Margaret Chin, the developer's candidate

Margaret Chin is taking money from the Real Estate Board of New York's Political Action Committee. You'd want to ask, why would the founder of Asian Americans for Equality welcome large campaign support from real estate?

Affordable housing is built in NYC through incentives given to developers. So if you want to get any affordable housing here, you've got to welcome a market-rate developer, otherwise you get nothing.

Does that explain why Margaret voted for the NYU development (albeit curtailed)? Maybe. Does it explain why she voted for the Chinatown BID against widespread opposition within Chinatown? Maybe. Why she voted to help First American International Bank, the promoter of the BID, demolish and redevelop 135 Bowery?

The BID benefits larger property owners, larger businesses and developers and banks. But the small property owners and the small businesses are the anchor of Chinatown. At what point does a commitment to building new affordable housing sacrifice community entirely?

The city has shoved a wedge between affordable housing and community, turning affordable housing into a tool of gentrification and displacement. Look at Williamsburg. Chinatown next? The BID is a step towards the new Downtown Hotel District (DoHo?) formerly known as Chinatown.

From Crain's http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130729/BLOGS04/130729878 about REBNY's funding of Chin's campaign

From City Council Watch, Seth Barron (writer for City & State) "Margaret Chin Progressively Awful"

Sean Sweeney in The Villager "The billionaires back Margaret Chin for City Council"

CB3 priorities

Our Community Board has sent around a notice asking for help in getting themselves more funding. But CB3 did not send around a notice announcing the Chinatown Town Hall, an extremely important community event held in CB3's district.

It has been eleven months that the Chinatown Working Group has been meeting, yet CB3 has not sent even a single notice of even one meeting. I get my notices of Chinatown Working Group meetings from CB2, even though I live in CB3's district and the Town Hall was held in CB3's district.

No doubt the community boards need funding to accomplish their goals. But those goals must include the entire community, not just the sector of the community that makes the CB look good or that is friendly to the CB.

Advertising the Chinatown process would have improved CB3's image. Continuing to undermine the process by not sending out notices will just earn CB3 more enmity. I hope CB3 will rethink its approach to the Chinatown Working Group and begin sending notices of the meetings through their e-mail list. Then I might be happy to advocate for more CB funding.

BID can't take "no" for an answer

Last night the well-heeled LES Business Improvement District -- the development interest, rarely visible -- presented itself at last before the unwashed community. CB3's Economic Development and Planning Committee filled with black suits, more well-dressed tailoring than I've seen at the CB since ... well, I've never seen anyone well-dressed at the CB, a scarce virtue I appreciate.

The BID wants the rezoning south of Houston -- the part of the rezoning that protects the LES from more hotels -- revised. Instead of the new 4 FAR, they want 6.

That's a 50% increase, friends. 6 FAR, by the way, was the FAR under the old zoning. They are proposing a roll back.

Six months ago a Chinatown group was roundly criticized and soundly excoriated for having entered the process late in the game. Now, when the three-year-plus process is finally over and done, sealed and celebrated, the BID requests, not a small alteration of detail, but a full 50% more commercial bulk.

The BID says that the additional 50% bulk won't be visible from the street because commercial buildings can use a bit more backyard space than residential buildings (in fact, however, additional backyard space can add only 10% additional FAR) and the new zoning will cap all heights at 80 feet. An 80-foot 6 FAR building, says the BID, looks just like an 80-foot 4 FAR building.

That's true, except a typical 4 FAR building doesn't rise beyond 60 feet. The existing tenements there are 5-6 story 3-4 FAR buildings. Offering 6 FAR is an invitation to roof-top additions at least, if not wholesale redevelopment, all dependent on residential evictions for commercial conversion throughout the entire neighborhood. Their proposal is worse than the old zoning in which the selling of air rights protected many old buildings. Under the BID plan, all buildings would be equally vulnerable to conversion and redevelopment.

In their proposed package the BID offers to forgo hotel development and to press the city to include special anti-harassment measures to protect current residents from eviction.

They know that Board members want anti-harassment measures and want protection against hotel development. But those members expressed healthy skepticism: anti-harassment measures are a thumb in the dyke against the flood of commercial pressure. Far from easing the pressure, they are a weak reactive, with the burden of effort entirely on the victim. Besides, City Planning has a history of picking apart proposal packages, accepting changes it likes and tossing the rest. The BID's package, edited by DCP, would give us 6 FAR, hotels everywhere and no harassment protection.

No one asked, so no one told, just what kind of commercial development the BID wants if not hotels. It was pointed out that New York developers have made an art of building hotels to take advantage of added commercial bulk, later converting them to residences, where the money is.

Upcoming local meetings

Of meetings in the new year, maybe the most important is the Chinatown Working Group's at which they will set their agenda for the future and elect their leadership. More urgent is the Chatham Square Redesign Task Force. It should bring a strong showing of community voices opposed to the plan the city is ready to implement.

Liquor license applications are down by about 30%, but there are still 20 applicants, many of them restaurants upgrading to a full liquor license, including European Union. See the complete list below.

CB3's Housing Committee will consider three properties south of Houston on Orchard and Rivington applying for construction renewals and extensions.

And CB3's zoning committee will revisit (?) the rezoning south of Houston (Essex to Chrystie), and will consider the Seward Park Renewal area.

1. Chinatown Working Group, Mon Jan 5, 4-6, 191-193 Canal @ Mott.
2. CB3 Zoning Committee, Mon Jan 5, 6:30, 184 Eldridge.
3. CB3 Liquor Licensing Committee, Mon Jan 12, 6:30, 200 E 5.
4. CB3 Chatham Redesign Task Force, Mon Jan 12, 6:30, 33 Bowery @ Bayard
5. CB3 Housing Committee, Tues Jan 20, 6:30, 333 Bowery.

Agenda for the liquor licensing and sidewalk cafe licensing committee:
Renewal with Complaint History
1. Kaleidoscope Restaurant, 212 E 10th St (rw)
2. Winebar, 65 2nd Ave (sidewalk cafe)
Applications within Resolution Areas
3. European Union, 235 E 4th St (up/op)
4. Eat Pisode, 123 Ludlow St (rw)
5. 171 Ave A Food, 171 Ave A (rw)
6. Bruno Jamais, 179 Ludlow St (op)
7. Kuma Inn, 113 Ludlow St (rw)
Alterations/Transfers/Upgrades
8. Castleblade, 17 Clinton St (up/op)
9. NY Restaurant Supplies, 29 3rd Ave (alt/reduction of size of restaurant)
10. Ford Grey, 175 Ludlow St (trans/op)
11. Maradona, 188 Allen St (up/op)
12. Ballaro, 77 2nd Ave (trans/rw)
New Liquor License Applications
13. Eastville Comedy Club, 85 E 4th St (op)
14. Sun Shine 27, 46 Bowery (rw)
15. Noodle King, 19 Henry St (rw)
16. Ken's Asian Taste, 40 Bowery (rw)
17. Cafe Khufu, 61 E 3rd St (rw)
18. Upright Citizens Brigade, 155 E 3rd St (tw)
19. Saigon NYC, 85 Orchard St (rw)
20. Thai Bodhi Tree, 58 3rd Ave (rw)

Updates

The New School students' occupation of 65 Fifth Ave has ended with, as I understand, only one arrest, but considerable stir and excitement among activists, several letters of support including one from Mexico. All at their new blog of resistance:
http://newschoolinexile.com

Meanwhile, CB3 voted to reject the city's plan to reroute the Bowery at Chatham Square, in a bizarrely written resolution: the chair of the committee wrote pages and pages of 'whereas' clauses with the intention of justifying and supporting the city's unpopular plan, but the committee and later the full board insisted on standing with the community and the local councilmember and the local assemblymember and the local state senator-elect and the comptroller who all rejected the city's plan.

So the full board added a few 'whereas' clauses of its own and rewrote the "resolved" section as a rejection . The final resolution reads like a series of lengthy, deep and repeated bows to the city followed by an abrupt kick to the shin. Well, it's the resolved section that matters. Three cheers for CB3, at last!

Reopen Park Row!!

Full text (and even a bit of the discussion) available at CCRC.

Four PSA's

1. Public Hearing on Con Ed Air Pollution - Mon
2. LES Forum on Rodents - Wed
3. Visioning the Seward Park Renewal Area - Sat
4. Parks Department Survey

1. Public Hearing on Con Ed Air Pollution
Monday November 17 at 7 pm,
Campos Plaza, 611 East 13 Street
The expansion of production at the East 14th Street Con Ed power plant has significantly increased pollution levels since 2005. Con Ed has filed to renew an operating and air pollution permit under "Title V", the air pollution control program for New York State. This hearing is an opportunity for our community to urge the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to reduce the Con Ed pollution.
For more information:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20081015_not2.html

2. LES Forum on rodents
Wed, November 19th, 6:30pm-8:30pm
PS 63 - 121 East 3rd St
Presentation from City agencies
and open discussion

3. Seward Park Urban Renewal Area Matters!
Saturday, November 22, 2 to 4:30pm
227 E. 3rd Street Ground Floor
(wheelchair accessible)

4. Parks Department Public Survey
The Parks Department is now working on a plan for the future development of the park system and would like to hear from you. Please take the time to complete the Public Outreach Survey and help them shape the park system for the 21st century.

Click here to complete the survey.

Mixed results at CB3's Liquor Licensing committee

Overall, the Committee respected community opposition to licenses:

There was community opposition to 8 applications.
The committee unconditionally denied 4 of these.
Under pressure from the committee, another 2 withdrew,
and the committee approved 2 (both transfers of existing licenses to new owners).

The 2 that were approved had only one resident speaking in opposition.

(As it happened, one of the approved licenses is owned and being sold by a member of the committee, but this was not the reason for their approval -- it's a bar on an avenue, it's had a license since the 1930's, and this was merely a transfer from one owner to another. The other approval went to an applicant opposed by the District Manager herself who lives across the street from it. So the Committee wasn't doing any favors for their District Manager.)

The committee even denied two applicants without any community opposition: one for being in a saturated area, the other for asking to upgrade with only a three month track record in the location.

All in all, responsible committee work, with the exception of Cake Shop:

The Committee approved a license for the street-level of Cake Shop, 152 Ludlow, which has been operating successfully for four years with its basement-only liquor license.

Cake Shop claims that they need the added revenue, but the Committee didn't ask for any evidence of their need. It's a troubling application. A fully active street-level bar transforms the character of the neighborhood far more than a basement bar, and this is in the heart of a seriously oversaturated nightlife destination area, Ludlow near Stanton. No residents showed up in opposition. The Committee did not even ask whether notices of their application had been properly posted.

You'd think the Committee would be more conscientious, especially since the applicant was a former employee of one of the Committee members. I don't think they showed favoritism here, just carelessness.

It may be that the applicant needs this license to stay open and continue running the artist space downstairs. But the Committee process didn't demonstrate that to this listener.

Here's the run down by address:

DENIED -- hard liquor

13 St. Mark's (applicant didn't show up)
90 Eldridge (community opposition)

DENIED -- beer/wine

441 E 12 (community opposition)
171 Ave A (oversaturated area)
40 Ave B (oversaturated & community opposition)

WITHDREW under threat of denial

46 Ave B (oversaturated area & community opposition)
60 3rd Ave (only 3 months in this location)
58 3rd Ave (community opposition & no signatures of support)

APPROVED

151 2nd Ave (no community opposition)
308 6th St (no community opposition)
152 Ludlow (no community opposition)
34 Ave A (despite one voice in opposition)
269 E Houston (despite one voice in opposition)

NEW LICENSES APPROVED

191 Houston (no community opposition)
250 Broome (no community opposition)
144 Division (with a community agreement)
77 E 10th (with a community agreement)
35 E B'way (no community opposition)

I arrived late at the meeting, so I missed
Bowery Hotel,
Katra (217 Bowery),
Spur Tree (76 Orchard),
Compas (86 Orchard),
Samburger (33 St. Mark's)

Hope for the LES?

Last night at CB3's SLA committee, 20 bars and restaurants applied for licenses. Residents showed up to protest four. All four of those license applicants were rejected by the committee. Two more were sent back to consult with the residents on their block. All the rest of the unopposed applicants were approved.

Moral:

100% of successfully opposing a liquor license at the CB is --

-- just showing up.

At least half of those residents who showed up were brought by block associations. They can be effective, those block associations. Maybe it's time to organize EV/LES block associations. A neighborhood friend is creating a website where block associations can share information with residents on their block and with other block associations, view community news alerts and, with virtually no effort, even create and manage their own webpage. All he needs are block association contacts.

Anyone want to contribute a block association contact?

(Could be the start of something big: community voice and network throughout the EV/LES.)

Coming up at the Community Board

Extra Place is back on the agenda at the Housing and Land Use Committee, Tuesday, October 7, 6:30pm, 333 Bowery (btwn E 2nd & 3rd Sts).

As always, lots of bars and restaurants are requesting Community Board support for their liquor license application to the State Liquor Authority. Take a look at the list below to see if there's one near you.

Don't forget that the Community Board is just the first step in the process. It's the State Liquor Authority that decides whether to grant a license. Even if the CB rejects the bar, you still have to go up to the SLA hearing (preferably with letters from local electeds-- councilmember, State Senator and State Assemblymember) if you want to ensure denial. The SLA was responsive to community demands last year, but the economy has changed, and the SLA will change with it.

Here's the list of liquor license applicants on the agenda of the CB3 SLA committee Monday, October 20, 6:30pm, 200 East 5th Street (corner of the Bowery)
rw/tw=beer&wine license;
op=hard liquor license

1. FY'2010 Capital & Expense Priorities
Renewal with Complaint History
2. The Box, 189 Chrystie St (op)
3. Sidewalk Bar & Restaurant, 94 Ave A (sidewalk café)
4. Dallas BBQ, 132 2nd Ave (sidewalk café)
5. Supper, 156 E 2nd St (sidewalk café)
Sidewalk Café Renewal/ULURP
6. Sugar Café, 200 Allen St (sidewalk café)
7. Zerza, 304 E 6th St (sidewalk café)
Applications within Resolution Areas
8. Tuck Shop, 68 E 1st St (rw)
9. Caffe Pepe Rosso, 127 Ave C (up/op)
10. 146 Orchard Rest, 146 Orchard St (add/op)
11. 6AB Restaurant, 507 E 6th St (bw)
12. Café Partners, 72 E 1st St (tw)
Alterations/Transfers/Upgrades
13. Jing Star (currently Sunrise 27), 27-29 Division St (trans/rw)
14. Vicky's Gourmet (currently Yummy House), 76 3rd Ave (trans/op)
15. Xunta, 174 1st Ave (up/op)
16. Bourgeois Pig, 122 E 7th St (alt)
17. Sushi Park, 77 E 7th St (up/op)
18. Mornir Stojnovic (currently Kush Lounge), 191 Chrystie St (trans/op)
19. Corp to be Formed (currently Mo Pitkins), 34 Ave A (trans/op)
20. SJD Entertainment (currently Summers Bar), 49 Clinton St (trans/op)
21. A&S Organic (currently Russo's), 40 Ave B (trans/rw)
New Liquor License Applications
22. Betty Café, 256 E 3rd St (tw)
23. Fifty Fathoms, 86 Allen St (op)
24. 384 Grand St (op)
25. Tanaghrisson, 90 E 10th St (op)
26. 1 Essex LLC, 1 Essex St (op)
27. Compas Group, 86 Orchard St (op)
28. Fritz, 417 E 9th St (rw)
29. Stanton Restaurant, 82 Stanton St (op)
30. Spice Thai Hot & Cool, 77 E 10th St (op)
31. 144 Division LLC, 144 Division St (op)
32. Persimmon LLC, 277 E 10th St (rw)
33. Rivington Sushi, 151 Rivington St (rw)
34. Porchetta, 110 E 7th St (rw)

More bars!

The Community Board 3 committee that reviews liquor licenses will hold its first meeting of the season on September 15, 6:30pm at 200 E 5th St., corner of Bowery.

Among the 40 applications, there are no fewer than 10 new applications for full liquor licenses (called "op" for "on premises" -- scroll down to item 21).

They're everywhere: one on Grand; another just around the corner from it on Eldridge Street; Chrystie is getting hit; around the corner on Rivington too; Allen off Stanton (right next to Epstein's Bar); 2 on 10th Street. Some are restaurants, some are bars; all add to the "nightlife destination" mania, the rising commercial rents, the selling off of the LES to Generation Bloomberg.

Mitchell-Banchik (114-6 3rd Avenue) is back on the agenda because your community board thinks bars are preferable to chain stores.

Take a look at the agenda to see if there's a license near you. You could be a lucky winner!
NB: rw=restaurant wine; tw=tavern wine.

SLA & DCA Licensing Committee

Monday, September 15 - 6:30pm -- JASA/Green Residence - 200 East 5th Street at Bowery

Renewal with Complaint History

1. The Box, 189 Chrystie St (op)

2. Mercadito, 179 Ave B (op)

3. Pour House, 64 3rd Ave (op)

4. Carthage Palace, 46 Ave B (op)

Applications within Resolution Areas

5. Pan Asian Bistro, 172 Orchard St (rw)

6. Caffe Pepe Rosso, 127 Ave C (up/op)

7. Mary O'Halloran, 220 Ave B (op)

8. I Foods Restaurant, 171 Ave A (op)

9. 102 Ave C Restaurant, 102 Ave C (rw)

10. European Union, 235 E 4th St (alt/extend license)

Alterations/Transfers/Upgrades

11. Drom, 85 Ave A (trans/op)

12. Falai Panetterie, 79 Clinton St (up/op)

13. Mo Pitkins, 34 Ave A (trans/op)

14. Kampuchea Noodle Bar, 78-84 Rivington St (alt/expansion/op)

15. Kush Lounge, 191 Chrystie St (trans/op)

16. Maradona, 188 Allen St (up/op)

17. Isabella's Oven, 365 Grand St (up/op)

18. Seymour Burton, 511 E 5th St (alt)

19a. Thompson Lower East Side Hotel, 190 Allen St (alt/remove restaurant from hotel license)

19b. Orchard St Restaurant, 190 Allen St (new separate op for restaurant in hotel)

New Liquor License Applications

20. Philly's Cheese Steak, 191 E Houston St (rw)

21. Mitchell Banchik, 114-116 3rd Ave (op)

22. 8 Rivington Restaurant, 8 Rivington St (op)

23. Sinead Duell, 90 E 10th St (op)

24. Café Partners, 520 2nd Ave (op)

25. Chikalicious Puddin, 204 E 10th St (op)

26. Old Lao San Snack, 2-6 E B'way (rw)

27. New Waloy Snacks, 67B E B'way (eb)

28. Rice Village, 81 Chrystie St (rw)

29. Neway KTV, 90 Eldridge St (op)

30. 417 East 9th St LLC, 417 E 9th St (rw)

31. Paul O'Sullivan, 200 Allen St (op)

32. Mercury Dime, 246 E 5th St (tw)

33. Sarita's Macaroni & Cheese, 345 E 12th St (rw)

34. Famous Sichuan, 10 Pell St (rw)

35. E 10th St LLC, 441 E 12th St (rw)

36. Emperor Japanese Tapas, 96 Bowery (op)

37. Suimon, 412-414 E 9th St (rw)

38. Cookout Grill, 214 1st Ave (rw)

39. Dixon Place, 161 Chrystie St (op)

40. Gesundheit, 290 Grand St (op)

41. Persimmon LLC, 277 E 10th St (rw)

Personally, I don't object to 3rd Ave becoming a trendy campus nightlife destination, if that's what people living there want. What troubles me are CB members who voted to approve this bar despite community opposition and without actually hearing from the community; despite the position taken by its own SLA committee and without allowing the committee to negotiate stipulations on the bar's method of operation; CB members who voted to approve a bar solely because someone claims bars are better than chain stores. Chain stores are unattractive -- not conducive to a nightlife destination; and the entry below shows it's all about conducting successful nightlife, not successful community life...

CB3's answer to chain stores

CB3's new plan for our neighborhood:
prevent the spread of chain stores by installing bars in every storefront!! Brilliant, no?

We all hate chain stores, right? They attract rowdy, noisy crowds at all hours of night, play loud music and create a nightlife scene with mobs loitering in the street yapping into cell phones, and they give our once radical and cutting-edge arts neighborhood that attracted artists, activists and intellectuals from all over the world -- give it a frat party reputation, a scene that everyone but the partiers and their playmates assiduously avoid.

Wait a minute. I'm confused. Chain stores, non local and offensive as they are, serve working people's and residents' basic needs quietly during the day. It's the non local upscale bars that pushed up commercial rents and pushed out local businesses, decimating and ruining the culture of the East Village and LES.

And Starbucks is actually closing stores.

CB3 appears to have lost all reason, following like sheep this chain-stores-oh-my-goodness-no! argument put to them by -- a bar owner, of course!

It was a meeting to remember. The SLA committee presented a reasonable and well-deliberated recommendation to deny a license to a new bar opening in a location on 3rd Avenue near the NYU, New School and SVA dorms, an area fast becoming a crowded nightlife destination.

The committee had all the right reasons against the bar:

1. the location had no previous license, so this bar would actually be adding to the numbers of licenses in the area
2. the bar had no community support -- the owners presented no petitions of community support (the committee standardly requires this evidence of public benefit and community interest),
3. the community had complained to the committee about the required community notification
4. the community had complained to the committee about the proposed hours of operation
5. the bar would be within 500 feet of six other liquor-licensed establishments

in other words, the community plainly didn't want the bar and the owners had made no effort to appease the community's concerns or engage the community or even properly notify the community as required under the law, displaying unprofessional disregard for both law and community. The owners of the bar didn't even show up last night to argue their case.

Yet a well-known bar owner and Board member stood up and announced that a bar would be better than a Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts.

Magic words. No one wants to be caught defending chain stores. Can't go wrong invoking chain stores. Chain stores suck. And what's more, they're politically incorrect, they're unhip: they're not chic or trendy or cool. Comparing bars to chain stores is an easy win for bars -- IF the people you are talking to don't think for themselves, but just follow like sheep whatever sounds good.

He also argued that the bar would provide economic benefit to the community (more so than Dunkin' Donuts?) and this particular owner owns many successful bars throughout the city (so aren't they non local, just like a chain store?) and have a proven track record -- a less successful bar would have to bring in promoters to sustain itself and promoters cause disruption (but if the committee denied this bar, why would they ever approve a less viable bar?).

None of these gaping holes in his transparently meritless "argument" were even so much as questioned.

The CB voted to override the SLA committee's recommendation to deny.

...even though the bar owners didn't attend the meeting to present their case or answer questions, even though chain stores don't make noise, don't stay open til 4am, don't attract crowds of rowdy students, don't contribute to the nightlife destination that has completely undermined that character and reputation of the East Village and LES.

Chain stores are not worse than non local bars, unless you happen to be in the nightlife business, in which case more bars add to the destination value. Bars do not provide any greater economic benefit to the community than any other business, unless you happen to be in the nightlife business, in which case more bars draw more crowds into nightlife establishments in the neighborhood-turned-destination.

Bar destinations drive up commercial rents that drive out local businesses. They toss the neighborhood upside down into a daytime wasteland and a nighttime warzone.

But they provide revenue for the city.

That's what you and your neighborhood are serving -- the city coffers.

We always had bars here, but they were local and drew funky, low-income, edgy real folk. That's not the current scene. New York's historically avant-garde community, radical ghetto, hotbed of the arts, was destroyed by this new, culture-impoverished, upscale nightlife industry, plain and simple. I don't like chain stores, but they didn't destroy the neighborhood.

The city views this destruction as "saving" the neighborhood from its poverty. That's 'cause the city sees only revenue, not people or culture.

After the CB voted down the denial, 15 CB members actually voted to approve this bar without any stipulations or negotiations with the owners, to give it carte blanche on the basis of second-hand assurances from -- a bar owner.

Fortunately, 17 voted to send it back to committee, a narrow margin.

Those 15 benefited the nightlife industry at the expense of the community. Surely the CB has got to adhere at least to basic responsibilities of community, process and review.

CB votes are roll-call and public record. Go find out who has a brain and who's braindead.

And people criticize me for being skeptical of the CB...

Prostitution of our local press

Trying to excuse the community board from any responsibility for Chinatown's late involvement in the rezoning, CB3 Chair David McWater said he spent a $100,000 grant on outreach to Chinatown ("Chinatown rezoning call keeps resounding at C.B. 3" The Villager, May 7).

The article doesn't mention that none of this money was spent on rezoning information. I obtained the documents under the Freedom of Information Law.

The Villager editorial that week claims, as has CB chair David McWater, that Chinatown is difficult to rezone because it lies in three districts and that's why the CB didn't include Chinatown in this plan.

But the portion in CB2 is already protected by the Little Italy Special District. So Chinatown can be successfully zoned piecemeal. The current plan even includes a few blocks of it. So the division among three districts can't be the reason that the rest of Chinatown was left out.

The Villager editorial claims, as has CB chair David McWater, that every rezoning must have a vulnerable periphery. That's factually inaccurate: the state courts, projects and Little Italy Special District surrounding Chinatown are not vulnerable to overdevelopment.

I guess CB Chair David McWater is writing the Villager's editorials now. If the Villager were an independent press, it would have fact-checked McWater's claims before printing them as fact. This is not the first time it has happened.

When did our media become the propaganda arm of government? Doesn't free press mean freedom from government intervention so that the press can criticize government? Government propagandizes its own policies itself, why do we need a press that licks its spittle?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/washington/30press.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=STELTER&st=nyt&oref=slogin

" Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, said the national news media neglected their watchdog role in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, calling reporters "complicit enablers" of the Bush administration's push for war."

Zoning Approved

Scroll down for details of the resolution. First enthusiasm:

Last night's Community Board meeting was the most engaging, most substantive, by far the most exciting, intelligent, best full community board meeting I've seen in years -- maybe ever. The community on all sides of the rezoning came out to voice their views, often passionately, fiercely; argued them, challenged each other, fought and even yelled, but always over the issues, always over content.

The community in attendance -- both pro and con -- presented themselves last night as involved and committed to a depth that was inspiring. It was a heated, angry evening, it was confrontational, but it was a meeting -- all sides met, all views were argued, all views were questioned, all views were disparaged, all views were defended: all views were heard.

The highlights: Damaris Reyes' eloquent defense of the rezoning plan; Josephine Lee's lucid presentation of its shortcomings to a crowd of antagonistic questions. And these were just the best of the best. There were many more.

And low moments too -- a few misunderstandings, mistaken assumptions -- hardly worth mention. On the whole it was a truly remarkable meeting, in every way befitting such a climactic of moment, such a turning point, for our neighborhood.

It was the first time the whole and complex and far-reaching and weighty significance of this rezoning was presented in all its aspects by all its stakeholders.

(Almost all: developers remain silent.)

The community board members themselves broadly and vigorously joined in the debate. Not just the usual suspects either. The long-taciturn got up and stole the place of the loud-mouthed last night. And tempers flew -- oooooh yes! and often! -- yet against this continually eruptive background, the issues remained in the fore; it was all about the issues and even the minute details of the issues. It was content that drew anger last night, not tactics; it was truth on all sides that was debated, not mere representations.

The community board, btw, voted to approve the rezoning. That was a foregone conclusion, not news. Their approval resolution includes the following modifications some of which the City Planning Commission may see fit to adopt and all of which Rosie Mendez will bring to City Council for approval in the final package (these are my paraphrases, not their wording):
The final rezoning legislative package should

1. prevent non commercial storefronts from being turned to commercial use

2. specifically restrict non bar/restaurant commercial storefronts from being turned to bar/restaurant use

3. restrict the demolition, enlargement or alteration of residential buildings

4. require affordable housing in any construction on all the wide avenues in the zoning area

5. require that 30% of all construction in the area be affordable at three levels: 30% of the affordable housing should be available only to people earning low incomes, 50% lower moderate , 20% upper moderate.

6. place 75' height caps on all narrow streets, including those south of Houston

7. require energy efficiency for all tax-abated construction

8. create a legal defense fund to defend threatened tenants

9. turn the Eldridge and Forsyth designation from commercial to residential.

In addition, the CB resolution asks the city to review the zoning of excluded areas to "1) prevent overdevelopment, speculation and displacement, 2) encourage affordable housing and 3) preserve the building character in those areas."

I'd just point out that under any 80-20 program, item (2), construed as the construction of new affordable units, is incompatible with (1) -- if affordable housing can be constructed only with the inclusion of four times as many luxury units, then affordable housing entails "overdevelopment, speculation and displacement." It's a tough one. It's the tough one.

My suggestion: for thriving, non-depressed low-income neighborhoods, off-site affordable housing is preferable to on-site. Build affordable housing in the community and let developers take their market-rate housing far away to already gentrified neighborhoods.

If the low-income community is commercially thriving, bringing outside money and supplying local jobs, there is no danger of depressing the neighborhood with exclusively affordable housing. Mixed housing, under such conditions, will only raise real estate values causing gentrification, speculation and displacement. The ideal of mixed housing, though politically correct as a theoretical principle, should be carefully rethought from specific context to specific context and not applied with too broad a brush.

Conflict of interest

Tonight the Community Board will approve a rezoning package regardless how broad or loud the opposition.

It concerns me that organizations and individuals on the Task Force will directly benefit from its provisions. Now, those organizations are wonderful, we are lucky to have them in our neighborhood, I support them and I think the community should support them, but I think they cannot be objective in their view of a rezoning package that benefits their institutional projects and directives, regardless how altruistic and beneficial those projects are.

After this process is complete, the Task Force chair plans to bring together a panel for Chinatown. The panel will most likely consist of bank-funded organizations that bring development under the guise of "affordable" housing programs that are 80% market-rate and 100% unaffordable to the average resident of Chinatown. They will devise a plan for Chinatown that suits their institutional interests, while the residents of Chinatown will have no voice. It will be catastrophic for Chinatown and Chinatown's residents.

At the last full board meeting, the question was raised several times why Chinatown residents didn't get involved with the rezoning earlier. Didn't they know about it? The CB Chair stated that he had spent a $100,000 grant on outreach to Chinatown. What he failed to mention was that none of that money was spent on information about the rezoning.

These are some of the reasons I am skeptical of current community board leadership.

But the real culprit in the neglect of Chinatown is Councilmember Alan Gerson. Where Margarita Lopez came up with seed money from the Council for a rezoning of her district, the East Village, Alan Gerson came up with nothing for his district, Chinatown. He didn't even raise the issue of rezoning Chinatown.

Community Board members are unelected and unpaid. But Gerson is elected and paid to represent his constituency. Chinatown's precarious situation is his fault and his responsibility. Where is he? Where? What will he get for Chinatown? And will he involve the Chinatown residents in the process?

The contentious town hall

As I'm sure you've heard, the EV/LES Rezoning Town Hall began with a protest of two hundred or so residents.

Notably absent were the two City Council members who will vote on this plan. That means that they do not support the protesting residents' demands and were avoiding the meeting so as not to find themselves in a difficult situation. Most likely they will soon issue statements in strong support of rezoning the Bowery and Chinatown -- in a separate plan.

Unfortunately, a separate plan will take years to complete and will not be implemented without the inclusion of developer interests unless the council members get a commitment now from DCP to protect Chinatown and the Bowery. DCP is seeking approval now for its plan. The approval process is the last moment for leverage over DCP. Unless that leverage is applied, statements of strong support are meaningless.

The Town Hall was described to me as "a dog and pony show." Not ten thousand angry residents could change one detail of this plan: the city wants it; the community board originated it. DCP is not interested in what protesters have to say, and community board members, less seasoned in their political approach, would like to respond punitively towards their opposition (the community), and will, unless the experienced voices of reason there hold sway.

The Borough President, who ran on community board reform, is committed to pretending that he has reformed his community boards to perfection, so he will support whatever the CB decides. That's politics.

The community board and Councilmember Alan Gerson have this one chance to get a commitment from DCP for the Bowery and Chinatown. The responsibility (especially now that the CB is "deeply offended" -- how dare the community express its needs at a community meeting when they should be listening to DCP promote its plan!) mostly rests with Gerson. The City Council gets the final vote and the areas most threatened by development and most vulnerable to it are in his district.

If you were expecting a detailed report on the Town Hall, sorry to disappoint. Unable to attend except for the first two or three minutes, I can't offer much beyond the second-hand. Having had my say here and at Task Force meetings over the last three years, and knowing that nothing I do will change the outcome of this process, I felt my presence would make not the least difference.

CB3's excuses for excluding Chinatown and the Bowery from the rezoning

The EV/LES rezoning, by prohibiting huge hotels in the protected area, will push hotel development into the Bowery and Chinatown. Community Board 3 has tried to defend the exclusion with a series of excuses:

1) 'Protecting the EV/LES does not threaten to push development into the unprotected Bowery and Chinatown.'

Yes it does. We saw it in Williamsburg. As soon as their rezoning was implemented, developments sprang up just outside the periphery of the rezoning. Hotels are already appearing along the Bowery. This selective rezoning will accelerate a trend we can already see.


2) 'Wherever the boundary of a rezoning is drawn, there will be a vulnerable periphery, so a line must be drawn somewhere.'

False. The Bowery/Chinatown C6 zones of Community District 3 have clear, undevelopable boundaries:
Little Italy to the west of the Bowery is protected by a special zoning district. The Tombs and huge court houses of Foley Square to the west of Chinatown are not residential and in no danger of development. Neither are the housing projects / residential zones by the river.


3) 'Chinatown lies partly in CB2. CB3 couldn't rezone just a part of Chinatown.'

CB3 itself proved this false. Chrystie Street is a part of Chinatown and CB3 did include Chrystie Street in their plan. If the city can rezone this one street of Chinatown, then it can rezone Baxter to Essex/East Broadway as well.


4) 'DCP won't zone single sides of streets and only the east side of the Bowery lies in CB3.'

DCP rezones single sides of streets all the time. In fact, they protectively rezoned the west side of Bowery in CB2. Why not the east side in CB3?


5) 'Chinatown was left out because the rezoning would have been too large with Chinatown included.'

a) this rezoning is not the largest rezoning DCP has undertaken, and
b) the board never even considered rezoning Chinatown when they were devising this plan.

I expect rank and file community board members to question the validity and motive of these excuses and reject them.

We know the city wants to displace low-income communities from Manhattan. The community board, representing the community, is charged with protecting those communities. There's leverage now, while DCP seeks approval for its plan.

I do not speak for the people of Chinatown or for anyone but myself in this community. Others can speak for themselves. If you want to hear what others think of the rezoning, go to the Town Hall. I can't attend that night, so I'm giving you my two cents here.

TOWN HALL ON EV/LES REZONING
Monday, May 12, 6:30pm,
Public School 20,
166 Essex Street
(btwn Houston & Stanton)

Ethnic Cleansing of Chinatown

If this rezoning plan is approved as is, Chinatown will be defenseless against hotel development.

The plan's selectivity is disastrous. By protecting the old Jewish LES (Forsyth to Pitt) from over-development it pushes developers into the nearest vulnerable neighborhood: the Bowery and Chinatown.

We saw this in Williamsburg. As soon as their rezoning was implemented, developments sprang up just outside the periphery of the rezoning. Well, hotels are already appearing along the Bowery. This rezoning will accelerate a trend we can already see.

Community Board 3 has tried to defend this selectivity by claiming that wherever the boundary of a rezoning is drawn, there will be a vulnerable periphery, so a line must be drawn somewhere.

Not true. The Bowery/Chinatown C6 zones of Community District 3 have undevelopable boundaries:

Little Italy to the west of the Bowery is protected by a special zoning district. The Tombs and huge court houses of Foley Square to the west of Chinatown are not residential and in no danger of development. Neither are the housing projects and residential zones by the river.

The board members are grasping at straws, knowing full well that they made an error by not considering Chinatown, an error that has turned into a disaster.

The framers and supporters of this rezoning are responsible for the unmistakable consequence of this plan: the ethnic cleansing of Chinatown. Almost every inch of Chinatown has been excluded from this plan and left unprotected.

Ethnic Chinese are the largest demographic in Community District 3. Why didn't the community board factor them into their plan and consider the consequences for Chinatown? We know the city wants to displace low-income communities from Manhattan. The community board, representing the community, is supposed to protect those communities.

And Councilmember Gerson's indolence is unfathomable. Chinatown is in his district.

Even more damning, for the one street that was included, Chrystie Street, the community board has asked for more residential bulk than the DCP plan itself, claiming that "the Chinese don't mind density" and "want development."

80% of that dense development will be luxury housing. In case the picture is not clear: the community board was speaking to Chinatown organizations involved with banks and developers, not to Chinatown residents.

The councilmember's and CB3's lack of foresight, their myopic inability to see the largest demographic within their districts, echoes America's long and deep Sinophobia:

until 1965 Chinese were prohibited from becoming U.S. citizens and until 1963, Chinese were not even allowed into the country by the Chinese Exclusion Act and Scott Law. There was even a Page Law (1875) prohibiting Chinese women from entering, a law specifically designed, false pretexts aside, to end the settling of Chinese families, to prevent a permanent population, encourage Chinese to return to China and to ensure that Chinese male labor would be transient -- available only as needed to meet market demand.

Enforced transience: the consequences of this rezoning's 'Chinese exclusion' are clear and familiar.

The area included in the plan has already been gentrified; it is largely upscale and largely white. It will be protected by the plan, although it's not clear that there's much need for protection: tall towers are not being built in the EV, and the air rights may already have been exhausted in the old Jewish LES where the hotels are already built.

Our immediate priority therefore must be the areas excluded from the rezoning plan. The Community Board and elected officials' response to this plan must be a strategic demand that the areas excluded, especially the C6 zones, be included, even at the expense of temporarily delaying implementation of the plan.

DCP, which is dedicated to following through with a rezoning of the neighborhood, must be coerced into protecting the excluded C6 zones, one way or another. A firm demand that the EIS be expanded to include the C6 zones is the only strategy that can save Chinatown. I don't see any other negotiating position from which to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Chinatown.

City Planning has been displacing communities in the name of development and "affordable housing" that is unaffordable to most people in those neighborhoods. Harlem, Willamsburg and Greenpoint are the most prominent examples. There is no question that this administration's urban planning is racially and ethnically discriminatory. In the case of Chinatown, City Planning is cleverly washing its hands -- rather than propose a plan that would decimate Chinatown, the city is going to allow market-rate developers to do the dirty work by themselves.

We mustn't help them. Oppose the plan now, while we have leverage on City Planning.

By the way, I do not speak for the people of Chinatown. They can speak for themselves. I speak for myself and what I see.

A plan for Chinatown

It is the irony of the current administration of affordable housing -- four units of luxury housing for every unit of "affordable" housing -- that the programs for new affordable housing spread gentrification and displacement resulting in a net loss of affordable housing in low-income communities where tenants are vulnerable to harassment and eviction. The problem will not be resolved until the City commits to protecting communities by regulating the location and direction of development.

Contextual zoning -- zoning that prohibits taller buildings -- for Chinatown and the Bowery would protect existing buildings from redevelopment. But protected buildings are themselves vulnerable to gentrifying pressures: when a zoning prevents redevelopment, the only means of profit maximization on a property is evicting low-income tenants, replacing them with upscale tenants.

Designating sites for light manufacturing and 100% affordable housing, the market-rate IZ bonus of which could be transferred to distant, already gentrified neighborhoods that are not harmed by luxury development, would help prevent gentrification of protected buildings in busy, thriving low-income neighborhoods.

These two measures together -- (1) contextual zoning and (2) identifying sites for luxury housing distinct and far distant from light manufacturing and affordable housing -- could protect the Bowery and Chinatown from residential and commercial displacement, while contributing to the vitality of existing communities.

CB3's zoning task force meets this Wednesday, April 16, 6:30, 100 Hester St. (btwn Eldridge & Forsyth). Come ask them for contextual zoning in Chinatown and the Bowery, and no upzoning on Chrystie Street.

CB3 mobbed

The Coalition to Protect Chinatown/LES packed Tuesday's CB3 meeting with people and signs. Speaker after speaker denounced luxury development and the exclusion of Chinatown from the rezoning plan. They called for truly affordable housing not tied by inclusionary zoning to luxury overdevelopment and the gentrification and displacement it brings.

After they left many CB members, feeling under attack, reacted defensively, blaming the community for getting involved too late. Closing ranks and blaming the victim is unfortunate and I was disheartened by it. They could instead have reacted positively to the community and constructively by considering the one ameliorative step the board can take even at this late moment: reject the Chrystie Street Alternative Inclusionary Upzoning.

The DCP plan for Chrystie Street downzones as-of-right luxury there. The Alternative, still promoted by a few on the Community Board, upzones as-of-right luxury on Chrystie Street. Both plans provide virtually the same amount of affordable housing.

This one is a no-brainer to me. The DCP plan will bring less gentrification, less harm, to Chinatown than the Alternative plan.

The largest reserve of affordable housing, the cheapest affordable housing to create and the most affordable affordable housing to live in is the affordable housing low-income people are living in right now, much of it right here in the LES and Chinatown. Acquiring new affordable housing by gentrifying neighborhoods and displacing people already living in the most affordable housing, loses far more than could be gained, does more harm than good and defeats its own purpose.

On-site inclusionary zoning with tax breaks should give us 1 affordable unit for every 4 units of luxury. The dilemma of inclusionary zoning is this: large luxury developments gentrify their surroundings, raising real estate values, driving out local businesses, displacing communities. So the question for any responsible urban planner is:

Where should the luxury be located so that it does the least harm?

I heard the Coalition to Protect Chinatown/LES attending Tuesday's Community Board meeting say clearly: not here. Small businesses and low-income residents cannot withstand luxury gentrification. Chinatown residents don't want to be displaced. They don't want to be the lambs sacrificed to the idol of affordable housing that is not affordable to them.

And who among us wants to see Chinatown become a theme park for tourists or yet another upscale nightclub destination?

The DCP plan provides inclusionary zoning on Houston, Delancey, part of Pitt, D and Chrystie -- more than the CB asked for. Why ask for even more upzoning on Chrystie? Why ask only Chinatown to bear the brunt of what would be the most extreme piece of as-of-right upzoning in the entire plan? Why Chinatown?

The Coalition to Protect Chinatown called the plan racist. That's not a word I use, but I don't see how CB members can fend off that charge if they continue to support this alternative that singles out Chinatown alone for the most luxury density in the plan. Maybe the alternative got in play because the residents of Chinatown hadn't come forward before. That's unfortunate, but speculating on why they haven't been part of the process until now would be to invite bitter recriminations from both sides. There's nothing to be gained there. What matters is that they have come forward now. Let's listen and rethink.

The DCP plan is less harmful and doesn't single out Chinatown for extra luxury. The DCP plan is closer to CB Chair McWater's original zoning conception. Let's stick with it.