Tenants
Issues
Alan Hevesi
This is serious business. This is your lives, the
quality of your lives, your family's lives. Since
we are here as candidates, as you go through this
election process, evaluate who the candidates are
not only on their stance on the issues -- because
a lot of them will be right on a lot of issues (some
will not) -- but who was there for you, who was
on the record, and who was on the firing line. I
offer myself as that candidate. First of all, let
me tell you I was born in Queens, in a rent controlled
apartment, got elected to the New York State Assembly
and believe that I have as good a pro-tenants record
as any other member of the Assembly. I was a champion
in leading debates, fighting the landlords, and
when they tried to deny tenants their rights, voting
for rent control and rent stabilization, voting
for rent regulation extensions, voting on behalf
of all the tenant's agenda and then as comptroller
remained an advocate of tenants rights. As an advocate
I brought together the organizations that represent
the different constituencies for more than the last
twelve months to draft an omnibus pro-tenant legislation.
We worked to change the debate in Albany.
We have great problems with the upstate control
of the Senate and with the Governor, and so we have
to change the character of the debate. I want you
to do me a favor and yourself a favor and keep that
in mind as you establish in your own minds who you
will support for mayor. While the mayor does not
have the vote in Albany, the mayor has the biggest
bully pulpit, the biggest microphone, and if I'm
the mayor, I will lead you as tenants to fight for
tenant's rights physically in Albany -- leading
the demonstrations, leading the lobby, embarrassing
those, particularly the senators from New York,
who are not with us.
[Question: The mayor can influence public housing
policy through the appointment of the chair and
members of the New York City Housing Authority.
Section 3, which has been federal law since 1968,
requires that HUD funds maximize job raining and
employment opportunities for residents, but it has
never been conscientiously implemented by the New
York City Housing Authority. This is particularly
of concern since NYCHA is enforcing the 1998 community
service requirement that requires residents to volunteer
for eight hours a month or face eviction. What will
you do to ensure that section 3 has teeth?]
The mayor has enormous influence over the decision
making of the New York City Housing Authority, and
the mayor will give instructions to its members
to fully enforce the federal job training requirements.
That is a given. There is no magic formula, it's
a question of attitude and willingness to assert
oneself.
This mayor will also oppose those requirements
that you have to volunteer time in order to justify
your being in public housing. If you meet the requirements,
nobody has to justify that, you should be receiving
benefits, and the government ought to be sympathetic,
not creating barriers so that life gets more difficult.
So yes to job training and no to those requirements
that you have to volunteer.
[Question: In the 1980's, the critical situation
of SRO tenants in the city was recognized by the
establishment of the Mayor's Office on SRO Housing,
the creation of a special SRO unit within HPD's
Litigation Bureau and the city's funding of the
two SRO law projects. After 1993, the first two
of those crucial bulwarks against the loss of SRO
housing were removed. The office on SRO Housing
was reduced to a two-person inspection unit within
HPD, and the number of attorneys responsible for
SRO litigation fell from four to one.
At the same time, the number of SRO units lost
to tourist use, placements by the city, and conversions
to apartments or owner-occupied houses rose dramatically.
While there were approximately 55,000 SRO's in the
mid- to late- eighties, there remain fewer than
30,000 now.
If you are elected mayor, will you re-establish
a Mayor's Office on SRO Housing, and increase the
level of funding for SRO work within HPD's litigation
bureau. Will you fund the two SRO projects? And
will you support legislation to provide for enhanced
enforcement of the city's anti-harassment laws?]
Let me put the answer to this question in a larger
context. I believe in prosperity, I believe in jobs
being brought to this city. I believe that the millionaires
that live in this city ought to live here, and we
want them here because when we tax them, their revenues
pay for our case managers, for our police and fire
fighters. We need wealth in this city, and that's
a very difficult process right now because in the
age of information technology and computers, lots
of the businesses in New York could leave. There
is not a Wall Street firm that needs to be in Wall
Street, or in New York City, they could be in Fiji
doing their business and we lose those revenues.
I believe in wealth and development and prosperity
in this city that supports our mission. Our mission
in government is to be business smart, and attract
those businesses and revenues so that we can help
poor people, so that we can help the elderly, so
that we can provide affordable housing. Mr. Bloomberg
made a very unfortunate comment today in Crain's
Insider, that the city can't subsidize affordable
housing. That's nonsense. The point is, that's our
mission, to provide help because we not only have
more millionaires than any other city, we also have
more poor people than many other cities. We have
more immigrants than any other city. We have huge
obligations.
The idea that our SROs, which provide housing needs
to a constituency, have been reduced from over 50,000
to 30,000 has been negligence, and it is a very
affirmative kind of negligence which has a nasty
tinge to it, that suggests that we are not focused
on our mission. My answer to your question is yes,
there will be an office of SRO in the mayor's office
and we will beef up the litigation. We will have
a litigation arm and I support Ronnie Eldridge's
legislation. I think that it's absolutely crucial
that we beef up our anti-harassment.
[Shortsighted policy and lack of permanent owner
restrictions on project-based section 8 and Mitchell-Lama
contracts has exacerbated the housing crisis. Many
owners have chosen to opt out of state and federally
assisted housing programs at the end of twenty year
contracts, ultimately resulting in the loss of affordable
housing stock and tenant displacement.
If elected mayor, what are you planning to do
locally to stop section 8 opt-outs and Mitchell-Lama
buy-outs?]
First, there are legislative proposals that I will
lobby for that will prohibit opting out for fifty
years. Second, we'll lobby for legislation that
if the landlord gets to an opt out period, that
the apartments kick into rent stabilization, that
there are some continued regulations
The landlord is looking to make a deal; the economy
is changing. The escalation of rents, a function
of supply and demand is starting to cool down. We
see it already with commercial rents. I think there
is a role with the city to negotiate with those
landlords to provide some sort of benefits, to encourage
the landlords not to opt out, to protect our tenant
population. We must allow the landlords some portion
of the profits he hoped he would make in the booming
economy, and sustain these programs that are so
crucial to a stable middle class, and working class,
and even a low-income community, depending on the
program.
Let's be very clear about what tax breaks mean.
We use tax breaks all the time. I mentioned a minute
ago that no Wall Street firm has to be on Wall Street.
We are in the process of negotiating a deal with
the New York Stock Exchange to stay in New York
with an $800 million subsidy from the city, in the
form of tax breaks, energy breaks and building a
building. If we can do it for that industry, we
can certainly do it to protect our tenants.
[Every time rent regulation laws come up for
renewal, there is a danger that tenant protections
will be reduced as the political price for another
renewal. In the last eight years, the rent laws
have been dangerously weakened because of decontrol
amendments enacted by the State Legislature and
the New York City Council.
2003 is another sunset year. Rent control and
rent stabilization laws are due to expire again
on June 15--less than two years from now. The real
estate lobby and its allies will seek more weakening
amendments as the price for extending the laws for
another period of time. Tenants will be seeking
not only to avoid more decontrol amendments, but
to repeal past decontrol amendments.
If you are elected mayor, what will be your
strategy to make sure that not only are the rent
laws renewed without additional watering down of
tenant's rights, but that harmful decontrol amendments
are also appealed?]
When the last extender was passed by the legislature,
I believed Tenants and Neighbors understood what
a lot of other people did not understand, which
was that the minor marginal pro-landlord modifications
were not minor marginal modifications. What they
were, by establishing luxury de-control and not
taking into consideration how many people live in
an apartment, and the $2000 limit, was a danger
to the whole rent regulation system.
I remember the battle, seven majority leaders said
this is dead, it's over, no more rent regulation.
They didn't have to round up the votes, they didn't
have to lobby, the majority leader of the senate
simply put his thumb on the bill and killed it and
therefore there is no extender. So when they put
in this $2000 provision, I think Tenants and Neighbors
were very powerfully articulate, that this is awfully
dangerous, and this is awfully dangerous because
the rents keep going up and because there are provisions
like with MCIs [Major Capital Improvements], where
the landlord will fix a boiler or make another capital
improvement and will charge tenants, and that's
fair until you discover that when it's paid for
and the interest is paid for, it doesn't end, it's
permanent, it's forever. The managers at Peter Cooper
and Stuyvesent Town are doing just that. We have
to change that today, and that's hard to do. And
those people in this city and maybe in this room
who say it doesn't matter who gets elected are talking
gibberish.
I don't want to be partisan, I want to be analytical.
There is a wonderful state senator right here in
Manhattan, who is a terrific brilliant guy and everybody
says he is a good Republican because he always votes
right and the answer is no he doesn't, because the
first vote he cast was for the upstate majority
leader, Joe Bruno.
[Given the projected budget deficits during
the next mayor's term, what revenue enhancements
would you consider to assure full funding for important
anti-eviction and housing preservation programs
such as code enforcement?]
There is potential bad news, the boom is over,
the city surplus is probably fading out. With the
fiscal year that ended on July1st we're sitting
on a surplus of $2.9 billion, so we've been doing
great. The mayor rolled that over into the fiscal
year that has now started, but for next year, 2002,
we are predicting a deficit of $ 2 billion -- those
are the mayor's numbers. We think it's $3.2 billion.
We, meaning not only my office, but the State Comptroller,
the Citizen's Budget Commission, and the Independent
Budget Office, all the monitors. It balloons out
to about $5 billion by the year 2005. This is going
to make it hard to provide social services and no
one in this audience should be disabused about my
priorities, public education is my highest priority,
affordable housing is a high priority, sustaining
a fight against crime is a high priority.
I am not now going to define for you, with one
exception, revenue enhancements, which is a nice
way of saying tax increases, because of the psychology
of doing it, not because of the politics. Because
I have said that as a last resort I would support
restoration of the income tax surcharge of 12.5
percent that was placed on the income tax to support
Safe Streets, Safe City, which is a tax to increase
the number of cops in this city. It was a very good
investment, and it resulted in a reduction in crime
in this city, and it is why we have 37 million tourists
and part of why we are booming. You need a mayor
who has the experience as fiscal and budget expert,
and understands our position in the global economy
so that we can maximize what resources we have,
so we can bring industry into the city , so that
we can partner up with industry, to help them. In
the movie industry for example we need to help them
build more sound stages, they employ 70,000 people.
There are all kinds of strategies to do this, and
the reason why I mention this is because that is
what I do. This is a very complex world and let's
be very sophisticated about it.
[One riddle of affordable housing is who will
create it without incentives?
In one instance, the answer is tenants. Twenty
or thirty years ago, energetic tenants moved into
abandoned lofts and created thousands of units of
affordable housing. Under the Loft Law, about half
of those units have now been brought under full
compliance with residential codes and become rent-stabilized.
This year, not only is the state Loft Law up
for renewal, there are thousands of new tenants
who do not benefit from its protections. With the
Department of Buildings' backs turned, and the Mayor's
eagle eye for enforcement strangely closed, enterprising
tenants have created thousands of new units of affordable
housing.
As mayor, how would you treat the current unprotected
loft conversions as well as future loft conversions?]
In 1982 the first loft law was passed, I voted
for it. I was in the legislature. We now have a
situation where a lot of loft tenants are not covered.
Two days ago, with the sun setting over the Manhattan
sky line in Brooklyn, I was at the top of a former
factory that is now occupied by tenants that took
over an abandoned building, invested a large amount
of money, built a lovely apartment, and stabilized
the community by making it much more amenable and
much more attractive. They invested and it is just
wro ng that the landlord who profited from their
action, and winked at it and accepted it, then will
have the right under law to say, OK, Tuesday you're
out because some manufacturing company is coming
in.
I believe we should extend the loft law to all
incumbent loft tenants, particularly where the landlords
were part of the process of accepting their presence.
And second, we establish the same types of principles
that we have for other rent regulations, which is
that tenants have protections and that there are
restraints on rent increases
[The Rent Guidelines Board sets rent adjustments
for one million rent-stabilized apartments, housing
2.3 million New Yorkers. The mayor appoints its
nine members.
If you become mayor, who would you appoint as
chair of this important board?]
I am very careful not to suggest that I'll appoint
anybody to any office, first because it is inappropriate
until I become the mayor, and second because it
is the ultimate jinx. I will tell you, that what
I have already committed to is to have the mayoral
appointments approved by the City Council and also
to offer members with credentials other than being
friends or cronies of the mayor.
[It is clear that the lost affordable housing
stock in New York City must be replaced. In your
plans for new housing production, will you ensure
than new units remain permanently affordable? What
will you do to prevent owners from opting out of
affordable housing programs as we are seeing now?]
A number of years ago when I was in the assembly,
there was this TV news revelation, and there was
a case of a landlord asserting his rights to evict
tenants in a rent controlled apartment for his own
personal use. The tenants who he was evicting were
two eighty-eight year olds, and they were talking
about having no where to go and they might as well
commit suicide. We saw that on television and the
next day there was legislation in Albany that we
passed right away that exempted seniors and the
disabled from the eviction provisions.
It is complex to maintain continuous affordability.
It depends not only on what we have been talking
about for the last forty minutes. We need to fight
in Albany, get into the political mix, electing
people who are pro-tenant, changing the laws. It
also means creating a stock of affordable housing
that keeps the rent prices down. Today in Crain's
I'm reading from Michael Bloomberg, that the role
of the city and the mayor in affordable housing
is to make some land use decisions, but the city
cannot afford a subsidy to help create affordable
housing, we don't have the money to do that. What
was strange about that was that, first of all, it's
false. Second of all, we went to Mr. Bloomberg's
web site, and there on the site, one of his staff
people has put up an affordable housing program
including city subsidies. So he sort of didn't understand
or he's changed his mind about the policy. Here's
how you do it.
There are three revenue streams. You need money
to build affordable housing. Here's the revenue
stream, Battery Park City on city landfill is run
by a state agency which, incidentally, the city
could take over under law. It's not a good idea
right now, they run it well, and they make a profit
and that's the point. The profit is nearly $50 million
a year. Mayor Giuliani takes that money and puts
it in the general fund. That money should be used
to amortize the debt. The second step is the World
Trade Center that we have all been talking about.
The World Trade Center is run by the Port Authority.
The World Trade Center, run by the government, does
not pay taxes to the City of New York, but they
sold the World Trade Center and that means that
the private developer, the Silverstein group.. will
have to pay real estate taxes, that's $100 million.
There's a third piece, the third piece is what I
have done as comptroller of the City of New York,
working with the Board of Trustees of the pension
fund to provide a housing subsidy. We have rehabilitated,
with pension fund money 10,770 units of housing
during my term.
With those three revenue streams, we can make 105,000
units of housing over four years. That puts a dent
in this problem and it releases some of the pressure
that some of the landlords feel on themselves.
[Lead poisoning is the leading health problem
facing young children. With thousands of New York
City kids poisoned each year, mainly from lead paint
and lead dust in dilapidated housing. Lead poisoning
can cause irreversible brain damage, development
disabilities, osteoporosis and other health problems.
Unfortunately, in 1999, the City Council and
the Giuliani administration enacted Local Law 38
that weakened protection for young children and
actually encourage unsafe work practices in eliminating
or containing lead paint and lead dust. Local Law
38 also shields irresponsible landlords from liability
for their failure to prevent lead poisoning. Local
Law 38 has been declared illegal by the State Supreme
Court, but the city is appealing the decision.
As mayor, will you push for enactment of a law
that protects children, requires safe work practices
and holds landlords accountable? And will you discontinue
the Giuliani administration's appeal of the Supreme
Court decision?]
If I am elected mayor, we will take down the barriers
in front of City Hall. We will cancel the decency
commission, and the first responsibility for the
corporation council, newly appointed for the City
of New York, will be to cancel the appeal of the
decision rendering illegal Local Law 38. Let me
vent some steam. Local Law 38 was a disgrace, it
was passed by the council, not to help children,
but to help landlords and reduce their liabilities
when it comes to lead paint. It one, re-defines
the dangerous substance, lead, defining it only
as lead paint peelings. In other words, a landlord's
liabilities is limited only to where a kid can prove
that the damage to a child is from lead paint peelings,
not form lead paint dust, except dust is more dangerous.
Two, it eliminated the landlord's obligation to
determine that there was, in the apartment, a six
year old or younger child, and shifted the responsibilities
to the parents. A lot of parents are poor, a lot
of them don't speak English, a lot of them have
no idea what the obligation is , and the fact that
the kid gets sick because the landlord did not abate
or fix the lead problem, should not obviate the
landlord's responsibility.
I'm sympathetic to the landlord's having heavy
financial responsibility, and here I think there
is another way to go. Increase the responsibility
of the landlord, but the city can subsidize it.You
want more testing, you want more children saved,
and from the city's point of view, this is a theory
that not every elected official buys into, you spend
some money now, you save it down the road. Because
if a kid is poisoned by lead pint, they are more
likely to be on Medicaid, they are more likely to
be in special education, they are more likely to
need special treatment that the city will pay for,
and they are more likely not to be tax paying productive
adults. So lets make the landlords do this job and
support them financially so they don't bear the
burden.
Fernando
Ferrer
Let me make this very brief. I know a little bit
about housing, having presided over one of the biggest
housing revivals in any city in America over the
last fourteen years in the Bronx. The Bronx was
written off as the capital of window decals and
empty lots. I have seen an awful lot. There was
a housing shortage in this city. There was an affordable
housing shortage in this city of barely over one
percentage point. That's an emergency. That's why
I proposed a number of measures that would not only
preserve our housing stock, get this city out of
the business of owning and operating some of the
most squalid housing in this city, but the proposals
would keep public housing in the public domain,
preserve the affordability of housing, and build
150,000 new units of housing to add to the supply.
I am looking to devise a program that will preserve
Mitchell-Lama housing that is about to opt out of
the program, to keep it there by contract, and not
depend on the state legislature to do the job for
us.
[Question: The mayor can influence public housing
policy through the appointment of the chair and
members of the New York City Housing Authority.
Section 3, which has been federal law since 1968,
requires that HUD funds maximize job raining and
employment opportunities for residents, but it has
never been conscientiously implemented by NYCHA.
This is particularly of concern since NYCHA is enforcing
the 1998 community service requirement that requires
residents to volunteer for eight hours a month or
face eviction. What will you do to ensure that section
3 has teeth?]
I've answered this question many times before at
many different forums. Section 3 of the Federal
Housing Act required local housing authorities to
design and implement job training programs. It,
by implication, requires municipalities to engage
those programs, begin to require and provide real
employment opportunities.
The irony here is that most housing authority developments
are undergoing modernization and/or renewal virtually
continuously. There is a pool of job-ready and trainable
people who live there who can be trained to take
these jobs for the renewal, if there is a will to
partner up with construction unions in this city
and require as a consequence that this kind of partnership
bring people out of poverty and into work, and make
them not only partners, but owners in the revival
of their own homes. To me, that is a lot better
than requiring eight hours a week of volunteer service.
That we have not done it, is a complete disgrace.
It is because we pay more attention to major league
ballparks in this city, than healthcare, parks,
and policing. I want to be a mayor who pays attention
to those things because when I talk about two New
Yorks, they all live in the other New York. That's
a neighborhood I know well, that's a neighborhood
most of you live in. I was born and raised and educated
in the other New York. The job of the mayor and
this city government is to bring people out of shadows
and into hope and opportunity. I would implement
section 3.
[Question: In the 1980's, the critical situation
of SRO tenants in the city was recognized by the
establishment of the Mayor's Office on SRO Housing,
the creation of a special SRO unit within HPD's
litigation Bureau and the city's funding of the
two SRO law projects. After 1993, the first two
of those crucial bulwarks against the loss of SRO
housing were removed. The office on SRO Housing
was reduced to a two-person inspection unit within
HPD, and the number of attorneys responsible for
SRO litigation fell from four to one.
At the same time, the number of SRO units lost
to tourist use, placements by the city, and conversions
to apartments or owner-occupied houses rose dramatically.
While there were approximately 55,000 SRO's in the
mid- to late- eighties, there remain fewer than
30,000 now.
If you are elected mayor, will you re-establish
a Mayor's Office on SRO Housing, and increase the
level of funding for SRO work within HPD's litigation
bureau. Will you fund the two SRO projects? And
will you support legislation to provide for enhanced
enforcement of the city's anti-harassment laws?]
I've seen the Eldridge bill, and it's a good bill,
the city needs it. I would re-establish the mayor's
office of SRO, and I would also increase HPD's.
Lets talk about SROs. When we did have 55,000 of
them in the city, in the main, they were nothing
to write home to the folks about. SROs, furnished
rooms, whatever you wanted to call them, needed
to be upgraded and, in fact, many of them needed
supportive services, because they behaved as homes
for special needs populations. As a result of the
Community Mental Health Act of 1954, implemented
and became effective law in 1955, the laudable goal
of emptying out the State's psychiatric hospitals
became law. The promise was to reintegrate special
needs people with their communities. They could
be housed decently in the counties where they once
lived. That made a lot of sense. There was only
one problem, they emptied out the hospitals, and
they did not build the housing, and we are playing
catch up now with that. We have to ramp up this
city's commitment with special needs housing. That
is included in my goal in building and maintaining
150,000 units over ten years.
[Shortsighted policy and lack of permanent owner
restrictions on project-based section 8 and Mitchell-Lama
contracts has exacerbated the housing crisis. Many
owners have chosen to opt out of state and federally
assisted housing programs at the end of twenty year
contracts, ultimately resulting in the loss of affordable
housing stock and tenant displacement.
If elected mayor, what are you planning to do
locally to stop section 8 opt-outs and Mitchell-Lama
buy-outs?]
I too would like to support and submit legislation
to the state legislature to have extended time to
keep middle income housing, state and city assisted
housing, federally assisted housing affordable.
But I can't depend on the state legislature to do
that. So an important component of my annual $1.3
billion housing production program is $100 million
dollar a year Mitchell-Lama rescue fund. What it
says, is that those Mitchell-Lama that are getting
ready to get out of the program, that are getting
ready to opt out, also need new plumbing, new electricity,
new windows, new roofs. I want to provide the lowest
interest money to save those developments, keep
them affordable, and by contract extend their life
in the program. We can do that with a rescue fund.
We can keep them from opting out of the program
if we provide the incentive and the money to provide
for a renewal of their major systems. If we do that,
we can preserve the lion's share of housing that
is ready to opt.
The other part of that is that we have to build
middle-income housing in the city. We no longer
have a commuter tax, which means that if we don't
pay close attention to the middle part of our tax
payer mix, if you think we have rough economic times
coming ahead, when middle income people decide it
is cheaper to live somewhere else and still work
in New York, or if we can't preserve longtime residents,
people who have already paid their dues in this
city, we will be in huge economic trouble.
[Every time rent regulation laws come up for
renewal, there is a danger that tenant protections
will be reduced as the political price for another
renewal. In the last eight years, the rent laws
have been dangerously weakened because of decontrol
amendments enacted by the State Legislature and
the New York City Council.
2003 is another sunset year. Rent control and
rent stabilization laws are due to expire again
on June 15--less than two years from now. The real
estate lobby and it's allies will seek more weakening
amendments as the price for extending the laws for
another period of time. Tenants will be seeking
not only to avoid more decontrol amendments, but
to repeal past decontrol amendments.
If you are elected mayor, what will be your
strategy to make sure that not only are the rent
laws renewed without additional watering down of
tenant's rights, but that has harmful decontrol
amendments are also appealed?]
As a member of the City Council for five years
and as a borough president for over fourteen, I
have been up in Albany when those laws were being
considered, I've even voted on them as a member
of City Council. It has become dangerous lately
because the Republican controlled State Senate and
a Republican governor have come together and presented
a very dangerous threat, not only to the affordability
of private rental housing, but as you know, to the
viability of Mitchell Lama.
Every mayor wants to be emperor, but I happen to
believe that the members of the Rent Guidelines
Board ought to be submitted to the consent of the
City Council. And we must begin to take the control
to our own destiny. The next time, in 2003, if I
am the mayor and when this comes up, I will go up
to Albany and remind the legislature and remind
the Governor they made an important promise they
did not keep. If we change these laws, we will commit
ourselves to funding the affordable housing in New
York City. They passed the laws, but not one dime
for affordable housing in New York City. I will
remind them of that day and night before they tamper
with our rent regulation laws.
[Given the projected budget deficits during
the next mayor's term, what revenue enhancements
would you consider to assure full funding for important
anti-eviction and housing preservation programs
such as code enforcement?]
As borough president of the Bronx, I have funded
and will continue to fund important anti-eviction
programs for my borough, as well as funding a new
housing court building. One of the most important
things that this city has given up on is using the
proceeds from its collections from fines, fees and
penalties, for code enforcement. I would segregate
that money and re-invest it back into adequate code
enforcement.
Here is where I come from. When I made my announcement
for mayor, I didn't do it in a mid-town hotel, or
the Statue of Liberty, I did it in the South Bronx.
I still remember the thrill of hearing the pipes
clang in the middle of the afternoon back in the
day, warning us that once gain we would not have
heat or hot water, it was time to break out the
heavy blankets and warm coats. As a result of that,
I happened to acquire the skill of taking a quick
shower in the morning.
But seriously, code enforcement guarantees decent
housing. It is the obligation of this city to provide
for adequate and effective code enforcement. It
is also the obligation of this city to ensure that
its code enforcement computers at HPD communicate
with the enforcement computers at DHCR. Those two
systems don't even talk to each other. There is
absolutely no way to hold people accountable, to
hold owners accountable for no heat and hot water
and for all the other things that we will correctly
bring people into court for.
[One riddle of affordable housing is who will
create it without incentives?
In one instance, the answer is tenants. Twenty
or thirty years ago, energetic tenants moved into
abandoned lofts and created thousands of units of
affordable housing. Under the Loft Law, about half
of those units have now been brought under full
compliance with residential codes and become rent-stabilized.
This year, not only is the state Loft Law up
for renewal, there are thousands of new tenants
who do not benefit from its protections. With the
Department of Buildings' backs turned, and the Mayor's
eagle eye for enforcement strangely closed, enterprising
tenants have created thousands of new units of affordable
housing.
As mayor, how would you treat the current unprotected
loft conversions as well as future loft conversions?]
I first happen to believe in compliance with the
building code. Anyone who lives anywhere is entitled
to the safety and protection that this city must
cover. I think we have got to make it a lot easier
to make these conversions happen. A part of the
problem is our zoning resolutions, part of it is
our inability to cope with the future of this city
and what to do with derelict and underutilized manufacturing
buildings that can be turned into decent and affordable
housing. Those are the things I am not only interested
in, but involved in, as borough president of the
Bronx, having produced, in my tenure, 66,000 units
of it.
George Spitz
I am honored to be allowed to speak. I am the fifth
Democratic candidate in the race. It was only as
of Friday that it was definite that I would qualify,
and I could understand this wonderful organization
being hesitant to invite me. I am a long shot, don't
bet on me, but I have an outside chance to win.
I think it's important, one, that all mayoral appointments
by public members come from organizations like this,
the tenant groups. You should at least be 50 percent
of the representation in all the boards.
In my campaign I have already been keeping a promise,
no contributions by the real estate industry are
being accepted by George Spitz, not because builders
are evil, but the city regulates the real estate
industry.
I am advising a rent freeze for five years. How
to pay for it? What I am going to do is any land
lord who maintains his property in grade A condition
and who does not harass tenants will receive a tax
credit, equal to the rent stabilized price and the
market price.
Finally, I promise to set up a construction department
in the city, pay union wages, and on city owned
land we will build housing. We will construct affordable
housing by using some of the systems they use in
Finland which are very good--affordable and easy
to use. We are going to build affordable housing
and any landlord who wants to build affordable housing
will get a tax credit for ten years on all the improvements.
Go on my web site www.georgespitz.com. I'm going
to stop right now as I promised. Thank you very
much.
Mitchel Cohen
First, I grew up in the Longborough projects and
now live in a Mitchell-Lama co-op in Brooklyn. Every
year they try to privatize the co-op and every year
there is one apartment, one stock holder, my family,
who says no, we are not going to privatize this,
and every year they fall one vote short from privatizing
the building. So I am proud to say that our family
stands to make some money by putting it on the so-called
free market, but we refuse to do that because of
our principles, because we think it should be placed
for people who are coming out of the projects, because
it is a principle that poor people should have decent
places to live.
There should be no work-fare to live in public
housing. We say no workfare-- people have a right
to live. We're saying stop the privatization of
everything. Stop the privatization of the water
supply that Giuliani wanted to do, stop the privatization
of the apartments and the housing, and build more
affordable and public housing. We call for an end
to the $1.1 billion giveaway that Hevesi so proudly
supported. We, in the Green party, stand for a common
view and a common program and I would like to thank
you very much for letting me be here. I wanted to
point out that the Mayor lives rent-free in Gracie
Mansion, meanwhile he is evicting squatters because
he says everybody must pay rent. So when I am elected
mayor, Donna Hanover will be allowed to stay in
Gracie Mansion as long as she wants for having to
put up so many years with the mayor.
Christopher
K. Brodeur
Tonight, we are all Green Party candidates for
mayor. To this conference they should have invited
the Green party because we are better than the Democrats
and Republicans on most of the issues. Alan Hevesi
was good on some of the issues, but he is not good
on a lot of the issues. So my request is that when
you get the voter guide in the August, read the
Green Party statements, because the media is going
to go black-out on us. And even events like this
are going to censor third parties and that's not
fair.
Anthony
Gronowicz
Hi, I am Tony Gronowicz. I am a historian on New
York City and I look at the city in the period since
the Second World War, since rent control came into
existence. Of course, rent control came into existence,
not because of the Republican party , not because
of the Democratic party, but because of the Communist
party. This is one of the historic ironies we are
dealing with. Whichever candidate you choose, choose
a Green Candidate, we will keep on fighting. I am
a Manhattan native and I am going to fight the landlords
until they don't exist anymore.
Julia
Willebrand
I am Julia Willebrand, Green Party candidate for
mayor, and there are a couple of the things that
I want to talk about. This audience was given an
explanation on how the city must negotiate with
blackmailers, we were told that one fortieth of
our annual budget would have to go to the New York
Stock Exchange so that they could get a new floor
because if we don't ,they will leave. We don't negotiate
with terrorists, we don't negotiate with blackmailers,
why are we negotiating with a stock exchange that
made $13 billion in profit last year? The city educated
over a million children on a $5 billion budget,
but we are handing a gift of 20 percent of that
budget to the stock exchange-- think about it. Think
about the housing we could provide, if we stopped
these endless hand-outs. The only way to provide
housing, there is no free-market, we must create
a free market by providing affordable housing. It's
not going to happen by giving landlords subsidies.
Think about an alternative candidate who has an
alternative vision for the city. Think about voting
Green.