Cover Story: East Brooklyn's Second Rising by Jim Sleeper.
Other stories include Toby Sanchez on the rebuilding of Brownsville by the East Brooklyn Churches; Susan Baldwin on tenants winning a $250 sales pledge for their rooms, but eventual selling would give 40 percent back the city; Julia MacDonnell Chang on lead paint poisoning afflicting Indochinese refugees in the Bronx; Susan Baldwin on the plans to execute the building of low income housing on the Upper West Side despite snags in the process; Gene Russianoff on New York's unfair property tax system.
Cover Story: East Brooklyn's Second Rising by Jim Sleeper.
Other stories include Toby Sanchez on the rebuilding of Brownsville by the East Brooklyn Churches; Susan Baldwin on tenants winning a $250 sales pledge for their rooms, but eventual selling would give 40 percent back the city; Julia MacDonnell Chang on lead paint poisoning afflicting Indochinese refugees in the Bronx; Susan Baldwin on the plans to execute the building of low income housing on the Upper West Side despite snags in the process; Gene Russianoff on New York's unfair property tax system.
Cover Story: East Brooklyn's Second Rising by Jim Sleeper.
Other stories include Toby Sanchez on the rebuilding of Brownsville by the East Brooklyn Churches; Susan Baldwin on tenants winning a $250 sales pledge for their rooms, but eventual selling would give 40 percent back the city; Julia MacDonnell Chang on lead paint poisoning afflicting Indochinese refugees in the Bronx; Susan Baldwin on the plans to execute the building of low income housing on the Upper West Side despite snags in the process; Gene Russianoff on New York's unfair property tax system.
the Baltic Street commercial and residen- tial project of the Fifth Avenue Commit- tee in Brooklyn's Park Slope. The pro- ject, many years in the making will con- tain 50 townhouse-style frame houses with two rental units apiece and a super- market. The project was a prized political pium for several Brooklyn politicians who attempted to amend the Fifth Avenue group's plans several times, final- ly succeeding in eliminating the low in- come housing it originally was to contain. Developer Louis Rosenberg, who con- tended against the group for development of the entire project, was finally awarded the contract to build the supermarket por- tion. Last month he celebrated the groundbreaking, but neglected to invite the community group which sponsored the housing. Fifth Avenue Committee is planning its own celebration. Just how much Brooklyn's politicians liked the Baltic Street project was also evidenced when Butler Street, which runs through the site, was rerouted and reappeared on official drawings as a cuI de sac named Gregory Place. The origin of the street's name has now been revealed to be from Housing Commissioner Anthony Glied- man's ten-year-old son, Gregory. Neighbors, who told the community board they preferred Community Place as the name for the street, didn't begrudge him the honor, but thought Flatbush a better place for the sign .
A project to encourage the adoption of zoning and land use policies that benefit low and moderate income people as they facilitate private market development has been launched by the Metropolitan Ac- tion Institute. The group, under a grant from the New York Community Trust, will be developing a series of "indu- sionary" proposals for application to New York City. It welcomes input and comment from the community. Call Phil Tegeler at 564-5313 for information. CITY LI M ITSIDecem ber 1982 The city's Home Improvement Pro- gram, which began last spring making loans available to owner occupants of one- to four-family homes for repair of their homes, have reached a low interest rate of eight percent. So far, 400 home- owners, according to the city housing department, have made improvements through use of the loans. Although banks which administer the loans have made ap- proval difficult in many areas because of rigid qualifying criteria, community groups throughout the city are helping to screen applicants for the loans. The low rates, said Housing Commissioner Glied- man, mean that 1,500 more loans can be made this winter. Call HPD at 566-0371 for information.
SEBCO Development Corporation in the Hunts Point section of the South Bronx has become a participant in the city's Private Ownership Management Program under which better, tenanted city-owned buildings are managed by a private company and eventually purchas- 2 ed. SEBCO, chaired by Rev. Louis Gigante, will operate four buildings in its area.
The Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers, which is comprised of 27 community nonprofit groups in New York City, elected new officers at its annual retreat in October in Kerhonkson, New York. Galen Kirkland, Associate Director of the West Harlem Community Organiza- tion, was elected President, succeeding Gary HaHem of St. Nicholas Neighborhood Preservation in Brooklyn. Alice Paul, executive director of Astella Community Organization in Con- ey Island was elected Vice President, Rebecca Reich, director of the Fifth Avenue Committee in Brooklyn was elected Treasurer, and Gary Hattem, Secretary. The group's annual retreat, which drew over eighty weekend par- ticipants, established policies and direc- tions for the group for the coming year. 0 Contents The Neighborhood Front ............................ 2 Editorial .......................................... 4 Letters ........................................... 5 Short Term Notes Mr. Wilson Comes to Washingon .................... 6 Waste Burning Delayed . .................... .. ..... 7 Sandy Ground Gets Designation ..................... 7 Companies Sue for Transit Dollars .. , ................ 8 Fallout on St. Felix St .... . ..... ' . . .. ... ............ . 8 Pueblo Nuevo is Begun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Columbia Adds to Its Empire ....................... 9 Artists' Housing Plan .. . . . .. . .. . .. . ........ . ..... 10 Public Housing Funding Still Uncertain . ~ .............. 11 East Brooklyn's Second Rising ....................... 12 Ground was broken for a second 'New Jerusalem' last month; launch- ed by a fiercely independent coalition of churches that scrapped the old rules to achieve what their community needed. Brownsville's New Jerusalem ........................ 17 How and why Brownsville grew, and how it was foresaken. Tenants Win $250 Sales ............................. 18 Three years after a city pledge to sell tax-foreclosed apartments to them for $250 apiece, tenants have won the right to actually buy. But a city 'tax' on resales flawed the victory. Evolution of a Sales Policy .......................... 19 No Refuge in the Bronx ............................. 21 Indochinese refugees have encountered some ofthe city's harshest ur- ban ills: lead paint poisoning is epidemic among their young in the aging buildings w here they have been placed. The West Side Renewal Story ........................ 27 Manhattan's Upper West Side is still, twenty-five years later, awaiting completion of the urban renewal area. The needed political bat tie to do so, however, is still unwaged. Unequal Neighbors Gain a Powerful Tool .............. 30 Homeowners have made effective use of the new appeals process for property taxes. Judge Voids City Rent Hikes ......................... 34 A recent court ruling may' force the city to obey the same rules in managing its in rem buildings as private landlords do. No Refuge in the Bronx 3 CITY LlMITS/December1982 CITYLIMI1S Volume VII Number 10 ' CilY Limits is published ten times per year, monthly except double issues in June/ Juiy and August/September, by the City Limits Com- munity Information Service, Inc., a nonprofit organization devoted to disseminating infor- mation concerning neighborhood revitaliza- tion. The publication is sponsored by three organizations. The ~ p o n s o r s are: Association of Neighborhood Housing Developers, Inc., an association of over two dozen community-based, nonprofit housing development groups, developing and ad- vocating programs for low and moderate in- come housing ,and neighborhood stabilization. Pratt Institute Center for Community and En- vironmental Development, a technical assistance and advocacy office offenng profes- sional planning and architectural services to low and moderate income community groups. The Center also analyzes and monitors govern- ment policy and performance. ' Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, a technical assistllllce organization providing assistance to low income tem:.nt cooperatives in management and sweat equity rehabilitation. City Limits welcomes comments and article contributions. Please include a stamped, self- addressed envelope for return of man'uscripts. Material in City Limits does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the sponsoring organiza- tions. Send correspondence to: CITY LIMITS, 424 West 33rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10001 Postmaster send change of address to: City Limits, 424 W. 33rd St., New York. NY 10001. Second-class postage paid New York. N.Y. 10001 City Limits (ISSN 0199-0330) Editor ...... , , , , , , , , .... , . , , Tom Robbins Assistant Editor, , , .. , , . , , , , , . Tim Ledwith Assi$tant Editor. , , , .. , , . , , .. Susan Baldwin Marketing Director, . , . , , . , , . , ,Jim Mendell Design and Layout, . , . , , , . , , . Louis Fulgoni Copyright '1982. All Rights Reserved: No por- tion or portions of this journal may be reprinted without the express ,written permission of the publishers. CITY LlMITS/December1982 Editorial The $250 Sales 'Victory The $250 sales price is won. The temporary defeat of a pro-low income co- op resale policy should not obscure the importance of this victory. Nor should it keep those who waged and won the battle for the right of low income tenants to own their apartments from receiving the applause they have earned-or from continuing their efforts. The editorial board of City Limits congratulates that well-organized tenant and community coalition which has shown what the neighborhood housing movement can and will accomplish when facing the critical issues that unite all our diverse elements.
How to Close the Gap While this current chapter of the sales price saga was drawing to a close, an issue of related and overriding importance was staring most people in the face from the front pages: Mayor Koch and his $341 million budget gap. But buried in the city's own rhetoric at the Board of Estimate was a hi nt of a novel approach for helping to close the gap. It was not of the "slash and burn" type proposed by the mayor, nor was it the charade of the confiscatory forty per- cent recapture of resale profits. Instead it was the continuous reference to the substantial ,investment of Tenant Interim Lease residents and the low cost and efficiency of alternative management programs. Because TIL buildings are so inherently cheaper for the city to operate than those in its central management division (the Task Force on City- Owned Property showed in 1981 how TIL saves the city $1,192 for each apartment) they now save $6.1 million. This $6.1 million is the value of the sweat, time and money invested by the residents. ' What if one quarter of the 23,000 apartments now centrally managed were added to TIL? These, '5,770 units would save $5.9 million in tax levy funds, $5 million in federal Community Development funds and $5.8 million in in- creased rent collections would be reinvested in the buildings. This would yield a net savings to the city of $6.9 million. The now doubled TIL program could generate $2.7 million in sales, and ultimately, $1.4million in real estate taxes. That's our modest contribution. Add these TIL savings to that tax revenue resulting from the elimination of unnecessary tax abatements and exemptions for luxury residential construction and renovation and commer- cial development, and the total savings to the city is exactly $341 million, ... Interesting! 4 " j Cover photo by Louis Nazario Why We Need Waste Burning To The Editor: An article in last month's City Limits, "A Waste-to-Energy Plan Looms Over Brooklyn," concludes with the suggestion that New York City develop "an integrated waste program," beginning with a "returnable bottle law" and in- cluding recycling. The City's current plans for a waste-to- energy plant at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, an<;l for other such elsewhere throughout the five boroughs, is presented in your article as conilicting with such a program. This conclusion is simply mistaken. The New York State Bottle Bill. which will go into effect on July 1,1983, is the out- . come of a year of intensive Sanitation Department and Koch Administration efforts. We anticipate a six to eight percent , reduction in the waste stream as a result of the law, accom- panied by a significant increase in recycling activities, en- couraged by a regularly available flow of glass, aluminum, fer- rous metals and polyester containers. We encourage other waste reduction and recycling programs. The basic issue, which your article loses sight of, is that New York City generates enough garbage to fuel multiple waste-to- energy facilities while at the same time recycling most materials that could economically be diverted from the waste stream. We need to do both, because we are very rapidly running out of landfill space. We will lose forty percent of our present disposal capacity in three short years when the Fountain Avenue landfill in Brooklyn closes; our remaining landfill, Fresh Kills, in Staten Island, will be filled before the year 2000. This crucial need for new waste disposal capacity - not, primarily, because of the energy gained from waste - is the reason the City has proposed a waste-to-energy plant at the Navy Yard. Contrary to assertions by persons quoted in your article, the "mass-burn" combustion technology proposed.for the Navy Yard plant is far from experimental; three hundred and fifty similar plants exist in the United States and throughout the world. Nor is "a major breakthrough in waste recovery" on the immediate horizon. Unlike mass combustion facilities, refuse-derived fuel plants, which convert the organic fraction of the waste to a fuel product that can be used in a dedicated boiler, have an unsuccessful record of operation. Several of these RDF plants have been closed due to explosions and pollu- tion problems resulting from poor materials handling technology. Bio-enzymatic processes, suggested by some, have never been implemented on a commercial scale. Scaling up from the roughly one ton a day plant now being tested to the plants of several thousand tons per day (or even hundreds) needed in a city like ours is likely, under the best of cir- cumstances, to take upwards of ten years. Even so, it is ques- tionable whether such plants would offer real advantages over .' existing technologies that have thirty to forty years of commer- cial experience. Nevertheless, these technologies bear watching and may eventually be viable. However, movi'ng forward now - before our landfills are completely filled - does not prevent the City from employing any superior technology that may emerge in the future. Implementation of waste-to-energy proj- ects - beginning with extensive environmental analyses '- is simply the only way of avoiding the collapse of one of our most fundamental environmental control systems, waste disposal. Norman Steisel Commissioner Dept. of Sanitation Commercial Rent Crisis To the Editor: The article [in the November, 1982 issue] by P.J. Kamens on the landlord challenge is most interesting, but the picture taken from Winnie Winkle comic strip refers to "Bill's" landlord's demand for a 300 percent increase on Commer- cial rent . . This is in fact another issue entirely and one that I must say is a horrendous situation. The landlords have come out and shown their greed even for the greatly needed "Mom and Pop" stores. We are actively concerned with tne plight of these small business people. John F. Bringrrian Executive Director Concerned Citizens " . Save Money Ttlis Winter! Start-to-finish services at reasonable prices'from NY's citywide nonprofit energy conservation experts. call 675-1920
5 CITY LIMITS/December 1982 Short Term Notes Mr. WilSOn Comes to A FTER THREE STRAIGHT years of fire from the real estate lobby's heavy artillery, rent control ad- vocates in Washington have managed to hold off federal measures geared toward penalizing cities with rent regulation. But the lull is only temporary, for this year's election results foretell at least one major new strategist entering the fray during the 1983 Congressional session-and not in the tenants' ranks. Meanwhile, more localized guerilla campaigns against rent and eviction protections are going strong.
On the national front, tenant advocates in Washington are not-so-anxiously awaiting the arrival on Capitol Hill of San Diego's Mayor Pete Wilson, Senator- elect and champion of American property rights. With this newest Republican big gun from the West comes the promise of future Federal attacks on local rent con- trol, if his record is any indication. Two years ago, Wilson led the suc- cessful efforts to defeat a referendum on instituting rent control in his hometown. In that campaign he warned that violating the free housing market would make San Diego look like the South Bronx. A hon- cho in President-elect Reagan's urban policy transition team, Wilson strongly advocated the denial of federal housing and community development aid to cities with rent regulation. Several variations on that theme have surfaced in the halls of Congress in recent years. Since these in- itiatives all either narrowly lost or simply died with the housing bills to which they were attached (and since the members of Congress who are actually willing to de- fend rent protections on their merits could caucus in a Capitol Hill phone booth), tenant observers are jittery about the damage an eager, nationally known figure Wilson may inflict. CITY LlMITSlDecember 1982
While that national battle continues local tenant organizations remain locked in their smaller, but equally epic struggles against property owners determined to defeat community-based rent control campaigns. Such determination was detailed in a recent issue of Multi- Housing News, a national trade publica- tion for realtors and builders. In it, an ar- ticle headlined "Low-Key, Broad-Based Action Can Conquer Rent Control" documented the remarks of two avid rent control foes at a National Association of Home Builders seminar on the subject. The seminar, entitled, "Rent Control: Fighting It, Surviving It," was moderated by Madison, Wisconsin realtor Norman D. Flynn who, MH News reported, ex- horted his colleagues to "become politically active" in the quest against rent protections. According to the article, "flynn pointed out that political action can work to overcome rent control, and can prevent it." To illustrate his point, Flynn cited a . successful campaign to lobby the local city council against a rent control initia- tive in Madison. "Any city council can be lobbied if its done cooly and shrewdly," he reportedly urg the crowd. "If you spend the time and energy, you will win 99 out of 100 times," he added. The realtor was reported as following that assessment with a description of his "Committee for More and Better Hous- ing," Madison's anti-rent control coali- tion of "major lenders, the chamber of commerce, realtors, property managers and industry owners along with builders and developers." Notably, the very first strategy point this coalition adopted in Flynn's words, was that" A low profile is important. Owners and managers have a bad reputation and must avoid a self- serving image." 6 The strategist was quoted later in the article, however, bolstering that image, ominously instructing his charges: "You must understand your opponents' background. Find out who their friends are. We have a file on each council member." How low-key can you get? 0 Tim Ledwith What Reagan is Doing to Housing Two good analyses by housing ac- tivist/author Chester Hartman have been published recently. "Housing Allow- ances: A ' Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come" appeared in the November/ December Working Papers, and the housing chapter of the recently issued book, "What Reagan is Doing to Us" give a good perspective on what new' federal housing policy has been hatched, and what is on the way. For reprints of the articles, send a self-addressed stamped envelope (20 for" Allowances", 37 for the chapter or both) to Chester Hartman, Institute for Policy Studies; 1901 Q Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009.0 . Correction In the November, 1982, issue of City Limits, in the article "A Wary Public Examines the Plan," the following paragraph should have read: Gerges said that housing around a similar facility developed and operated by the same developer, Universal Oil Products-U.o.P.-in Chicago, has been abandoned and is being torn down. 0 waste luming Delayed T HE FUTURE OF THE PRO- posed $300 million resource recovery plant planned for the Brooklyn Navy Yard remained in limbo following the October 28 Board of Estimate meeting when Mayor Koch withdrew bids for three contracts totaling $560,000 to underwrite work there. The contracts had been repeatedly laid over at the board for several months. The day before the board meeting, hundreds of residents of the Jewish Hasidic com- munity in Williamsburg, which opposes the recovery plant, demonstrated outside City Hall against the project. Koch's action came after he was unable to hold City Comptroller Jay Goldin to a vote in favor of the project, and, there- fore, lacked a majority to pass the con- tracts. In a statement, explaining the with- drawal, punctuated with angry innuen- does, the mayor said: "We do not have the necessary votes to pass" these con- tracts now .. " but the Brooklyn landfill must close in 1985. "That's why we ad- vocate this plant." Referring to the Hasidirn's pressure against this project at the Navy Yard Site, he added, "I am sure -that Jay Goldin's decision will make him more popular in the Williamsburg community," where the Hasidirn live. In response, Goldin, who had voted six times for earlier contracts for the recovery plant, said the mayor was "wrong" to try to build the plant in the "heart of the most densely populated area in Brooklyn." Referring to the city's proposal for' building in his 'densely populated, im- pacted neighbOl hood," Rabbi Chaim Stauber, a leader of the Hasidic group, said, "We came down to city hall to pro- test beeause this is not a clear-cut sanita- tion issue. It has much broader implica- tions ... Why," he also asked, "do they want to build this 1 00 yards from our homes? The community would be up- rooted. There is no fail-safe system." This community is currently building homes priced between $250,000 and $300,000 on vacant urban renewal land adjacent to the proposed site. At October 28 Board oj Estimate. meeting. If constructed, this plant would be one of at least ten new installations around the city to handle the near crisis garbage load. At this site, the city had proposed to burn the garbage to produce stearn which Con Edison planned to purchase.O S.B. Historic' Designation for Sandy Ground After more than a decade in the at- tempt, residents and friends of Staten Island's Sandy Ground have succeeded in attaining historic designation for the area, one of the nation's oldest free black com- munities. As of November, Sandy Ground was listed in the National Regis- ter of Historic Places. The designation lent hope to residents who fear the community's historic char- acter may be violated by encroaching development in the borough's southern region (see "Staten Island's Sandy Ground Holds On To History," City Limits, June/July, 1982). The national registry does not prevent new construction on the site, but it will force developers to provide complete ar- chaeological and historical records about any land they plan to use. Residents ex- 7 pressed hopes that these provisions would discourage developers from building in the immediate area. Meanwhile, the Sandy Ground Historical Society, the major advocate of the community's preservation, is pro- ceeding with its attempt to obtain city landmark status, which would guarantee more comprehensive development restrictions. The history these efforts are geared toward preserving started in the middle- 19th century, when Sandy Ground was first settled by oystermen and their families who left the Chesapeake Bay region because of laws enacted to restrict their trade. They flourished by fishing in the then-rich Prince's Bay and the Arthur Kill waters, providing an early example of black economic development and in- dependence in America.O T.L. CITY LlMITS/December1982 ...J ...J \IJ o Z \IJ ::lE ~ >- .. S :r 0.. Fallout on St. Felix St. After five years of community con- troversy and negotiation, a major, federally-subsictized housing cons truction project for low and moderate income people finally broke ground this fall in downtown Brooklyn, But on October 28, part of the plan, which calls for the crea- tion of% units of "infill housing" built in the vacant lots on three Fort Greene blocks, came tumbling down-literally. That afternoon, workers were in the process of reinforcing the foundation of a building adjacent to one of the excavated lots when, as project developer Abraham Shnay put it, they "heard the building creaking." The workers scrambled away from the site, and several hours later an entire rear section of 39 Saint Felix Street's foundation toppled into the adja- cent hole (see photo). The three-story brick row house, which had been renovated over the last several months and was about to be occupied after years of vacancy, was closed off, as was an adjoining occupied home that was structurally weakened by the shock. Despite 39 Saint Felix's precarious ap- pearance, Shnay said, " The odds are we'll probably be able to save it." The developer added that the underpinning procedure which sparked the collapse was "routine" and speculated that "the building had some severe structural pro- blems." , In any case, the hapless renovators of number 39 and other street residents ex- pressed hopes that Shnay's optimism was justified. 0 T.L. CITY LlMITS/December1982 Rear view oj dama;e ,to St. Felix Street building. Companies Sue for Transit Tax The saga of the real estate transit tax---=--a now-defunct measure that was designed'to subsidize. the city's mass tran- sit system by taxing the sale of high value commercial buildings-continued in No- vember on three fronts: two companies, due refunds from the tax's retroactive repeal last spring after a: spectacularly short lifespan, sued the city for $600,000 they paid under the measure; transit of- ficials cited a shc)J:tfall in tax revenue they had hoped to collect over the last year, and prepared for early December negotia- tions to raise fares; and the Governor- elect expressed hope that the transit tax might be reinstated next year. The two companies suing for refunds, KMGA, Inc. and Marvella, Inc., were among the 58 individuals and corpora- tions that paid about $9 million under the transit levy, which lasted from October, 1981 toApril, 1,982, and taxed the capital- gains (Profits) on commercial property sales above $1 million. City officials acknowledged (hat none of the refunds due under the tax's unusual retroactive 8 repeal had yet been paid. "The [state] Legislature will have to go back and pro- vide a means of making the refunds," Finance Commissioner Philip Michael told the New York Times. Meanwhile, the board of the Metropol- itan Transportation Authority examined the effects of a $250 million gap in tax revenues from a series of transit- financing measures passed along with the doomed property tax back in 1981. One member told the media he hoped the tran- sit fare could be kept under a dollar. And providing the month's one glim- mer of hope for transit riders and ac- tivists, Governor-elect Mario Cuomo, who had cited the transit tax's fall as an example of real estate industry influence during the Democratic primary' and general election campaigns, said during an interview on the Cable News Network: "Oh, I'd like to see them [ s t a t ~ legislators] pass the capital-gains tax." Transit tax advocates could only hope that Cuomo's good intentions would not be derailed in Albany. 0 T.L. Adds to Its i A UNIVERSITY WHICH .,.....,. ,... has been gobbling up buildinls, sinaIe-room- ._.JpcIs, and shops to pursue its CXi-.Pt'_ policies in Manhattan's *1IlIliI.* He;pts mend its ways and __ to the needs to .the
.,mat Columbia University, ___ tax-exempt property ._:."t. York City and owner of of all residential ..... ia Momiopde HeiJhts, claim- ed. pdlased a SRO hOreI.: _Carlton Residence at 362 River- .. OrMand West 1'*h Street, in order to it into a student dormitory. Oreg Fusco, vice-president of CMDm.mity affairs' at Columbia, the UDivQty bas "chanaed the way it ap- . proacbei this kind of question" since Sovern became president of Col- UI1iNJwo years. ago. Previous building inflamed community feeling aaaiiist Cblumbia, which did not consult . neiahborhood residents before forging ahead to add to its domain. This time around, the institution faces elected officials and community residents Nuevo Is & NOTHER GROUNDBRAKING 4tbat brought ten years of planning aDd w.- to a close last month quietly . toot place just below Houston Street on die Lower East Side. Bulldozers leveled die last remainina "njldinp on the site where 172 units of new housina called PUIbIo Nuevo will rise alona Stanton sa.. bordered by Ridae and Pitt. The .,.of this project, conceived as replace- IDCiDt bousina for low income residents IiviDa in the urban renewal area's rickety tenemeGts, has been one of community itcadflStDeSS in the face of financial set- bKb and sownune"tal obstruction. 11Ie reot-subsidized apartments were oriaiDaIly desipcd as sinJIe rows on each of six stories alonJ elbow shaped cor- who are deta'mined to into makina a contributiOa -to the neiShborbood's desperate need for affordable bousina. Support of CoIwn- bia's purchase of tbeCarllon wiD not be atanted. they contcDd, unless CoIQmbia rese.-ves lO perWDt of die hotel for low and moderate income auarantees the 18 remainiq tenants can Slay; promises. their rents .. remain under rent srablli,.tion lIr.:ftbt control; and COIT_ d die buildiDI includina cPt Assembl)$Ul Edward ... d the SRO T.-rs' Ri.Pts in fact, are reqUCltinaafuU Carlton, which has 260 -.adIs and moe apartments, be reserved for low and moderate income housing. Accordina to Paul Selden, on the steer- ing committee of the SRO Tenants' Rights Coalition, ''The issue for us is the destruction of low income hous- ing ... Columbia has such a horrible . record in the past, that if they've turned over a new leaf, they should do it respon- sibly. We don't feel that lettina 28 tenants stay on is an indication of responsibility. " ridors. There was a hefty dose of three- and four-bedroom units to accommodate the larac famities whole homes were demolished, most of them a decade 189 The plan, which offered Ught, ventilation and space, in COIltrast to much subsidized bousina, was slowly whittled awalt. by housing bureaucrats citina flSClll and replatory COIIStraints. Eventually the take-it-or-1eave-it offer to the community was a standard pubic bousiDs box, with more, but far smaller apartments. When the City PIannina Ovnmission passed the project in its fiaal review in 1980, some members noted that it was only die deter- mination of the community to have some decent bousin& that prevented them from rejecting the admittedly flawed desian. 9 Jf Columbia the Cartton fl'Olll ct.!veloper Lew F.ptterman, president of the Next City .. who has COD- verted several West Side SRO's to luxury housing, it is reneaing on its PFOIIIiIIe made a year ago to the community _ it would buy no more SRO's, sail _ Kappner, chairman of the TenaJiI M- viSory Board. composed of Heights residents and Columbia offidak. Kappner, also former chairman Of
"the board was not informed by COlumbia of its prosPective purchase of the Carlton, but gained wind of the plans from the IegisJators. Fusco, who contends the promise of buying no more SRO hotels was a "misunderstanding," said Columbia was willing to concede to the community's demands except for the provision few 20 percent low and moderate inc<>qJe hous- ing. The university did not intend' to buy any more SRO's beyond the cartton, he added. "But, six months ago we didn't think we'd be buying this one."[J Sbaron Md)onliell Fortunately, while undid the innovative plan, it coUldn't diSiltusion the community that hatched it. The Pueblo Nuevo Housing and Develop- ment Association continued to press for neighborhood improvementS . as weD as construction of housina that gave the group its focus. For more than ten years the persistence and doggedness of board members Nestor Cortijo, Donny Canaelosi and others, past and present l>lanning directors Kay Crampton, Lisa Kaplan, Dan GutmlD, Dennis Boody and a host of orpnizers made it possible for the community to bold on against a disinterested and often hostile bureaucracy. By late spring Pueblo Nuevo expects to open its doors to its f1l'st tenants.D T.R. ,CITY LIMITSIDecember 1982 T HE MAYOR'S CONTROVER- sial program for artists' housing in the Lower East Side has passed one obstacle and will probably be heard at the Board of Estimate at the beginning of the new year. The plan was approved by local community board #3, in late October, despite a no vote on the plan by the board's housing committee and two pre- vious full board votes to reject the plan as formulated. The board meeting on October 26th, was characterized by bitter debate and accusations, reflecting the intensity that has grown around the artists' home own- ership program in area. The plan has become another fierce battleground in the struggle between low and middle income people, and between the organized Jewish community mainly located below Grand Street and Hispanic and Black residents and their supporters. The city's plan would construct 120 ar- tist cooperatives out of abandoned city- owned tenements. The lofts would sell for approximately $50,000. Renovation of the buildings on two sites, East Eighth Street and Forsythe Street, would be heavily aided by federal Community Development loans. Five artist groups will develop 51 units in seven buildings, and two developers will build 69 spaces in nine buildings. Following its community board ap- CITY LIMITS/December 1982
proval, the plan moved quickly to the City Planning Commission which heard day-long testimonies on November 10th. The Commission is due to decide by mid- . December. An article in the October issue of Oty Umits, "Artists' Housing: Promise or Threat?" described the dilemma created as artists and low income residents com- pete for housing and resources. The Koch administration plan has sharpened already growing frictions. Com ",unity residents offered these arguments in opposition to the project at the hearings: The real need in the community is for housing for low income families. Previous plans for the same buildings, proposed by local community groups, were rejected by the city. The project will cause a wave of sec- ondary displacement, as upscale develop- ment drives rents upwards. This gentri- fication process is already rapidly under- way in the area yet, no city plans to retain affordable housing have been made. The plan would use an extraordin- arily high level of subsidy for the creation of middle income housing. It calls for $3.5 million of Participation Loan Funds, 14 percent of the city's entire budget for that program. The subsidy per co-op is $30,000, two-and-one-half times the $12,000 cap the city places on other 10 Pro.jectS. . .. ....:011 There bas bei:D noaffinnative_w markdina for the project despite neishbortiood'. OYetWbelmingly World makeUp The CoDunullitys attempts &0 modlf)I the to present altematiw plans and sites. beeD totally ipored since 1980 when tlie plan was first pro. opponents said that the moat pUina bas beaD1IIe speed with which it bas raced alona, &lid the apparent doged votion the ...,. and the housing departmeIlt have given it. That pace and backiaa is in marked COIl trast to the slugish trek of low incoaw projects proposed for the same 8'N&t many of which have fallen by the wayside due to lack of funds Or po8tiaIl backina lkfore the community board vote, an ArtiSts' Speakout" was beld bY a group opposed to the plan called Artists for Social Responsibility. There, the Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants,the Foundation for the Community of Artists, as well other individual artists spoke against the plan. Several of the artists who are par. ticipating in the C(K)p proposal spatte as well in a vain attempt to convince the community that their presence and proj ect was not a threat. Some- participalits suuested further taIks aimed at rmeting a compromise. Although a majority of the community board members from the East Side north of Grand Street remained opposed to the project, some others who had voiced earlier opposition chaqed their positon at the last minute. Andrew Korothy, director of the Boys Oub. whose organi zation was awarded a building at a low purchase price two days after the vote, said he had come to realize the pro. jeer was in the best interests of the com- munity. He denied any link between the city award and his vote switch. As it headstoward a conclusion, thear. tists' housina pregram may prove to be a decisive battle in the rCal estate war 11MtI. ing the Lower East Side.oT.R. >WI_1i figt nItion .... .. ""-hubs in 1981. ... a prime tarpt, n,q IS it does iD-the lace of free market Siace thaD. America's 3;1 IlilIiOB ........ tenants have sta(ted to feel the financial CI1IDdl, in the fqrm of ctedinina services ad "600,000 of '-DtI Jive the domain of the NeW \Wit Cty Housina Authority, which recently lost and is DOW appeaIina a legal to federal housina for rent and ocher ten- ant 10 help rill the void III the meantime, no rent hikes are ".in8tituted in the New York aty systetn, thouih tenants and management alike- frJ:e an uncertain t'inaacial future. The seeds of .the rift between federal and local housing officials were by department of Housing and UrJ?an Development regulations issued in July of this year. The new measures, which were slated to take effect on August I, stipu- lated that the nations 2,800 public hous- ing authorities should raise rents from 25 of tcoaIlts' annual income to 30 percent over five years. Under the HUD ObItr, WIdch reflected housing legis18tion pIisIed in Cooaress last ' year, new public tenants would immediately pay ren't at the 30 percent rate, and present residents would pay 27 percent this year. The federal edict would also alter the cur- rent definition of "income" which serves as a basis for rents; tenants would no longer be allowed to deduct work-related expenses from the annual tally. LoCally, the rent increases and income restrictions were stalled when the housing authority and Legal Aid Society filed a suit in Federal District Court to prevent them. based on HUD's alleged pro- cedural shortcomings. "HUD regula- tions are supposed to call for a 30 day period for tenants' review and comment," said Roy MetalIf, a housing authority spokesman. "'That's the legal point here." But Federal Judge Mary Johnson Lowe didn't see the point. Her early November decision acknowledged that the rent hikes might -cause "irreparable harm" to indMdual tenants, but declared that federal officials had not violated govemment procedures or tenants' con- stitutional rights, and so cleared the way for the new rules to take effect. Metcalf -said the Lowe ruling was being appealed in the US Court of J\ppeaIsand, pending a decision there, "no rent in- creases have yet been instituted for anybody" in the New York City system. Even in the event of the appeal's failure, Metcalf added, uncertainty will still sur- round the issue. The prospect of re- fIgUring rents for all 170,000 households in the projects poses "an enormous ad- ministrative problem, at I/)est," Metcalf lamented. "Hurts The Working Poor" While the new federal rules' eventual implementation is considered highly pro- bable, even by their opponents, the legal holding action now in progress reflects fundamental between federal public housing policy-makers and local officials and residents; the latter two groups having been thrust into an alliance of sorts by the federal squeeze. While Reagan Administration plans call for eventually selling off much of the public housing stock and, where that isn't possi- ble, raising rents closer to market levels, New York officials emphasize the impor- tance of maintaining the projects' stabili- ty by attracting and keeping "upwardly mobile," working families. And current authority rents, which still average about $150 a month, provide no small attrac- tion. Of the impending federal changes affecting income and rent calculations, Metcalf said: "This really hurts the work- ing poor. Who knows? Maybe they'd be better off going on welfare." Leslie McHenry, who heads the Parkside Houses Tenants Association in 11 .... lPdt speo""k4. ,*0 .HUD regulations miaht have from suspidons that public hous- mg restdents don't repQrt their income honestly. While some tenants undoubted- ly do fail to accurately refXlJ'l family in- come, she said, "The vast majority of . tenants in public housing are honest, and I don't feel it's right to penalize everybody for the wrongdoings of a few." As for the new rules' potcmtial ef- fect, McHenry added: "Those people who are complying honestly, I see them getting hurt." "Next Ilia Hardie" Regardless of the rent dispu..,' fiaaI. OUtcome, the projects' fmancial f*ture makes clear that somebody is bound to get hurt. Operating subsidies and moder- nization funds traditionally providtclby the federal government were cut this rJSC81 year, and the subsidies arrived nine months late, draining the authority's reserves. Already, the cuts have resulted in some service cuts, including less fre- quent painting and refrigerator replace- ment. But on t'talance, spokesman Met- calf observed, "For fiscal '83, we didn't do too bad in Congress. At least we didn't get devastated like we thought we would. The next big hurdle win be fiscal '84." Barring any dramatic moves in Con- gress, the prospects fot public housing next year are dispiriting. The budget win contain no funds for project moderniza- tion (which has been used in New York to renovate basic building systems, in- cluding the high rises' chronically trou- bled elevators), new construction or "Sec- tion 8" rent subsidies, which- are to be replaced by a rent voucher system with fewer tenant protections. And next year's limited federal support will come in the form of block grants, placing greater political pressure on local housing authorities. Therein lie the New York City Housing Authority's less idealistic motives for op- posing federal policy. As resources dwin- dle and services decline further, project residents are bound to be prompted toward increased tenant organizing. Already, there is widespread dissatisfac- tion about the use of rent hikes to com- pensate for the loss of government com- mitment. Said McHenry of Parkside Houses: "There has got to be a better way." O Tim Ledwith CITY LIMITS/December 1982 By Jim Sleeper It was a housing activist's dream: five thousand "grassroots" people standing together on inner city land hitherto ",planned" only for urban shrinkage, a vast prairie stretching just beyond the edge of a housing project, a church, an under-utilized school, a park; five thousand peo- ple;- mostly black and low income, holding hands with the mayor, city council president, housing commissioner, and . borough president, focused together in the peculiar concen- tration of prayer as a minister intones, "Be Thou unto us a tower of strength to those who would put obstacles in our path." Five thousand people chanting thunderously, "Mayor Koch, We Love New York! Carol Bellamy, We Love New York! Howard Golden, We Love New York!" and breaking into triumphant cheers as a bulldozer roars, breaking ground for the flTst four models of more than owners making 516-20,000 a year. A housing activist's dream, except that in East Brooklyn in late October, where the dream came true, there were no housing activists present, no veterans of the city's communi- CITY LIMITS/December 1982 12 ty housing movement on the speakers' platform or in the crowd. Yet there was Mayor Koch, reaffirming the city's commitment to assemble and convey the fourteen square blocks to East Brooklyn Churches absolutely free of cbarae; to assume the costs of street, sewer, and other infrastructure repair; to give each home a direct SIO,OOO Community . Development subsidy; and to grant new owners the fullest tax abatement possible. And there' was I.D. Robbins, the builder and curmudgeonly columnist so often critical of the commUnity housing movement, on retainer with EBC as chief consultant, staking his reputation on the project's suc- cess. Community Boards? A year had elapsed since EBC leaders had handed Borough President Golden their resigna- tions from those bodies where so many worthly housing in- . itiatives are sandbagged. EBC deals directly with the mayor and his commissioners. No community board would play politics, in any case, with the hundreds if not thousands of determined people the churches could bring out to ULURP , hearings if necessary. There were more surprises. For the first time in a good while, at least in this observer's memory, community people' were dealing with politicians from a eaI strength that left room for courtesy toward the politicians as individuals. As if in a civics text come to life, the people here were instruct- ing their elected representatives, not the other way 'round. Housing commissioner Anthony Gliedman was introduced portentously as the one "who has the power to create red tape or cut it, to clog the way or clear it." The only outright muscle-flexing carne from Tom Chadwick, president of EBC's parish council of 42 local churches, who quipped, "We have all the big leaders here. Big deal!" to general laughter and applause. Even the "big leaders" chuckled amidst the general goodwill. The most challenging observations came from Celina Jamieson of EBC, who emphasized that the organization's Nehemiah Plan, named for the biblical prophet who rebuilt Jerusalem, is only part of an agenda that transcends hous- ing. "It should be clear that EBC is bigger than anyone can imagine," she cried. "We are more than a Nehemiah Plan, we are about the central development of dignity and self- respect. All our projects, including Nehemiah, are only a means toward that end." Jamieson reminded her listeners that EBC's track record, credibility and growth have had lit- tle to do with housing so far; smaller but important vic- tories, like cleaning up local food stores, securing hundreds of new street signs, spurring the renovation of Highland and Betsy Head parks, and cleaning vacant lots have taught peo- ple the importance of working together in what even the meekest of the pastors involved call a "power organization. " o "We are an organized and powerful people of God!" i2 ..: thundered Pat Ottinger of the Quee s Citizens Organization, ~ which brought a large, mostly white delegation to the rally. '" Like EBC, QCO works with the Industrial Areas Founda- ~ tion, founded by Saul Alinsky, to train community leaders 5 for extensive organizing; the Queens group turned out more ~ than two thousand middle class homeowners and tenants for @ a gubernatorial primary debate between Ed Koch and Mario Cuomo last summer, a fact the mayor must have remembered as he sat listening to Ottinger in Brownsville. "Our trip to Brooklyn today has reinforced our belief thai there is no boundary between us," she cried. "We are all one neighborhood, one great city. Your struggles are OUf struggles. Your heartaches are our heartaches. Your victories are OUf victories." One couldn't help wondering whether Koch and Bellamy, who divide their time among hostile con- stituencies, were accustomed to hearings words like these backed up by such numbers. Our Roots Are Deep Roots As if no sacred cow of the community housing movement were safe, EBC chair Rev. Johnny Ray Youngblood took up the term "grassroots" and ripped it apart. "Contrary to common opinion, we are not a grassroots organization," he intoned with a magical, preacherly persuasion that seemed to summon its strength and "Amens" from the intestines of his listeners. "Grass roots grow in smooth soil. Grass roots are shallow roots. Grass roots are tender roots. Grass roots are fragile roots. Our roots are deep roots. Our roots are tough roots. Our roots are determined roots. The roots of EBC have fought for existence in the shattered glass of East New York, in the blasted brick and rubble of Brownsville, in 13 The Nehemiah Plan: Size and Costs Project Dimensions This first phase of the Nehemiah Plan consists of 1,000 row houses, with 70 per square block on a total of 13 square blocks. Each house will be two stories with basements and pitched roofs, containing two or three bedrooms. The two- bedroom houses are 1,000 square feet; three bedroom units will be 1,200 square feet. The homes will be small, measur- ing 16' x 30'. They will have brick fronts, firewalls and air conditioner sleeves. There will be off-street parking and three-step stoops. Project Costs The first crop involves 250 homes. The cost to the buyer is expected to be $40,000 for a two-bedroom home. The low price reflects a no interest construction loan from the churches which will yield a seven percent savings. The land, given by the city, is free. The city is also not charging for removing landfill for the excavations. Other savings result from the large scale of the plan and the soft costs - ar- chitects, lawyers and consultants - who are performing for a third of thdr normal fees. The actual mortgage is $25,000 - the cost less a $5,000 down payment and $10,000 no interest loan from the city. The group is expecting to bring in mortgages at ten percent. These will either come via the Stae of New York Mortgage Agency (SONYMA), tbe city's Housing Development Corporation (which needs legislation to permit it to sell bonds on Nehemiah's behalf) or else a consortium of in- surance companies. The grand total should yield monthly carrying charges of $300 to $400 per home. The project is being totally planned, designed and marketed by East Brookl Churches.O J.S. CITY LI M ITS/December 1982 the devastation of central Bushwick. Our roots are deep in this city. And so we say to you, Mayor Koch, We Love New York!"-and onward, the crowd roaring as one. It was a funeral for planned shrinkage and the fashionable cynicism and despair which give it credibility. * * * * * Well, all right, there is this $12 million capital pool for no- interest construction loans, put up by the national parent bodies of east Brooklyn's churches. And, yes, there was the muscle of Bishop Francis J. Mugavero, the extraordinarily compassionate and far-sighted leader of Brooklyn's 1.5 million Roman Catholics. He got EBC its audience with Koch last spring when the city was presented with the Nehemiah proposal. But each of these powerful interven- tions still comes back to the remarkable organizing effort which made the bishop and the heads of the other domina- tions pay heed. "Why haven't the churches done anything like this before now?" asked one housing activist. Why, in- deed, have they done it now? ' Two important answerS,come to mind, and, for housing activists, they both seem worth pondering. The first has to do with the claim that "church roots" are deeper than the "grassroots" of some radical rhetoric. While the community housing movement has often made alliances with the "pro- gressive" clergy of certain local churches, it has generally failed to effect the full marriage that trust in the people might advise. EBC is different, then, first, because its vision comes in part from the religious devotion of political Inoderales. The' Rev. John Heinemeier of East Brooklyn's Lutheran Church of the Risen Christ, a progressive with strong ties to the community housing movement, emphasizes that his denominational parent body, the Missouri Synod of the National Lutheran Church, is theologically conservative by any standard. Yet it was the Missouri Synod which sent its leaders to Brooklyn for discussions and a tour, and which made the first substantial commitment, of $1 million, to the interest-free loan pool. "I'd say that for them this commit- Reverend Johnnie Ray Youngblood, pastor oj St. Paul's Community Baptist Church and EBC chairman. ment is the biblical 'cup of cool water,' the message of Jesus tnat if we find someone without shelter or food, we should help," he explains. "The basic Gospel imperatives are at work in the Missouri Synod." Organizing for Family and Church Ed Chambers, who took over the Industrial Areas Foun- dation after Saul Alinsky's death, 'has written that "organiz- ing for family and congregation" is the only way most Americans can tap their own deepest strengths and loyalties. In poor neighborhoods, particularly, the church is often the only institutional structure of unconditional caring and trust, a midnight fastness of life amid the blasted brick. But Chambers cautions that because "we have given over con- trol of much of our Ijves (including tasks formel"ly exercised by families) to 'experts' who are only fronts for institutions of greed and unaccountable power," churches have lost ef- fective institutional power of their own; without such power, "families and churches withdraw, backbite, blame each other, or perhaps experiment with fads-ignoring their history and strength." The Builder and the Deacon By Yvette Moore In 1977 when former builder-turned-Daily News col- umnist J.D. Robbins began his printed crusade proclaim- ing low-cost, owner-occupied row housing as the answer to New York City's housing problem, a church deacon friend of mine picked up on it and followed the column faithfully. And naturally so. Someone was finally saying what he wanted to hear: that there was a way to build small homes so that he would be able to afford one. In a nutshell, Robbins' argument was that for half of the money and less than half the social problems he said were created by densely populated high rise apartment buildings, the city could build new single family owner- occupied homes and neighborhoods. Robbins admits that, even with generous subsidies, not all families would be able to buy a home. But he does not believe that the government's major tool for affordable housing, Section 8, was created with low income people CITY LIMITS/December 1982 14 in mind. "Section 8 was a bail-out scheme for builders," he said. It cost the city twice as much to build Section 8 developments than to build row houses and three to four times more social problems are created. Another program that earned his wrath was the city's Community Management program for tax-foreclosed buildings managed by local community groups. The costs of the program, he said, are also far too high. It was far better to build anew. "There's a law in housing called Robbins law. The true cost of a house is the cost per year for useful life, " he said in a telephone interview recently. "If you rehabilitate a house for $10,000 and it lasts one year, then it costs you $10,000. If it lasts 10 years then it costs you $1,000. New owner occupied, low density homes, hold the best hope 'for the future. As a former builder, he insisted it could be done, even challenging the city to give him a 2OxlOO foot plot 'on 'the South Bronx's Charlotte Street This analysis was bound to pastors like Heinemeier, John Powis, Ernest W ite, and James Spengler when they began meeting several ye s ago to consider the problems of East Brooklyn-the more so because they were attracted by the successes of the Queens Citizens Organiza- tion, then already working with Chambers and the Industrial Areas Foundation. "The churches bring the religious values, and we at IAF bring democratic values," explains organizer Mike Gecan, whom East Brooklyn hurches hired after a two-year interim relationship with IAF. The foundation's message to the churches was at first startling. As Gecan summarizes it, "We said that you h ve to be able to prove you're serious about power by raising a lot of money and in- vesting it in the training of leaders who are in it for the long haul." You're not just hiring a cou Ie organizers in other words, but committing yourselves to a way of life that in- volves empowering a community, the churches were told. By assessing each of their families $5.00 dues (later raised to $10.00 as tangible gains were maae), the churches ac- cumulated $10,000 and convinced eir national parent bodies to grant a total of more th $100,000 additional seed money to enable them to ente into a "sponsoring com- mittee" relationship with IAF over a period of two years. The money sent the best potential leaders the ministers could find to weekend and 1O-day training sessions; close to 100 East Brooklynites have now wrestl d with problems of run- ning meetings, approaching political and institutional leaders with needs and requests, and organizing public "actions" and evaluating them. In a kind of ipple effect, the training continues in dozens of parish and block meetings over the two-year period, coupled with spe ific organizing efforts around local issues. At a recent meeting at St. Barntas Episcopal Church in East New York, for example, IAF's Stephen Robertson led ten of the congregation's activists a strategy session for a dues and recruitment drive based j identifying local needs. ! . where he would produce, at his ow expense, a home for $36,000. So what about the Section 235 program? Section 235 is a program in which the federal go ernment subsidizes in- terests rates when small homes are uilt for families with moderate incomes ranging from $ 1,000 to $30,000 a year. Sounds like it would be right up Robbins' alley right? Wrong. Well, it could have, only t)ecause it's bogged down with politics and bureaurcracy. Signs announcing new private homes have been plan ed on Herzl Street in Brownsville for almost two years ow, but no homes have come up. "They're not going to come up because they can't be sold," said Robbins. "Batt planning. They're small targets." What slowed down the city, he rote in his column, was that the hou.5ing department as run by clubhouse . hacks from Brooklyn. Which brings us to the last l component of Rob- Nay-sayers and backsliders are kept out; "It isn't a harsh personal judgment when that happens," Grecan explains; "you have to produce by agreed-upon standards. " The second answer to the question of how churches became involved, then, moves beyond religious values to in- tensive training in organizing skills. In over 100 house meetings, involving perhaps 2,000 people, the search for a consensus about community needs led at first to concern over local food store quality. "We isolated ten stores-Key Food, Consumers, Met Foods, others," Gecan recalls. "Their managers were pretty scared to see groups of ten EBC inspectors show up with badges and evaluation forrns more elaborate than the city's, walking around checking up on Ifiold, broken merchandise, overpricing, freezers not freezing, etc. Customers would mill around and join with the inspectors." Seven of ten stores signed agreements right away. The three managers who refused to sign letters of agreement were invited to an EBC Delegates' Meeting where, before 250 people, they were called down the aisle and told their stores would be effectively closed down by church Mike Gecan, Industrial Areas Foundation organizer with EBC. bins theory for small homes and stable neighborhoods. You've got to think big. A block of nice homes can't change things. "Do you know how many buildings were built in New York City in 1925?"he asked. "No." "Guess." "I don't know. O.K. 1,000." "100,000 were built in New York City between 1925 and 1926! The next housing boom was in '63 when 60-70,000 houses were built." And so, when Ed Chambers, director of the Industrial Areas Foundation, the organizer for East Brooklyn Churches, read I.D. Robbins' columns it clicked with the plans of East Brooklyn Churches. They approached Rob- bins to talk about their plan to build 5,000 homes in East Brooklyn. Now my deacon friend may just get the house he's been wanting. 0 15 CITY LIM ITS/December 1982 boycotts if they refused to sign now. All three did, and EBC completed its fIrst signifIcant victory. An Investment Pays Off It was this and other successes with matters of concern to parish members themselves, combined with the commitment evidenced in dues-paying and the intensive training with IAF, which turned the heads of the parent church bodies when EBC approached them after long talks with developers like J.D. Robbins about housing. Heinmeier says the Mis- souri Synod's trailblazing commitment rested, as well, on close relationships of trust developed with its several pastors in East Brooklyn over the years. But most of all, it was the coupling religious values with the exercise of power that im- pressed church leaders and brought their own power into play to the point where City Hall felt compelled to respond. Not surprisingly, a lot of groups have since tried to get a piece of Nehemiah's action in East Brooklyn. "We've been approached by solar power people, a congressional housing committee wanting to hold hearings, even by the American Enterprise Institute," laughs Gecan. "Some of them want to show what you can do without government aid, but we don't want to lend ourselves to that at all. We've got to get the first houses up and occupied before we can consider any other proposals; even the good ones, like energy conserva- tion, are a distraction in the first phase." EBC hopes the $12 million loan pool can be recycled to build a total of 5,000 homes, though the initial commitment with the city is for 1,000 and the first phase involves constructing 250. . The importance of government's cooperation is clear, not only from the commitments the city has already made, but also from the continuing search for a long-term low interest mortgagor-EBC is shooting for 10 or 11 percent-like the State of New York Mortgage Agency or the quasi-municipal Housing Development Corporation, which Commissioner Gliedman chairs. The city's participation in the project hasn't been peaches and cream; EBC has held press con- ferences and rallies at critical moments when the city seemed to be wavering 011 process matters. Because it saves on "soft costs" (Robbins and the architect, for example, are working for a fraction of what the market would bear) as well as land and interest, EBC expects to out-perform the city/federal Section 235 program homes, the construction of which the city administration has long made a point of pride. The Nehemiah houses are expected to cost $45,000 each, compared to close to $70,000 for 235; could there be some jealousy on the part of bureaucrats in the city housing agency? Might the Koch administration lose interest in the project now that the mayor has lost his gubernatorial bid? Why didn't the mayor bring more press with him to the goundbreaking rally last month, missed by all three dailies and every television station? Why did Commissioner Glied- man emphasize to this reporter that even 5,000 church members weren't necessarily fully representative of the East New York/Brownsville community? Why, during his brief remarks to the rally, did Gliedman emphasize that Reagan's cuts left many others in need whom "we dare not forget"? All these questions would make any housing group edgy, but, as Rev. Youngblood reminded the people, "Our roots CITY LIMITS/December 1982 16 are deep roots." AsCelina Jam eson explained, EBCis much bigger than Nehemiah alone; it'is tightly organized and ready to be mobilized across a broad range of issues growing from the concerns of committed parish members. EBC can- not be simply defunded, disenfranchised, and blown away. To the socialist objection that the Nehemiah Plan rests on an idiosyncratic contribution of $12 million by church bodies with limited resources, EBC has this answer the plan is the product of religious values and democratic organizing skills which are replicable, and which are the obviduS precondition of any more far-reaching transformation of the nature of capital investment in this country. The agendas of IAF, EBC, and QCO are clearly agendas of empowerment, empowerment of the community working people whom housing activists claim to serve. Just as political strength af- forded room for a certain courtesy toward public officials at the October 31st rally, so the assurance of growing economic power affords room for a certain moderation of rhetoric which still contains the power to transform. The Nehemiah Plan brochure concludes: "This is a free enterprise venture. It has an American character of local ownership and design. It would raise the level of local services. It would help scores of thousands of working and non-working poor who presently live in the community by introducing a greater mix of homeowners in- to an area glutted with high-density high-rise structures. It would be rooted in the biblical thrust of rebuilding the walls and being rid of reproach-the reproach of living in devastation, the reproach of poor services, the reproach of violence and crime, the reproach of people in a state of siege, the reproach of mainline and local religious bodies on the defensive rather than envisioning and reconstructing new cities, new institutions, new communities. It is a mission and ' ministry in the eighties." So it was that at the October 31st rally, one felt that, 'by God, the people had spoken. I couldn't just leave the area after the rally was over, but walked around the rubble awhile under cloudy skies, diverted by a wild delight. 0 Jim Sleeper is a free lance writer who has covered t h ~ political development of Brooklyn's neighborhoods in several publications including the North Brooklyn Mercury and the Village Voice. Children at the East Brooklyn groundbreaking t;gremony on October 3/, Brownsville: A New Jerusalem Atop the Old "Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are buried with fire; come let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach. . .. But ... they laughed us to scorn, and despised us and said, What is this thing that ye do? Will ye rebel against the king? ' Then I answered them, and said unto them, The God of Heaven he will prosper us; therefore we his servants will arise and build .. . " The Book of Nehemiah 2:17 By Toby Sanchez F lYE THOUSAND PEOPLE, REPRE- senting 40 congregations allied in the "Nehemiah Plan" of the East Brooklyn Churches, witnessed an important religious and historical event in Brownsville on Oct- ober 31, 1982. Ground was broken for the first group of 5000 houses which the churches hope to build in Brownsville, East New York, Ocean Hill and Bushwick. Just as in the Book of Nehemiah, people gathered to rebuild a city that had been destroyed and to show the political skeptics that it could be done. It is fitting that the churches chose Brownsville as their first site. Hailed in the early twentieth century as "The Jerusalem of America," the area between Rutland Road and Junius Street, Pitkin Avenue to Uinden Boulevard was for many years the site of the second largest Jewish community in the United States. In 1866 Charles Brown, a real estate ,entrepreneur bought four farms from the descendants of the original Dutch settlers and broke them up in to 25 x 100 foot lots (Thirty years earlier John R. East New York with the hope that It would nVal New York City as a commercial and manufacturing center.)
As the transportation system developed in the eastern end of Brooklyn, thousands of Jewish immigrants, most of them piece workers in the needle trades, moved to Brownsville from the overcrowded Lower East Side. These early settlers did not displace anyone, were probably among the 10,000 persons displaced by the construction of the Williamsburg Bridge and Delancy Street. They moved into frame house which had been quickly and cheaply constructed. The area grew so fast that Jacob Riis called it "a nasty little slum," in 1899, but the population explosion had only just begun. In 1900 the residents numbered 66,000 (up from 29,000 in 1890.) The Williamsburg Bridge opened in 1903; the Manhattan Bridge opened in 1907. The Canarsie line connected Junius Street with Manhattan in 1906 and the Seventh Line was extended to New Lots in 1920. As a result the population reached 177,605 in 1910 and 304,330 in 1925. Schools, synagogues and businesses grew apace. Pitkin Avenue the , main shopping street, had 372 stores its 14 blocks in the 19205, doing $90 million of business. Its showpiece, Loew's Theatre, held 3,700 seats and cost $3 million. The majority of the settlers of what was now the 26th Ward of Brooklyn were Jewish, but there were also sizable numbers of Ger- mans, Irish, Italians, Russians, Poles, Greeks and Blacks. As their incomes rose, people moved out to East Flatbush, Eastern Parkway, Crown ,Heights. After World War II the population declined steadily, falling to 185,207 in 1958. as people moved to F1atbush, Canarsie, Mill Basin, Long Island and Westchester.
The fifties and sixties in Brownsville mir- rored Melrose, Morrisania, Tremont, Harlem, the Lower East Side, Cleveland, St. Louis and other cities. People ran from den- sity and small apartments before the minorities arrived. Others ran when they saw the first dark face. A poorer population in- herited the aging buildings, but expenses went up and tenants' incomes did not. Then came disinvestment, lack of code enforce- ment, redlining and abandonment. FHA scandals left the private houses vacant and vandalized. Twenty-six publicly owned high rises and some medium rises, mostly low in- come, provide the only occupied housing in Brownsville today. Eleven thousand families look out from 118 public housing buildings on a sad landscape of lots filled with broken bricks and shoulder high weeds and a few still standing vacant buildings. They live 17 in a neighborhood of high unemployment and high crime, poor health and low voter participation. One hundred years after Brownsville's frrst creation and as it embarks on its second, one wonders why most of the area was destroyed rather than periodically renewed. In other neighborhoods children grow up and move away, old residents sell or die and are replac- ed by others, who preserve or replace the housing. Except for the elevated lines and Pitkin Avenue, the visible history of Brownsville has disappeared entirely.
The conventional wisdom has several things to say about neighborhood change. "I was the flight of the Jews ... it was the en- trance of the Blacks ... it was the racist landlords who, once the minorities came, milked the buildings until they almost fell down and then walked away ... it was the connivance of the City, which didn't enforce the laws ... it was the insurance companies which paid off claims without question as the owners burned the buildings ... it was rent control and the do-gooders who protected the tenants and killed the buildings ... it was the banks that invested in Florida but not in new boilers in Brooklyn or the Bronx." But the sociology of cities and the economics of real estate investment are not the whole answers. The hopeful, ever-expanding American economy that led CharleS' Brown to develop Brownsville in the 19th century had changed radically by the time the minori- ty residents arrived. The whole economy of working class New York was moving away. This expanding economy created Brownsville and the other working class neighborhoods when American industry needed low wage workers; it destroyed the Brownsvilles when itreplaced American workers with machines and with Third World piece workers in no- tax, no-tariff, no-union zones in other countries .
Let us hope that the new Brownsville being created by the East Brooklyn Churches in the waste lands between the projects will again be known as a Jerusalem and a Golden Land, but that this time it does not disappear. And let us also hope its children have the freedom , to move up to another class and out of the area, if they wish, as the first residents did, but just as importantly, that they find their old neighborhood so pleasant and varied in its population, housing and cultural at- mosphere that they will choose to stay there because it is a "good" neighborhood. 0 Toby Sanchez works at ANHD and says that she and her husband "honeymooned" at 394 Christopher A venue, where Nehemiah's first houses will rise, from 1954-57. CITY LiMITS/December 1982 Tenants Win $250 Sales Pledge By Susan Baldwin FfER WRANGLING FOR ftaImost three years over the sales price for low-cost tenant cooperatives in its poorer neighborhoods, the city is on the verge of adopting a policy that will af- fect the immediate future of some 5,000 low and moderate income residents in city-owned buildings and could set resale policy for the next 25 years. Tenants in buildings enrolled in the city's alternative management programs have won the right to purchase their apartments for $250 free and clear. Fear- ful that tenants in "hot" real estate areas might become speculators and make windfall profits, Mayor Koch has in- troduced a resale policy to the Board of Estimate that requires 40 percent of any profit from buildings where apartments are assessed at $2,000 or more, to go to the city. An alternative proposal, initiated by the community and sponsored by three board members, would restrict the resale price, guarantee an equitable return to the tenant and nonprofit housing co- operative, and keep the price within the range of low and moderate income buyers. Led by City Council President Carol Bellamy, the other resolution spon- sors are Manhattan Borough President Andrew Stein and City Comptroller Jay Goldin. "They're going for the jugular vein with this 40 percent policy, and if they push it too hard, the people won't buy now," asserted Alpage Terrell, a tenant leader at 4 West 105th Street, a 35-unit building in the city's tenant interim lease program. "We never have enough money for repairs, the larger expenses and oil are a struggle, and now they're saying if a tenant sells an apartment for $4,000, he has to give 40 percent back to the city. That's too much. We need the money for the building." Said Father Thomas Farrelly, pastor at the Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church in Clinton and a long-time urban renewal fighter on Manhattan's West Side, "We want the people to stay in the communities ... , but they will be priced CITY LlMITS/December1982 But There's A Catch out if this recapture goes through. The 40 percent should stay in the buildings where it belongs." In what is viewed by many as a major concession to tenants-the $250 price tag-the mayor has agreed to extend it to all neighborhoods, including those such as Clinton and Chelsea in Manhattan where real estate values are escalating and where the current battle is focused. He has also said that other tax-foreclosed properties in these "hot" areas may enter alternative management and be sold at the same $250 price. Skeptics, however, have expressed doubt as, they claim, it's who you are and whom you know that will determine if your building is selected. Ten-Hour Marathon The mayor's decision came on the heels of a ten-hour marathon before the Board of Estimate October 28 where tenants ap- plauded the price but found the restric- tions unacceptable. During that stormy session, which began at 4 pm and ended at almost 2 am the next morning, 120 tenants testified in favor of the $250 sales price but against the mayor's restrictions. Just past midnight, Deputy Mayor 18 -. Nathan Leventhal, the architect of the city's alternative management programs and the low-cost cooperative plan when he was housing commissioner, appeared in the board's chambers and announced the mayor's concession of the $250 price. At the same time he urged the approval of the mayor's 40 percent proposal. "The mayor's position as of a year ago was that buildings in areas such as this area [Clinton) should be sold at market value," he said, adding, "This represents a reversal of that decision . . . and so long as there are . .. sales from tenants to tenants, the profits should be shared. We think it's only fair that we should recoup a portion: 40 percent. That's the ra- tionale. I hope you will consider this and the implication of these sales." As Leventhal finished, one tenant mut- tered, "We've just been threatened, but in real nice language." The deputy mayor made it clear that the tenants should accept this proposal and went one step further. He warned that if this policy were not approved, the mayor could and would refuse to sell the buildings to the groups. If this does hap- pen, the tenants are concerned that their On November 18th, the Board of Estimate approved the Mayor's sales policy. The resolution grants to aU Tenant Interim Lease and Community Manage- ment tenants the right to purchase their apartments at 5250 apiece. The move also upheld the 40 percent city recapture of resales of apartments that are appraised above 52,000. Auorneys for the tenants questioned the legality of the move, term- ing it a tax the city could not lawfully im- pose. Although the recapture provision marred the tenants' victory, the finaliza- tion of the S2S0 price represented the defeat of administration moves for three years to oust tenants from marketable real estate areas. The resale issue appears destined to wind up in court as the first apartments are resold. The tenant- supported resolution lost by only one vote, 6-5. The failure to gain the votes of Borough Presidents of either the Bronx or Brooklyn, where the city has many in rem buildings, stemmed from a mayoral pro- mise to those officals that buildings there would not be appraised above $2,000. buildings will be sold at auction or possibly banished to the city's central management. The mayor's proposal was laid over to the November 18 board calendar when the alternate proposal was first to be in- troduced. The community represe - tatives are hoping to get the necessary votes-six of a possible II-on the board to postpone this resolution to the December 2 meeting. Under board rules, they would need nine votes November 18, the first time at the board, to win tl)e resolution. Presently, their proposal only has the five votes of the three board sponsors. "We know the city has budget pro- blems, but how can it expect to solve them by squeezing out pennies from us," said one tired but irate tenant leader at the Oc- tober 28 meeting. "They need several hundred millions of dollars. Why don't they go after the real speculators who get all tax abatements?" "We read that the city must raise the tax abatement from $7 million to $11.5 million on the Woolworth building be- cause ofa 1977 agreement," said Reuben Schafer, president of the Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, whose group represents six TIL buildings awaiting sale. "If it's powerless to refuse Woolworth, the city has no right to renege on agreements made with tenants about their buildings in 1978." According to a newly published report on J-51 abuse by the New York Public Ip- terest Research Group and Council- woman Ruth Messinger, Democrat- Liberal of Manhattan, this program rewarded owners with $280 million in tax exemptions and abatements in the fiscal year, ending June 30, and an additional $20 million in the current year. Long-time observers and participants in this uphill struggle to develop a viable sale policy cannot fathom where the city came up with the 40 percent recapture figure. During the 1979 sales sweepstakes, the city refused to establish a resale policy, arguing that it did not want the en- cumbrance of monitoring its implementa- tion. In fact, in 1980 when the debates on this issue resumed, the only board member and city official who suggested a recapture price was the comptroller, Jay Goldin. His proposed bite for the city was 50 percent. 'Shuttle Diplomacy' Asked where the figure came from, James McManus, the Democratic district leader in Clinton who prides himself on running "shuttle diplomacy" between Mayor Koch and the community, said, "I really don't know. Maybe they pulled it out of the air, although I'm sure they can back it up with some figures." Referring to the mayor's proposal several days before the November 18 meeting, Deputy Mayor Leventhal said firmly, "It's the mechanism we put in place to get our share of the profit. It only applies to apartments appraised for over $2,000. If the housing company wants to keep the $250, itcan .... We are giving up millions of dollars of buildings. We stand by our proposal." At the October 28 ses- sion, when asked about the recapture figure, he suggested that the city had been somewhat influenced by the city's middle income Mitchell Lama resale formula. Meanwhile, one tenant, Ray Vasquez, who resides at 326 West 17th Street in Chelsea, an area beset by inflated real estate and overnight gentrification, said the tenants' hope for ownership would be lost under the mayor's recapture plan because the city, not the tenant, is in- sisting upon holding the tenants' shares to the building to scuttle any possible at- tempts at couldn't even get a loan this way," he explained, "be- cause the bank would say there's an en- cumbrance on the building." D 19 Sales Policy Battle Pre-1972: Housing and Development Admin- istration - forerunner of Department of Housing - Preservation and Development - operates two barely functioning programs for managing and selling buildings to tenants or community groups. No uniform sales policy. Prices range from $50 per unit to $5,000 in desireable areas. 1972-1977: Foreclosure of private properties for tax delinquency allows three years of ar- rears. In 1976, city owns 2,500 residential buildings; in 1977, 3,500. City's basic tool for returning buildings to private ownership is by public auction. 1972-1975: A "Sales Policy of Convenience" developed by Department of Real Estate Com- missioner Ira Duchan. Prices are $200 per oc- cupied unit, $100 for vacant units. At least 40 buildings are approved for sale by Board of Estimate under this policy. Prices were more where DRE perceived higher sales value; lower where nonprofit groups negotiated extensively. 1975: "Policy of Convenience" breaks down: sales are made on ad hoc baSIS, program by program, building by building. Sales take many months to accomplish, are a major pro- gram hurdle and "administrative nightmare." CITY LIM ITSIDecember 1982 October, 1977: Logjam eased by a memo of understanding between RDA Commissioner Thomas Appleby and Department of Real Prvperty Commissioner Stephen Fisher. If valued below $1,000 per unit, HDA sets price; the administrator selling a given property." November, 1978: Board of Estimate votes to resume auctions if stringent regulations for screening purchasers are instituted. if above, DRP sells at appraised value. Policy City Limits cover, January, 1980 never formally agreed to by Fisher and never publicly announced. . , January, 1977: City Council votes to reduce period from three years to one. HPD selected to over management of resi- dential buildings. 1977-78: Various studies fault auctions of tax- foreclosed buildings. Study by Tony Gliedman and Barbara Elstein shows 59 percent of buildings sold between 1972 and 1974 never paid any taxes after sale. Unreleased study by Planning Commissioner John Zuccotti finds that four years after real estate auctions, 94 percent of the buildings were.in arrears, 54 per- cent were eligible for vesting and 44 percent were no longer viable housing, while 25 percent paid no taxes at all. February, 1978: Moratorium voted by City Council on sale of certain vacant land and buildings to dampen speculation. April, 1978: City Planning Commission outlines no-auction policy in some areas, restrictions to one- and tWO-family houses in others. I May, 1978: First tax seizure in Manhattan s,ince change in law triples number of city-owned buildings to 10,000; 54 percent are vacant. May, 1978: New head of Direct Sales program William Smith cites lack of sales policy as bar- rier to implementation of alternative manage- ment programs. Noted wasteful, excessive staff time consumed by negotiations. August, 1978: Under new Tenant Interim Lease program, first tenants sign leases to manage, and eventually buy their buildings as low income co-ops. Other alternative manage- ment programs begin as well. September, 1978: HUD conditions continued use of federal Community Development funds for in rem property on vastly increased sales of buildings. October, 1978: Comptroller Harrison Goldin issues audit of Community Management Pro- gram and requests sales policy. " ... public outcry behooves HPD to settle thesales policy issue once and for all." October, 1978: Report by HPD's Sales Policy Working Group, headed by Assistant Com- missioner Philip St. Georges, proposes new guidelines: in areas eligible for Community Development, price should be $100 per vacant unit, $200 per occupied unit. Suggests a for- mula in non-CD eligible areas to gear sales price to tenants' ability to pay. Most buildings in management and repair programs are in CD-eligible areas. Sample appraisals of 31 buildings are close to $100/$200 formula. Report notes that' appraisals are easily manipulated and are generally used to 'cover' CITY LIMITS/December 1982 March, 1979: City is now owner of 37,000 oc- cupied apartments, eight percent of all residen- tial property in the city. March, 1979: Board of Estimate unanimously okays a general sales price of $250 per unit in CD-eligible areas. Requires HPD approval of subsequent resale for three years. Some com- munity groups protest lack of restrictions on resale voicing fear that some tenants will be tempted to speculate. HPD responds that $250 per unit is "not a subsidized price," therefore, "resale restrictions are not appropriate." August, 1979: Mayor Ed Koch tells heated Town Meeting in Clinton area he will not per- mit tenants to buy at $250 and then turn a pro- fit. August, 1979: Board of Estimate votes to resume auctions. October, 1979: Three TIL buildings on W. 35th St. near site of planned Convention Center receive HPD letter refusing to sell at $250 and offering "fair market price." Letter states: " . . .it is currently HPD policy to sell city-owned properties located in viable private market areas at market value. Such value may be determined by appraisal, public auction, or other mechanism . .... December, 1979: Board of Estimate orders HPD to formulate specific policy regarding resales. Manhattan Borough President An- drew Stein cites speculation rumors. December, 1979: There are 350 buildings con- taining 8,000 apartments in TIL and Com- munity Management programs. Sales prospec- tus for co-ops is snagged between HPD and state attorney general's office. February, 1980: Board of Estimate endorses amendment to March, '79 sales resolution. Community Management program buildings have a 15-year resale bar without HPD permis- sion. Individual tenants sell for original price, share of building-wide assessments; additional profit retained by co-op. After three years, 20 tenants get purchase price plus up to $1,500 in improvements to apartment and up to 30 per- cent additional profit, if building approves. TIL buildings can't sell for ten years without HPD okay. Individual tenants get purchase price, assessments, documented improvements and up to 30 percent additional profit with co- op approval. After two years, tenant may sell for the above plus 50 percent of profit if co-op approves. Comptroller Goldin faults policy, urges city recapture of CD investment; pro- poses 50 percent of resale profit go to city. March, 1980: Terms and conditions for sale of city property at public auction are approved by Board of Estimate. May, 1980: Auction sales of vacant residential properties are resumed. June, 1980: First five TIL buildings are sold to tenants for $250 per unit and less. June, 1981: Washington Heights building sold for $167,000 at auction. Other properties com- manding high prices as well. AugUst, 1981: Strict entrance requirements for TIL are instituted; buildings must be on stable blocks in improving neighborhoods and have ability to reach 85 percent occupancy within six months. October, 1981: The eight alternative manage- ment programs comprise 650 buildings with 15,000 units. The TIL program has 5,800 units. March, 1982: Eleven Clinton TIL buildings begin disposition procedure (ULURP) with no sales tag attached. HPD sales director Monica McAdams writes to their attorney specifying sales pricesof$9,500to $13,000 per unit, based on appraisal. This offer is rescinded, but no other price is suggested. June, 1982: Six TIL buildings in Chelsea area join 12 Clinton buildings in sales pipeline but without a price tag. July, 1982: Board of Estimate delays decision on sale of 12 Clinton buildings and six Upper , West Side TIL buildings until after the September gubernatorial primary in which Mayor Koch is a candidate. City Council passes resolution backing $250. September, 1982: Seven fully-occupied Clin- ton buildings with long-term residents ' are rebuffed by HPD in attempt to enter TIL pro- gram. . October, 1982: Over 300 tenants and sup- porters at Board of Estimate meeting. Tenants win $250 sales. pledge from Mayor, and also get city promise to allow new buildings to enter the program and get $250 price so; however, Mayor demands 40 percent of resale profits on apartments appraised at $2,000 and above. A counter-resolution by City Council President Carol Bellamy, Goldin and Stein that would cap resale price, allowing fair return to tenants for improvements, is tabled. November, 1982: Alternate resale resolution fails at Board of Estimate, vote of 6-5. Legal challenges to new policy vowed by tenant groups. 0 No Refuge in the Bronx By Julia MacDonnell Chang Lead paint poisonings strike Indochinese refugees. W HBN TANKIM ENG, A YOUNG CAMBODIAN mother of three, arrived in the ronx last year as part of a federal effort to aid victims of war. famine and oppression in Southeast Asia, she came with the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity. I was a chance to begin life over again. , What Eng did not expect was that her beautiful dark-haired, dark-eyed son Eng Meng, now 18 months old, would become poisoned by peeling lead paint in the East 193rd Street apart- ment in which a federally funded resettlement agency placed them. Eng said through a translator that Her son was hospitalized for two weeks for lead poisoning tr atment during the last year. But the boy may be just one of an arming number of In- dochinese refugee children in the nortrwest Bronx who have been struck in recent weeks by lead po'soning, a known cause of irreparable brain damage. ' The discovery of lead poisoning in the refugee children spotlights two little-noticed housing p enomena in New York City. One is that, in spite of publicity and legislation several years ago to prevent lead poisoning, it remains a virulent threat to the city's poor. The poisonings are also dramatic evidence Copyright 1982 City Limits that many of the refugees currently being resettled in New ". York's neighborhoods are being placed in run-down buildings operated by negligent landlords with inadequate safeguards by the federally-funded agencies that placed the refugees there. The Lead Poisoning Epidemic Ten Indochinese children, most under the age of three, all living in a single neighborhood, have been hospitalized for lead poisoning treatment since late July, according to data gathered by the Lead Poisoning Prevention Project of the Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center. At least eight"more such children with high blood lead levels are being cared for through outpatient clinics, according to the same data. "It is an epidemic in this area of the Bronx," said John F. Rosen, M.D., professor of pediatrics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and creator of the 110spital's Lead Poison- ing Prevention Project. The one-year-old project has conducted systematic pre- screenings ' of children in the neighborhoods surrounding Montefiore on East 210th Street. In addition, it has monitored follow-up care, provided education to the families of victims 21 CITY LIMITS/December 1982 and attempted to have lead hazards removed from the child- ren's apartments. While the Centers of Disease Control in Georgia derme lead poisoning as any blood lead level higher than 30 micrograms per deciliter of blood, Rosen said children with levels three times that have been found through project tests. Rosen cautioned, however, that Indochinese children are not the only recent victims of lead poisoning. Rather, he said, more than 100 neighborhood children of all races have been hospitalized for lead poisoning treatment during the past 14 months. Scores more_are being monitored through outpatient clinics, he said. Maxine Golub, coordinator of the project, theorized that the refugee children, because of their poor health when they ar- rive in the United States, are more susceptible to lead poison- ing. "If they are nutritionally deficit," she said, "it seems to in- crease their ability to absorb lead. It is very serious." Neither Rosen nor Golub would venture a prognosis for the poisoned children. But Rosen said a single lead poisoning crisis can result in "impaired intellectual development and a range of other abnormalities." Whatever its long-term toll, Rosen called lead poisoning "entirely preventable." It is "directly related to housing," he said. Among both refugees and American-born children, it can be traced to the same culprit: exposed lead-based paint in residential buildings. "People who have a decent place to live don't get lead poisoning," Rosen said. Placement Agencies While poor housing is viewed as the chief cause of toxic lead levels in all of the children, apartment selection for the refugee families has been entrusted, by the State Department, to a handful of federally funded voluntary agencies. Since early 1981, according to State Department records, a dozen voluntary agencies-so-called "volags" -have received more than $108 million in federal funds to place some 200,000 Indochinese refugees throughout the country. The volags receive a federal grant of $525 for each refugee they resettle. That fee is supplemented by private donations and by contributions from states and municipalities. Amdng the volags placing' families in the Bronx are the International Resc4e Committee (IRq, the Hebrew Immigra- tion Assistance Service (HIAS) which operates in New York as the New York Association for New Americans (NY ANA), and the American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees (AFCR). In the 1981 and 1982 fiscal years, according to State Depart- ment records, IRC received $12.3 million for its national Indo- chinese resettlement programs; HIAS received $7.4 million and AFCR received $3.2 million. Financial records of the national resettlement effort were readily available. But it could not be determined, through interviews with numerous federal and voluntary agencies, just how the northwest Bronx was selected as a resettlement area. Nor could anyone provide exact figures on the number of refugees c':lfrently living there. Estimates ranged between 1,400 and 2,000. The resettlement has been a windfall to some local landlords CITY LIMITS/December 1982 22 whose rundown properties were largely vacant before place- ment agencies brought them a guaranteed full rent roll and tenants unable to complain about repairs and lack of services. One owner of two refugee-filled buildings on Andrews Ave- nue has ignored two years' worth of city taxes to the tune of $17,756 and a $65,623 bill for emergency repairs provided by the city while collecting a monthly rent roll of $11,000. Mean- while, 235 violations on his properties are outstanding. An examination of the process by which refugees were plac- ed in buildings where lead poisoning occurred shows that the . refugees - made vulnerable by their poverty, by their inability to speak English and by the mysteries of a foreign urban culture - were unprotected by what resettlement officials in- sist are elaborate mechanisms to insure their sooth assimila- tion into this country. Moreover, city health and building codes, developed to pro- tect all residents from lead poisoning and a range of other hazards, were simply not enforced. * * * * * * J UST OVER A YEAR AGO, IN A DIMLY LIT BASE- ment room of Our Lady of Mercy R.C. Church off Ford- ham Road, representatives of the volags placing families in the Bronx met with community people to discuss their resettlement program. They came at the request of neighborhood activists and clergy who were concerned about the sudden presence of hun- dreds of Indochinese refugees in the neighborhood. Many worried about the refugees' apparent lack of necessities like warm clothing and decent shelter. Others wondered why exist- ing community resources had not been tapped 0 help ease the refugees into neighborhood life. . Jack O'Connor, then chief administrator of Montefiore's Family Health Center on East 193rd Street, expressed the feel- ings of many in the room. "We want to know who these people are and how they got here," he ,said. "We want to where they 'fill be staying. We also want to know what they want and need from us. We want to help them. But we need help to do that." Arie Bierman, coordinator of NY ANA's Indochinese place- ment program, said Cambodian refugees were being resettled in the area as part of what he called "cluster" projects. In such clusters, he said, refugees with like backgrounds are moved into the same buildings and neighboring buildings. They find comfort in their familiarity with each other, he said. Ultimately, he said, "new neighborhoods" can result. Asked why neighborhood resources had not been tapped, Bierman said, "We've found that a low profile is the best way." Public assistance, Medicaid and food stamps are expedited for those with refugee status, Bieman explained. As a result, he said, tensions frequently arise among competing groups "in neighborhoods where demands for social services are high. "We're concerned about community relationships," he said. "We don't want to create community tension." Housing, agency officials went on to say, is the key to any resettlement plan. Large numbers of vacant apartments are re- quired, they said. And, because refugees survive initially on welfare, they said rents must be low - not much above the $223 per month welfare maximum. What they look for, said the of lcials, are "marginal" buildings in "transitional" neighbornoods. Marginal is an oft-used euphemism for "just barely liveable." And transitional usually means "going down hill." But during that meeting, resettlement officials argued that the words would mean the reverse. By infusing large numbers of recent refugees into such buildings in such neighborhoods, they theorized, whole sec- tions of decaying urban neighborhoods would be revitalized. Community activists at the meeting believed them. . Most left with a feeling of warmth and camaraderie toward their new neighbots. Marginal Buildings Tankim Eng's building mocks theories about creating new communities through settlements of refugees. On a recent visit at dusk, there were no lights in any public areas. As night fell, the halls were plunged into total darkness. Babies could be heard crying behind doors in the eery blackness. On a subsequent visit, hallway lights w!!re on - only to reveal eyesores common to such so-dilled marginal buildings: cracked plaster and peeling paint, broken windows and stair treads, smashed mail boxes and graffiti-covered walls. One roof fire door on the double-wing building was barricaded shut from outside with nailed-down wooden planks. The building, 365 East 193rd Street, has 107 outstanding building code violations, according to city records. Ten are so- called "C" violations which are considered imminent hazards. NY ANA, Bierman says, has moved more than a score of Cambodian refugees into the building. Despite its dismal condition, 365 East 193rd Street may be typical of the buildings in which refugees have been housed. Another NY ANA building, 2f1J7 Jerome Avenue, has 83 outstanding violations including seven C violations. Two children in the building have been confirmed as lead poisoned. Another nine have elevated levels of lead in their blood. An International Rescue Committee building where at least two children, one an infant, were confirmed as lead poisoned, 3110 Bainbridge, has 20 outstanding violations including two C's. But a pair of 21-unit buildings on Andrews Avenue, which AFCR has filled with Indochinese refugees, might win the violations jackpot. 2316 Andrews boasts 186 outstanding violations including 52 C's. Its sister, 2322, hJlS 50 violations, with 13 C's. Despite these lengthy lists of building code violations, there is no record that the city took any action against the buildings' owners. No fines were levied. In fact , in most cases, city inspec- tors never followed up their initial findings of violations by return inspections to certify corrections. Golub and a nurse-practitioner took preliminary blood samples from 31 children and infants in the buildings at a card table stationed in the lobby of 2316 one afternoon last month. The tests showed that 14 of the children have blood problems; a second test series will sort out which children are iron- deficient and which have "dangerously high" levels of lead in 23 CITY LIM ITSlDecember 1982 their blood. Golub expects at least half to show lead poisoning. Problems at the buildings come as no surprise to organizers witlJ the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition. All, they say, have histories of difficulties including non- provision of basic services like heat. Yet efforts to organize the buildings in recent years have been stymied, they say, by the transient nature of the tenant populations. Now, the language barrier has brought organizing to a halt. Andrews Avenue 'Paradise' On a recent visit to 2316 and 2322 Andrews Avenue, wide open street doors and gaping holes in the foyer meant for win- dows offered an invitation to passing thieves and vandals. Ceil- ings and walls were covered with a network of deep cracks. Old paint hung down in strips. Marble steps were broken. Mailboxes were twisted and open. Chilly gusts scattered debris that had gathered in shadowy corners of the foyer and the stench of sewage filled the air. Outside, in the alley between the buildings, was its apparent source: a murky pool about 10 inches deep that ran the length of the building. Apartments in the buildings showed similar neglect. Yet, there are no vacancies. Except for a handful of apart- ments, the tenants are rent-paying Indochinese refugees placed there by AFCR. Rents, say tenants, are about $275 a month. "It may look like a hovel to you, but to them it's paradise," asserted Sharon Bottrill, director of local placements for AF- CR's New York office, when questioned about the conditions. "They're happy." During telephone interviews, Bottrill and Tania Wremenko, head of AFCR's national Indochinese resettlement effort, said they had inspected the buildings and that the apartments were "fine." A week later, during the interviews at the buildings, the women b l ~ e d tenants for much of the evident disrepair. Local clergy and tenant organizers tell a different story. The buildings, they say, were almost empty and were in a deplorable state before the refugees began to move in in early 1981. "The buildings were bad," said Carmen Pietri, an organizer with the University Heights Community Coalition. "They still are." "I've been very disturbed by what I've seen there," said the Rev. James Galligan, O.S.A., a priest at nearby St. Anthony of Tolentine R.C. Church. "There has been no heat, no nothing in those buildings." Two years ago, Pietri said, the eight remaining tenants in the buildings organized a tenants association and took then-owner Jason Pravda to court. They succeeded in having a 7 A ad- 'ministrator appointed, Pietri said. Through that process, rents are diverted from the owner to a court-appointed manager who runs the building from rent income. "As soon as the landlord stopped getting rents," Pietri said, "he sold the place." "It was never a Class A -building," said Pravda recently, who added that he was surprised that refugees had been placed there. CITY LIMITS/December 1982 24 Neighboring landlord Frank Carpenito, who owned 2295 and 2296 Andrews Avenue at the time, bought the buildings for an undisclosed price and promptly -took the 7 A ad- ministrator back to court. "He told the judge he was fixing up the apartments for refugees," said Pietri. "He said he wanted to help them start a new life. The judge believed him." Efforts to reach Carpenito for comment were unavailing. Pietri said her contact with the buildings was then severed, largely because of the language barrier. Carpenito's salvation for the two nearly empty, seriously deteriorated buildings came via AFCR's former subcontractor, Brother Trinh Hao of the Indochinese Friendship Association. Hao, a Vietnamese refugee and a Christian Brother, said he moved into 2296 Andrews Avenue in August 1979, shortly after he came to the United States. Hao said he encouraged Carpenito "to get more buildings" to make way for the masses of Indochinese refugees expected as a result of the Refugee Act of 1980. Hao even went so far as to sign a contract with Carpenito. Besides telling Carpenito he could fill all his vacancies, Hao said, "I guaranteed Mr. Frank that rents will be paid for one year. If the refugee failed to pay, my agency would pay." As a condition of the contract, Hao said, "Mr. Frank put in new sinks, new bathrooms, new windows." Pressed about the apparent long-term disrepair, Hao con- ceded that he'd last visited Andrews Avenue in late 1980 - before Carpenito bpught 2316 or 2322. Asked how in that case he could be sure apartments were de- cent, Hao said, "I got his (Carpenito's) assurance." Through what he termed a "gentleman's agreement" with AFCR, Hao said he received $350 per refugee of the $525 AFCR received from the State Department. In that manner, he said, he helped resettle more than 1,200 refugees in New York I City-at least 400 in the Bronx. "It was never enough," he said of the money, explaining that each refugee received rent money, clothing, cash and fur- niture through his agency. He stopped doing placements, Hao said, when his agency's deficit reached unmanageable levels. Although he had stopped doing placements, Hao admitted that he had been barraged by complaints about sporadic heat and hot water on Andrews Avenue. "I had many problems with Mr. Frank last winter," he said. Carpenito, Hao said, complained that tenants had destroyed taps in bathrooms causing leaks and costly repairs. "Mr. Frank told me he couldn't afford too much heat or hot water," Hao said. The theme of destruction by tenants was repeated by Bottrill ana building manager Andre Turk. Turk, during an interview in his office at 2296 Andrews, blamed the river of sewage on disposable diapers. Bottrill said it was caused by refugees throwing garbage out their windows. The river was drained shortly after interviews for this story began. The gaping window holes, they said, resulted from refugee children breaking the windows. The holes were boarded over and fllied with makeshift plastic windows after Bottrill and Wremenko were interviewed. Despite evidence to the contrary, Bo trill and Turk also in- sisted the apartments were painted freq endy." At a minimllm every two years," said Turk. Cambodian tenants, through a Khmer translator, said their complaints to Hao and AFCR about building conditions had fallen on deaf ears. Bottrill and Wreme ko said they had never heard any complaint&. "We can't provide babysitting services," Bottrill said of the situations. They are free, she noted, to move anytime they want to. But one English speaking Khmer, f iliar with the plight of tenants in the buildings, said few are aware of their rights. Fewer still, he said, can read or unders and their leases. "They just sign," he said. "And they never skip paying rent because they are scared. "In our country," he added, is more bad than here. So my people don't want 0 complain. But this land is free. We can protect our right. Only there is nD .one tD help us." A Lack of Enforcement Officials .of IRC, AFCR and NY in interviews that they did nDt avail themselves .of any pu lie recDrds that might have documented problems at the buU ings. NDr, they said, did they cDntact any .of the neighborhood housing .organiza- tions which gather informatiDn abDut buildings an,d landlords. Rather, they said, they relied on inspections .of buildings. In spite of the very .obvious of peeling paint in some of the buildings, the volag officials said the possibility .of lead poisoning did not occur to them. Although nDne of the agency officials who were interviewed said they had cDntacted the city in an effDrt to improve building code enforcement, they were quick to complain about its laxity. "You blame us," said AFCR's Bottrill. "Why don't you ask the-city why they don't enforce their own laws?" Bierman, who lives on Fordham Road in the Bronx, said, "Our experience with the bureaucracy is that it doesn't do any good to check violations. Unfortunately, the city does nothing about them." "Besides," he added, "if we went by printouts (of viola- tions), the only buildings we could use would be some luxury buildings that we couldn't afford." Bierman said he chose 365 East 193rd Street himself after in- specting it two years ago. I t was in good condition at the time, he said. He pinpointed its deterioration to sometime during the , past year. ' "We haven't moved anyone in there since it's become bad," he said. Before families moved in, he said, he extracted promises from then-owner George Schwartz, a Greenwich Village den- . tist, that repairs would be made. Those promises were nDt kept, Bierman said, . Now, he said, NYANA has volunteer sDcial service interns working in the building to insure that basic services, like heat and hot water, are provided. I Meng Huot, Tan Kim Eng, in/ant Suzanne and Eng Meng, 18 months. Lak Theng. Eng Meng was hospitalized for two weeks for lead paint poisoning contracted in the apartment at . /65 east /931' Street. 25 CITY LlMITS/December.1982 "fhese people have been through hell," he said of the refugees. "We don't want them to go through another hell now that they're here." * * * * * * * T HE CAMBODIANS, LAOTIANS AND VIET NA- mese of the northwest Bronx account for only a handful of the 500,000 Indochinese refugees the State Department has resettled throughout the country since the fall of Saigon in 1975. As refugees have been placed across the far stretches of the continent, a labyrinthine bureaucracy, much of it created originally to accommodate Eastern European immigrants: has adapted itself in order to handle large government contracts for resettlement of the Asians. A handful of volags perform all the tasks of resettlement from connecting with refugees at camps along the Thai border to etting them up in housing here. The State Department monitors their activities until the refugees arrive in the United States. Then the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the federal Department of Health and Human Services takes over. With assistance from ORR, individual states devise refugee aid programs. For example, New York State's Refugee Assistance Program, through competitive bidding, contracts with pnvate agencies to provide a range of services for refugees including language classes and job training and placement. In New York City, the Human Resources Administration also plays a key role because most refugees immediately receive public assistance. Currently, there are Khmer-speaking and Viet name-speaking case workers assigned to deal only with refugee!>. As one federal bureaucrat put it, "No agency has overall responsibility for refugee resettlement. We all take a little piece of the action." Yet no one in that vast bureaucracy could be found who had ever visited any of the buildings where children became lead poisoned. The North Bronx is not the only area where refugees are be- ing decamped without regard to the health or safety of their shelter. In a report in the Village Voice last spring, Wayne Bar- rett described the conditions of several dozen refugee families - Haitians, Afghanis as well as Khmers - who had been plac- ed in equally squalid housing in Brooklyn's North Flatbush by some of the same relief agencies. The problem is citywide, and probably nationwide. For most refugees, the journey to the Bronx was long and hard. It began in flight from the murderous skirmishes be- tween Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge and the Vietnam-backed forces of Heng Samrin. Spouses, parents, siblings, and children died from disease or were killed during lengthy treks to Thai border camps. Rice fields were destroyed and food shipments con- fiscated. Near starvation was a way of life. The camps themselves, where hundreds of thousands waited for permission to resettle, were a nightmare world of death and disease. Khai I Dang. Mak Mun. Nong Samet. Sa Kaeo. The names evoke shudders in those who survived long waits in them. CITY LIMITS/December 1982 26 Shelters were tents, cartons, plastic lean-tos. Stoves were pits dug into the ground. Plumbing was non-existent. Dysentery, malaria and malnutrition were endemic. Given those conditions, AFCR's Sharon Bottrill may have been right when, speaking of 2316 and 2322 Andrews Avenue, she said, "This is heaven compared to what they're used to." But this 'heaven' is closer to a unique kind of hell: the landlord-created and officially-tolerated negligence which threatens the health and safety of thousands of poor New Yorkers. This is the 'heaven' the land of the free has offered. 0 Julia MacDonnell Chang is a freelance writer who lives in a tenant-owned building in the Bronx. The Lead Paint Epidemic Montefiore's Dr. John F. Rosen developed the hospital's outreach lead paint poison prevention project jn response to findings that the malady struck young children, even below the age of six and caused decreased intellectual functions and other irreparable damage. The project, which operates in ao area of the city where health department data show one of the lowest rates of lead poisoning,has tested 500 children in the past year and found 100 of them to be lead poisoned. Those alarming figures are emerging from the Northwest Bronx - not from what the city long ago pegged as its "lead belt" in central Brooklyn where lead poisoning cases reached over 1,000 in the past ten years compared to the Northwest Bronx's 249. What Rosen's outreach efforts have found in the neighborhood's aging apartment buildings is that lead paint poisoning is far more prevalent than most have chosen to believe. Next month, Oty Limits will describe what activities Montefiore's team has undertaken, and what local laws regarding lead paint hazards are-and are not-being en- forced. 0 :.t UJ UJ C. UJ 0;: :;) < ...J >- '" 5 :t L-________________________________ ~ ~ - - - - ~ - - - C. A LMOST THREE YEARS THE CITY WON the legal right in a landmark United States Supreme Court decision to build low income ho sing on a rubble-strewn lot in the controversial, unfinished 25-year-old West Side Ur- ban Renewal Area on Manhattan's Uper West Side, this bat- tleground still stands vacant. Plans fO(1 its development appear to be further away from execution than they were when the lawsuit to block it began 12 years ago. At the same time, the developer selected 17 years ago to build this 160-unit public housing co plex on this site which once was home to 200 squatters is rea y to go. "It's alive, but we can't get off first base," Max: ell Goldpin, head of development and acquisitions for the developer, Lefrak Organization, said recently. "But something will finally be done when the city feels enough press e." The general consensus among long-tlflle observers is that the legal battle was won - admirably an thoroughly - but the political one was never waged. Now they warn, it is perhaps too late, to begin an offensive on this front. Brought in 1971 by the fashionable, 273-year-old Episcopalian Trinity School, the laws 't charged that the con- struction of low income housing across the street from the school would "tip" the neighborhood or bring in an excessive number of socially undesirable tenanr and thereby set in mo- tion a process that would force middle land upper income peo- ple to flee from the community. It c0,Ptended that the city 27 had failed to deal with the environmental impact of the socio- economic class that was to inhabit the new building. Implicit in the suit was that low income people constitute an environmental hazard and that racial or class quotas are necessary to preserve a neighborhood. What it did not address was the displacement of some 9500 low income families to achieve this new urban mix. Although the city overcame the suit in court, it w,as a hollow victory. "You might say that the city wanted to appeal the case, to win a general point," said one observer "so that it could have the flexibility of building or not building low income housing if it wanted, but the chances of this ever happening are far less plausible than if the case had been won in 1972" when the political climate supporting low income housing was better. Site 30 For the past decade, Site 30, as the location for the housing is known, on , Columbus Avenue between West 90 and 91st Streets, has proved well situated for an enterprising Christmas tree entrepreneur, who for a few months each year does a flourishing business. This year promises to be'no as the urban renewal machinery lumbers along with no comple- tion date in sight. Many speculate that at best the memory and good intentions of the promised subsidized housing will be used as bargaining chips to insure a reasonable development plan for the remain- CITY LIMITS/December 1982 ing, undeveloPed sites. These include a number of lowrise, tenement buildings intersecting Columbus Avenue in the high West 80s, presently inhabited by low income famjlies who have fought to remain in their homes. This year marks the fifth anniversary of the founding of an organization, known as the United Tenants Association, whose membership includes many of these tenant families who banded to save their city-owned homes from demoli- tion and high-rise luxury construction. Some are related to the 214 squatter families who returned to the urban renewal area in 1970 after their.homes had been demolished and occupied Site 30 until 1972 when they extracted a promise from the city to build low iucome housing there. For some time, UTA has had plans to rehabilitate the buildings they now occupy as affordable, low-rent apartments. Although they thought these plans were guaranteed under and incorporated into the Fifth Amendment - the city's most re- cent addendum to the urban renewal plan -little has happen- ed except further deteriorati<;>n of their buildings. Developed by the local Community Board 7, the amendment outlines a general scope of work for completion of the nine remaining sites in the urban renewal area. 2,500 Units Approved by the Board of Estimate in November, 1979, this fifth amendment to the original 1962 renewal plan reaffirms an even earlier commitment to 2,500 units of low income housing. This does not, however, include Site 30 as the lawsuit was still pending when the specifications were drawn. It is also already out-of-date. A $1 million community management contract CITY LlMITSlDecember 1982 28 for the UTA buildings with the city called for by the plan never materialized. Ultimately, the Fifth Amendment was never approved by the federal government even after an extensive and thorough environmental impact study found it to be acceptable. Instead, the city opted to receive a final grant payment of $1,071,849 and sign a close-out agreement December 24, 1981. The original renewal plans atJirst called for 477 units of low income housing, then 800, and finally 2,500 after considerable negotiating during the early years. It also includes 4,200 middle income and 2,800 market rate apartments. According to available statistics, 1,070 units of public housing have been provided to date. In addition, a total of about 1,000 units under the Mitchell Lama and other government programs were built. 20-Square-Block Area Begun in 1958 under the Wagner administration, the West Side Urban Renewal Area comprises 2O-square-blocks bound- ed by West 87th and 97th Streets and Central Park West and Amsterdam Avenue. Prior to the adoption of the plan, some "" 20,000 people lived in a vital, economically and socially mixed neighborhood. Now, they fear, as development and gentrifica- tion increase,the pressure on the city has mounted to renege on ; promises to provide replacement low income housing in favor cc of the more profitable, market-rate, high-cost development.
:t: "I have been here since 1969, and before that 1 lived in other 0.. places around here, and now I am too tired to give up. 1 will not move," insisted Lucila Velez, president of UTA who lives in a six-and-one-half-room, low-rent, city-owned apartment at 103 West 88th Street. "The only thing we don't have is money," she asserted, as she recalled her struggle to stay on the Upper West Side. Velez added, "They don't . want us here now because we are poor people, but we are not going to the Bronx." According to Velez, her building is a one and could be put in good condition if the city would commit itself to an ongoing modest repair and maintenance program. The city has ! made an on-again, off-agajn proposal to use the federal Sec- tion 8 moderate rehabilitation program for the buildings. The program is a IS-year federal rent subsidy program under which each qualified or eligible tenant would pay no more than 30 percent of his/her income. In July, 1981; at a special, emergency meeting with city hous- ing officials the UTA tenants were told that the program had to be implemented immediately if the buildings were to be saved. Sixteen months later, after a majority of tenants, including the leadership of UTA, filled out the necessary forms the pro- gram has not been implemented, although the city is now mak- ing renewed efforts to fire it up. William Price, a 22-year resident of the urban renewal area and founding officer of UTA, said' 'Really, what they are talk- ing about is taking our apartments and rearranging the rooms - moving the bathtubs back into the kitchen." He also pointed out that "rearranging" would mean cutting apart- ments in half, leaving some as air-shaft residences, in order to fit the family size within the federal government's apartment- size requirements. Price,who has lived in a seven-room apart- ment at 61 West 87th Street since 1964, suggested that these I I plans might result in the forced relocation of a substantial number of families. Price advocates management of the buildings by the New York City Housing Authority, which, to date, has been reluctant to enter the picture. The UTA is currently looking into the feasibility of utilizing other city programs, including the Tenant In.terim Lease pro- gram, to maintain these buildings. CONTINUE One group that wields considerable political clout on the ur- ban renewal site is CONTINUE. Established in 1967, the Committee of Neighbors to Insure a Normal Environment is an organization of middle class homeowners and tenants, claiming membership of some 4,000 families. It maintains that the urban renewal area is already "saturated" with subsidized housing and that additional construction or rehabilitation of such housing under the Fifth Amendment plan would only serve to drive the middle class out of the area by "tipping" the ratio in favor of lower income families. Co-plaintiff with the Trinity School in the 1971 federal suit against Site 30, CONTINUE took the battle to the Supreme Court when Trinity dropped out. It also brought another lawsuit in State court in February, 1980, in which it contended that the "further impaction of additional low income families ... can only make the situation worse and will even- tually lead to cancelling out gains already accomplished by the expenditure of hundreds of million$ of public and private funds to upgrade the area. " In a recent newsletter, CONTINUE called on the city to relocate the current identifiable low income families residing in the urban renewal area, particularly those in the UTA buildings, in subsidized units in already existing housing, (for which there are very long waiting lists) or in market rate buildings planned for the future that are to include 20 percent low income units. The broadside said "[the tenants] should be informed that if they did not accept the new housing they would lose their rights to remain in the WSURA." According to Steven Kunreuther, co-chairman of the group, the UTA buildings should be torn do n or sold "as is" for at UTA building at 103 W. 88 SI. 29 least $35,000 an apartment, not rehabilitated as low income housing or sold to the tenants under the city's $250-a-unit, cooperative sales arrangement. Although his organization is still embroiled in three lawsuits against low income develop- ment in the area, Kunreuther has urged that both sides sit down at the "bargaining table and get this squatter movement behind us." CONTINUE's influence on city policy regarding UTA was evidenced by the freeze of the group's community manage- ment contract at the Board of Estimate,largely due to inaction by housing commissioner Anthony Gliedman. "They knew for years they would welch on this agreement," said one observer who witnessed the Board's failure to move on the contract fromt he inside. Outspoken critics of the city's handling of both the UTA contract and the tenants' current housing dilemma, as well as its refusal to reendorse the development of Site 3'0 as low in- come housing, have warned that these community sore spots could erupt in clashes further impeding the completion of this overwrought urban renewal area, which is already 12 years behind schedule. "It is my understanding from a few years ago that it is still under the jurisdiction of the Housing Authority and is designated for low income housing," said Councilwoman Ruth Messinger, Democrat-Liberal of Manhattan. "But we must move ahead with these other sites, particularly the UTA sites. We are trying to work closely with UTA" to insure an ar- rangement that is workable for them. In the meantime, Site 30 is still earmarked for 160 units of public housing with an annual federal allocation of $6 million. According to a Housing Authority spokesman, who hesitatingly confirmed his agency's sponsorship of the project, no development plans are imminent. "Yes, we still have it, but with today's inflation, what will $6 million buy? " he asked. Ironically, Lefrak, the designated developer, h ~ said it stands ready to accommodate any plans - low income or lux- ury - just by using the same model "subject to modifications." The developer is just waiting for the last political wind to blow across the still empty block. 0 CITY LIMITS/December 1982 By Gene Russianoff T HE INEQUITIES OF NEW YORK CITY'S PROP- erty tax system are notorious. A host of studies, including one by the New York University graduate School of Public Ad- ministration which was commissioned by the city itself, have found that homeowners in poorer and minority neighborhoods pay unfairly high property taxes. And the most recent state legislation affecting the system failed to provide in- centives to rectify such discrimination. Yet things may be look- ing up for homeowners in the city's less affluent communities, and their hope lies in a new way to appeal unfair tax assessments. After the 1981 legislative session's close, advocates 'of prop- erty tax in Albany saw little reason for hope. The major piece of property tax legislation passed during the session failed-to address the unfair status quo in municipalities like New York City. State legislators appeared to have ignored the NYU study's finding that the city's assessment system was' 'hideous- ly inequitable" and "a sign that we have a city government that doesn't work." Qverall, the prospects for property tax reform in 1982 were bleak . . But the following spring, the cit Finance Department em- barked orr a major program of assessment reform, Between FeBruary and May of this year, the finance agency lowered assessments on 50,000 one- and two-family homes. Property tax bills for those homes fell an average of $188, and most reductions occurred in the low and moderate income neigh- borhoods which have been the victims of residential over- assessment. According to Finance Department Commissioner Philip Michael, the agency lowered more home assessments in CITY LIMITS/December 1982 30 Unequal Neighbors Gain a PoW'erful Tool 1982 than it had in the previous 20 years combined. What caused the turn-around? A little known bill signed in- to law in 1981 with little fanfare. It has become a powerful tool for residential assessment reform in the city. No-Lose Proposition The bill, sponsored by state Assembly member Daniel Feldman, Democrat of Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, and state Senator John Flynn, Republican of the north Bronx, created a new kind of small claims court in which homeowners could challenge their property tax assessments. For a $25 fee, homeowners can appeal Tax Commission decisons to an in- dependent hearing officer appointed by the state Office of Court Administration. If successful, the homeowner can have his or her fee refunded. The .court is also a no-lose proposition fqr homeowners. State law prohibits the Tax Commission or small claims court from raising an assessment. The small claims assessment court revolutionized the rules of the property tax assessment game by providing a remedy for the individual inequities facing tens of thousands of homeowners. The choice it posed for city officials was clear: either move to reform unfair residential assessments or face a tidal wave of individual challenges. Past Challenges Rejected In the past, the city had nothing to fear from homeowners who challenged their taxes. Their grievances were heard by the New York City Tax Commission, whose seveR commissioners , . are appointed by the mayor. Over the years, the Commission's purpose became to turn down homeowner chal1enges whole- sale. In 1981, for example, the commissioners "reviewed" grievances by some 5,000 homeowners and rejected out of hand all but 1,062 of these. Most of the few "winners" were given tiny reductions; substantial relief was limited to a very small number of homeowners whose properties had suffered major structural damage. The Commission simply did not want to hear about assessment inequality. Homeowners spurned by the Commission had little recourse. For a legal appeal to the State Supreme Court, a homeowner needed an attorney, and even if he or she could find one, the high cost and slow pace of justice made the right of appeal an illusory one. So the word spread throughout the city's working class communities: it was a waste of time to challenge your property taxes. The roadblock to a fair hearing was in itself one of the major reasons why the city's property tax system was so poorly ad- ministered. Since the city felt no heat from any independent administrative or judicial body, it could thumb its nose at homeowners with legitimate assessment grievances. Indeed, invoking a classic Catch-22, the city often pointed to the lack of homeowner appeals as "evidence' l of how basically fair property taxes were. Furious City Campaign The small claims court law has changed that, providing homeowners with an impartial appeals process. But earlier this year, realizing the potential impact of that process, the city 31 or her property tax .. for doing so: ... tent C)1l your last tax bill. It year if you have not receiv- Manv homeowners mCSSlmeDts because their' property tax to their bank. fotmd by calling the borough offices Bureau: the Bronx, Manhattan, 566-3400; Qut ... Island, 390-5295. as follOWS; Your estlmate of your home's full yOllir of assessment. 3. The of assessment for one-, two- and in New York City is about 18 percent. If your ofUle$$Jllent is higher. you have grounds for 0Qr' assessment on the basis of inequali- tY. .. MWouJd save on your tax biII if you wete :common levelas follows: A. home's fuU market value muidPliedl}yt8Percent eqUQIs Figure A. The current propertytUfakis SS.9S per $100 of assessed value. B. Amldtiplled by .0895 equals Figure B. This figure is What)'9Uftax bill would be if your assessment were at lite common level. C. nus . ,-'s taX bill minus Figure B equals ings on if yOU assessed at the common .level.' . Y)'OUt __ -btsed on comparable pro- ........ ' ..... wfIkh have receatly been sold-is " tile eun'elIt market. Eighteen percent of tUt VWtJs $9.-. 1lIat's the amount you are sup- PQ!8ed. ....... At 95 per one hundred ...... _ ....... $886.OS; But last year the dty _,. .... _ St,400. The $513.95 difference is what ,.. be time to cbalJenge your hIx. 4. If dle is unequal, a challenge can be filed with dltNew . 'I TuCommission at the borough ' OffJtesbetween January}5 and
S. If the. tax Qmu:nission decision is unfavorable, it can be appealed to the new SmaI1 Oaims Assessment Review Court in .. June. OR the appeals process, write for Challenging Proper- Quide,NYPIRC, CITY LIMITS/December 1982 mounted a furious campaign to get the law repealed or postponed. In January, 1982, Mayor Ed Koch met with state Assembly Speaker Stanley Fink, Democrat of Canarsie, and state Senate Majority Leader Warren Anderson, Republican of Bingham- ton, and urged the exemption of New York City from the small claims legislation. They turned him down . . Finance Commissioner Michael then met with the bill's sponsors to obtain a delay in the law. Michael told the New York Times: "The purpose of the law is laudable, but it would be an administrative nightmare" because as many as 200,000 overassessed homeowners CQuid go to court seeking reductions that could cost the city $70 million. Again the legislators refus- ed to alter the law, leaving the city with no choice but to avoid the "administrative nightmare" by lowering assessments on its own. The New Lots Experience The idea for the new small claims appeal process emerged largely from the experience of one neighborhood - New Lots, Brooklyn. That community's struggle to achieve property tax justice both before and after the new law's implementation il- lustrates why the law was needed and how a community has made It work. Three years ago, Mary Ann Johnson filed a challenge to the $1,800 yearly property tax bill on her Pine Street two-family home. She felt the $20,000 assessment on her home was out of line with assessments on more expensive homes in more af- fluent areas. In fact, had Johnson's home been assessed at the citywide average (about 18 percent of market value), her assessment and tax bill would have been cut by half. In 1980, the Tax Commission told Johnson she was "crazy" to challenge the assessment and rejected her case. She came back to the Commission in 1981 with 32 neighbors, but lost again. Tax Commissioner Sanford Razales told Johnson and her neighbors - and the Daily News - that it was the' 'Com- mission's policy that it is proper to assess home at a rate be- tween 30 and 40 percent" of market value. But this year, following passage of the small claims law, the story was different. The Finance Department's tentative assessment roll, issued in February, lowered the assessments for Johnson and her neighbors by $5,000 each, resulting in $450 annual tax bill reductions. Johnson and 150 of her New Lots neighbors filed challenges with the Tax Commission and received an additional $100 per year off their tax bills. And 16 local homeowners who felt their homes were still overassessed sued in the new small 'claims courts. Faced with an independent hearing officer, city officials finally admitted that a correct assessment was 20 percent of market value. All the home- owners won additional reductions, as well as refunds of their $25 filing fees. In the wake of these reductions and continued community demands, Finance Commissioner Michael further lowered assessments in homes throughout the New Lots neighborhood. When the dust had settled, over 1,000 homes had received a total of $3.8 million in assessment reductions. New Lots had fought City Hall and won $350,000 a year in property tax relief. CITY LIMITS/December 1982 32 City Officials Conflict Over Small Claims Option TWo CITY OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR ..I. property tax assessments disagree about the extent of property tax inequality and the effect of the new small claims court review procedure on assessments. Pluup Michael, the city's Finance Commissioner, whose agency sets the tentative assessments in the first stage of the taxing process, attributes recent in the tax system to the Finance Department's own ac- tivities. "Last year the Finance Department decreased the assessments of 50,000 properties and increased assessments for an additional 100,000 properties," Michael stated. "We announced our plans for these reassessments six months before the small claims court bill was adopted!' This year the Finance department in- tends to adjust the assessments of more chan 200,000 small properties, Michael said. Michael denied that the new small claims court has had any impact. "Only 70 properties out of 200,000 bothered to ask for small claims relief," he asserted. "This dicates the fundamental fairness of the assessments." Betty Mann, president of the Tax Commission, the ap- peals body which reviews property assessments, had a dif- ferent view. "You take practices that are 100 years old and apply them to 650,000 one-, two-, and three-family homes, which vary widely in value. You have only 150 assessors; some neighborhoods are deteriorating and the new tax system can't keep up," said Mann. She added that the small claims court review has had an impact on the Tax Commission's work because ac- curate commission decisions save the city money. Proper- ty tax rates depend on the tax roll fInalized by the com- mission. Mann explained; if total assessment value decreases as a result of Tax Commission cmallenges, the tax rate is adjusted so that the same amount of revenue can be generated. Assessments successfully appealed through the small claims court are lowered after the roll is finalized and the tax rate set; and this, Mann noted, results in a loss of tax revenue. Mann also said that assessments have been fairer this year and attributed the improvement in part to the new state law which creates a separate tax category for one-three-family homes. As a result of the legislation, Mann said. the Tax Commission is no longer required to review the assessments of small properties by applying the same high 'ratio of assessment to market value that is ap- plicable to commercial property and multiple dwellings.DP.J. Krsl. Discrimination Remains The success of the New Lots residents and others around the city this year does not spell the end of discriminatory residen- tial assessment problems. Many homes in lower income and minority communities remain highly overassessed. A study released by the New York Public Interest Research Group in October documented that over 203,000 one- and two-family homes were significantly overassessed. The report, "City of Unequal Neighbors," also found that many of the 50,000 homes that did receive reductions in 1982 still remained overassessed. The study concluded that the 20 New York City communities most in need of reassessment were: Lavonia and Pelham Parkway in the Bronx; Brigh on Beach, Sunset Park, Crown Heights, Canarsie, Remsen Village, Highland Park, Lefferts Gardens, Ocean Hill and Bushwic!c in Brooklyn; Bayswater, Far Rockaway, Springfield Gardens North and South and St. Albans in Queens; and Graniteville, Stapleton, Mariner's Harbor and Port Richmond in Staten Island. The 1982 New Lots experience was unique'. Few neighbor- hoods had been involved in a year running battle with the city over assessments. Few homeowners had the experience and property tax awareness of the New Lots residents, and none had ever tasted victory. As a result, "only" 75 small claims cases were heard in 1982. The statistic is not so surpris- ing when one considers the newness of the law and the tradi- tional absolute futility of challenging assessments before the Tax Commission. Whether homeowners in other overassessed communities will receive tax justice in 1983 largely upon the mayor's and finance commissioner's commitment to con- tinued property tax reform. A preliminary answer will take shape when the Finance Department issues its tentative assess- ment roll on January 15, 1983. In the past, the city's assessment mil would have been the final answer, but the rules have been changed for good. If overassessed homeowners aren't given a fair shake by the city this year, they will be able to go and get it. And that is exactly what residents in organized communities from Far Rockaway, Queens to Pon Richmond, Staten are preparing to do. D Gene Russianoff is an attorney who Iworks on property tax issues with the New York Public Research Group. 33 REMEMBER FOR typesetting, design layout and camera work Advance Graphic & Printing Services (212) 852-7142 58 Third Ave. Brooklyn IS YOUR INSURANCE > TOO EXPENSIVE? Let us evaluate your insurance program to see if you are getting the most for your dollars. '''Specializing in lYon-Profit and Community Organizations'" Contact: Paul Sourifman (212) 684-4770 CITY LIMITS/December 1982 Judge Voids City Rent Hikes Tenants of city-owned buildings no longer 'a class apart' Tenants protest city rent hikes at Federal Court March 5, 1982. Tenal'\ts suffering under the crunch of the city housing department's hefty rent hikes in city-owned buildings won a big battle in October in New York State Supreme Court. Judge Sheldon S. Levy, in an unprect,dented decision, ruled Oc- tober 11 that rent increases imposed by the city's Department of Housing Preser- vation and Development in four Bronx buildings were illegal and made a mock- ery of tenants' due process rights. If the decision stands, tenants in all city-owned buildings, regardless of program, will be the winners. The four buildings in question - 1171, 1175, 1179, and 1186 Clay Avenue - were enrolled in the city's alternative management program and were hit, effective February, 1982, with rent in- creases ranging from 50 to over 200 per- cent. Some tenants sought help from Bronx Legal Services and the Union of CITY LIMITS/December 1982 City Tenants, a tenants group that in January, 1982, had gone into Federal Court to seek an injunction against rent increases in four other city-owned buildings. That case led in May, 1982, to a decision by Judge Milton Pollack which asserted that HPD had complied with the tenants' due process rights. In contrast to the Federal court's deci- sion, State Court Judge Levy's opinion fully supported the tenants' contention that their state constitutional rights had been abrogated. HPD had argued that in rem tenants - tenants in tax-foreclosed, city-owned properties - should be con- sidered as a class apart, immune from the protections afforded tenants in public and private housing throughout the state. Taking account of the city's contention that increases are needed to return the buildings to the tax rolls, Levy argued that temporary city ownership provided 34 By Tom Gogan and Dave Robinson no legal foundation for treating in rem tenants differently from other tenants with regard to their due process rights and protections. Stressing the' 'basic right of shelter for all human beings," Levy wrote, "There is no reason in law, logic or practicality why in rem tenants should be treated dif- ferently from their public or private counterparts in this vital regard." Rapid rent increases are a central com- ponent in the city's strategy of temporary management and eventual sale back to the private sector. So-called "market" rents will supposedly ensure the build- ings'return to profitability, or in HPD's vocabulary, "economic self-sufficiency." In "viable" neighborhoods, the city will couple some repairs and rehabilitation with the rent increases. But HPD's developing tactics of triage, test cases point out, just as readily will tie rent increases to practically no mainten- ance at all, thereby accelerating the pro- cess of enforced abandonment in buildings and neighborhoods the city no longer deems worth saving - at least for the current inhabitants who are invariably black, Hispanic, and poor. One remarkable aspect of the Levy decision in today's conservative at- mosphere of Reaganomics and Right- leaning jurisprudence, is this judge's firm grasp of the process which has led to the current "in rem crisis." Levy wrote, "The intrusive institution of in rem land- lordship ... must still be administered by the city with circumspection, with com- mon sense and with due care and con- sideration for the basic constitutional, statutory and human rights of the tenants involved. This is particularly so, since such tenants, through no fault of their own, have frequently become victims of greedy and rapacious former landlords who have 'milked' and then abandoned both buildings and tenants." In short, Levy contends that "decent affordable housing" is a goal of some relevance that is guaranteed by law under the state constitution and the city charter.
The fight against HPD's rent increases has been brewing for a long time. Back in the spring of 1979, a broad coalition of tenants and grassroots activists had fought against passage in City Council of Intro. 594, the Koch administration's bill that gave HPD full authority to raise rents in city-owned buildings. The key here was the bill's elimination of rent con- trol and rent stabilization protection for in rem tenants. Passions ran so high against this bill that nearly 200 tenant activists jammed the Council balcony, forcing City Council President Carol Bellamy to call the tac- ti.cal police to restore order. This resulted in some minor injuries and one arrest. But the Council ignored the unanimous citi- zens' mandate and gave the mayor what he wanted. It remained for Judge Levy to begin to undo the damage. Although the city did not begin to implement across-the-board increases un- til two years later, it was poised to do so and quietly did begin raising rents in its alternative management buildings where the logic of "economic self-sufficiency" was less likely to be questioned . The dam finally broke in October, 1981. All the "Management in Partner- ship" program buildings, plus the new batches of in rem properties vested in the Bronx, were subjected to substantial in- creases by November and December, 1981. Even now the exact number of af- fected tenants is unavailable to all but HPD's inner circles. As for the buildings in the Bronx in central management alone, one HPD source claims that "only" 981 tenants have had to pay substantial rent increases.
There are countless examples to illus- trate the points argued in this landmark case, but the bottom line still remains the city's failure to resolve the conflict in- herent in its housing policy. With median incomes of $6,800 per year, most tenants in city-owned buildings are simply unable to pay rents high enough to make the buildings truly self-sufficient, much less profitable to the private sector. Even low income, cooperative, nonprofit housing, never the city's top priority, fails to ad- dress the contradiction of descending real incomes versus ever-rising operating costs. In a for-profit world, the choices are limited. The city will continue pushing tenants-around and forcing people out; its "consolidation" program, whereby buildings are actively emptied, will mor-e and more dominate its policy toward in rem housing; the "planned shrinkage" and outright destruction of low income, mostly black and Hispanic communities will continue apace. Judge Levy's decision could pave the way for in rem tenants to counterattack HPD. It certainly, in the judge's own words, elevates the tenant with the city as landlord to full status under the law. As City Limits went to press, Judge Levy had not delivered his order for im- plementing his decision, but tenant ad- vocates are hopeful that it will reflect the same strong language as his decision. 0 Tom Gogan and Dave Robinson are te- nant organizers and active in the Union of City Tenants. The union can be reached at 947-0001. ". ; . . ;.:-:: Think how much cheaper it would be if all the people, like yourself, got together and bought oil by the millions of gallons Well, it's already happening. BUY FUEL CHEAPLY, QUICKLY AND RELIABLY We have been serving over 200 buildings for three years NO MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS OR FEES Call 239-9410 for latest prices for #2, #4 and #6 oil A N H D THE ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING DEVELOPERS 424 West 33rd Street New York, N.Y. 10001 ...... . .. . . .. This Year, Give New York's ... ." <:> ... c:). .. . .. . c:) 0 . ~ . .. ~ C) .. DI <0 C 01 rn Neighborhoods for the Holidays . . ' _ Give a subscription to City Umits at the special , iow holiday rate of 33% off the regular price. " Save 44% on each additional gift subscription . + To take advantage of this special offer, return the gift envelope inside the magazine before it' s too late. Your friends will receive the very next issue.