Mistaken priorities

photo:J Blough (flickr)Chinatown!
Or Chinatown??
A demonstration yesterday sparked several articles on DCP's omission of endangered neighborhoods from the EV/LES rezoning (the urls are below).

Locals have good reason to worry: the commercial zones surrounding the residential East Village are in much graver danger of rapid out-of-scale development than the residential East Village itself.

Since 2003 over a dozen huge structures have begun construction or have been completed in the commercial zones surrounding the East Village including 3rd Ave, Essex-to-Bowery and the Bowery itself.

Since 2003 only three out-of scale structures have been proposed for the East Village -- and area over twice as large as those three commercial zones combined.

Block-for-block the rate of out-of-scale development in those commercial zones is 8 to 10 times the rate of out-of-scale development in the residential East Village.

After the rezoning, which protects the Norfolk-to-Forsyth area, that rate will increase on the Bowery and in Chinatown.

A US recession won't necessarily stop it. The weakening dollar turns New York into a hot, cheap international tourist destination. Commercial zones are for hotels. Developers and patrons will be foreign. Of New York businesses, the chic end of NY's nightlife industry will thrive on the transformation. Local businesses and residents will be edged out.

If the Borough President and Councilmember Gerson don't listen to the community and act now to preserve the Bowery/Chinatown communities, those communities won't be there tomorrow. There's no road back from development.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/lower-east-siders-deliver-petition-against-re-zoning-plan/?scp=1&sq=rezoning&st=cse

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/07/15/2008-07-15_lower_east_side_rezone_plan_another_mike.html

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/07/stringer_on_hot.php

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=83792

Bowery Blues

Development on the Bowery is taking off lickety-split. Brack Capital Real Estate has bought four adjacent properties on the Bowery near Delancey, including a unique old town house. And since the Bowery is a commercial zone, they won't be building housing -- it'll probably be a huge luxury hotel.

The comments below from the Real Deal sound oddly familiar. Oh yes! It's what we've been shouting for nearly two years:

(From the Real Deal)
Philip Huang, a Massey Knakal Realty Services associate on the Lower East Side who was not involved in the transaction, said he had seen more sales activity since the opening in December of the New Museum for Contemporary Art at 235 Bowery.
He also said the proposed rezoning of the East Village and Lower East Side just east of the Bowery was also affecting the street.
"That probably makes development sites on the Bowery worth more," he said.
The whole article:
http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/brack-buys-bowery-townhouse

Protecting the network of July 4 rights

This July 4th holds particular resonance for me since George Carlin's death: I once lost a great university linguistics gig for basing an assignment on Carlin's routine about the seven FCC prohibited words.

(Add to that a student caught plagiarizing, who discovers a way to coerce a passing grade from the department, a new and frightened department chair, and the lack of any job security for adjuncts -- part-time labor can be let go for any reason or for no reason at all.)

It taught me that the fundamental rights we take for granted in this country require a whole network of social and legal protections to back them up, like job security, due process, academic freedom, voting rights -- all the protections we see corroding around us.

Carlin should be especially meaningful to Lower East Siders. Lenny Bruce, who first introduced obscenity into comedy and beat the path Carlin followed, lived down here on St. Mark's Place near 3rd Avenue, very much a part of the countercultural spirit of the Lower East Side of the 1950's and 60's.

Unlike Carlin, who was lauded for pushing the envelop in a time of rebellion, Bruce paid for his speech with multiple arrests and legal harassment. Bruce didn't have the support of the broad and popular protest movement that cheered Carlin on network TV.

So where is the broad, popular protest today that will prevent the erosion of constitutional rights, that will create a cause célèbre of every government outrage and intrusion, that will refuse to relinquish the public sphere to private ownership or public space to private profiteering, that will demand equality regardless of money, accountability regardless of influence, and responsibility regardless of power, that will stand up for good government and not back down until it gets it regardless how long?

Today's youth have mobilized around their favorite, Obama. But politicians alone cannot and will not solve our problems.

Only an engaged public can provide the foundations of support for policy-makers and the social will for sound policy. A disengaged public leaves a void into which quickly flow the corporate interests, their current strong, its source inexhaustibly replenished by the consuming public itself, the public that it seeks to supplant in civil process, the public it seduces, the public it feeds on, the public that rushes to submit.

It's a monster out of myth, copulating with your government

perverting civil society

in the bed you made for them.

Btw, the best place to read all of Carlin's routine unexpurgated is in the appendix to the Supreme Court of the United States' decision, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (that's WBAI). Although the court decided that FCC could restrict on-air language, they reproduced the text with clinical accuracy.
FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)

at Justia

http://supreme.justia.com/us/438/726/case.html

or at Findlaw

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=726


Remembering our soldiers still stuck in Iraq...and the Iraqis still stuck with our soldiers...

Whose streets?

If the board of Masaryk Towers has its way, the section of Rivington Street that runs through the Towers will be closed off and gated, forcing thousands of pedestrians, including seniors, to detour all the way to either Houston or Delancey merely to get from Columbia Street to Pitt.

The board cites crime and rising insurance rates as motivating their decision to gate their community by closing the pedestrian walkway. However, no crime statistics have yet been produced to justify their claim and it's not clear that the walkway traffic is responsible for the insurance raise.

Residents in the surrounding areas are repelled by the prospect of a gated community in their midst, gated to keep them out at the expense of their free access and mobility through their city. Many suspect the Board's motives.

The issue is not merely local. New York, for all its ethnic segregation, enforced or chosen, has so far avoided gated communities. The idea affronts the model of urban coexistence, the interactive diversity that has characterized this town since its first days as an international port. And the streets have always been a public amenity -- public spaces within government jurisdiction, essential and foundational to the public weal.

New York City government laid out the streets with the 1811 grid, designed so that development would not hinder general commerce, traffic, mobility and access. If a private board can close a public street, the government has forfeited its role in protecting the public good, which is the sole justification for government.

The surrounding community has suggested that the Towers gate each individual building, leaving the walkway free. But that will not likely assuage the concerns of the Board.

My two cents: maybe the best solution would be to have the city put Rivington Street back on the map and return it to full use as a city street -- vehicles and sidewalks, just like any other street anywhere else in Manhattan. It would be a shame to see the walkway disappear as a traffic-free space, but a standard street is be better than a divided community. And who knows, maybe the threat of losing the walkway entirely would bring the Board back to its senses and to a urban spirit of unity.

Demonstration, March and Rally in Harlem

Demonstration, March and Rally in Harlem
Against Displacement & Gentrification

Saturday, June 21

10am Rally at Marcus Garvey Park
124th Street & Fifth Avenue

11am March to Morningside Park
116th St. & Frederick Douglass Blvd(8th Ave) Rally at 2pm




details and press advisory below

We are the heart of Harlem

March & Rally



HARLEM TENANTS COUNCIL, Inc.

21 West 130th Street New York, NY 10030

Email:Harlem tenants@gmail.com

Contact: Nellie Hester Bailey 646-812-5188
PRESS ADVISORY

Demonstration/Rally in Harlem Against Displacement & Gentrification

Saturday, June 21, 2008



10 AM Main Gathering: Marcus Garvey Park
Enter at 124th and Fifth Avenue.


10 AM Feeder March in East Harlem
Gather at 116th & 3rd Avenue: northbound on Third Avenue to 125th Street. Proceed westbound on 125th to Madison Avenue southbound to 124th into Marcus Garvey Park at approximately 11 AM


11 AM Main March begins:
Leave Marcus Garvey at 124th and Madison Avenue northbound to 125th - proceed westbound to Broadway- northbound to 145th- eastbound to Frederick Douglass Blvd - southbound to 116th Street - eastbound to Manhattan Avenue into Morningside Park.


Route distance:
approximately 70 blocks equivalent to 3 and ½ miles.


Sites to join march:
125th Street/Old Broadway;
135th Street/Broadway in front of 3333 Broadway;
145th Street & Broadway; 145th Street & Frederick Douglass;
135th & Frederick Douglass;
116th Street & Frederick Douglass Blvd.


2 PM: Rally begins in Morningside Park with speakers and performances.


Background: After decades of public policy neglect, redlining and disinvestment Harlem now stand at the brink of losing its historic status as Black America's cultural Mecca for more than a century. Although development is a welcome relief from abandoned buildings, neglected open spaces, few service amenities and crime the "revitalization" of Harlem is displacing tenants, driving out local businesses and will impact Harlem's ethnic, political and socio-economic makeup. Projected developments will create nearly 5,000 units of mostly luxury housing within Harlem's 125th Street commercial corridor from river to river. The scheme includes high rise office tower, hotels and space for giant retails, in some cases with millions in public subsidies such as Columbia University, the city's second largest landlord, that was given city streets, sidewalks and the below surface land.

Our Demands: Build and Preserve Low income housing; Protect Public Housing; Fund legal & anti-evictions services; Protect Local businesses: Re-establish Mart 125th for Local businesses & Street Merchants; Re-establish NYC Youth Boards for jobs for youth in crisis; Enforce Executive Order 50-provide equal access in construction industry jobs; No Eminent Domain; Moratorium on zoning/rezoning; Conflict of interest investigations on EIS Studies; Landmark & monument for African Burial Ground in East Harlem; No skyscrapers in Harlem; Landmark historic resources in Harlem; and inclusion of local community as vital stakeholders in a transparent and accountable public review process on development.

*** The End***

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."

Fending off racism

The critics of the rezoning gained one victory in all this process. The Chrystie Street alternative is dead. Remember CB3 proposed that the greatest height and bulk be placed on Chrystie Street -- up to 150 feet (reduced to 145' by DCP)?

It wasn't until ethnic Chinese showed up en masse, calling the plan racist, that this alternative, which placed the greatest density of development right in Chinatown, disappeared. It disappeared so completely and so silently that board members spoke in favor of the "11 points" without even realizing that one of those points -- the one about Chrystie Street -- wasn't there anymore. It disappeared because the community appeared and expressed its opposition to overdevelopment and gentrification, and it disappeared silently because, in the light of day, it looked too much like racism.

But where did the Chrystie Street actually alternative come from? According to the Task Force chair, it was suggested by the Rebuild Chinatown Initiative -- an ethnic Chinese development group that purports to represent the Chinese community and will no doubt be called to participate in CB3's rezoning of Chinatown.

Now you know why I am worried about the future.

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?

A message of gratitude

As reward for the Committee to Save St. Brigid's dogged delaying through the courts the demolition of a church which, but for their unwavering fight, would have been lost long ago, comes a gift as rare as it is welcome: quietly, a citizen put money to good and lasting use. Loisaida is indebted to both graceful donor and perseverant Committee.

St. Brigid's anchors the history of Tompkins Square, along with the former Children's Aid Society, later housing a Hebrew schul, that Calvert Vaux built across the street from the church. The deep history of religious persecution in New York's past rests in memoriam between these two.

They were built in the roils of intense anti-Catholicism, when New York politics bitterly divided over the power of unwashed Irish Catholic labor expressed through Tammany Hall, and patrician Protestants like Frederick Law Olmstead, his architect and designer Calvert Vaux and his best friend, Charles Loring Brace, minister and founder of the Children's Aid Society.

The Society, a Protestant charity, opened its buildings facing Catholic churches to lure the children of desperate Irish immigrants, sending them out west by the train-full to be taken into "good Christian homes" -- and work the farms unpaid -- far from their Catholic roots. It was a marriage of economic and social convenience: Midwestern Protestants in non-slave states needed cheap labor; New York had an untapped wealth of Catholic children to reform. Another Protestant Brace friend, the immensely popular author Horatio Alger, justified in his stories the role of philanthropy in poor boys' exchange of rags for "riches." No one thought it harm.

Brace advocated 'placing out' the children as the sole way to save them from the dangerous influence of life in the slums of the city, including the "spiritual lifelessness of Romanism." The peculiar forerunner of foster care, the "Orphan Trains," inconceivable today, now hide in the shadows of history; an incredible story, but true:

http://www.orphantraindepot.com/index.html
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/people/brace.html
http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/rister/index.htm

or to witness in brick, walk up to the Mott Street entrance of the old St. Patrick's Cathedral and turn around: you'll see looming above you another dark red Vaux&Brace Children's Aid Society, uncannily like the one overlooking St. Brigid's.

Today we ship our unwashed youth to the upstate prison economy, a shorter journey for a longer term. It's a novel device to serve that very same marriage of economic and social convenience. In harsh, intolerant philanthropy's place we now provide generously stifling punishment. But we have progressed: rather than pretend to be good or kind, we pretend merely to be just.

There is, then, a story to be learnt from these buildings, from their history. They speak to us of their past; they conceal a message for our present.

And there's something, too, to be gained: still standing, immigrant working-class St. Brigid's celebrates a triumph of steadfastness in adversity, then as today, facing the park, a-shoulder to its gloomy, Victorian rival gazing fixedly in its direction. Long live St. Brigid's!

St. Brigid's saved!!

You've all heard that St. Brigid's has been saved by an anonymous donor.

I have only two happy words:

WOO HOO!!

Someone has put money to good and lasting use. As rare as welcome.

We are all endebted to the Committee to save St. Brigid's, without whose perseverant fight in the courts the church would have been demolished years ago.

Historic designation for the EV, the Bowery and Chinatown?

I have recently become involved in an effort to create a historic district of the East Village, where many smaller buildings remain at risk of redevelopment or expansion under the rezoning. An East Village Historic District will slow the pace of gentrification and displacement by restricting or preventing such development.

This project requires surveying all the buildings in the entire neighborhood, a task every minute of which I will enjoy and in which I will welcome your company. I will be writing more about it soon.

I'm also hoping groups in the Bowery and Chinatown, areas most in need of protection from development, will take an interest in historic districting. If you know any groups or contacts there that might support such an effort, drop me a line!

Meanwhile, I am moved to thank the many readers who responded so sympathetically to my last post. There is a community here! Well, I may have tired of fights, but I haven't tired of work.

LES designated "most endangered" by National Trust

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has designated the Lower East Side as one of the nation's "most endangered historic places." You can read more and see a video here
http://blogs.nationaltrust.org/preservationnation/?p=588

and learn how to help here:
http://www.preservationnation.org/travel-and-sites/sites/northeast-region/lower-east-side.html

Many of us had been wondering why there had been news about LES Historic District proposal since the community board had approved it. Well, now we know. The sponsors of the proposal -- that means primarily the Tenement Museum -- was gathering national support for it. With this National Trust designation in hand, the proposal will be a shoe-in at the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission.

defeat

Three years ago I got the idea that it might be possible to stave off the loss of community by distributing information, including full and detailed analysis of policies governing what's happening here. That was LES Residents for Responsible Development, dedicated to anti-displacement in Loisaida.

I had hoped to measure the success of lesrrd by the participation of the community, but that hasn't happened. Instead, I succeeded in antagonizing a handful of community board members.

I have no idea whether those CB policy-makers mean well or ill -- I cannot see into their hearts. I know only that they mistook criticism for subversion to such an extent that one of them wrote that I "had to be neutralized" merely for raising just the kinds of questions that everyone should ask of their policy-makers. Talk about overreacting.

Aside from the unpleasantness of being a lone independent voice, being lied to and being lied about, there's just nothing left of the marginal, alternative, burnt-out, sparsely populated, multi-ethnic community I was drawn to thirty years ago. The block I live on, and the blocks around it, are solidly, comfortably, prosperously middle-class now. I guess that's great for the middle-class, but it's not what I moved here for thirty years ago -- it's what I moved here to get away from.

I'm not whining. Don't get me wrong. There are lots of fine, intelligent, charming middle-class people. And even though the transient NYU population has raised real estate values and rents and rent ceilings and undermined most of the affordable and regulated housing here, the students themselves are bright, lively, serious and decent on the whole. And the neighborhood continues to attract an interesting couple here and there. I am not so pleased with those whom Jeremiah Moss (of Jeremiah's Vanishing New York blog, see the blogroll) calls "yunnies" -- young urban narcissists. If they are interesting, they've cleverly succeeded in hiding it.

But Loisaida is gone. A few years ago a Latino friend from the old days reappeared in Tompkins Square Park having just finished a jail sentence for drug possession -- a strong, smart, optimistic, independent, genuine stand-up kind of guy whose most serious crime was not being white and being something of a street person. Years ago, street life was far more communal than it is now and homelessness was a more fluid state -- there were many abandoned apartments, people often floated from space to space, lived among friends, moved from situation to situation untroubled by absentee slumlords who didn't know to care or care to know.

My friend, now, was visibly ill with hepatitis C. The state had given him a fully subsidized apartment somewhere in Brooklyn. He'd left it to be homeless here in the park, despite his illness.

I asked why. He explained that this is a mixed neighborhood; it always was a mixed neighborhood. He didn't want to live in a ghetto. He jonesed for the mix.

Well, some folks like the mix, others like the ghetto, white, black, yellow or brown. There's value in each. A city can have them all. A city should have them all.

Loisaida had the mix, but it's being snowed under and there's no stopping the storm.

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.

Full disclosure and farewell

LESRRD is not a member of the Coalition to Protect Chinatown/LES and they do not wish me to speak for them.

The views represented on this blog are mine, not theirs or anyone else's.

I do strongly support their goals and I have given them as much information as I have.

Their tactics are not for me to judge. They've got to conduct their own struggles their own way.

If you are looking for an account of Monday's contentious Town Hall meeting on the rezoning, I am afraid I can only supply second-hand accounts. Although I was able to watch the audience assemble, I had to leave before the meeting began. In any case, I have had my say here and in e-mailed posts.

The absence of testimony from local electeds -- except for the State Senator, but the Senate doesn't vote on the plan -- is bad news for Chinatown and the Bowery. It means that they don't intend to use the approval process to get a commitment from DCP to save Chinatown and the Bowery, and so they are hiding from the Coalition's disapprobation.

Btw, my relationship with Bowery Alliance of Neighbors is ambiguous. They consider me a member because I attend their meetings, have helped out and even enunciated their position on the radio. I consider myself a close friend of the group, a helper, but not a member. After all, I live on 11th between B&C, far from the Bowery. I support their goals, too, but I intend to turn my attention to other means than community activism, for which I have neither taste nor talent.

The urgency of the Bowery and Chinatown

In just the last three years we've seen seven (7) huge projects emerge on the Bowery:
Cooper Union's new engineering building
Cooper Square Hotel
Atlantic's 37 E 4th
Bowery Hotel
Scarano E 3rd
New Museum
hotel at Hester.

That's over two giants each year. That's urgent.

Compare the residential East Village from 2nd Avenue to Avenue D. In the last 40 years only two tall buildings, both 15 stories:
New Theater building, 240 E 10
NY Law Dorm, 81 E 3
and nothing tall at all in the last eight years.

Could it be that there is no urgency to rezoning the East Village? Why then won't our "leaders" use their leverage to get protection for the C6-1 zones (Bowery and Chinatown) that need it?

the city's design for Community District 3

Over the last six years of construction boom in New York no tall towers have been built in the East Village area about to be rezoned (2nd Avenue to Avenue D). None. Lots of low construction, nothing out-of-scale.

That's a sure sign that our current R7-2 zoning works.

The rezoning plan does NOT INCLUDE 3RD AVENUE AND THE BOWERY where the tall towers are being built (C6-1 zones)!

The areas that most need rezoning are the zones that the developers are just beginning to look at: Bowery and Chinatown (C6-1 zones). These areas are excluded from the rezoning. The hotel boom from C6-1 Suffolk to Allan appears to be exhausted: the air rights are probably all eaten up; the rezoning will be too late. So the city's rezoning plan includes all the areas that do NOT need rezoning and excludes all the areas that need rezoning! The city's design is plain as day.

Our current R7-2 zoning works -- even without height caps -- for a variety of reasons: 1) the allowable FAR is so low that there aren't enough air rights to build with; 2) tall structures require multiple lots and plaza space under current zoning; 3) developers are not interested in building the large community facilities which the zoning allows. It's not as simple as height caps.

Years ago this rezoning looked like a great way to prevent Gregg Singer from building a skyscraper on the former Charas building next to Christadora House. No one here wants to see a skyscraper there, not just the people on that block or in Christadora House. But the building has already been landmarked, thanks to EVCC, and preventing one building is not an ideal reason to rezone an entire neighborhood. It has resulted in tunnel vision: focusing within the EV, we've overlooked the areas most at risk.

This rezoning is a done deal. You don't need to support it -- it will happen regardless what anyone says at this Town Hall. The political influences here want it, and the city wants it. The only good that can come of it now is using the approval process to get the city to commit to saving the areas that really need rezoning, Chinatown and the Bowery, and getting a higher ratio of affordable housing.

We have leverage over DCP now. Do some good with this rezoning: use the approval process to get a deal for Chinatown and the Bowery. Unless we get a commitment now when we have leverage, the city will never support a protective rezoning of those neighborhoods. Can we think ahead for once?

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)

Race and rezoning

The area protected by this EV/LES rezoning is overwhelmingly white. The areas excluded from the rezoning are overwhelmingly ethnic Chinese or Latino. Makes you wonder.

Every area adjacent to those ethnic Chinese and Latino neighborhoods is getting the rezoning's largest luxury bulk (building size) allowances -- Avenue D, Pitt Street and Chrystie Street -- inviting development and facing those communities with gentrification. Still wondering?

The Department of City Planning's intent is clear: the ethnic cleansing of Manhattan.

It's an ugly accusation. But we all know it's true.

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

Where is Alan Gerson?

About five years ago, our former councilmember Margarita Lopez got $50,000 earmarked for a rezoning of the East Village. That rezoning is about to be made a reality.

Meanwhile, we've seen the Bowery and Chinatown become targets of luxury hotel development. But Alan Gerson has not come through with a penny or a plan.

Not even an idea to save these neighborhoods in his district.

To the members of Community Board 3 and Councilmembers Alan Gerson and Rosie Mendez,

The Community Board and Councilmembers Gerson and Mendez have a unique moment of leverage with DCP.

DCP is committed to pushing through this rezoning that they've spent millions on already. Now is the only moment when CB3 can negotiate protection for Chinatown and the Bowery.

Currently, CB3 wants to work on a separate community-based plan for Chinatown. That plan will take years and has no guarantee of ever being implemented since there will probably never again be such leverage as exists right now while DCP seeks approval for its plan.

This one is a no-brainer. Now is the time to demand that the EIS be expanded to include Chinatown and the Bowery. This is the last moment DCP can be cornered into a commitment of any kind. This is the last moment for demand. After this, no leverage: no negotiation; it's all over.

Don't throw this game. Play hardball. You know how. You have nothing to lose, and you stand to gain a meaningful commitment to the protection of the C6 zones from luxury hotel development.

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.

We met with City Planning

Friends and neighbors,

We met with City Planning:

a) They want hotels to line the Bowery and they want to develop Chinatown.
b) They are completely, stubbornly and adamantly dedicated to the EV/LES rezoning.

(a) is bad, but (b) presents an opportunity for our community and office holders to play hardball. Now is the moment to leverage (b) against (a). Alan Gerson has stated he will oppose the plan unless it is improved. That's the right strategy.

Now is the moment to demand that Chinatown and the Bowery be included in the plan. There will be no protection for Chinatown and the Bowery unless this moment is seized. Even if Chinatown and the Bowery don't get into the plan, only the firm demand that they be included will yield any progress towards a deal to protect Chinatown.

The community and office holders must unite behind this strategy, otherwise there will be no Bowery and no Chinatown sooner than you think. Gentrification is a self-propelling process. Once a couple of hotels go up in a neighborhood, upscale bars and clubs displace local business, real estate value rises, landlords harass, empty apartments, warehouse them and then sell to developers. There is no road back.

Some on the Community Board have urged us to accept the plan without dissent or question, for fear that DCP would abandon the rezoning. This was alarmist fear then and is absurd now that the city has spent millions on the Environmental Impact Statement (yes, millions -- these are hugely expensive studies) and is even more committed than ever. Frightened acceptance is completely unnecessary.

Let me repeat that for those who have been listening to the alarmist fear mongers:

Frightened acceptance is completely unnecessary because the city is completely committed to carrying this rezoning forward.

Our community board members must set aside the divisions and squabbles of the past, hear the people of Chinatown and the Bowery, shed the mode of desperate fear and step up to the plate. Let's not see the community board throw the game to DCP. Let's watch the community board play hardball for the people of Bowery & Chinatown.

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

Upcoming events

Friday, May 9, 4:30pm, 25 Beaver St
MARCH TO SAVE OUR HEALTH CARE and oppose GHI-HIP from converting to a for-profit company, jeopardizing the healthcare of 4 million policy holders, including 500,000 NYC workers (93% of the workforce) & retirees. Mainstream politicians & union leaders support the change, hoping to benefit from the nearly $3 billion windfall profits of such a sale. (4/5 to Bowling Green, J/M/Z to Broad St, R/W to Whitehall St,1 to Rector St, 2/3 to Wall St, A/C to B'way-Nassau).
---------

Monday, May 12, 6:30pm, Public School 20, 166 Essex Street (btwn Houston & Stanton)
TOWN HALL ON LES REZONING
Last chance for direct community input on the rezoning of the EV/LES.

The community board has not yet withdrawn support for out-of-scale development on Chrystie Street. 80% (or more) of that development will be luxury.

DCP has refused to protect the Bowery and Chinatown.

Tell DCP not to develop Chinatown into another luxury hotel district.

Join us to say "no" to overdevelopment in the LES.

Review the plans here:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/evles/index.shtml
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/env_review/evles/evles_final_scope.pdf
---------

Wednesday, May 28th, 6:30pm, 20 Washington Square North
Community Board 2 public hearing on NYU's plan to demolish the Provincetown Playhouse, one of NYC's great and most historic theaters.

More lies

We finally got our hour with the Department of City Planning. Actually, almost three hours around the table to feel them out on their plans for Chinatown and the Bowery.

They have none. Pointing out that hotel development is rolling down the Bowery and invading historic Chinatown, we still got no response. Let it roll. That's their plan. "Development is necessary to provide housing for New Yorkers."

How do hotels provide housing for New Yorkers? Don't try to make sense of their explanations. There is none. They see their role as twofold: clear the way for development and BS the public about it.

We did get details from them that belie what we've been told by the Community Board:

1. DCP is fiercely, stubbornly committed to implementing this rezoning. Remember Community Board 3 saying, "We mustn't question this plan or DCP will walk away from it. No dissent! No criticism! Accept immediately"? Crap. There was never a chance that DCP would walk away from this plan. They want this plan. In particular, they want the added bulk on Houston, Delancey, Chrystie and D.

2. In all this process of rezoning the EV and LES, CB3 never once asked to rezone Chinatown. Never.

3. All that talk of DCP not wanting to rezone just the one side of the Bowery that lies in CB3 -- total crap. Not a word of truth. Just the CB making excuses for DCP so that the community voices of protest would just go away.

DCP won't rezone the Bowery because it wants to encourage hotel development there, existing communities be damned. DCP is, after all, out to maximize city revenue, real estate taxes, business revenue. People currently residing in the neighborhood play no role in their plans. It's the Department of City *Development* Planning, not community planning.

This whole process would have been so much more civil if the CB hadn't been so defensive about this plan. As it is, we've had to struggle not only with DCP but with community board defensiveness as well.

The big picture

In the tiny 9-block commercial zone south of Houston, 7 hotel/condominiums have risen in the last ten years, all about 23-stories tall, almost one huge hotel per block. Chinatown and the Bowery share that commercial zoning. Hotels are being built there now too.

In the expansive 60-block East Village there are no 23-story buildings. Only 1 building has risen above 8-stories in the last ten years. It's 14-stories tall. So why did the Community Board ask the city to rezone the 60-block East Village and neglect Chinatown completely? There is something amiss in our politics, priorities, perspectives and strategies. Margarita Lopez got funding for an EV rezoning, apparently to save the former Charas building, an admirable cause though probably not the best reason to rezone an entire neighborhood. But at least it's money and effort. What has Alan Gerson been doing all these years?? Chinatown is in your district, Alan, or didn't you know? It's your responsibility.

Announcing!

As development threatens to displace Chinatown,
LES Residents for Responsible Development
Historical Walking Tours of the LES presents

Five Points Historical Walking Tour:
CITY HALL TO CHINATOWN

The Five Points tour tells the story of immigrant unrest, riot, rebellion and reform leading from multi-racial New Amsterdam to melting-pot New Deal. It's the story of a city socially and politically unprepared for its own diversity emerging finally as a progressive vanguard for the nation; a story of Africans, Germans, Irish, Italians, Jews and Chinese; from the 17th century African burial ground and the early slave reprisals to the spectacular structures of the Civic Center and their decadent scandals; the street of Irish Gold just a few short steps from the oldest and most notorious slum in America, the Five Points of Irish Despair; from gangs of New York and Chinatown tongs, their gang headquarters still in use around the corner from winding Blood Alley where countless gang members were murdered in half a century of turf warfare, to the single oldest relic of civilization on the island of Manhattan and abiding emblem of diversity and tolerance. It's a story of bigotry and rivalry; ribaldry, racism and radicalism; oppression, defiance, perseverance, progress and reform.

Every Sunday, 2-4pm. Meet at the southwest corner of Chambers and Centre Streets, corner of the plaza. $15. Guide: Rob

Presented in association with East Village Community Media
Visit their website for more historical tours of the EV and LES:
http://www.east-village.com
including

Gangsters, Murderers and Weirdos, Tuesdays and Saturdays, 1-3pm, meets 2nd Ave & Houston, $15
The dark underbelly of the East Village wild side. Guide: Eric

The East Village, Fridays and Saturdays, 11am-1pm, meets Astor Place Cube, $15
Culture and progress in the slum ... and their unraveling. Guide: Rob

Anti-gentrification event

The Tompkins Square Romp
(space to play)

A free festival with dance, music, and theater
about the changing face of the Lower East Side.

Tompkins Square Park
Sat. April 26
Noon-4pm
Speak out! Act out! Sing out! Dance out!

If you are interested in performing your own material, or being a part of existing material please contact theglassco@gmail.com.

"The Glass Co. is the group that did the Washington Square Park balloon protest/performance last month. They're hoping to get lots of folks out who know about and are concerned about gentrification, about NYC's screwy policies, issues with developers, NYU....
The performances will include dance, music, spoken word, puppetry and all sorts of theatrical work. There will be lots of room for dialogue in the audience and with performers built into the work, and for letter-writing, education, and connecting with people from the surrounding communities." And petitioning...

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 ***

---

NYU expansion open house

NYU will hold another open house on its expansion plans, presenting the "final recommendations based on nine months of planning, analysis, and outreach. New York University will examine these refined options over the coming months as we move towards a comprehensive space-planning strategy for the next 25 years. Your continued input and feedback is [sic] critical."
Wednesday, April 23, 5-7pm
100 Washington Square East
Refreshments will be served and children's activities will be provided.

-- That's fruit and cookies. They're not bad. They've got some knowledgeable planners there who talk intelligently, and their posters are full of important information. With amusing but distractingly seductive suggestion, they always include a poster about Governor's Island, as if they just might-could expand there. You may skip that one. The likelihood of their moving to Governor's Island, earnest posters notwithstanding, is nil. Alas. Have a cookie. -- RH

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.

Save Met Foods from NYU

NYU's rent negotiations may oust Met Foods from its location on 2nd Avenue. Met Foods is the only supermarket from 3rd Avenue to 1st Avenue, 11th Street to Houston Street. It provides affordable goods for local residents including older, mobility-challenged, and fixed-income residents. An upscale replacement would further marginalize the stable core community of the East Village.

Please sign the petition to save Met Foods. Kindly forward this to all your email lists.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/MetFoods/petition.html

from the Coalition to Protect Chinatown / LES

I wanted to clarify that the group present on the CB3 meeting is called the Coalition to Protect Chinatown and Lower East Side. In your blog, it sounded like Chinatown was a separate fight, and their residents came to the meeting in defense of Chinatown alone. The Chinatown residents along with other LES folks spoke out about the need to come together and fight as one community. I think it's important to stress that we are facing the same threat of displacement. Also, I take issue with wording of the title. I just feel that the use of the word 'mob' in relation to Chinese masses has racist connotations. I know that's not what Rob meant when he wrote this report. We urge all residents and readers of this blog to join us in our fight against displacement of our communities and for real 'affordable' housing.

Hoon Kim
National Mobilization Against Sweatshops
www.nmass.com
59 Hester St. LES
212 358 0295

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.

Upzoning Chrystie Street

Sorry for that last dense zoning post. I wanted it on record that the Alternative Proposal, still supported by CB3, is a luxury upzoning of Chrystie with almost no additional affordable housing benefit over the DCP's plan.

Here's a simpler summary. You can see below that the DCP plan downzones luxury on Chrystie while the Alternative upzones luxury there:

Current luxury allowable: 6.0 FAR
DCP plan luxury with bonuses: 5.76 FAR
Alternative luxury with bonuses: 6.8 FAR

Below you can see that the DCP plan offers nearly as much affordable housing as the Alternative:

DCP plan affordable housing: 1.44 FAR
Alternative plan affordable housing: 1.7 FAR
Difference in affordable housing: only 0.26 FAR

The Alternative allows 1.04 more luxury FAR than the DCP proposal, but only 0.26 FAR more affordable housing.

Worse, inclusionary zoning allows off-site renovations to qualify for the bonus instead of new affordable housing. So there is no guarantee that any new affordable housing will be created under inclusionary zoning (IZ).

With the Alternative, we'll see 14-story luxury developments on Chrystie leading into Chinatown, with maybe a bit of "affordable" housing somewhere far away in the district, affordable in name only.

The CB's quest for every possible crumb of affordable housing has blinded them to the dangers of upscale upzoning.

Upzoning Chrystie Street for luxury housing

The EV/LES rezoning will save much of the LES south of Houston from luxury hotels, but it will push that development onto the Bowery and into Chinatown, which remain unprotected. To reject the rezoning now entails losing the LES, so we are cornered into accepting a rezoning that promises to accelerate luxury development in Chinatown and the Bowery, where that development is already spreading.

It troubles me that Community Board 3 currently supports a planning alternative that upzones Chrystie Street to fourteen stories (from current F.A.R .6 to F.A.R. 8.5), right on the edge of Chinatown. The CB maintains that the inclusionary upzoning will bring 20% affordable housing to the neighborhood. That's still a luxury upzoning to 6.8 F.A.R. And the Department of City Planning (DCP) allows that affordable 20% (1.7 F.A.R.) to be already existing affordable housing, provided the developer renovate it. Even without the IZ bonus, this alternative upzones Chrystie to 6.5 F.A.R.-- that's an upzoning with no affordable housing component at all.

In the worst-case scenario, the CB is inviting a 100% luxury upzoning to 145 feet on Chrystie Street for the sake of a few renovations and no guarantee of any new affordable housing. That's the worst case. When considering development strategies in NYC, the wise assume the worst.

By contrast, the DCP plan actually downzones Chrystie Street, although it allows additional bulk with affordable housing. The DCP plan offers almost as much affordable housing as the CB-supported alternative, but with no luxury upzoning. In fact, DCP actually downzones luxury even with all the bonuses.

I hope the CB will reject the Chrystie Street inclusionary upzoning alternative and accept DCP's downzoning. I don't see how our local community can accept an alternative that brings additional luxury development for only 0.26 F.A.R. (roughly one apartment) more affordable housing than the DCP plan, which actually downzones for luxury.

The numbers speak for themselves:

Current Zoning of Chrystie, C6-1
FAR 6
FAR 6.5 Community Facilities

DCP Rezoning of Chrystie, C6-2A
FAR 5.4 (no affordable housing)
FAR 7.2 (with 20% affordable housing or renovations)
FAR 6.5 for Community Facilities

CB3-supported alternative for Chrystie, C6-3A
FAR 6.5 (no affordable housing)
FAR 8.5 (with 20% affordable housing or renovations)
FAR 7.5 for Community Facilities

As you can see, if CB3 continues to support the alternative, it is asking for 25% larger buildings on Chrystie than are currently allowed, more than twice as large as what is currently built there. This alternative would provide at best 1.7 F.A.R. of affordable housing/renovations along with 0.8 F.A.R. of added luxury over current zoning -- 1.04 luxury F.A.R. more than the DCP plan. And if the developer doesn't take the affordable housing bonus and builds no affordable housing at all, this alternative still gives the developer a 0.5 F.A.R. luxury upzoning. In short, the alternative upzones Chrystie Street for luxury in all circumstances.

The DCP plan would downzone Chrystie Street by 10% from current 6 to 5.4 F.A.R. With affordable housing/renovations, DCP's plan requires 1.44 F.A.R. of affordable housing/renovations, but less additional luxury than what's allowed in the current zoning. DCP's plan allows a maximum of 5.76 F.A.R. luxury, which is 0.24 less luxury than current zoning allows.

In other words, the DCP plan provides almost as much affordable housing/renovations as the alternative, while consistently downzoning luxury F.A.R.

The alternative would allow .8 F.A.R. more luxury than current zoning. The DCP plan allows .24 F.A.R. less luxury than current zoning allows.

Even under the best-case scenario in which we actually get new affordable housing, the DCP plan provides virtually all the "affordable" housing the alternative provides, without the alternative's egregious luxury upzoning. So even accepting the CB's faith that inclusionary upzoning will bring us affordable housing, the alternative has virtually no benefit to the community over the DCP plan. And its price is high: the alternative upzones the street for luxury development without inclusionary upzoning, and significantly upzones it for luxury with inclusionary upzoning.

I hope CB3 changes its position on this alternative that will flood Chinatown with gentrification. It is inconceivable that the local community would welcome significantly more luxury housing than even DCP proposes and without any significant benefit -- possibly no benefit at all.