A March through Chinatown

From CAAAV --

Dear friends and supporters,

Tomorrow will mark 100 days since the residents of 81 Bowery were forced out of their homes by the City's Department of Buildings.

The landlord, Donald Lee, is supposed to submit new plans to the Department of Buildings with the violations corrected. 100 days later, he has still not done so. Telling lie after lie, Donald Lee is playing the blame game and delaying the process of ensuring tenants safety and return.

Join us this Sunday, February 22nd, at 12:30 in front of 81 Bowery for a vigil and march against displacement and gentrification throughout Chinatown. The event will last less than an hour, and we will be moving throughout Chinatown, so please come on time if you plan on supporting! Bundle up, it will be cold. But if the tenants are out there, we hope to see you too!

If you have questions, email Helena at hwong@caaav.org.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More info. on the building below.
The 81 Bowery Tenants Have A Right to Return!
Our demands:
1) Donald Lee, the landlord, immediately submit plans to the Department of Buildings that correct the safety violations and ensure the return of all tenants to 81 Bowery
2) The Department of Buildings only approve plans submitted by the landlord that ensure the return of all tenants to a safe and healthy home
JUSTICE FOR 81 BOWERY TENANTS!

On the evening of November 13th, the City evicted all of the tenants at 81 Bowery Street (an SRO building located in the heart of Chinatown) without notice-- citing safety issues that were the landlord's legal responsibility to correct. Over 50 people were forced out their homes, many of whom lived there for more than 20 years. It took SEVEN City agencies to properly vacate the building that night, and as of today NO agency has held the landlord responsible.

The Landlord wants you to believe that the tenants created the conditions for the vacate order, and that this eviction was the tenants' fault. Don't believe the LIES! What is ironic is that the tenants have been calling the City for YEARS to get the City to enforce its own housing code. The City finally came to the building to inspect and deemed it uninhabitable. In reality, the tenants of 81 Bowery are being punished for the landlord's failures to meet his legal obligations.

This is a clear example of the gentrification and displacement that is happening throughout Chinatown – more and more low-income residents are being forced out of their homes during a time when services throughout the City are being cut. SROs (Single Room Occupancy) are the most affordable housing that exists for low-income individuals. Losing them would mean more overcrowding in Chinatown and a loss of truly affordable housing that will not be replaced.

For more information contact CAAAV's Chinatown Tenants Union at: (212) 473-6485 or hwong@caaav.org

The Villager once again mistakes politics for morality

It's discouraging to see a newspaper preach ungrounded judgments of right and wrong ("Pagan was right that Tompkins Square Park shouldn’t have been a “Tent City.” ... putting a park off limits to families with children and to seniors, among others, was unacceptable and untenable.")

Political office holders do sometimes base their decisions on perceived principles of human "rights" -- life, liberty, protective shelter, access to health care, a pretty park for sun-bathers and strollers -- but more commonly they represent specific constituent interests.

The interests represented in the eviction of the homeless from the park are too obvious to require mention. Obvious too, the homeless were no one's voting constituency.

The reason the 'homeless' were evicted from their often elaborate park homes and shelters -- "tents," as the Villager calls them -- is that political office holders, Pagan included, acted on behalf of the interests of a particular constituency, not on what is "right."

The questions of "right" emerge only in the definition of "park" and "park use" or in consideration of the greatest good for the greatest number. But the answers to these questions also reduce to specific constituency interests, not to "right." By what measures are conflicting goods and interests compared? Whose interests define the best use of any public space?

The homeless chose Tompkins Square Park, not because it was the only open space available. There were whole blocks of empty abandoned space immediately to the east where no one would have bothered them.

They chose TSP because they, like all true New Yorkers, all possessed in their bones by the metropolitan spirit, hankered to be at the heart of things.

More desperate than their need for shelter itself, they desperately needed to be in a somewhere, not a nowhere. And, like authentic East Villagers, they recognized Tompkins Square Park as itself possessed by the spirit of marginality, irreverence and rebellion. They knew they belonged there, and they did belong there, not by right but by the spirit of the place.

Throughout New York, local gentrification is marked by renovation of the local park in preparation for strollers, dog-walkers and sun-bathers. Marcus Garvey Park will be getting the treatment in the wake of Harlem's recent rezoning.

The interests of strollers, dogs, and sun-bathers were well served by the eviction of the homeless from TSP and the park curfew. Tompkins Square Park, really the entire neighborhood, has become their world, their idea, their playground.

The interests of the homeless in creating their own world in a park that had long welcomed them, have not been so well served.

Oh, the interests of the homeless may have seemed extreme -- a park all to themselves! But there is nothing definitionally wrong with "extreme." Abstract Expressionism was extreme. Ginsberg was extreme. Emma Goldman was seriously extreme. Bebop, extreme. Graffiti art, extreme. Punk rock, extreme. The whole damned neighborhood east of A was extreme.

All that neighborhood extremity, in both senses of the word, was good and bad. To those of us, like the homeless, who chose to be here, it was good.

Extremely good.

Bloomberg's order invites illegal development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 2, 2009

No. 55

www.nyc.gov

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

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

First City in the Nation to put Development Diagrams Online

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

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

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



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

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

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

New Formal Public Challenge Process

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

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

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

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

-30-

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

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

Something urgent from CAAAV

The Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence

We Need YOUR Help to Send Out 100 Letters in 100 Hours!

Dear friends and supporters,

Many of you have been supporting the residents of 81 Bowery, who were evicted by the City's Department of Buildings on November 13, 2008 for safety violations the landlord failed to correct. Since then, four more buildings in Chinatown have been vacated leaving more than 100 residents homeless.

In these harsh economic times and cold weather, the City should not be forcing people out of their long-time homes. There are other alternatives the City can adopt that will require landlords to fix the violations while at the same time ensuring that residents can remain in their homes safely.

The Department of Buildings has not agreed to a meeting with the displaced tenants and CAAAV. We need YOUR support to hold DOB Commissioner LiMandri accountable by meeting with us. No longer should they be allowed to hide behind closed doors and bureaucracy.

We hope you support the Alternatives to Mass Evictions (AME) Campaign.
Our demands are simple:

1) For the displaced tenants to be able to return home immediately

2) In the future, for DOB to put in place a policy of having landlords correct violations instead of evicting whole buildings in the name of safety, leaving people homeless.

Here is how you can support:

Send a letter to DOB. We are doing a push to send 100 letters to DOB in 100 hours via fax and email beginning 9am on February 2nd until 1pm on February 6th. The more the merrier! We appreciate letters sent on organizational letterhead and as individuals. Below and attached is a sample letter. Please cc Helena once this is done so we can keep track!

Come out with your members to actions. We will be doing actions at DOB and in Chinatown in the coming months. If you are interested, let Helena know.

Spread the word! We cannot allow this to happen to anyone else. And we need all the support you can give in order for DOB to change their practices. As this campaign goes on, there will be periodic updates, and we hope you will talk to others about this campaign and all other efforts to fight gentrification and displacement in New York City!

For more information, contact Helena Wong at hwong@caaav.org or (212) 473-6485.

SAMPLE LETTER TO DOB

FAX to: (212) 566-3785
Email to: rlimandri@buildings.nyc.gov
Subject: Housing Justice for Chinatown Tenants

February ___, 2009

Robert LiMandri
Commissioner
Department of Buildings
280 Broadway, 7th floor
New York, NY 10007

Dear Commissioner LiMandri:

I am writing in support of CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities and the approximately 100 long-term Chinatown residents – from 81 Bowery, 32 Market Street, 15 Catherine Street, and 103 East Broadway (a FDNY vacate that was assisted by DOB) – who are left homeless because of vacate orders issued by your agency between November 13 and December 16, 2008.

In all four buildings the issue was secondary egress, which is a hazardous violation that should be corrected by their landlords immediately. I do not question that secondary egress is a fire hazard and that your agency has an obligation to ensure all tenants' safety. However, there is a more viable policy the Department of Buildings can and should adopt to address safety violations that do not lead to forcing people out of their homes during the coldest months of the year with no notice whatsoever. For example, the DOB can require that landlords hire fire guards at their own cost while they correct the violations. These vacate orders penalize residents who are paying rent, when the DOB ought to hold the landlords responsible for not complying with the law. The landlords allowed these violations to exist for years, putting tenants' lives in danger. The DOB should work to ensure that tenant safety issues are addressed in ways that protect tenants and ensure they live in safe and habitable homes. By issuing vacate orders that penalize the tenants, the DOB is in fact condoning these landlords to continue to violate the laws of the City.

It is in times of economic crisis that the DOB should take even more care to ensure that no one is forced out of their homes, yet current cuts to social services essentially guarantee that residents' need for these services will exceed what can be provided, adding more strain on scarce and valuable resources.

I urge that you meet with CAAAV to discuss the following:

1) The DOB allow all residents from 81 Bowery, 15 Catherine Street, and 32 Market Street to return to their homes immediately.

2) The DOB require the landlord to hire fire guards at all buildings until the landlord has corrected the violations.

3) The DOB should not approve any new Certificate of Occupancy applications for these three buildings that do not allow for current residents to return to their homes.

4) The DOB puts into place a policy that allows for landlords to fix violations at the landlord's expense, rather than issuing vacate orders that penalize tenants and make them homeless.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
<>
<>

Politics as usual

In the wake of Chinatown's deadly accident that took the lives of two small children, State Senator Danny Squadron's press conference on the reopening of Park Row was postponed.

However, never one to miss an opportunity regardless how callous, Borough President Scott Stringer jumped in, taking political advantage of local tragedy to promote his "comprehensive traffic safety plan" that he apparently threw together the night before.

He presented the plan, needless to say, without first consulting the Chinatown community, the community that has been living and dealing for years with the most dangerous crossings in Manhattan. I guess there's no time to consult with the community when the press you've called are waiting for you with pens ready.

Yet Stringer did apparently have time to consult with Transportation Alternatives (quoted in his press release and mentioned in his speech), which just happens to be the only citizens' group in favor of the Chatham Square redesign, the redesign that all of Chinatown, including CBs 1,2 & 3 have rejected. Remember Stringer ran on a platform of community empowerment?

You'd think Transportation Alternatives would have asked Stringer, "What does the community think of your plan?" before signing on. A little more community sensitivity, TA.

Danny Squadron, the newly elected state senator who had planned the press conference before the accident occurred, and several Chinatown organizational spokespersons from CCBA, CCRC and former AAFE director Margaret Chin among others, managed to make the best of a sad and difficult moment. There was plenty of criticism for the Department of Transportation (a mayoral agency) and Squadron mentioned the continuing problem of the city's refusal to reopen Park Row.

Will the city return Park Row to the discussion? Does the city care what happens in Chinatown?

Park Row press conference

Press Conference on reopening Park Row
Friday, Jan. 23, 12:15
Park Row at Worth Street

Our new state senator Danny Squadron is holding this press conference on the city's unwillingness to reopen Park Row, a crucial route connecting Chinatown to downtown. Please attend if you can.

The closing of Park Row following 9/11 has been a problem for Chinatown ever since, impeding traffic, slowing business and endangering pedestrians trying to negotiate the tortuous traffic detours.

Park Row was closed in order to protect Police Headquarters at 1 Police Plaza from terrorist attack. The transfer of this putative terrorist target away from the immediate vicinity of one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the city -- in the world -- does not seem to be a concern for this administration.

Rather, the neighborhood remains under attack by the city administration itself, as residents are evicted from their homes by the Department of Buildings following years of neglect by landlords and city agencies whose responsibility it was to have ensured proper living conditions. Soon the city plans to dig up Chatham Square in a traffic-rerouting construction mayhem, spread over years, that will bury yet more Chinatown businesses in the midst of this recession when businesses will be most vulnerable.

The city's priorities are clear. They do not include the residents and businesses of Chinatown.

Public Notice: Chatham Square Task Force Meetings

The public is encouraged to attend these meetings on Chatham Square’s reconstruction. The Task Force was set up by CB3 to address community concerns over Chatham Square’s reconstruction. Your input is essential to this process.

CB3’s own traffic engineer, Brian Ketchum will be present to answer questions and to review the City’s plans to tell us what works and what does not work so far.

Wednesday, January 21st at 6:30pm
Confucius Plaza Community Room, 33 Bowery

Wednesday, February 18th at 6:30pm
Confucius Plaza Community Room, 33 Bowery

Monday, February 23rd at 6:30pm
Public School 124, 40 Division Street

M8 hits the news

Local activism can make a difference -- the campaign to save the M8 bus was featured in both copy and photos in the Times and Post and in the copy of AMNY. It ain' over 'til it's over.

The successes of elsewhere

Upright Citizens Brigade, presenting improvised comedy, will replace Pioneer Cinema at Two Boots. UCB cultivates new talent, providing experience and training as well as entertainment. It's applying for a beer & wine license.

In a neighborhood losing its performance spaces, UCB will serve the EV by preserving the Pioneer space as a theater. Entertainment thrives in a depression economy, especially affordable entertainment, and UCB shows, when not free, are only $5. Comedy, by nature subversive when not merely infantile, may hope to match a strand in the older East Village crazy fabric.

UCB has theaters in Los Angeles and in Chelsea (of all places); it is not a local outgrowth of the East Village. Its college-age singles inclinations, endorsed by the beer&wine license, may seem to have little relation to the kind of radical, experimental, countercultural, marginal theater most associated with the East Village. A bellwether of a new direction, a non local make-over, it's Comedy Central encamping in EV grounds once daunting with difference, fast turning harmlessly homogenous. UCB is setting up here in part because its audience is here.

Pioneer was closer to the historical local character. The neighborhood marginal alternative movie theater is an important element of EV's past and present, from the Charles in the 1960s to Cinema Classics until recently on 11th. Pioneer was a serious and significant contributor to that history.

Rents remain high here as EV arts struggle to stay where they are. I don't know how UCB will meld into the East Village arts scene, but its arrival signals a shift from a local, unique homegrown arts economy to economic dependence on the successes of elsewhere.

Chinatown report

The Chatham Redesign Task Force met Monday, focusing on the many weaknesses of the city's plan. The whole redesign twists tortuously around a tiny piece of state park (the few feet of the memorial arch) in the middle of the square for no other reason than the city thinks it would take too long for the state to move it. The city can't wait: they've got to reroute traffic for the upcoming Brooklyn Bridge repair project.

In other words, this is a rush job dressed up as planning, and Chinatown pays.

Chatham Square is a mess as it is; the redesign will create another mess. SNAFU. Re-opening Park Row, which would solve everything, does not seem to be on the table.

The Chinatown Working Group, on a happier note, continues with a remarkably open process that has already attracted twenty-five local organizations as members. They are looking for more participation. All the local electeds attend, though not allowed membership. To give a sense of CWG scope, here's a list of the teams they've created:

Historical and Cultural Preservation (28 volunteers)
Affordability [housing] (24 volunteers)
Zoning (22 volunteers)
Economic Development/Revitalization (21 volunteers)
Immigrant Affairs/Services (13 volunteers)
Parking, Transportation & Circulation (11 volunteers)
Education & Schools (7 volunteers)
Parks, Open Space & Recreation (7 volunteers)
Security/Park Row (3 volunteers)

BID can't take "no" for an answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax the fat cats!

SEIU, the health care workers union, is launching a
tax reform program
called Fair Share, featuring a progressive tax on wealth: http://fairsharereform.com/
Details of their tax plan here: http://fairsharereform.com/page/content/reformplan/

Without tax reform, the city is looking at deep service cuts that will hit working people hard and will scarcely, if at all, be felt at the top. "Tightening the belt" sounds egalitarian, but it always seems to turn out to mean 'squeezing the have-nots.' As we've learned from the bail-out, fat cats don't wear belts, they have suspenders.

So don't think it selfish to ask, while the city is losing revenue, that your bus line be saved. With a tax reform plan, there's no need for you to have to give up public services, because the only reason for you to sacrifice would be that the proprietors of wealth in the city won't.

MTA Hearing on rate hikes and service cuts
Wed. Jan. 14, 6pm
1335 6th Avenue,
Hilton Hotel Trianon Ballroom

For
talking points
on the upcoming hearing, take a look at the Straphangers Campaign's site.

If you haven't signed the petition to save the M8 bus:
www.savetheM8.org
(If you have better ideas on raising revenue than the ones mentioned in the petition, or just don't like the ones suggested, there's space for comments on the petition -- so please sign and please give us your ideas. What's important is getting the largest possible collection of signatures in support of saving the bus line.)

MTA hearing on fares and service cuts

MTA PUBLIC HEARING
Wed. January 14, 6pm
1335 6th Ave,
The Hilton, Trianon Ballroom
Fares and service cuts (including the M8 bus).

also...
ELECTRONICS RECYCLING
Sunday, January 4, from 10 am - 4 pm
Union Square Park, North Plaza
17th Street & Broadway
See the Lower East Side Ecology Center FAQ page to learn more about what to bring:
http://www.lesecologycenter.org/les_frames.html
Thanks to Councilmember Rosie Mendez and Parks for sponsoring the event

Upcoming local meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updates

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

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

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

Reopen Park Row!!

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

What the city won't tell you

The city's plan for Chatham Square follows the current model of post-9/11, Giuliani-style control, restricting flow and personal options in public space. It narrows, diverts, shunts, closes and detours, requires labyrinthine crossings, leaves large, useless, vacant spaces and adds bottlenecks with lights closely spaced where traffic volume is thickest.

The continuation of heavy-flow east-bound Worth between Park Row and St. James has two crossings within five car lengths which will back-up traffic all along Worth.

To cross the south side of St. James, a narrow street of a few paces, pedestrians in the reconfiguration have to cross Oliver, north St. James and Worth just to get to the other side of the street.

All just to close Park Row permanently.

Check out CCRC's informational on their site.

Protests abound

Depression's downer is only money-deep. Protests rise aflight defiance.

Saturday, downtowners protest the Department of Transportation's many failures and its indifference to local communities. 40 Worth Street, 1pm

Yesterday, New School students occupied the 65 Fifth Avenue building, calling for the resignation of university President Bob Kerrey who has compromised the great radical legacy of the University in Exile by adopting a profit-generating corporate model for the university and its governance, by participating in the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which promoted the current invasion and occupation of Iraq and, most recently, by appointing himself as interim Provost.

Here's their statement:

Dear Friends,

On 17 December 2008, students, staff, faculty, and supporters held protests and
occupied the 65 Fifth Avenue building of the New School. About 100 people have
remained in the building throughout the night. This is a call for solidarity
and support. Protests and support will continue on Thursday, December 18th, at
65 Fifth Avenue and other New School buildings.

As you may know, the full-time faculty of the New School, have taken a nearly
unanimous vote of no confidence [269 to 8 (with 10 abstentions)] in the
leadership of President Bob Kerrey and Executive Vice President Jim Murtha.
This followed the sudden departure of Provost Joe Westphal, the chief academic
officer of the university, after which the President appointed himself acting
Provost. (He has since admitted this was an error.)

It is UNACCEPTABLE for President Kerrey to appoint himself interim Provost. With
various budgetary and building changes, students face a serious lack of
resources, both technological and academic, directly due to Kerrey's leadership
and his attempt to make the New School a profit-making venture. There is also a
fundamental lack of democratic transparency concerning both the activities of
Bob Kerrey and the Board of Trustees, and not enough input from students,
staff, and faculty.

Bob Kerrey has consistently been completely out of alignment over the past seven
years as President with the history, community, and philosophy upon which the
New School was founded. Amongst other activities, he was a member of the
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which promoted the current invasion and
occupation of Irag. His participation is the committee was highly contested by
the student, staff, and faculty.

Those protesting are calling for the resignation of Bob Kerrey and the
institution of a direct, democratic participation of the students, staff, and
faculty, in order to guarantee that decisions are made in our best interests
and so that we can once again live up to the legacy of the University in Exile.

Our grievances include:

· Five Provosts in less than eight years is a sign of no institutional
transparency, stability, and accountability. We need an institutional politics
with a system of checks and balances, not one that works at the whim of one
man.

· Kerrey's unilateral appointment of himself as "chief academic officer" is
unacceptable and emblematic of his inability to foster cooperative education.

· The university is being treated as a profit-making venture at whose altar the
requirements of scholarship are routinely sacrificed. We have been
systematically stripped of the most basic resources necessary for academic
excellence, including adequate funding, spaces in which to study and engage
with each other, and a working library. We demand more opportunities for
student funding, and we are willing to work for them. We need public spaces in
which to foster a public sphere and an academic community. The absence of a
serious library and its related resources for research is absolutely
unacceptable and should not even be an issue of contention in an academic
institution.

· Academic planning and budgeting should be directed by individuals with a deep
understanding and commitment to academic excellence and free inquiry.

· We have no hand and no say in our fates or the collective fate of our
institution.


Please come support the protests at the New School (65 Fifth Avenue) to put an
end to Kerrey's and the other administrator's autocratic approach and
bureaucratic, business model for education. Their activities have been becoming
commonplace at all of our educational institutions. Let's end it now!

Don't tred on me

Last week, at a Town Hall meeting in Chinatown, the Department of Transportation presented its plan for rerouting traffic at Chatham Square in the heart of Chinatown. In the course of the Q & A, DoT asserted that their plans would go ahead regardless what the community says, wants or does; the DoT will respond only to the "city administration." The DoT interprets "city adminstration" to mean the Mayor alone, not the City Council nor any Community Board, as was clear from the meeting: the City Councilmember who represents Chinatown, Alan Gerson, spoke out plainly critical of the plan and the process, as did the CB1 and CB2 members present.

The plan will close Park Row permanently. The community has been pressing the city to reopen Park Row, which was initially closed in the wake of 9/11. But when it comes to Chinatown, the "city administration" does not appear to care for community wants or needs.

Also last week, CB1 voted to reject the DoT plan. Residents of Chinatown have now drawn up a resolution which they will present to CB3. Here's the notice, thanks to Jan Lee of CCRC, with the text of the resolution, which is also available here at the CCRC blog:

Community organizers are collecting signatures in support of this community authored resolution to submit before CB3's full board on Dec. 16th at P.S. 20 at 166 Essex Street near East Houston and Stanton at 6:30 pm.

Please attend the CB3 hearing this Tues.! Let your voice be heard and voice your opinions on the Chatham Square

Here is the document:

We, as members of the Chinatown Community, respectfully request that the following resolution be passed by Community Boards One, Two and Three with regard to the Mayor’s and DOT’s proposed Chatham Square Reconfiguration Plan in order to:

1. Give the community time to access and review all details of the proposed Chatham Square reconfiguration, with special attention to pedestrian safety, potential negative economic impacts upon local businesses and cost-benefit analysis,

2. Allow full community input; and,
3. Mitigate the effects of any construction on the local economy and its character.
4. Ultimately have the City work with the community to develop a plan that works for the community.



Whereas, the Department of Transportation has stated a desire of improved pedestrian safety yet has proposed a plan that appears to decrease pedestrian safety; and

Whereas, the Department of Transportation has not done adequate research regarding the economic impact of three plus years of reconstruction at Chatham Square, nor has the D.O.T. provided a business mitigation plan to the Chinatown community prior to the reconstruction of Chatham Square; and

Whereas, the Department of Transportation did not give the public opportunity to view detailed plans of Chatham Square’s reconstruction until 6 days before the public hearing of December 2, 2008 ; and

Whereas, the Chinatown community has not had ample time to caucus and present alternative plans for the reconstruction with alternative construction schedule; and

Whereas, the unanimous opposition expressed at the December 2, 2008 public hearing regarding Chatham Square reconfiguration accurately reflects the vast majority of Chinatown groups comprised of residents, businesses, and nonprofits; and

Whereas, Councilman Alan J. Gerson testified on December 2nd that “I believe it is way too premature for this community and this community board to take a position. I believe it is even too premature for the City to, at this stage, to ask the community board to reach a position or to approve this plan at this stage.”, thereby reflecting the opinions of his constituents; and

Whereas, State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver submitted a letter to the December 2nd hearing in support of the community’s efforts to have a voice in the details of the plan; and

Whereas, the DOT’s plan currently does not provide details of the Park Row improvement portion of the plan. In particular, the artists images of the proposed pedestrian walkway does not even include provision for the current driveway of the Chatham Green Cooperative; nor does it address the existing problem of handicap ramp access at Chatham Towers. Despite many requests by Chatham Tower’s Board, it remains off limits to this day causing a great hardship to residents and visitors of that co-op.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Community Board will reject the most recent plan for Chatham Square’s reconstruction as presented by the Department of Transportation, and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Community Board will call for a moratorium on all construction work at Chatham Square pending further examination of the plans by concerned stakeholders and input from Community Boards 1, 2 and 3.


Respectfully submitted,
Jan Lee - Sinotique 19 Mott St. NYC 10013, Hamilton Madison House Board
Jeanie Chin , CCRC, Chatham Towers Board
Danny Chen Chatham Green, Board
Toby Turkel, Pres. of Chatham Towers

Chinatown Working Group

The Chinatown Working Group met last night. I attended with qualms but left mostly encouraged.

Rather than narrow its focus and hand-pick its membership to speed the process along, the CWG has opted for principles of openness, inclusion and breadth. Narrow focus and selectivity are conducive to speed but also to controversy, as we saw in the EV/LES rezoning. So far, the CWG has not been unwieldy or slow.

The Coalition to Protect Chinatown and the LES, the group that led the opposition to the EV/LES rezoning, is not attending the CWG meetings, but its influence is felt in the mission statement and the orientation of the Group and even the fact of its existence: I doubt this Working Group would have been convened at this time and in this way were it not for the Coalition's vigorous, organized and highly public opposition to the EV/LES rezoning.

Judging by their proposed mission and governance structure, the Chinatown Working Group is characterized by

Openness
All Chinatown groups are asked to participate. Organizations alone will be allowed a vote in the Group, but individuals are being encouraged to form organizations of their own in order to broaden the voting membership and representation at the ground level. My initial concern that developers' interests would insinuate themselves into the proceedings are somewhat allayed by this structure. And encouraging the formation of local grassroots organizations is a good idea in itself.

Outreach
Such openness requires broad and equitable outreach, which appears to be a Group priority. CB1 and CB2 have been advertising meetings for some time. I expect CB3 will soon join CB1 and CB2 in announcing the meetings, since most of Chinatown is in CB3.

Inclusive vision
The Group is looking at the broadest implications of its work. Whatever the final boundaries of the area of study, the Group is already looking beyond the narrowest confines of current Chinatown both geographically and temporally with a long-sighted view towards the future.

Breadth of scope
The Group will not confine itself to zoning alone, but will consider comprehensive planning. From their draft mission statement: "truly affordable housing, cultural and historic preservation, economic revitalization, open space. public infrastructure, residential and business displacement, and zoning."

(I expressed my concern that "economic revitalization" not be made a cover for outside commercial or development interests to displace Chinatown's existing commerce and residents. The words "commercial stability" may be added to the mission alongside "economic revitalization." The desire to bring manufacturing into Chinatown -- an important basis for community sustainability unfortunately disappearing from the city -- may also find more explicit expression in the mission statement.)

Participation
So far, I see a well-run Group with plenty of talent. All the local electeds have been participating even though they will not have a vote under the proposed governance structure. Community groups are being offered a voting voice in order to encourage broad and regular participation. But participation is a political commitment and many attending are still wary. I imagine they will want to see the Group's direction before throwing in their lot with this initiative. They may prefer to attend as critics than participate only to become targets of criticism. It'll be a challenge.

The Group leadership wants to begin working on real issues as soon as it can, attracting participation as it demonstrates is goals and effectiveness. It also hopes to attract participation by its openness. Both strategies are well taken.

The Group meets again Jan 5 to vote on its mission statement and governance structure. Meanwhile it is considering the boundaries of its "study area."

They are looking for a regular meeting place that can seat at least sixty. If you have any leads, let me know and I'll pass it on. Meetings are held on the first Monday of the month, 4-6pm.

Prevent an eviction

If you read Howard Hemsley's letter in the Villager, you know the irony of this case: squatters-turned-owners evicting their mentally handicapped neighbor to sell his apartment at a huge profit. Please take a moment to help out the defenseless by signing
this petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/barreto/petition.html).

Here are more details of Alfredo's case, courtesy of Paul Newell:

Please take a minute to sign this petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/barreto/petition.html) to prevent the impending eviction of Alfredo Barreto from his Lower East Side apartment.

Alfredo is a 47-year-old disabled lifelong Lower East Sider. His mother, Carmen Barreto, is a pillar of this community, longtime activist and personal friend. Alongside his mother, Alfredo has participated in most of the struggles for justice and decency in this neighborhood over the last decades.

The Lower East Side once was a haven for squatters who championed the rights of homeless and mentally handicapped individuals to occupy buildings. Today, however, those same squatters, made powerful by a City's generosity, pull the same stunts they formerly attributed to greedy landlords.

Such is the case with Alfredo Barreto. Barreto, who has lived quietly at the squat on 7 ½ Second Avenue for 7 years, now faces homelessness as his former comrades become property owners who stand to benefit from the sale of his apartment.

"This is the latest phase of gentrification on the Lower East Side," says Howard Hemsley, Alfredo's court-appointed guardian and community activist. "As a mentally handicapped man Alfredo was never a part of the clique at this squat, but we never expected he would be treated to this kind of hypocritical brutality. They've gone from embracing the rights of all to housing to forcing someone with just as much right as they under the law into homelessness."

In 2002, the City of New York transferred title for one dollar to 7 ½ Second Avenue to UHAB, a not-for-profit organization that creates tenant-owned cooperative apartments. One might think that would make the squatter-residents appreciate generosity. Unfortunately, that's not the case. As the holiday season begins, Alfredo Barreto, is being evicted by his neighbors and UHAB. UHAB's excuse for taking Mr. Barreto's apartment and selling it is a dispute with the apartment's previous tenant, a dispute that has nothing to do with Alfredo, who tended to his cats and caused no trouble. UHAB has refused to even consider giving Alfredo a rental apartment in one of the many units it manages.

"We were so proud and happy that Alfredo could live on his own," said his mother. "It's a dream our family has had - that Alfredo could be a functioning adult, living in his own place. I guess that doesn't mean anything to UHAB."

Please take one minute to sign this petition. We are fighting in court and in the streets. Last week we held a protest outside UHAB's Wall Street headquarters. Please join us in this fight.

http://www.petitiononline.com/barreto/petition.html

Thank you very much. Please also let me know if you would like to be more involved in this effort.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Paul Newell