Saturday, April 13, 2013

Where to apply the Yglesias solution


Matt Yglesias has been arguing to remove zoning restrictions that prevent residential development and increase rents. It's the obvious answer to the misguided view that rent regulations raise market-rate rents. 

Adding supply lowers demand and price, but evicting regulated renters don't add supply since the evicted tenants remain in the renting pool (the piece I did for Met Council's Tenant/Inquilino explains this in more detail), so they just raise rents wherever they go in the locality. The only available means of adding supply, short of killing renters, is construction. As it happens, rent regulations are one of the very few incentives to construct housing: new housing, unless it's subsidized, is unregulated. 

Yglesias also points out correctly that if cities don't construct, a tight housing market gentrifies their older, lower-income neighborhoods, displacing whole communities. 

But what happens when the city constructs at a scale commensurate with its demand? Yglesias seems to assume there is a limit to demand. That might appear to be necessarily true, since there's a limit to global population. But one person can rent more than one unit, so any limit has to be found in the aggregate funds available for rents, and there's no reason to assume that that's necessarily limited, especially where there's fiat money, and that holds of just about every nation across the globe, even Europe if considered as a whole.

In most urban markets, the limit is reached through preference and employment opportunity. More people want to live in L.A. than in Detroit, and in particular, more people with more money want to live there, for a variety of reasons. Supply that preference demand, rents should decline, or should they? 

But not all markets have a limit. Some actually create more demand the more it is supplied. Bars are a perfect example. One or two local bars may suffice for a neighborhood. But if the neighborhood boasts many lively bars, it becomes a nightlife strip attracting non locals. The more the bars, the more attractive the strip to non local consumers. More supply=more demand.

Some cities have this attraction too. The more you construct, the more people live in the city, the more people want to be where those people are. People are themselves an attraction, especially among young singles actively seeking. So if New York abandoned its zoning regulations and constructed wildly, would market rents decline? Would the upscale leave older neighborhoods to themselves? Or would New York just grow, continuing to spread upscale development everywhere? 

If that's so, then the Yglesias recommendation won't help New York, unless other cities become more attractive and cheaper than NYC. The only hope I see to prevent gentrification of the entirety of this city, is recommending the Yglesias solution to other cities. 

Friday, April 12, 2013

The Art Canard: artists bring gentrification, not!

Time to put to rest the tired complaint that artists gentrify neighborhoods.

In the 1950's and '60's, lots of artists moved into the Bowery. Many began to move out in the '70's and '80's, and most were gone by the 1990's. From the 1950's to the 1990's the Bowery steadily declined. Even the so-called Bowery renaissance (CBGB's, Amato Opera and the Bowery Lane Theater were active, but all around Bowery & Bond) had no gentrifying effect on the Bowery overall. When gentrification began when the Chystie Avalon opened in 2005, most of the artists had long been gone. In other words, there was no relation between the presence of artists and gentrification. Those are just the facts.

Also in the 1950's artists moved into the LES north of Houston, what's now called the East Village. Did the neighborhood gentrify? No, it declined. It declined for four decades. When did the neighborhood gentrify? When the entire city began to revive in the late '80's and especially through the Clinton boom.

Does it take forty years before artists gentrify a neighborhood? The presence of artists preceded gentrification in Williamsburg by about a decade. But notice that gentrification in Williamsburg began around the same time as the gentrification of the EV. And it sped up radically after it was rezoned under Bloomberg.

It empirical facts show unambiguously that artists have no effect on gentrification whatsoever. Gentrification responds to upswings in the economy and administrative efforts to capitalize on it. The renovation of Tompkins Square Park -- an administrative decision -- began the gentrification of the EV in earnest. The construction of the Chrystie Avalon, another administrative effort, ironically intended to bring affordable housing, gave gentrification its first entree into the Bowery, which had until then been considered an unredeemable skid row.

The role of capital accounts for the driving pressure of gentrification. Administrative decisions are the facilitator. It is a mistake to suppose that gentrification is inevitable. If the administration promoted development vigorously away from low-income neighborhoods, those neighborhoods might have a chance. Instead, DCP plans exactly the opposite. It seeks to spread gentrification through zoning throughout the city. Gentrification raises revenue, human beings be damned.

Sunday in the Park with NO 7-ELEVEN


We're going to chalk up the park at the Tompkins Square Park nonbandshell at 2pm and then take our chalk and our Community Wheel of Fortune to the corner of Avenue A and 11th Street, the site of the threatened 7-Eleven, and chalk up the street and talk to the passers-by who don't yet know what's coming to their neighborhood. Join us for some good old anti-corporate-anti-suburbanization-and-anti-Pringle-ization-of-our-souls-and-our-streets fun! 

Here's a video journalism piece CUNY TV did on us (NO 7-Eleven starts @ 12:45) --

http://219tvmagazine.journalism.cuny.edu/2013/04/10/march2013/


(Wissecracks about my apartment will be punished.)

Sunday, April 07, 2013

Fun in the park

A bit of NO 7-Eleven with Rev. Billy in Tompkins Square Park Saturday from videographer Matteo Minasi


Friday, April 05, 2013

Daddy, where does community come from?

A brief history of how NO 7-Eleven got started. 

Ingrid meets rob on Ave B, one overcast September day. Ingrid: 

"Did you see that 7-Eleven is going to open on the corner of Avenue A? Is there anything the block association can do?"

rob thinks, there's not a chance in hell the block association can stop a 7-Eleven. So he says: 

"Well, I don't know, but we can have a meeting and see." After a few emails, the 11th Street ABC Block Association sets up a meeting for November 14. 

And then came hurricane Sandy. Basement apartments on our street were destroyed. Boilers busted. Circuitry ruined. No lights, no heat, no phone. But we still had a scheduled meeting to hold, so we added hurricane relief to the agenda. 

Big meeting; biggest meeting we'd seen of our Block Association ever. Who was there? All residents, some young, some old, some new to the street, but mostly old-timers from the '70's, artists, performers, poets and some ordinary working folks, even people who grew up on the street. 

Starting with introductions, we asked everyone what they wanted to discuss. No one wanted to talk Sandy. Everyone was there to oppose the 7-Eleven. 

That's how NO 7-Eleven began. 

Dept of I already told you once, papi, don't make me tell it to you again


a reminder
NO 7-ELEVEN and REV. BILLY
COME TO 
TOMPKINS SQUARE PARK 

Saturday, April 6, 1pm 
(7th St. btwn A&B)

FEATURING

The NO 7-Eleven Players, Rev. Billy and the Life after Shopping Choir 
&
The Community Wheel of Fortune w/prizes!
&
The 7-Eleven Dance Competition (for youtube)

AND

Two new plays especially written for this very special event!

"NO 7-ELEVEN!!" 
a tawdry tragedy 
by Sugar Di Abetes

AND

"NO 7-ELEVEN!!!!"
a dour comedy 
by Dewey, Cheatem & Howe 

*
COME ONE COME ALL!!
-nO tOmAToEs-

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Dept. of Community Theatrical Transvestite Travesty


NO 7-ELEVEN 
COMES TO 
TOMPKINS SQUARE PARK 

Saturday, April 6, 1pm 
(7th St. btwn A&B)

FEATURING

The NO 7-Eleven Players 
&
The Community Wheel of Fortune w/prizes!
&
The 7-Eleven Dance Competition (for youtube)

AND

Two new plays especially written for this very special event!

"NO 7-ELEVEN!!" 
a tawdry tragedy 
by Sugar Di Abetes

AND

"NO 7-ELEVEN!!!!"
a dour comedy 
by Dewey, Cheatem & Howe 

*
COME ONE COME ALL!!
-nO tOmAToEs-

Sunday, March 24, 2013

7-Eleven Legal Defense and Education Fund (SELDEF)


Here's the corporate defense of 7-Eleven with my comments:

1. It provides cheap food for low-income people.
"Let them eat Pringles!"..........
7-Eleven has 48,000 stores worldwide
more than any other retail store
What's this, the 21st century version of "Let them eat cake"? Literally: 7-Eleven promotes every form of sugar possible. 

2. There are empty storefronts in our neighborhood. We must fill them, and 7-Eleven will!

Filling the storefronts serves only landlords. Retail storefronts are not a driver of local labor and the neighborhood isn't lacking in food options. What we'v'e lost here is service variety because nightlife, chains and franchises have upped the commercial rents so that small stores like bookstores (for new or used -- anyone remember Paul's? I loved that bookstore), thriftshops, hardware, stationers&cardshops and curiosities can't stay or get in (does anyone remember places like Celtic Twilight in the 1970's? Where else in NY could you find a copy of Y Gododdin?).

Allowing chains, frachises and bars just encourages landlords to hold out for higher rents. The only way to bring rents down is taking the Big Gulp out of the landlord's hand: no more lifeline to candy, fat and liquor; do some service for the community. Since the neighborhood is dense, so plenty of services can thrive, and service providers will come if the rents ease off. 

3. 7-Eleven prevents gentrification.

There are 7-Elevens on the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side, in the Scarano condo building the one professed "gated" community in the neighborhood.  7-Eleven didn't even arrive in the EV until after the neighborhood was thoroughly upscaled. 

4. Remove the corporate clone stores and they'll be replaced with fancy boutiques.

EV boutiques on 9th & 10th arrived decades ago when rents were cheap. New stores here are not SoHo-style boutiques. New storefronts here are usually either upscale food -- North Korean-style ice cream, artisanal water, Japanese-Canary Island fusion, 387 varieties of peanut butter served on rice cakes and no jelly -- or cheap fast food, felafel, pizza, Asian dumplings, bagels, or a cafe w/wifi, cafe w/wifi w/sandwiches, cafe w/wifi w/sandwiches w/cute singles. Which do you prefer? If you choose 7-Eleven, go back to item 1 above and see Marie. For me, I'll take a felafel w/humus, please. 

5. 7-Eleven doesn't exploit undocumented immigrant labor. 

7-Eleven doesn't employ them at all. The undocumented can die in the street for all the corporation cares. Or ex-felons desperately looking for a second chance. Giant corporate control from afar. It's taking over our streets, our lives, our work, our food, our future.  

The only defense left? You're addicted to the Big Gulp. Sarah's got your back --

Friday, March 22, 2013

The source of NYU confidence

The NYU faculty's vote of no confidence in its president is yet another public embarrassment for Sexton. I wonder if it will have any effect. The underlying problem for NYU is its limited endowment which has pushed it to rely on tuition expansion. So even if Sexton goes, their strategy will likely remain. If the state were to fund CUNY adequately, hire more full time faculty and eliminate its tuition, you'd see a lot less student interest in NYU, which is just about the only way to curtail that monster. But as long as the state and the federal government fund student loans instead of funding free state universities directly, the state will continue to promote the expansion of expensive private schools like NYU.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

The trouble with Inclusionary Housing

The city purports to encourage developers to build affordable housing by offering them a bonus. If you build, for example, an additional story reserved for low or moderate income renters, you can build another story of luxury units above what the zoning allows. (That's a simplified version, but it's basically how it works.)

Back in 2006 a few of us predicted that developers wouldn't take the bonus because they'd find enough bulk without bothering with the Inclusionary Zoning bonus. That's because the city actually allowed a loophole in the zoning large enough to shove a buiding through it. 

The zoning allows far greater height than the base bulk allowance. So if a developer can buy air rights from an adjacent building, the developer can fill the height with luxury units and not bother with the affordable bonus. 

If the city had modulated the height caps with the bulk allowance, developers wouldn't be able to take advantage of air rights. But since the height caps are fixed and in excess of the base bulk, the city invited developers to buy air rights, encouraged it, welcomed it, pointed to it and ushered the developers to it. 

Important documentary

The Historic Distrcit Council is screening The Domino Effect, a documentary that everyone concerned about gentrification should see. 

Most documentary treatments of gentrification lament its consequences without examining the collusion between city adminsitration and affordable housing non profits. Non profits are funded to create affordable housing, but the city only offers it through cross subsidies that bring more market-rate housing than affordable housing, gentrifying the neighborhood and displacing community.




FILM SCREENING AND DISCUSSION: THE DOMINO EFFECT
with the documentarian of the film: Megan Sperry
Monday, April 29th 6:00 p.m. -8:00 p.m.

Join the Historic Districts Council for this event, located at:
Neighborhood Preservation Center, 232 East 11th Street, New York, NY 10003. 
$5 general admission. You must RSVP to attend. Please contact ashedd@hdc.org or 212.614.9107.


WILL YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD
BE NEXT TO FALL?
The Community Preservation Corporation’s “New Domino” project—the redevelopment of the Domino Sugar Factory on the East River into a complex of 2,200 apartments and condos in towers up to 40 stories high—serves as the film’s case study for examining the complex politics of urban development in the 21st century.


Told through the voices of longtime residents, the film conveys the personal impact of gentrification while also shedding light on issues encountered by residents of cities all across the country. Why have decent jobs and affordable housing for the middle and working classes become increasingly scarce while gleaming towers of luxury condos, high-end retail, and offices continue to rise? What is at stake in the shaping of the 21st century city and how can we intervene to protect the neighborhoods we love?
This screening is supported, in part, by public funds from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs in partnership with the City Council and by the New York State Council on the Arts with the support of Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature. Additional support is provided by Council members Margaret Chin, Inez Dickens, Daniel Garodnick, Vincent Gentile, Stephen Levin and Rosie Mendez.

NYCHA could do much better

I want to say again, the state loves to give money to the construction industry to build just about anything that can be justified and some that can't be. The state easily floats bonds to build prisons and colleges and just about anything in between except, apparently, housing. So why is NYCHA letting a private developer reap the profit on the Federally-owned NYCHA properties when the state could own the market units and syphon the profits to NYCHA buildings? It would provide a much more robust revenue stream than a 99-year lease. 

Minimum wage

In the discussion of minimum wage, I don't see a lot about wage subsidies. The Germans, who've managed several crises pretty well, use them. 

There's some empirical evidence that raising the minimum wage does not reduce employment (Card & Kreuger comparing NJ and PA). Most left economists see the additional consumer power of a raise will increase demand and therefore production and employment. But increasing demand also raises prices, which can cancel out not only the employment increase but also the increase in wealth at the bottom. A wage subsidy wont solve the latter, but it does solve the former. 

Integrity among bloggers

I've been polite and friendly in public in response to the critics of NO 7-Eleven (except one comment-in-frustration that included "THINK!"), but when someone states outright falsehoods and refuses to post replies that correct his blogposts, what should I do? What can I do? 

As a matter of integrity and fairness I have never moderated this blog despite many angry responses. I've even taken it on the chin when I've been corrected here -- take a look at the post about the rats in TSP. I was corrected, I was excoriated, but I didn't censor any of it. It's a matter of truth, fairness, openness and integrity. 

Antifragility in a fragile town

I  find in Taleb's new book Antifragility strong support for what I've been observing in Chinatown. The Asian American Federation study a few years ago found that East Broadway was one of the few sub-economies that was not harmed by 9-11. The older Toisanese commercial storefronts took a tough hit. Many closed. But not East Broadway. Why? Because East Broadway serves the local, recent immigrant Fujianese residents. They don't rely on tourism.

Chinatown was booming when residents, who mostly worked in Chinatown, would shop in Chinatown and ate in Chinatown, until the garment industry mostly dried up. But the Fujianese community still has that economic strength, driven by recent immigration. The glut of labor there depresses wages, but the high savings rate deflates prices, so they cancel out for the residents, and the high volume bolsters the local commerce. The threat to this balance is housing. That's where tenants advocates like CAAAV are essential to the overall well being of the neighborhood. 

Human beings are resilient -- antifragile. Tourism speculation and development schemes are extremely fragile. You see it in "developer's blight" -- the developer demolishes a building, digs a trench, then loses financing and leaves a big, empty, useless sore. You see it when tourists decide to go to China rather than visit the narrow sidewalks of Mott Street. Tourism is a trend, a fashion. It doesn't take a 9-11 to shut it down. It sways with the weather. But local residents have daily needs, and daily energy. They are the deep well of stability. When they leave, Chinatown leaves unless new immigrants replenish the resource. 

Chinatown has always been a dual community -- partly a clearing house for immigrants who live inexpensively, saving until they can move out of Chinatown to buy property of their own elsewhere; partly a community that has taken roots buying property within Chinatown. The latter community has become more fragile lately, threatening their sustainability, yet it's just as much part of the character of Chinatown. The new BID is intended to support that community, but it's an additional tax burden, and so you have to wonder who is the real beneficiary of the BID, the local community, or the banks that profit from the local commerce and will profit regardless who owns the properties or the businesses.

The purpose of an Economic Development strategy

Is the purpose of the CB3 Economic Development Committee to fill all the storefronts in the neighborhood, or is it to encourage commerce that serves the community and prevent commerce that harms the community? They are not necessarily consistent goals -- they can be, in fact, contrary goals.  

The goal of filling storefronts regardless of community needs seems to me to serve only landlords. It's not a local labor issue, for example. Stores in the East Village are not a significant driver of local labor. The EV is a residential neighborhood and, like most New Yorkers, residents work outside the neighborhood. What labor is here isn't in storefronts -- public schools, music schools, theaters. Nightlife employs a few locals, but storefronts are not and will not be a major driver of local labor. 

Landlords represent less than 1% of our community. And many landlords -- most of the large ones --don't even live here. Are landlords defaulting or abandoning their properties? I haven't seen that. It's more likely that storefronts are vacant because the landlord is demanding an exorbitant rent, not because no one would rent it. 

Back in the 1970's when I first moved to Loisaida, there was little commerce and virtually no money here. The storefronts were either occupied residentially, or by a social club or simply vacant. I vividly remember a friend one day having the idea of sewing spandex shorts -- spandex was new then. She found an empty storefront on 7th Street off A, and without asking anyone, set up a sewing machine in it. In a few days dozens of local kids - five, seven, eight years old -- were all running in and out of her dark little storefront helping her sew spandex shorts. A little piece of heaven. 

A month ago I presented the NO 7-Eleven program to Community Board 3's Economic Development Committee. They raised several intelligent and important questions -- on what basis would a community board accept one formula store and reject another? Can 7-Eleven offer a good deal to the franchisee or a better option to a bodega owner?  But one comment puzzled me: "There are many vacant storefronts that corporate formula stores could fill." I just don't see why vacant stores should be a concern for the community board in a neighborhood full of money. It's almost unbelievable just how much money there is in the EV. And landlords are reaping that money hand over fist. Residential rents are astronomical. So why worry about filling the landlords' storefronts? 

There are commercial problems in this neighborhood. The students and young singles who bring most of that money enjoy living here in large part because of the nightlife. But older residents complain about the noise and disruption from bars. For a while bars were replacing local services and it became harder to find those services. Older residents were afraid that they might lose their supermarkets. 

Those are genuine community concerns, genuine community conflicts that require some kind of oversight and balancing. I can imagine a community board strategy of filling all the vacant stores with local services that are welcomed by the community. But simply to ensure that storefronts be filled doesn't seem to me to merit community board effort or concern.

The situation in Chinatown, for example, is quite different. There, in the older Toisanese community, property owners are having trouble meeting the real estate taxes, with so many rent regulated residential tenants. Their commerce doesn't have the high volume of the recent Fujianese immigrant commerce on East Broadway, so they often look towards higher-end, more tourist-friendly commerce. That's a fragile program. But the EV, with Daddy NYU supplying new renters every year, the worry is not how to fill stores, but how to fill them with something that best serves the community. If there's no oversight or resistance to formula stores, giant corporations will answer that from afar. 

NO 7-Eleven Truth

Some folks have been purveying nonsense about NO 7-Eleven, so I'm going to post a series about what this effort is really all about.

First, it's not just about 7-Eleven. We're trying to get the city to adopt a zoning amendment that would prevent corporate formula storefronts from opening unless the local community board allows it. It would cover anything from Duane Reade to Chase Bank to The Gap -- any store that has 11 other clones in its corporate model.

The intention is not to eliminate all corporate formula stores. The zoning amendment would allow the local community to have a say on how many those stores should be in their neighborhood and where they should be located. After all, formula stores have a place and a useful function. But not everywhere and to the exclusion of everything else.

Other cities have such requirements. And it's been successful. It slows down the commercial rent raises -- chain stores can pay higher rents than mom and pops --and it resists corporate control, corporate growth, corporate management from afar of our labor, streets and neighborhoods.

NO 7-Eleven is not a panacea. It won't prevent gentrification or upscaling of neighborhoods or lower tuition at CUNY or improve your schools or end war. But there are a lot of good reasons to resist corporate control, and if we don't start to resist, corporate spread will not stop here. 7-Eleven is planning 100 more stores in the next two to three years. And that's just 7-Eleven.

NO 7-Eleven and the soda ban

Now, someone says that NO 7-Eleven is against the >16 oz sugary drink ban. This complaint strikes me as moronic, but I guess we have to explain this, since there are morons.

NO 7-Eleven thinks the ban unfairly promotes 7-Eleven and its aggressive campaign to add 100 new stores in Manhattan. People think that the conveneince store exemption doesn't unfairly benefit 7-Eleven because 7-Eleven competes with other convenience stores, not with restaurants and movie theaters. This analysis is not moronic, it's just thoughtless. Pizza places, Chinese take-out places, bagel stores, cafes, felafel places -- 7-Eleven competes with all of them, but 7-Eleven offers the Big Gulp, those others couldn't under the ban. So the ban would have given 7-Eleven an unfair advantage. You go to 7-Eleven for your Big Gulp, and what do you see? They offer pizza there. QED

Does that mean that NO 7-Eleven supports >16oz drinks? Silly rabbit. Of course not. Our objection is to the unfair application of a ban that promotes a corporate store over its competition.

Look, the ban doesn't prevent consumers from drinking sugary drinks. It just directs them to 7-Eleven where the Big Gulp is emblazoned all over its marketing. So the ban doesn't promote health. It promotes 7-Eleven.

Moron.


(Sorry for the verbal abuse, but really, sometimes comments are so rabid and thoughtless.) My personal view on sugar-based beverages: producers of corn syrup should be desubsidized and the corporate procurement of sugars in production should be heavily taxed. Then the burden would be on the corporations, not on low-income consumers (corporations couldn't pass on the cost without losing market share), and it would encourage corporations to find cheap alternatives to refined sugar-based beverages.

7-Eleven and gentrification


An objector to NO 7-Eleven thinks that somehow 7-Elevens prevent gentrification or that restricting 7-Elevens will lead to the East Village becoming a gated community.

7-Elevens have appeared on the Upper East Side and Upper West Side. The Scarano condos, the most upscale development on the Bowery, boasting a "gated driveway" -- it doesn't get closer to a gated community in this neighborhood -- has in its commercial storefront...yes, a 7-Eleven. 

So if 7-Eleven doesn't prevent gentrification and appears in the most upscale environments, would restricting 7-Eleven lead towards a gated community? Suppose SoHo-type boutiques or more upscale restaurants move in where 7-Eleven wasn't allowed. Would they drive out rent regulated or subsidized residents? 

There's no mechansim between commercial upscaling and evicting rent regulated and subsidized tenants. The pressure on tenants already exists in the residential market, since the EV is already upscale. But even NYCHA's plan to build market-rate housing doesn't threaten subsidized housing -- it's intended to maintain it. 

Restricting corporate formula stores will drive low-income residents to search harder for fast food options and rely more on supermarkets which provide both cheaper and better food than corporate formula stores. So that is the burden. But maybe low-income residents will discover the 6th Street Community Center and its healthy food co-operative. Sounds like a happy ending. 

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

7-Eleven and labor exploitation


Many commenters object to NO 7-Eleven because, according to them, bodegas employ undocumented immigrants and may pay under minimum wage, while 7-Eleven doesn't pay under minimum wage. But 7-Eleven doesn't employ undocumented immigrants at all -- 7-Eleven subjects employees to background checks (it's on their website).  So 7-Eleven is in no way better for the undocumented. 

Exploitation of undocumented immigrant labor cries out for a solution, but corporate formula stores like 7-Eleven are not providing that solution in any way shape or form. They also don't hire ex-felons and parolees -- many having accepted plea bargains under duress of inflated charges and then incarcerated for non violent crimes -- who now are trying to construct a normal, decent life for themselves. Corporate stores will not employ them. Mom and pops often will. 

The cycle of inflated charges>plea bargain>prison>parole>prison is one of our nation's worst and most racist human rights violation. That alone is a reason to curtail the spread of corporate formula stores and support local stores. Decent people deserve a second chance. 

Will the real NO 7-Eleven please stand up


A commenter has been misdescribing (purveying falshoods, actually) about NO 7-Eleven. He won't publish my corrections on his blog, so I'm compelled to correct him here. 

For the record: the active members of NO 7-Eleven consist of a couple of well-published local poets who also teach college, several painters, several performers, a photographer, several working moms, including the owner of a thrift shop, and the rest work for non profits or for some other boss, like most New Yorkers, outside the neighborhood. No one in NO 7-Eleven is in the food business. 

Almost everyone in the group has lived in the neighborhood since the 1970's, a few only since the 1980's. Two are more recent, but one of those is married to someone who's been here since the 80's. That's who we are.


Build, don't lease

There are two arguments for building market-rate housing on the federal land leased NYCHA: 1) it'll pay for maintaining the NYCHA housing, 2) it could ease the gentrification of older housing stock in the neighborhood. The second holds a risk -- bring more market-rate tenants and you might raise surrounding real estate values, upscaling the neighborhood even further. To the extent that the EV is already upscale, I'm more worried about the Smith Houses' proximity to Chinatown, especially with the closing of the Pathmark for a huge entirely private luxury development there.

Having the city move into upscale development doesn't bother me. If the city owned all of the Upper East Side, the city would be overflowing with surplus with which to manage low-income housing in style. What bothers me is the 99-year lease in this scheme. Why doesn't the city ask the state to build, own and reap the profit of the market-rate housing?

Years ago I was on the CUNY Board of Trustees as a student rep. I saw with my own eyes that state never once rejected a construction proposal from the university. They build and redisign stuff in CUNY constantly. Some of the projects are huge. The state loves the construction industry -- big money, big contracts, lots of jobs. Look at prisons. And it's easy for the state. Just float a bond, and the money's there. In the case of luxury housing, it's even easier, since the return is faster than a college or a prison.

None of the elected officials I've talked to have shown any interest in working on an alternative to the NYCHA leasing scheme. Have they all drunk the koolade?

Sunday, December 30, 2012

NO 7-ELEVEN!!


Speaks for itself:

That huge construction shed on the corner of 11th and Ave. A is prep for a 7-Eleven. The neighbors aren't sitting for it. Look for more chalkings and city-wide organizing.

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

please tell me i'm wrong

The Landmarks Presevation Commission is about to consider a 2nd Avenue Historic District. If they designate it, 2nd Avenue from 2nd Street to St. Mark's will be landmarked and would be preserved in perpetuity or until it falls over.

I don't support it. Maybe someone can convince me I'm wrong.

Here are my four concerns:

1. There are older areas of the neighborhood that are urgently threatened under current zoning. 2nd Avenue is not threatened by demolition: the buildings are mostly overbuilt under the current zoning, so a developer could only build smaller than what exists. So there's no incentive to build. First Avenue is exactly the opposite. The buildings there are smaller than the zoning allows, inviting demolition and redevelopment.

2. There are many architecturally finer buildings in the neighborhood than those on 2nd Avenue. The really fine ones on 2nd Avenue can be individually landmarked.

3. If 2nd Avenue is designated, development will be pushed onto those older, more threatened and finer areas. 

4. New York is in crisis. The tight housing market is pricing artists out of the city or forcing them to choose between their art and living here. But it's not just artists who are being forced into difficult choices by the housing market. Scholars, scientists -- anyone who is devoted to the life of the mind or the creation of cultural products -- is either being pushed either into the rat race or out of the city.

Who remains? Increasingly the wealthy devoted to the life of consumption. The city is gradually becoming a monoculture of nightlife augmented by tourism, a huge nightclub for the rich and their gawkers and their servants. There is nothing in that economy that guarantees a place for the arts or intellectualism beyond the elite artists and elite intellectuals. We've seen it already in the East Village.

The only way to ease the housing crunch is building housing at the requisite scale to bring the wealthy out of older neighborhoods and out of older housing stock. The cost of construction is such that only high-return construction is viable, and that means luxury housing. So New York has got to build enough luxury housing to accommodate the upscale so that the upscale don't invade and occupy the rest of the city.

Luxury development depends on location, and 2nd Avenue will be an ideal location, especially when its subway is finally finished and opened. If the LPC designates 2nd Avenue, then 2nd Avenue will be closed to development. And that seems to me to be a greater loss for the city's spirit than losing the physical structure on 2nd Avenue because there are older and finer buildings in the neighborhood.


Back in 2005, I opposed the upzoning of the East Village because I thought it would further gentrify the neighborhood. When I told this to Brad Lander in a forum, he replied, that's not a worry since the East Village has already been gentrified.

At the time, I simply didn't believe it. I'd lived here for so long, and gentrification had been completed so swiftly that I was still in denial. I firmly believed that there was something of the old cultural character to preserve. But now I see that the neighborhood belongs to NYU students and upwardly mobile singles. Lander was right. Development on 2nd Avenue, like development on Houston, cannot further gentrify neighborhoods that are already completely gentrified.

So why preserve 2nd Avenue? There are older and architecturally finer contexts in the neighborhood, and more threatened. If those contexts are redeveloped under current zoning, those contexts will disappear without easing the housing crunch. You can't build much there -- just enough to destroy the history. But someday the city will need to upzone 2nd Avenue for significant large-scale housing. Why shouldn't it?

Someone please convince me I'm wrong.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

develop don't destroy

In Vanishing New York a couple of the talking heads deplored the expansion and the upscale development of New York that is displacing communities. They don't want to see any more development, they don't believe New York's population will expand, and they don't believe that development would bring jobs. Their view seems economically naive.

The documentary recognizes the reality of the loss of manufacturing, but also criticizes Bloomberg's observation that New York is a luxury economy. The loss of manufacturing has led to the reliance on luxury economy. For better or worse, it's our economic staple, aside from tourism/nightlife, and manufacturing is not likely to return.

There's actually nothing wrong with a luxury economy, as long as it doesn't destroy communities. The rich drive the New York economy. You see it everywhere. Millions make their livelihood serving them. If the rich left the city, we'd be living in one huge slum.

The problem with the rich is that they successively occupy more of our communities, displacing those communities. If developers could find a place for the wealthy, they'd leave us alone in our communities, and still employ us as we need them to.

The answer is not to curtail development, but to encourage development -- in areas where the upscale already congregate and away from older neighborhoods. Otherwise -- if there's no development -- then the wealthy will spread further into our communities and displace us and our local commerce, as they have been in the East Village and in Harlem.

on the other hand: government ownership

At a screening of Vanishing New York at Mary House (Catholic Worker), Eric Ferrara suggested that communities ought to pool their resources and buy up all the land of their neighborhoods. There's a kind of populist appeal to the idea, but I'd worry that turning everyone into property owner -- sending the entire community into the commerce of property -- would end in disaster. Cooperative boards are notoriously vicious and unhealthy, and I don't see why ordinary people would do any better in the cut-throat economy of landlords and developers. Maybe if there were rules to govern them, constraints on how people could sell and rent...

But why reinvent the wheel. The notion of community ownership already exists, and it's called Government. Of course, everyone complains about government management of housing projects, for example, so why would anyone want to expand the government into communities?

Government poorly manages housing projects because government doesn't have the budget surplus -- after spending on its priorities that mostly go to keep the wealthy around -- to spend on mere people in low-income housing. But what if the city owned the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side as well?

Here's an extreme Georgist plan: tax the hell out of upscale properties, get the landlords to disinvest and abandon their properties to the government. With sufficient funding, the city is quite effective. The parks and libraries are well managed, and upscale properties could too, especially garnering all those exorbitant rents. And instead of taking the profits off to Westchester where the landlords live now, the money could be reinvested in the city itself in, for example, housing project management.

If the city did a good job serving the rich, they'd make a bundle for its treasury. Rent-taking -- landlords, in this case -- is the black hole of every economy. It's unproductive, non-innovative, mere wealth that skims off commerce and residential incomes. Development is productive, but the city can develop too. And if the city were successful at an upscale landlord, there'd be every incentive for the city to develop and bring more rich folks into their rental economy. And the wealthy could in turn drive the rest of the economy with their needs that labor services.

Friday, May 11, 2012

how to win

If you stand up only for your side, you struggle uphill, and if you're an activist, you stand for the lesser power and will likely lose. To win, activists need to solve for their opponent. In the end, the market wins, so activists might win more battles if they'd broaden their analysis and strategy to include the entire economy.

Activists never seem to do this. The West Village spends its energy and organization protesting NYU expansion, but doesn't spend it on brokering a deal with Community District 1 to take the expansion where it would be welcome and where NYU would, given the right tax breaks, be willing to locate.

Every NIMBY struggle has this failure: it shoves the problem somewhere else, rather than solve the problem.

Tenant activists focus on the struggle for rent regulations, but don't consider the larger economic forces that resist the expansion of regulations. The only way to ease the housing market is glutting it with housing. And since only luxury housing is lucrative enough to justify construction, housing advocates should be advocating for luxury housing in neighborhoods that welcome it -- the Financial District, the ex-Flower and Garment Districts, Chelsea -- anywhere far from residential low-income community neighborhoods.  The tenant advocates should work with the developers and landlords to upzone those luxury neighborhoods, and ask for means to expedite construction in the city those neighborhoods.

Instead of complaining about real estate tax breaks for developers, tenant activists should advocate for them -- in upscale neighborhoods where renters are paying upscale rents so they can relocate at no significant cost. There should be Beeckman Towers in all those neighborhoods, drawing the wealthy away from the tenements that they gentrify in lower-income neighborhoods. Leave the older buildings to the locals. Luxury, after all, is an excess. Decent people can live well in older buildings without a doorman and elevator. I do, and I'd never want to live in an elevator building with a doorman. What for? It's disgusting. If the upscale want that, let them. 

Warehousing of luxury units should be prohibitively taxed -- equal to the rate of its rent. And yes, most upscale people would live in Manhattan and most down-scale folks would live in the outer boroughs and that's unfair. Just like now. If the city would invest in a subway system for Queens and Brooklyn that will conveniently connect them, living in the outer boroughs might actually be more fun than Manhattan.

Low-income communities -- Chinatown and Harlem in Manhattan, for example -- should be protectively zoned to retain their streetscapes and commercial vitality. And their rents should remain regulated at low levels, including commercial rents for small shops (no chains, limited banks, no expanding nightlife strips).

Unless the tenant movement can game the market, the market will gradually eliminate regulations. The alternative -- organizing renters throughout the five boroughs into a voting block -- is not being done either. Tenant advocates use tenants as foot soldiers, pawns: they bring tenants out to a demonstration once or twice a year in a meaningless and discouraging gesture.

Tenant advocates should create a city-wide tenants union where all renters can vote, communicate and run their own union. Currently, groups like Tenants and Neighbors are top-down, with paid organizers who, though knowledgeable and dedicated, are not a mass of angry voters empowered to speak for themselves in their own voice with their own organization for which they themselves feel ownership.

But if advocates could solve for the economy overall, there'd be no need to organize tenants.

The only danger I see in huge luxury construction in upscale areas is the chance that it will attract even more upscale renters from other cities, keeping the rent market tight. In that case, it would at worst not change the current market. But even so, the expansion of upscale residents in upscale areas away from smaller communities would benefit those smaller communities, since services for the wealthy create a lot of employment, which means many more waiter-artists and produce drivers and ushers and doorman and janitors and electricians and plumbers... In a city bereft of manufacturing, that's the only future, for better or worse.

But here I'd trust in the Pareto distribution that holds of cities. New York will never be more than twice the size of the next largest city -- that seems to be a generalization of human aggregation. If it doesn't hold, then we'll just have to bring back street crime and drive the rich back out, and settle for Detroit-on-the-Hudson.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Tenant Advocates Mourn Janet Freeman, Brilliant and Passionate Activist

The tenant movement lost one of its most effective, brilliant, dedicated, and dynamic fighters April 29, when Janet Freeman, called variously “the Jane Jacobs of our time,” “the Mahatma Gandhi of the Lower East Side,” and “the angel of Elizabeth Street,” died at the age of 60.

She was a community organizer and tenant advocate, a founder of the Croman Tenants Association, the Coalition to Protect Public Housing and Section 8, and of Co-op Watch, to prevent evictions through phony conversions. She started campaigns to organize Extell tenants and Shaoul tenants, and efforts against phony demolitions and landlord harassment. As lead organizer for the Neighborhood Coalition to Fight Proliferation of Bars, she defended the local Little Italy/Chinatown neighborhood’s character, fighting against invasive cabarets and upscale nightlife.

“I can’t see anyone filling her shoes,” says Steve Herrick, head of the Cooper Square Committee, an East Village housing advocacy organization.

Freeman was widely admired among tenant advocates for an unusual mix of impressive qualities: her intellect and insight, her personal dedication to ordinary people, her passion for their rights, and the depth, breadth, thoroughness, and accuracy of her research. She employed these in an unbroken series of actions and campaigns for the last 22 years. Protective of her independence and integrity, and averse to bureaucracy, she almost always worked as a volunteer, even refusing paid positions for the same things she did freely.

In 1989, Freeman learned about the death of Lincoln Swados, a disabled tenant who died after his landlord, as part of a co-op conversion, built a construction shed around his apartment, effectively blocking his access to the street. She became a founding member of the Coalition for Justice for Lincoln Swados. Her work there led to the creation in 1990 of Lower East Side Co-op Watch, where she organized tenants in buildings undergoing conversion and created a database to analyze and track co-op conversions—both to challenge them individually and to raise the issue to the public, the media, and elected officials. Her campaign included demonstrations, speak-outs, and workshops, collaborating with the state attorney general’s office and Met Council.

Through the mid-1990s she counseled tenants on their legal rights as a Met Council tenant advisor. Strongly believing that tenants in private and public housing should work together in one unified movement, Freeman joined the East Village activist organization the Coalition for a District Alternative (CoDA) and Margarita Lopez’s campaigns for district leader and later the City Council, working door-to-door registering voters in the neighborhood’s housing projects. In 1996, in response to a federal bill to privatize the projects, she joined with public-housing activists to create the Lower East Side Coalition to Save Public Housing & Section 8, reaching out to tenants door-to-door; creating postcard and call-in campaigns; holding meetings, rallies, and forums several times each week; and coordinating the local effort with national organizing.

In 1997, when then-state Senate majority leader Joseph Bruno announced his intention to eliminate rent regulations, Freeman teamed up with Valerio Orselli, head of Cooper Square Mutual Housing, to mobilize and educate tenants. Despite opposition from then-City Councilmember Antonio Pagan, their forum attracted so many people that the speakers had to be brought out into the street to address those who could not fit into the hall.

In 2000, after over a decade of volunteer work, Freeman accepted a part-time position with the City-Wide Task Force for Housing Court, providing legal information for pro se tenants, tenants appearing in court without the benefit of an attorney. She was also the tenant representative for a pro se tenant coalition involved in an HP action, where she set a precedent by successfully arguing in court—both in written briefs and oral arguments—that the legal stipulations that define Housing Court settlements should require that the owner correct outstanding Department of Buildings and Environmental Control Board violations.

As real-estate values rose on the Lower East Side and in Little Italy and Chinatown, Freeman organized tenants threatened by aggressive landlord-developers. She founded the Coalition of Tenants in Croman-Owned Buildings, organized tenants in Extell-owned buildings, and worked with tenants in Shaoul buildings. She also fought the commercial transformation of the neighborhood, leading the fight against the proliferation of bars and nightlife in and around Little Italy and Chinatown.

Preferring to help others to stand and speak for themselves, Freeman did not promote herself. Nevertheless, her legacy is long. “If it weren’t for Janet, I wouldn’t be here,” says Damaris Reyes, now executive director of Good Old Lower East Side, whom Freeman brought into the movement. “She never acted like a teacher. She treated me as a friend.”

Steve Herrick observed her enthusiasm for people and ability to connect with them. “When we went door-to-door to organize tenants, Janet talked to them, advised them and was always interested in their stories,” he remembers. “Sometimes I’d have to drag her out of the building, otherwise we wouldn’t get anything done. I wouldn’t ask her for small or routine tasks, because she threw herself so thoroughly into every effort.” He also notes her keen intelligence. “Janet had this ability to perceive the big picture, connecting harassment to speculation and lenders. When Extell bought seventeen parcels in the Lower East Side, Janet was the one who drew the connection with the Carlyle Group [a private-equity fund that was one of the nation’s largest defense contractors, with ties to the Bush and bin Laden families].”

Freeman’s dedication to people resonated with all those who worked with her. Gina Cuevas, Manhattan borough coordinator of the City-Wide Task Force, remembers her “working after hours, helping clients, researching. She was unbelievable. I’ve never seen anyone work so hard and so dedicated. And she knew so much.”
Her character and her activism shared a consistent personal moral underpinning, according to Harriet Putterman, a founder of CoDA. “She was an egalitarian person, as interested in the process as the outcome,” always concerned “that tenants who weren't ‘leaders’ be valued and fully included in the activity or campaign.” “She could not tolerate or stand by while the innocent were being trampled or their rights being abused,” says Toni Craddock, a longtime friend and neighbor.

Her human motives were matched with an unusually high standard of research. “With Janet there was no room for error,” recalls Wasim Lone, director of housing services at GOLES. “No stone was left unturned, no detail ignored. She researched—DHCR, HPD, DOB, the rent rolls. She was a true professional, only motivated to do the right thing and get it done well.”

“She could catch anything dishonest, disingenuous, or inaccurate,” adds Robin Goldberg, who worked with her on the local nightlife problem, “Her work was fact-based.” “You would be hard pressed to go up against her,” notes Craddock. Pat Adams, who worked with Freeman on many housing campaigns, emphasizes her gifts, “She gave people tools, she gave them confidence, and she always gave other people credit.” “She gave direction to the neighborhood,” adds Georgette Fleischer, founder of Friends of Petrosino Square, who remembers her work on invasive bars.

The constant pressure from the real-estate industry on neighborhood residents exacted a toll on Freeman’s perseverance. “She helped many, many tenants in Little Italy and Chinatown,” Rosie Wong, senior housing advocate at University Settlement, recounts. “She was enthusiastic and committed, but also she was frustrated by all the changes she saw around her and what was happening in the city.”

A native New Yorker who grew up in Stuyvesant Town, Freeman’s roots in the neighborhood were deep.  She moved to her first apartment, on Elizabeth Street between Kenmare and Spring, at the age of 17, and she remained on the block for 43 years. For most of that time, she lived in a ground-floor residential storefront distinguished by its uncompromisingly authentic exterior that gave no quarter to gentrification or the commercial upscaling of the neighborhood. Her concern for the street began with an effort to line it with trees, decades before real-estate and nightlife speculators arrived.

Like her apartment, Freeman was staunchly authentic. People rarely encountered her without her bicycle, her cigarettes, and her coffee, along with her insight, passion, humor, and enthusiasm for people. “She was the real deal,” says Goldberg. “She really got life.”
[This article was originally published in Met Council's monthly housing journal Tenant/Inquilino, July/August 2011, edited by Steve Wishnia. My thanks for Steve's always expert edits and to Val Orselli who clarified the broad chronology. And damnit, I miss Janet.]
The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License 

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Mary Spink

During the rezoning of the East Village, many supporters of the plan expressed their disagreement with me, often caustically. Mary only once confronted me on it.

She didn't defend her view, she didn't attack mine. She didn't mention the rezoning at all. Taking a step back, turning to me, she tossed her head up, staring right at me as if accusing, "I know what you're doing" she said. I braced for the worst. "You're standing for what you believe," and, as if she were ordering me around, "you're going to fight, you're going to fight for your principles. That's what you're doing."

We all already knew the issues. We all already knew our differences. We all already knew where we stood, and we all already knew why. What else was there to say?

Those were the best and smartest words anyone ever said to me during the rezoning of the East Village.
****
After the rezoning was implemented, I went to the Community Board in support of a social service building that Mary was planning on my block. I was the only local person who spoke. A few weeks later, she told me that that support was useful at the Borough President's review. She was immensely happy about it, and I was gratified to have played some part, however small. So she invited me to her annual award ceremony. And that's how I got to see a bit of what she had created. It was kind of wonderful -- especially the educational awards, encouraging young adults to succeed in college -- what Mary accomplished.

At the memorial, held at the Great Hall of Cooper Union, with a good few hundred in attendance, it was clear that she inspired many with the same sentiments as mine: I respected her, I admired her, I liked her a lot, and I will miss her.

Friday, January 06, 2012

NYU opposition without a plan

The opposition to NYU's current plan to build on its own campus works well for Community District 2, but not so well for the East Village and the Lower East Side. Most of Community District 2 is landmarked by varioius historic district designations and can't be developed, so if NYU's plan is defeated, NYU can't then turn to other sites around the campus to build. But they could build in Community District 3, the Lower East Side, the East Village and the Bowery, even in Chinatown. Although the recent EV/LES rezoning limits development in much of the area, the Bowery is open, and there are generous bulk allowances on Houston Street, Avenue D and Chrystie Street.

The opposition to the NYU plan points out that the financial district, Community District 1, would welcome NYU development. But no one has identified any specific sites, and no money or incentives have been offered.

To prevent NYU development in Community District 3, there must be more than just vague gestures towards the financial district. Community District 3 leadership has got to go up the ladder of authority and broker a deal with Albany -- the state legislature gives large sums for private universities, so the legislature has some leverage already, and the state can offer all kinds of incentives as well. That goes for the city too, in the form of real estate tax breaks.

Defeating NYU's plan won't curtail NYU's growth. NYU, unlike Columbia, doesn't have a huge endowment. It relies on tuition. In order to maintain the quality of its faculty and its research facilities, they draw an increasing student tuition base. So opposing any particular NYU plan is futile. It's setting a cat for every mousehole or pressing on every bubble only to watch it pop up nearby. The only solution to NYU is finding a solution for NYU.

Having said all that, I find the railing against NYU surprising. Hasn't NYU already transformed the commercial character and the residential demographic of the EV? Is there anything left to lose to NYU? NYU has already wrought its worst on real estate values and rents. What is the complaint against them? They are, on the whole, much more agreeable than the yuppies. They party less and they have more intellectual curiosity. What are East Villagers protecting? Look around. Even the hipsters are gone. 

There remains in the LES some affordable housing. That's the only piece of the community worth fighting for. Beyond that, there's only landmarking, and landmarking is just memorializing the past, not the present of the community. It's the museum of the LES.