Boomtown

Matt Yglesias comments on US cities leading in construction spending. New York is not only way ahead, it's an outrider way ahead (though not quite at a Pareto distribution -- construction is expensive here, so that may be why there's no Pareto), and it's not correlated (pace Yglesias) with population; LA is next most populous, Chicago, then Houston, all on a Pareto distribution, but LA is low on construction; Dallas is constructing more than Houston even though Dallas doesn't have much more than half Houston's population size. In fact Dallas is about one seventh the size of NYC, but it's constructing at the absolute rate of 60% of NYC's.

In any case, NYC is booming. Given the high cost of construction in NYC, this boom means developers see huge money in development. How much of that do you think is affordable housing?

It also means that developers are not worried about diluting the luxury market. Why? Do they expect high-renters/owners to abandon older housing stock to move into new? Or locations further from the center into closer? Either of those would be good news for low-income neighborhoods -- less displacement pressure on them. But if developers simply expect more high-paying population in the city, then no one benefits but the developers.

Shaoul, the BSA, DoB and WTF

Went to the Board of Standards and Appeals to see their response to Shaoul's request for a variance to keep the 6th floor expansion that the BSA had ruled illegally built some years ago. Shaoul's attorney made the good point that the Department of Buildings had issued a permit for the expansion, and the BSA didn't rule it illegal until after the expansion had been completed.

The BSA chair wasn't having any of it. She pointed out that the even though the building didn't have a Certificate of Occupancy, the owner had been renting the apartments illegally for years.

In reply, the attorney blamed that on the DoB for not enforcing the law. I was truly impressed with audacity of this legal argument. I really like it. If you place several hundred landlords, say, into a ship and sink it and drown them, it's the fault of the Coast Guard for not stopping you. I'm all for it.

But seriously, this attorney nailed the truth about NYC real estate: the DoB encourages illegal activity at every turn, either by issuing illegal permits (commonly permitting bulkheads that are actually intended for residential use, to skirt the zoning limits on residential space), or by failing to enforce blatantly illegal expansions, demolitions, hazardous endangerments to tenants -- literally whatever and whateverything landlords can think up.

Btw addendum: the BSA didn't rule on Shaoul's request at this hearing. They scheduled another hearing in late June and another in July to finish up. It was pretty clear that the BSA intends to deny him -- a whole bunch of elected officials signed on to a letter asking for a denial. But even if they deny, without enforcement, he'll just continue to flout the law.

Call to action!

Constructing in an occupied building has become one of the most aggressive means of harassing tenants. Shaoul used it often, and Kushner, who recently bought nearly 30 parcels in our neighborhood, informed the community board last month that he intends to construct building expansions wherever he can. 

The case of 515 East 5th Street may become the precedent for all future expansion harassment. Please come to the Board of Standards and Appeals and spread the word. From GOLES:

GOOD OLD LOWER EAST SIDE, INC



TENANT ALERT!

FIGHT ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AND PENTHOUSE ON 515 EAST 5TH STREET!

DATE: TUESDAY, MAY 21ST, 2013

TIME: 10:00 AM SHARP!

PLACE: BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS (BSA)

22 READE STREET, SPECTOR HALL

NEW YORK, NY 10007

(ONE BLOCK FROM CITY HALL)

COME TO THIS IMPORTANT HEARING AND SHOW YOUR OPPOSITION TO LANDLORD’S APPLICATION TO LEGALIZE THE ADDITIONAL FLOOR AND PENTHOUSE WHICH HE BUILT. THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS FOUND ILLEGAL IN BSA DECISIONS IN 2007 AND 2008. NOW THE LANDLORD IS SEEKING TO REVERSE THEM. IF LANDLORD IS ALLOWED TO KEEP THIS ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION IT WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER LANDLORDS TO DO THE SAME LEADING TO DANGEROUS CONSTRUCTION THAT CAN CAUSE DAMAGE TO STRUCTURE OF SUCH OLD TENEMENT BUILDINGS.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL GOLES 212-533-2541

Bloomberg's order invites illegal development

On Feb. 2, Mayor Bloomberg, without any legislative process, ordered a time limit on challenges to developments. Ordinary citizens will now have only and exactly 30 days to challenge the legality of a development once a permit has been issued.

Prior to the mayor's order, there was no time limit on challenges. Since the city allows developers to self-certify their plans (yes, approve their pans themselves), the only oversight lies in citizen challenges.

This time limit sends a clear message to developers: plan developments without regard for the law. The thirty-day window severely decreases the chance of any challenge being brought at all, and if challenged, the development will be only at most thirty days into construction. At worst, the developer will merely have to alter plans (and borrow less money). So developers will never have to remove a story -- or thirty stories -- of construction no matter how egregiously those stories violate the zoning and violate the neighborhood.

It's a call to any unscrupulous developer to submit self-certified illegal plans.

Here's the mayor's press release. Notice the headline, spun as procedural improvement. Scroll down to the last two paragraphs before the bullets to learn the underlying motivation: to streamline illegal development. Think about it: as long as the plans are legal, developers have no worries about challenges at any point in the process of construction. Challenges are only a burden to development if the developer is banking on illegal plans.

This is government administrative sponsorship of activity in violation of government legislation; government sponsoring criminality. It's a deft brushing aside of the laws that protect this city and its neighborhoods, and handing the city itself to developers for their fastest buck, no urban planning, no community voice, no legislative process. Just thirty days. Let's close the city council down and let Boss Bloomberg rule in the great tradition of Mussolini and Tweed. (That's an insult to Tweed. Tweed, for all his corruption, responded to his voting base, the Irish working class.)

If developers generally submitted legal plans, this order would never have been. The mayor's order is a response to a problem of excess illegality. His response: make it easier to commit fraudulent and illegal activity and increase the likely profit. Forgive me, it's just so unbelievably outrageous.




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 2, 2009

No. 55

www.nyc.gov

MAYOR BLOOMBERG AND COMMISSIONER LIMANDRI ANNOUNCE ONLINE DIAGRAMS OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND A NEW DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE PROCESS

Fulfills State of the City Commitment — Increasing Transparency, Compliance and Certainty about Neighborhood Development Projects

First City in the Nation to put Development Diagrams Online

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Deputy Mayor for Operations Edward Skyler and Department of Buildings (DOB) Commissioner Robert D. LiMandri today announced reforms to the development process that will give New Yorkers a stronger voice in the development of neighborhoods, create greater transparency, and clarify the process for the public and for developers. New York City will become the first city in the nation to put diagrams of proposed new buildings or major enlargements online so the public can view the size and scale of a proposed building. A new 30-day formal public challenge period will be implemented to give the public a greater voice in the development process and provide clarity for developers about when and how a project can move forward. The Mayor was joined at the announcement by Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Robert Lieber. The new measures, which fulfill a commitment the Mayor made in his State of the City address last month, will go into effect starting Monday, March 9th.

"The reforms we are detailing today will inject a much-needed dose of transparency and accountability into a critical area of construction and development – zoning compliance," said Mayor Bloomberg. "The reforms center on the public's right to challenge any approved development if they think it violates local zoning regulations. For too long, this process has been too onerous for most New Yorkers. The reforms will make sure people have a stronger voice in the development that's taking place in their neighborhoods, while also giving developers more certainty about their projects."

"Until now, knowledge of development approvals has been limited to a small group of insiders with expert knowledge. This puts the public at a disadvantage and creates uncertainty for developers, who could be subject to a challenge long after a building is out of the ground," said Commissioner LiMandri. "This new process will give the public a chance to see what a building will look like before the first shovel hits the ground and developers certainty that once the public has had an opportunity to comment and any compliance issues have been resolved, their project can move forward. These reforms increase transparency and raise accountability across the board."



Architects and engineers filing applications for new buildings and major enlargements will be required to submit diagrams, which will be available at www.nyc.gov. The diagrams will detail critical information that can be used by the public to determine whether a project is in compliance with required zoning regulations. The diagrams will include the size of the project, drawn to scale, and where a building will sit in relation to the street.

The 30-day public-challenge process establishes a defined and organized means for the public to challenge zoning decisions by DOB that they believe are incorrect, and will provide clarity and certainty for developers about when a project can move forward, and when changes to a proposed development need to be made. The current process, which has no formal timeframe, produces confusion and unnecessary and unintended costs for development in New York City .

The online diagrams and new challenge process will streamline the review of the thousands of challenges DOB receives each year – at no additional cost to the City.

New Formal Public Challenge Process

* Initial Public Challenge Period: When DOB approves plans for any new building or major enlargement, the building diagrams, called ZD1 forms, and other associated documents will be uploaded to the DOB website. In addition, once a permit is issued builders will be required to post the permit at the location within three days so the public is aware of the proposed development. New Yorkers will have 30 calendar days to review and challenge the development approval.

* Initial Zoning Challenge Review: After the initial public challenge period ends, the DOB Borough Commissioner will address every challenge by conducting a full review of the construction plans and rendering decisions that will be posted online. If a challenge is determined to be valid, appropriate enforcement action will be taken, including issuing Stop Work Orders, revoking of permits, and requiring redesigns of the proposed construction.

* Community Appeals Period: If the Borough Commissioner determines that a challenge is invalid, the public will be given an additional 15 calendar days to appeal to the First Deputy Commissioner.

* Final Zoning Challenge Review: Once the First Deputy Commissioner issues a determination, the decision may be appealed to the Board of Standards and Appeals for a final determination.

-30-

Contact: Stu Loeser/Marc LaVorgna (212) 788-2958

Tony Sclafani/Kate Lindquist (DOB) (212) 566-3473

Improving the DOB

If you intend to testify at the Assembly hearings on the Department of Buildings, take a look at these twelve ways to improve the Department of Buildings, reprinted from The Gowanus Lounge
http://gowanuslounge.blogspot.com/

1) Even if the Department of Buildings functioned like a well-oiled machine that rigorously enforced city regulations, its inspectors are still overwhelmed by the level of construction. The number of inspectors should be at least doubled, if not tripled. Until the numbers are increased, there should be a cap on the number of permits for major projects that can be issued.

2) The Department of Buildings should be removed from the purview of any of the city's economic development officials. It should be an independent regulatory agency whose prime mission is enforcement. Encouraging development and regulating it are not compatible tasks. Its work should be subject to regular audits by the City Comptroller.

3) Each Community Board should have an independent ombudsman to supervise the Department's work. That ombudsman would work to makes sure that citizen complaints are handled in a timely way and that complaints of inaction are investigated.

4) Dramatically increased monetary penalties for violations should be determined by a special blue ribbon commission made up of industry experts and citizens. The penalties should be set so that they act as a strong disincentive to violating regulations. Penalties should increase with each violation and building permits should also be suspended for the most serious violations starting with 30 days and escalating to 60 and 90 days. After repeated violations, permits should be terminated.

5) There should be criminal penalties for both developers and contractors whose actions or negligence result in loss of life.

6) Persistent offenders--contractors and developers--should be put on a special list for highly targeted enforcement and be subject to even higher fines. Firms with a pattern of violations, particularly ones involving safety violations and illegal work should have their ability to work in the city revoked for a period of time. Contractors found doing illegal work should be placed on probation after a certain number of offenses and be barred from doing business for subsequent offenses.

7) Create target enforcement neighborhoods in each borough based on the level of development. In Brooklyn, for instance, Williamsburg and Greenpoint should be a No. 1 priority. These target neighborhoods should be assigned significant numbers of inspectors to increase response times to complaints and to patrol construction sites.

8) The city should make necessary repairs to sites that are shut down if developers don't fix problem quickly, so that abandoned sites don't become hazards to the community. The city should charge back costs to developers and property owners and seize property for unpaid bills.

9) There should be a zero-tolerance approach to violations. Currently, contractors can violate many regulations with virtual impunity. Non-enforcement on small violations leads to bigger violations in a sort of Broken Windows Construction Phenomenon. There should also be 24-hour follow up and immediate dispatch of inspectors on some calls, clearly including life safety issues, but also involving quality of life complaints such as illegal and after-hours construction.

10) Permit fees should increased to fund the entire program of more rigorous inspection and the workforce necessary to do so.

11) Firms with a pattern of violations should be barred from bidding on city contracts or doing city work.

12) The city should issue a monthly "scorecard" in a simple format, grading developers and contractors on their violations or lack of them in each borough.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DOB

ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIES
ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON CODES
ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON HOUSING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT:	The Effectiveness of Regulation of Construction and Development in New York City and the Enforcement of the Building Code and the Zoning Resolution: A Second Hearing
PURPOSE:	To continue the exploration of the powers, duties, obligations and accountablitity of New York City's regulatory system for construction, development and zoning enforcement in light of the many recent tragic construction accidents involving death, injury and damage.

New York City Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:00 AM Assembly Hearing Room 250 Broadway Room 1923, 19th Floor

Devastating construction accidents are regularly occurring in New York City and underscore the immediate need for improved oversight of construction and building safety by the New York City Department of Buildings, the Environmental Control Board and other City agencies. Incidents this year involving death, injury, and/or property damage include: the March 15th crane collapse at 303 E. 51st Street in Manhattan involving seven deaths and a falsified DOB inspection report; the March 11th incident at 791 Glenmore Avenue, Brooklyn involving one death; the March 4th collapse at 102 E. 124th Street, Manhattan; and, the January 14th incident at 246 Spring Street in Manhattan involving one death. Several pieces of legislation whose purpose is to improve safety of construction and development in New York City have been introduced in the NYS Legislature. They include: A10188(Brennan) imposes a duty on the DOB to re-inspect and seek correction of all hazardous building violations. This bill was previously introduced as A7800 and vetoed by former Governor Spitzer at the request of the City of New York. A2886(Lentol)/S1329(Maltese) providing for additional review of building demolition applications. A7745a(Brennan)/S5422a(Padavan) known as the Department of Buildings Community Accountability Act, requiring monthly enforcement reporting to community boards. A7755(Hevesi)/S5407(Padavan) allows the City to convert into tax liens any unpaid, adjudicated fines levied for hazardous building violations. A2665(Lentol)/S1051(Padavan) requiring developers to create escrow accounts in relation to damage to adjoining property. A7744(Brennan)/S5410(Padavan) requiring City licensure of general contractors to prevent willful noncompliance with safety and other laws. The hearing will consider these and such other proposals as the public would care to put forward as the Assembly examines the DOB's current practices for dealing with complaints, permitting plans, permitting demolitions, initiating inspections, tracking violations, correcting hazardous conditions, ensuring proper construction practices, tracking repeat offenders, protecting the safety of workers and effectively overseeing the enforcement of the Building Code and Zoning Resolution. Please see the reverse side for a list of subjects to which witnesses may direct their testimony, and for a description of the bills which will be discussed at the hearing. Persons wishing to present pertinent testimony to the Committees at the above hearing should complete and return the enclosed reply form as soon as possible. It is important that the reply form be fully completed and returned so that persons may be notified in the event of emergency postponement or cancellation. Oral testimony will be limited to 10 minutes in duration. In preparing the order of witnesses, the Committees will attempt to accommodate individual requests to speak at particular times in view of special circumstances. These requests should be made on the attached reply form or communicated to Committee staff as early as possible. In the absence of a request, witnesses will be scheduled in the order in which reply forms are postmarked. Ten copies of any prepared testimony should be submitted at the hearing registration desk. The Committees would appreciate advance receipt of prepared statements. In order to further publicize these hearings, please inform interested parties and organizations of the Committees' interest in hearing testimony from all sources. In order to meet the needs of those who may have a disability, the Assembly, in accordance with its policy of non-discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), has made its facilities and services available to all individuals with disabilities. For individuals with disabilities, accommodations will be provided, upon reasonable request, to afford such individuals access and admission to Assembly facilities and activities.

IF YOU PLAN ON TESTIFYING:

SELECTED ISSUES TO WHICH WITNESSES MAY DIRECT THEIR TESTIMONY:

1. Please describe the status of all building code enforcement activities at the four sites referred to in the notice, including permitting plans, complaints, inspections, violations, responses or non-responses by entities receiving violations to any hearings scheduled by the Environmental Control Board (ECB), and/or any actions taken by the ECB or any court actions taken by the Department of Buildings (DOB) in relation to DOB violations.
   
2. Please describe the ECB process and procedures, from issuance of violation through initial appearance to hearing outcome. What is the process regarding setting the hearing date; under what circumstances are hearings postponed; what are the consequences of default, failure to respond, and/or failure to correct; what steps does DOB take to ensure site safety during the adjudication process; and how do the DOB and the ECB interface to control conditions at building sites?
   
3. In certain circumstances, violations present imminent danger to the public and are treated as emergencies. Please describe how, by whom, and in what circumstances hazardous violations are brought to the attention of the commissioner, the New York City Fire Department, the Department of Investigations, the New York City Police Department, Department of Housing Preservation and Development or other agency responsible for investigation, correction, and/or emergency response. What are the established protocols for such actions, how are such actions recorded, and what records are maintained of the decision-making during the process?
   
4. In other circumstances, many hazardous violations are issued but the hazardous conditions at the work site are allowed to remain uncorrected. Please describe how the DOB tracks pending hazardous violations and ensures their correction. Who is responsible for re-inspection to verify correction? When does the DOB accept affidavits of correction and when does it require in-person inspection to verify correction of hazardous violations?
   
5. In regard to the prevention of accidents as well as effective enforcement, please describe how the DOB tracks and reports violations, accidents, defaults, outstanding fines and failed audits of professionally-certified plans by architects, engineers and contractors throughout its database and what measures are taken by the DOB as a result. What, if any, red flags trigger heightened scrutiny, closer inspection, and effective DOB investigation?
   
6. Again, in regard to the prevention of accidents as well as effective enforcement, please describe how the DOB tracks the safety performance of general contractors, as well as that of heavy equipment operators, crane operators, and concrete contractors, particularly in terms of hazardous violations, hearing defaults, accidents, and/or property damage.
   
7. *** Click here for printable form ***

---