hope the State Senate, State Assembly, Governor Pataki and our own county legislators ask at least as much, before they approve such a comprehensive reconfiguration of how the county (or as in this case, its agent) would provide sewer service and collects its taxes.

Nurhan Hamarat