Gotham Gazette
Gotham Gazette Web
Baruch School of Public Affairs
- SERVING CHELSEA-CLINTON, GREENWICH VILLAGE, FLATIRON, MIDTOWN AND SOHO -

Major Issues for District 3




Building Football Stadiums and Convention Centers

April 29, 2005

The Jets want to build a football stadium and convention center for the West Side of Manhattan. This chart compares the project to similar stadiums built recently in other American cities. (Read More...)



AIDS Over Fifty

March 25, 2005

by Sarah Stuteville

When Albert Derry was diagnosed with HIV, he didn’t imagine he would survive the year. The year was 1986. Derry now, 59, thinks he will live until 75, or about the average lifespan of a male in the United States.

“I didn’t really expect to live this long,” says Derry, as he sits in a backroom of Village Care, a non-profit organization located on W. 20th street which seeks to help New Yorkers living with AIDS through day treatment programs, “I never had a long term plan, once I was diagnosed, I thought ‘this is it, I’m going to die,’ because that was all I was seeing, people getting sick and dying.”

But AIDS has changed dramatically over the past ten years. Where once it was considered a death sentence, now with the help of anti-retral virals, people infected with HIV/AIDS are living longer, many into their fifties and sixties. According to ACRIA (The AIDS Community Research Initiative of America) 28 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS in New York City are over fifty and 67 percent over forty, which means they will be entering older age in the next decade.

This emerging demographic is raising new issues within the Gay and AIDS activist community and encouraging new research into the medical, psychological, sexual education needs facing older people living with the disease.

Derry says that he and many people he knows over fifty who are HIV positive often experience medical problems such as severe arthritis, neuropathy, liver and digestion problems. He is unsure whether these ailments are a result of old age, AIDS, or the drugs he has been taking to control the disease.

It is commonly accepted that general physical deterioration associated with aging such as diabetes, arthritis and heart problems can be intensified by HIV/AIDS infection, leaving older infected people with lots of pain and complicated medical problems. In addition, most AIDS drugs have only been tested on younger people; the potential side effects or effectiveness of certain treatments for older people are unknown. Whether long-term drug cocktail use may cause secondary health problems is another issue that has not yet been studied.

The psychological effect associated with growing old with AIDS is another issue that organizations are paying particular attention to. Researchers say that older infected people may be suffering from array of emotional issues ranging from depression and social isolation, to survivors guilt, post traumatic stress syndrome, and even a sense of anxiety provoked from realizing for the first time that they may live into old age.

“I only started thinking of life as something that wasn’t going to end tomorrow through a lot of psychotherapy,” says Derry. He attends workshops, lectures, treatment, and therapy sessions at Village Care about two to three times a week.

“When people began to live longer, other issues beyond survival began to emerge. Psychological issues, issues about medication and treatment, and general ‘how do I negotiate the day?’ issues,” says Arthur Webb, President and CEO of Village Care, who believes that helping older people with AIDS confront these issues is an important goal of the program, especially since they may be less prepared to enter old age and less likely to have traditional familial support systems,

Sex education and prevention models for older adults with, or at risk for, HIV/AIDS infection present another new hurdle for many organizations and sex educators who are trying to establish an age sensitive approach. This topic is particularly urgent at a time when new disturbing information has indicated that AIDS/HIV infection rates among seniors is on the rise.

“When we think AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, we don’t think of people over fifty,” says Arlene Kochman a research associate with the Yale Research Project, “We tend to neglect the aging in our society anyway so it makes sense that we wouldn’t be considering the aging infected population either.”

As AIDS among the elderly is presenting a new challenge, the medical establishment, sex educators, and non-profit community programs like Village Care are beginning to explore the specific issues and needs of this emerging demographic.

The response is still in its infancy. A handful of recent and ongoing studies are just now beginning to investigate the problems and concerns of older infected people.

“We know we’re on the right track,” says Kochman, “It’s great that these people are living longer, but now the issue has to be resolved as to whether or not they can live better.”



Against the Tide, Crime Continues Rising in Chelsea

February 25, 2005

By Zubin Soleimany

As crime rates keep falling all over the city, why does it keep rising in one of the city’s most rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods? In the 10th precinct, which covers all of Chelsea west of Seventh Avenue, no one seems to have a straight answer.

According to the NYPD’s year-end report, crime in the 10th precinct rose 2.6 percent in 2004. While that number may seem small, only six of the city’s 76 precincts posted any increases in criminal complaints. Moreover, the small increase comes on top of a huge two-year spike in crime in the precinct. During a three-year period starting in 2001, crime fell 14% percent citywide, but rose 55 percent in the 10th precinct.

While criminal activity here is still relatively low, with about a third as many crimes committed annually as the worse precincts, the 10th still posts the highest increase of any for the last few years.

The numbers proved embarrassing enough for the precinct’s former commanding officer to falsify statistics. In June 2003, Captain Dominic Gentile was found to have deflated precinct crime rates by twenty percent after recording a quarter of the precinct’s felonies as misdemeanors in 2002.

Citywide, grand larceny was the only category of serious crime that rose last year, at 2.2 percent, with cases in the 10th precinct counting for 10.8 percent of the citywide increase. Grand larceny covers any theft worth $1,000 or more not involving force or breaking and entering. The 789 complaints of grand larceny in the 10th accounted for over half of the precinct’s serious criminal complaints in 2004, rising 76.5 percent since 2001.

Police officers at the 10th precinct referred all questions to the Deputy Commissioner of Public Information’s office. Lieutenant Eugene Whyte credits the rising crime to the neighborhood’s population boom and the continued growth of nightlife in Chelsea “There has been incredible growth in this area; where there are more people, you’re going to have more crime,” Whyte said.

According to Whyte, unattended property in clubs, such as purses containing credit cards and cash accounts for much of the precinct’s grand larceny complaints. To combat unattended item larceny, Whyte says the police will deploy plainclothes police and decoys of unattended handbags and laptop computers in Chelsea and all over the city to keep watch in higher risk areas like coffee shops and clubs.

But not all crimes in Chelsea are purse-snatchings. Six people were murdered in the precinct in 2004, up from one in 2003, while felony assault rose 7 percent last year and 69.6 percent over the last two years. In fact, all categories of criminal complaints show increases since 2001.

Steven Spyro, a longtime resident of Chelsea and the owner of Rainbows & Triangles, a gay boutique on Eighth Avenue, ventured that most of the precinct’s crimes were committed in the less gentrified part of the precinct west of Ninth Avenue. “Right now there are two Chelseas: everything around here and then all of the losers in the projects and that area, and you’ll never be able to gentrify the projects.”

The statistics present more of a mixed picture. While crime actually fell 32.6 percent last year in the precinct’s two public housing projects, it rose 28 percent since 2001.

Jimmy Pelsey, head of the tenant’s organization at the Robert Fulton Homes housing project doesn’t believe that crime in the precinct’s projects has declined. Pelsey believes that cops haven’t been recording all of the crimes: “The cops are just trying to make themselves look good; we have people making calls and the cops just don’t show up.”

Pelsey believes that the addition of several nightclubs around the projects has only added made things worse in west Chelsea, where the combination of the nightlife and the unemployed of the Fulton homes have made a dangerous mix.

Neighborhood thugs follow clubgoers as they leave and, Pelsey believes, the growth of nightlife has reinvigorated drug dealing in the neighborhood and its projects. Clubgoers, says Pelsey, “are just a whole new bag of candy for [neighborhood criminals].”

“I don’t blame the club owners, they’re just doing their business. The cops need to come down, get out of their cars for once and patrol around the projects and these clubs.”

David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association and owner of The Union Bar and Lotus, echoes Pelsey’s sentiments. Rabin and other owners have been pushing for the ability to hire Paid Detail Units, groups off-duty NYPD officers that provide additional security for businesses. While Paid Detail Units have worked outside large concerts and sporting events since 1998, the NYPD prohibits them from working inside or outside of establishments selling alcohol.

Councilmember Christine Quinn, who serves Chelsea, has co-sponsored the Quiet Neighborhood Act, which would allow bars and nightclubs to hire Paid Detail Units. The City Council’s Public Safety Committee is expected to vote on the legislation in May.

“We believe that the police should increase their presence around clubs of their own volition, but if they don’t, we’re willing to pay for it.” said Rabin.





West Side Stadium and Convention Center

November 12, 2004

email this article

WHAT SHOULD BE BUILT ON MANHATTAN'S WEST SIDE?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has outlined an ambitious plan for redeveloping the 360-acre area in Manhattan west of Eighth Avenue from 30th to 42nd Streets, which he calls the Hudson Yards plan.

The $2.8 billion development proposal would nearly double the size of the Jacob Javits Convention Center and include a 75,000-seat stadium for the New York Jets. Officials said the expanded convention center and new stadium as well as office buildings and residential high-rises would help create more than 15,000 jobs for the city and provide more than 500,000 days of additional hotel stays per year.

One of the big questions, however, is how the city will pay for all of this.

The stadium would be financed with $600 million from the city and state, which would pay for the retractable roof and the platform over the rail yards. The Javits Center expansion would be financed by $600 million from the city and the state, and $500 million from a $1.50-per-night hotel tax. The extension of the number 7-subway line from Times Square to the far west side would cost about $2 billion.

And there are concerns from local residents, who fear they will be pushed out of the neighborhood.

The plan still needs approval from the New York State Legislature. The City Planning Commission is set to vote on the proposal in November and the City Council will consider it in January 2005.

YES: Time to Develop the West Side - David Weprin
NO: Stop the Stadium - Christine Quinn
LEARN MORE: Related Links





TIME TO DEVELOP THE WEST SIDE

By David Weprin



Post your views on West Side development

I believe the plan to develop the West Side of Manhattan, to expand the Jacob Javits Convention Center, and to build a stadium for the New York Jets works economically.

A Good Investment
We are starting with a private investment of $800 million from the New York Jets, which is unprecedented in any stadium financing deal ever done anywhere in the country. The largest investment before this was about $200 million, when the city of Chicago renovated Soldiers Field.

We are not, as opposition groups would like people to think, taking away money from things such as salaries for police, firefighter, and teachers. We are talking about a capital project, which will be financed by 30-year, long-term bonds. The numbers I have seen on the $300 million invested by the city and $300 million invested by the state show that the debt service will be paid off with $40 million a year. Even the most conservative estimates show that the return will be $50 million a year and some estimate up to $70 million a year. On strict economic terms, this is a good investment.

Creating Jobs
The project will create approximately 18,000 jobs and new economic activity in the area. There will be construction jobs as well. We are talking about two new hotels on the site, restaurants, and a major investment in one of the last underdeveloped areas in Manhattan.

A New Convention Center
The project will also double the size of the Jacob Javits Convention Center, which will make us more competitive with other convention centers across the country. We are not competitive right now. When the Javits center first opened 20 years ago, New York was in the top five convention sites. Now, we are about 18th or 19th, because we don"t have a large room to accommodate 30,000 to 50,000 people. With the stadium, which will have a retractable dome, we will be able to accommodate up to 70,000 people.

Sports and other Events
The new stadium will allow New York to attract Super Bowl games, NCAA finals and other sporting events, as well as concerts that will bring in additional revenue to the city. This is not even considering the 2012 Olympics. The city may be a long shot, but you have to look toward the future for the city. And this is a great opportunity to bring the Jets back to New York from New Jersey.

The Future of the City
This is one of the last underdeveloped areas of Manhattan. People have been talking about developing this area for the last 30 years and nothing has happened. Any project in that area would require that a platform be built over the rail yards and infrastructure. That is what we are paying for. The $600 million from the state and city would go to pay for that platform as well as the dome so the stadium could be used for conventions.

The economic development committee of the City Council held two public hearings on this project. They reminded me of bad weddings, where you have a bride"s side and groom"s side and no one gets along. At these hearings, on one side we had the labor unions and the supporters of the project and on the other side were mostly West Side residents, who were against it. But those same residents have indicated that they would probably oppose any development of the area because they are worried about traffic and congestion. People may live near the site, but few actually live in that neighborhood.

We have to look ahead for the future of New York City. This is an opportunity to leverage private investment to create jobs and economic growth.

David Weprin represents the district 23 and is the chair of the City Council's finance committee.





STOP THE STADIUM

By Christine Quinn



Post your views on West Side development

I represent the area that is being rezoned and targeted for the stadium. Neither myself nor the other elected officials nor the community board members nor neighborhood residents are opposed to this stadium in a major "anti-development way."

Those of us on the West Side feel strongly - we don't necessarily call it a wasteland, a word that has been used - that it is an area that is in need of rezoning. We don't agree that only a couple of hundred people live there - in fact, according to the census, there are 21,000 people who live in the 50-square block area that would be rezoned - but we do agree that the area should be rebuilt and upzoned. And we do believe that the heart of that rezoning and up-building should be an expansion of the Jacob Javits Convention Center.

Not the Right Plan for Conventions
We wish this plan was more squarely focused on the Javits center and its expansion into a model that would truly bring convention business to the city without being attached to the stadium.

It's true that the city of New York is woefully far behind as it relates to bringing conventions to the city, but if you look at the 18 cities that beat us, so to speak, only one of those has a model where the convention center flows into a stadium and another one has a stadium across the street. So, only two of the 18 have a model like the one that we're proposing here. The other 16 do not but nonetheless beat us. I think that and other facts show that this is not the model one has to have to truly be competitive in the 21st century convention business.

The Most Expensive Stadium Ever Built As for the Jets stadium to be built on the Hudson Rail Yard, which has been put forth by the Bloomberg administration. I and many others have deep concerns about the financing plan, in particular, the amount of public money that is going to go into this plan. The Jets stadium I think will be the most expensive stadium we've seen built. It's going to cost in the end $1.4 billion. The city will pick up $300 million of that and the state another $300 million. We hear a lot in the economic analysis, in the economic justification of this stadium, that the money that is spent will be made up by increased revenue, increased tax dollars.

I don't think that is actually true for a couple of reasons. I am troubled by the fact that the environmental impact statement and most of the economic discussion about the stadium is based on an Ernst & Young statement, and nothing against Ernst & Young, but they were hired to do that study by the New York Jets. That does not make them an independent voice in this process - it makes them an equal voice, not an independent voice. I don't know of any time before - certainly it's not frequent in the municipal government - that projects, particularly massive projects like this, are debated and deliberated based on an analysis that was done by one of the parties with a major interest at hand.

It would have been as if myself or Community Board 4 had commissioned the people to do an economic analysis. I think the Jets would be right to say, "You're going to go by their numbers? They're against this, they said they're against this, they hate this. Why would you go by their numbers?"

I think we're right to say, "The Jets! They're for this -- they want this. They're going to make a lot of money, why should we go by their numbers?" I am very troubled by that.

False Promises
I am also troubled by the fact that if you look at the analysis that is put out by the city of how much tax money will come in, they're based on some fairly flawed ideas. When the deputy mayor testified at the City Council, there was discussion about the stadium bringing in many events to the city -- the Super bowl, the Final Four, other major sporting events. In that analysis, there was some projection that we would get those types of events in some cases every five years.

Later on in our hearing, sports and convention financial experts came forward and said that those numbers are the most optimistic numbers they have ever seen for any convention center. In fact, it is their experience that the National Football League and other leagues do not go to cities more than once a decade. And that for a city to get that much business out of it is just impossible to imagine given these experts' knowledge of sports scheduling. Also, many of the events, which are projected to happen at the stadium, are events that require pressure from a home team. As far as we know, besides the Jets, there aren't going to be any other home teams of other leagues. Maybe there will be and maybe that will change the economics, but maybe there won't be, in which case things will come in a great deal shorter than is being anticipated.

Not Enough Debate
The thing that's perhaps most troubling about this plan is the degree by which it's moving forward out of the public domain and public debate. The movement of the $300 million of city and state money -- neither will be voted on by the City Council or State Legislature. Such a massive project -- whether you are for or against it -- needs to have more opportunity for public debate, public modification and moments where elected officials can weigh in and convey the opinions of their constituents by voting yea or nay.

Christine Quinn represents City Council district 3 on the West Side of Manhattan.





These articles were adapted from public statements or interviews with the City Council members.

RELATED LINKS:
Debating Jobs and Economic Development (Gotham Gazette)
Community Gazette for District 3: Gotham Gazette's Interactive Web page for West Side of Manhattan
Official City Plan for Redeveloping West Side
Citizens Union Foundation Forum on West Side Plan
Web sites of groups in favor and opposed to plan, (Gotham Gazette)
Bringing the Jets Home (Gotham Gazette)
Another Sad West Side Story (Gotham Gazette)
Regional Planning Association Reports on plan
Citizens Union Analysis of West Side Plan (in pdf format)
• Independent Budget Office Report: "West Side Stadium: Touchdown for the City?"
• Independent Budget Office Report: "Estimating the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the New York Sports and Convention Center"
Westsidestadium.com
Association for Better Choices: Group Opposed to West Side plan
West Side CoalitionKPF: Architecture firm that is designing the West Side Stadium





Greenwich Village: The Neighborhood That Never Sleeps

July 9, 2004

By Gautam Hans

On a recent afternoon in Washington Square Park, a young man dressed in white robes and carrying a cornet stepped into the water-filled fountain in the middle of the park. He promptly began bathing himself while belting off-key music through his instrument.

Most people walking through the park gave a quick glance and then continued on their way, accustomed to or at least uninterested in such sights.

As the birthplace of social and literary movements, home to thousands of New York University students as well as artists, musicians, and soul-searchers, and a prime destination for nightlife, Greenwich Village is one of the liveliest places in New York City - and also one of the noisiest.

In many ways, the business and residents in area thrive on the eclectic culture. But those who live in the area don't always appreciate the neighborhood's boisterous reputation.

Noise, according to Arthur Strickler of community board 2, is the number one complaint. So when Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently proposed an overhaul of the city's noise code, many in the area welcomed the measures.

"Any legislation that reduces noise, we support," said Strickler. "We tell residents to report incidents to the police or another appropriate agency, but legislation would make a great impact on the situation."

Mayor Bloomberg seems to have drafted his noise plan with neighborhoods like Greenwich Village in mind. He met with the New York Nightlife Association, a group that supports the plan, and gave bars and music venues who are first time noise offenders an option to use the money they would have paid in fines to try to fix noise problems by installing soundproofing.

"We want to encourage a vibrant nightlife that makes New York the fun and exciting city it is," the mayor said. "But even in the city that never sleeps, we all need some rest now and then."

While the mayor's plan sounds good in theory, some area bartenders and restaurant managers said say legislating lower noise levels will be very difficult, much more difficult than the ban on smoking that the mayor instituted over a year ago.

Noise, they say, is part of living in the area.

"I think that if you're going to live in New York City you should realize that it's not going to be like Kansas," said Mary Anne Sayre of Presto Pasta Grille. "It's going to be loud, especially in a place like the Village."

And while bars and nightclubs and their patrons may get much of the attention for causing a racket, there are plenty of other sources of noise.

On recent day, the source of noise that turned the most heads was not a bar or a drunk, but a red New York Sightseeing tour bus, whose guide shouted, "This is the center of New York City nightlife" into a microphone for the tourists riding on top.

As the noise faded away, diners looked up for a bit, shook their heads, and return to their conversations, giving no more response to tourists than to a man taking a public bath with his musical instrument.





Chelsea: The Greening of the High Line

March 10, 2004

By Andrea Lynn

In the seven decades since it was built, the High Line, which is now an elevated railroad to nowhere, has seen life as an escape route over "Death Avenue," as an eye-sore, and finally -- as a potential paradise.

The concrete and steel railroad tracks snake through some 1.5 miles of Chelsea and the Meatpacking District along the Hudson River. Unused, barely noticed, covered with wildflowers and grass, the High Line could soon become a unique seven-acre park.

The High Line came into existence during an era when trains formed the backbone of the city's manufacturing economy. As many as 50 freight trains a day traveled along the west side of Manhattan, creating a hazard for pedestrians, which earned Tenth Avenue the nickname of Death Avenue. To reduce this traffic, and increase efficiency, the railroad companies, with support from both state and city, created an elevated railroad from 34th Street to Spring Street.

The railroad lost its appeal with the rise of the interstate trucking industry. In 1980, it carried its final train. filled with frozen turkeys. By the 1990s, only a short portion of the elevated tracks - the part now dubbed the High Line - remained.

That is when the Chelsea Property Owners Association first started lobbying for its destruction. The association's members own property either directly below or straddling the tracks. They argue that the deteriorating structure poses a danger to community residents, threatens the 22 buildings that sit beneath it, decreases neighborhood property values and stifles development of the surrounding area.

The Giuliani administration heeded the concerns and began to take steps to demolish the structure. But before the first track could be removed, a new group formed, calling itself Friends of the High Line, and went to court stop the demolition.

Friends of the High Line and its allies say residents of the area desperately need recreational space. The High Line offers "open space and a unique structure, even for New York, that if removed can never be replaced," says Joshua David, co-founder of Friends of the Highline.

Park advocates deny that the structure poses a threat to the community. In 2002, the group hired Stephen DeSimone, a structural engineer, who reported that the High Line remains fundamentally sound. Tearing down the structure, the friends say, could cost as much as $25 million, will take 18 months and be noisy, dirty and disruptive. In its suit, the group claimed that city procedures require that the City Council, borough president and area community boards review such a plan and that no such review had been conducted. The court agreed and halted destruction of the High Line.

In January, the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division reversed the lower court. But while that court ruling allows demolition, it does not require it. And so, it is somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory for the property owners, since the Bloomberg administration strongly supports keeping the High Line.

In fact, it has already received a permit from the U.S. Department of Transportation to begin developing plans to turn the deserted structure into a public park. The Bloomberg administration and Friends of the High Line envision the transformation of the High Line, the width of two trains, into a recreational promenade similar to the Promenade Plantee in Paris, a walkway on a restored elevated rail viaduct. Fragrant gardens line the three-mile track in France, while boutiques and cafes occupy the arches beneath the rail bed.

But the supporters of the High Line want to make it uniquely New York, and to that end, last year, they held a competition. Among the 720 entries from 36 countries, was a plan for a heavily landscaped walk, another for an aerial monorail floating above a meadow of wildflower and a third for a mile-long series of swimming pools.

The proposals did not have to be realistic, Robert Hammond, co-founder of Friends of the High Line and a member of the jury, told Architecture Week. "They were required to be thought provoking, and they were - and as exciting and unexpected as the High Line itself," he said. Friends of the High Line hopes to send all the ideas to design teams.

The city and Friends of the High Line have started the process to select a designer for the High Line and hope to have made their choice by sometime this summer.

Hammond has estimated it could cost as much as $60 million to restore the ailing concrete deck slab and turn it into seven acres of parkland. City Council Speaker Gifford Miller has pledged his support for the High Line project by committing $15.75 million in city funds over the next three years. Federal funding and private donations would make up most of the remainder.

............................

Related Story:

New York is building new parks and restoring old ones -- at a time of budget cutbacks and staff reductions. Anne Schwartz reports on how this has been possible.





Bye Bye to Car Alarms?

July 25, 2003

Pols Weigh Car-Alarm Ban New York Post By Frankie Edozien There was a lot of noise on June 11 at City Hall over a bill to end the most annoying sound in New York - the constant whine of car alarms. A hearing on banning the pesky alarms elicited a chorus of supporters at a City Council hearing, but got no backing from the Bloomberg administration. Roiled by constituents complaining about late-night alarm attacks, Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz (D-Manhattan) is pushing legislation to prohibit any installations of audible car alarms except by the manufacturer. Aaron Naparstek, a project coordinator at Transportation Alternatives, told the council's Committee on Environmental Protection that noisy alarms are a public health menace. "[This] type of noise ... is linked to costly public health problems, lost productivity, decreased property value, and diminished quality-of-life," he charged. The NYPD is opposing the proposed ban on alarms.




Homepage of the Community Gazette for District 3

Gotham Gazette's Community Gazettes
Community news, views, and potholes for each council district










ALL DISTRICT 3 MAJOR ISSUES
Building Football Stadiums and Convention Centers
(Apr 29, 2005)

AIDS Over Fifty
(Mar 25, 2005)

Against the Tide, Crime Continues Rising in Chelsea
(Feb 25, 2005)

West Side Stadium and Convention Center
(Nov 12, 2004)

Greenwich Village: The Neighborhood That Never Sleeps
(Jul 09, 2004)

Chelsea: The Greening of the High Line
(Mar 10, 2004)

Bye Bye to Car Alarms?
(Jul 25, 2003)

Sites of Interest from Collegester:
Online Casino | Wireless broadband | Place Your Link Here!