Whatever happens to the housing market now, New York's booming real estate market of 2000 to 2007 means that many more households in New York City cannot afford their homes. Indeed, the explosive rise in the housing market has spurred some hedge and equity funds to speculate on rental buildings that are subject to rent regulation in the hopes that continuing rise in market rents, along with capital improvements and apartment turnover, will make it possible to deregulate many of the homes in those buildings. This has happened even though some of the complexes are at risk of default and even foreclosure. The sale of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village was emblematic of housing built for the middle class being marketed to those in much higher income brackets.
As New Yorkers look to the election of a new State Senate and watch with horror as the financial crisis continues to unfold, many housing advocates are pushing for substantial re-regulation of the New York City's rental housing. Of course landlord groups, girding for a possible Democratic takeover of the State Senate, are pushing back.
Republicans in the State Senate have traditionally resisted regulation of the rental market and fought rent stabilization and other similar measures. If the State Senate switches to Democratic control, the Democrats, who tend to support some kind of rent control, would hold both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. Advocates see this as their best chance in decades to strengthen controls.
What is the current state of the rental situation in New York City -- and what would happen if the law remains as is? Data available from the New York Housing and Vacancy Survey and information on trends provide some indication.
Various programs that provided some degree of affordability for rental housing in New York undeniably are eroding.
The deregulation of apartments continues. Looking at all regulated apartments, including those constructed before 1974 and regulated by the 1974 tenant protection act, those under rent control and Mitchell-Lama rentals, the Housing and Vacancy Survey estimates 1,166,911 apartments were regulated in 2002. By 2005, that figure had declined to 1,132,472 -- a loss of 34,439 apartments. Of the apartments still regulated in 2005, some 109,254 rented for $1,500 or more, putting them in striking distance of deregulation. Of these apartments, 38,927 already were above $2,000 per month. In short, the loss of another 100,000 apartments to rent stabilization was just a matter of time in 2005.
Until data from 2008 Housing and Vacancy Survey is released next spring, no one can reliably estimate the continuing loss of regulated apartments. However, the rent level that triggers removal of a vacant unit from rent stabilization continues to be $2,000, and turnover is widely estimated at about 6 percent per year. Furthermore, many apartments that are stabilized above $1,500 in 2005 could, with proper renovation and capital improvement, see their rents immediately increase to above $2,000. Overall, one could expect that another 50,000 units probably have been lost in the three years since the last Housing and Vacancy Survey.
When the State Legislature comes back into session, after the election of 2008, it will up to the Assembly, the Senate and the governor, to revisit the fate of rent stabilization in New York City. Without some sort of intervention, the end of rent regulation in New York City will be just a matter of time. As it continues to be phased out, the composition of many neighborhoods in New York City, especially in the more desirable areas, becomes more and more segregated with respect to income.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.Â
When Patricia Martinez, an employee of Monroe Community College, applied for health care benefits for her spouse, Lisa Ann Golden, whom she had married in Canada, the college denied the benefits, saying it covered only opposite sex spouses. But early in 2008, an appellate court in northern New York ruled that by failing to recognize the marriage, the employer had unlawfully discriminated based on sexual orientation. The court concluded, "The sole reason for defendants' rejection of the marital status of plaintiff is her sexual orientation."
A valid same-sex Canadian marriage such as Martinez's and Golden's, is entitled to recognition in this state, and the plaintiff's health care benefits must be extended to her same-sex spouse, wrote Justice Erin M. Peradotto for the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Martinez v County of Monroe, received little attention until this spring, when the state's new governor, David Paterson, issued a memorandum directing all state agencies to treat the valid same-sex marriages of other jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriage -- Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, Massachusetts and California -- as they would any other marriage. This was similar to earlier directives by former State Comptroller Alan Hevesi and his successor, Thomas DiNapoli.
The governor, in making what he called "a strong step toward marriage," was following the Martinez court mandate. He cautioned state agencies that violations could subject the government to lawsuits and that recognition of same-sex marriages is "consistent with state policy."
For more than a century, New York has recognized the valid marriages of other jurisdictions, except if they involve conditions that are illegal in New York or against public policy, such as polygamy or incest. However, homosexuality is not illegal and does not violate public policy, nor is there any law in this state prohibiting recognition of such marriage. The Martinez decision relied on the absence of any law banning same-sex marriage even though the state's highest court had previously held in Hernandez v Robles that, under existing law, gay men and lesbians have no right to enter marriage. In other words, the state does not allow gay marriage but also does not prohibit its recognition.
Unlike the majority of states, New York has not adopted the theory of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and has not adopted legislation denying comity or the usual constitutional requirement of giving full faith and credit to acts -- marriages or not -- that are valid in other states. In a country comprised of many states, individuals and businesses are generally free to move from one state to another without disruptions. Gay marriage has become a glaring exception. Same sex couples might be married in one state, but not married when they cross state lines. This is what recognition is meant to avoid.
In a challenge to the governor's position, New York State Sen. Martin Golden (apparently not related to Lisa Ann Golden, spouse of Patricia Martinez) and others represented by the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, which is opposed to same-sex marriage, brought a "taxpayer" lawsuit claiming the governor had acted outside his authority. This was the fourth case brought by Alliance on behalf of New York taxpayers -- the others challenging earlier directives from Hevesi and DiNapoli.
The suit argued Paterson's directive would create a "wrongful expenditure" and waste taxpayer money because it would, for example, lead to state funds paying health and other benefits for two people instead of one.
Ruling on the case, Acting Justice Lucy Billings of the Supreme Court, sitting in the Bronx, dismissed the lawsuit. She acknowledged that state funds are involved, but cited lack of specificity as to what funds would be expended.
Alliance has lost its other three cases as well. The group, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., has appealed all four.
In discussing the taxpayer action, Billings wrote, "The governor's directive is an incremental but important step toward equality long denied." In her 27 page decision, the judge said, "When partners manifest the commitment to their relationship and family by solemnizing that commitment elsewhere, through one of life's most significant events, and come to New York, whether returning home or setting down roots, to carry on that commitment, nothing is more antithetical to family stability than requiring them to abandon solemnizing commitment."
None of the directives, nor the various lawsuits are about registered domestic relationships or civil unions, and they do not create a right to marry in this state. In accord with the Martinez decision in Monroe, Billings emphasized that the legislature may enact a ban on recognizing out-of-state marriages, or, on the other hand, create a right to marry. Absent such legislation, the decision said, "The governor's directive is another permissible, if not mandated, step toward the objective of equality for a group for whom legal as well as practical barriers to equality persist."
Billings held that same-sex couples "expect equal treatment with other married couples in legal protections and economic benefits for the couples and for their children: owning property as a unit, insurance, workers' compensation, health benefits, medical decision making, wrongful death claims, intestacy, inheritance and espousal privilege, for example. The emotional, familial, financial, and legal stability that accompanies marriage establishes a strong presumption in favor of the marriage's continued validity."
Still, barriers remain. Ken Sherrill, professor of political science at Hunter College, who married his long-time partner, Gerald Otte in Canada in August 2003 said, "While my spirits are lifted by the governor's actions, I have yet to experience any of the substantive benefits. Without implementation, the order isn't worth the paper it's written on, and the state has yet to issue guidelines, rules and regulations for implementing the policy."
A second problem, Sherrill points out, is that many of the issues involve health and related benefits under contracts with out-of-state vendors. Like Martinez in Monroe, Sherrill was denied certain benefits for his spouse. But the Martinez policy was with a New York company, while Sherrill's union, PSC-CUNY, though part of the state payroll, carries New York State United Teachers' catastrophic care insurance issued by Marsh Affinity Group Services of Illinois. Marsh, according to Sherrill, refuses to accept a Canadian marriage license as proof of the marital relationship.
"We have to see if government agencies or unions representing public employees should be barred from contracting out fringe benefits to corporations that do not recognize marriages like mine," Sherrill said. "Obviously, one solution is to find other vendors."
In the suit, the Office of the Attorney General's Monica Connell represented the governor. Attorneys for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, were represented by Susan Sommer, with pro bono assistance from Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP. Brian Raum argued the case for Alliance Defense Fund.
Emily Jane Goodman is a New York State Supreme Court JusticeÂ
Cultural institutions figured heavily in early plans for development of the World Trade Center site. The blueprint called for four independent cultural institutions that would complement the Memorial Museum, which will be dedicated to the 9-11 attacks.
But then an array of complications arose, including a heated debate over what kind of art would be “appropriate" on the ground where the Twin Towers fell. Now, as the seventh anniversary of 9-11 approaches, only one of the originally slated cultural institutions -- the Joyce Theater -- still hopes to locate at the site and even those plans are in jeopardy. Along the way, the saga eliminated one arts institution before it ever existed and left another without a home in Lower Manhattan.
After officials made it clear that art would be an integral part of the plan to rebuild lower Manhattan, 113 cultural institutions applied to occupy the new buildings on Ground Zero. Four were selected in 2004.
The International Freedom Center, an institution imagined specifically for the site, and the Drawing Center, an established art museum, were to occupy a new Cultural Building next to the 9-11 Memorial Museum.
Now, neither arts venue will play a part in the site, nor will the Freedom Center ever exist. Their would-be home, a building designed by the Norwegian firm Snohetta, has been entirely scrapped. Instead, the firm has designed the entryway to the Memorial Museum.
"Originally there was a building that was going to house them and that was removed," Michelle Breslauer, a spokesman for the Memorial Museum, said.
The space that would have been devoted to that building will now be integrated into the memorial park as extra public space, according to the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.
The other arts building at the site -- a performance space designed by Frank Gehry -- sits in limbo, with funding in doubt and plans delayed for years, if not forever.
What happened?
The controversy over the arts institutions began with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Debra Burlingame, whose brother had been the pilot of the plane hijacked and flown into the Pentagon on 9/11. She came out strongly against the International Freedom Center, which she saw as inappropriate for the site. In particular, Burlingame objected to the center's plan to present an exhibition on the struggles of freedom throughout history.
"The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond," she wrote. "This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona."
What followed was a public debate on what art is appropriate for Ground Zero. A group called Take Back the Memorial -- with Burlingame on the board -- was formed to pressure then Gov. George Pataki to revise the plans. The Post and the Daily News weighed in against the Freedom Center as well.
In response, Pataki demanded an "absolute guarantee" that the Drawing Center and the Freedom Center would have "total respect for the sanctity of the site." At that point, the Drawing Center withdrew from the project.
"We really just decided it wasn't the right site for us," said Lisa Gold, the public relations and marketing director for the Drawing Center. "It got to be very complicated and we saw that we're better off in an autonomous location. There were a lot of different parties weighing in on what should and shouldn't be shown there, and we're independent we're just better off in our own space, programming our own content."
Then, in 2005, as the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation was still deliberating on how to proceed, Pataki unilaterally eliminated the Freedom Center from the plans.
While his choice mollified those offended by the Freedom Center's proposed content, Pataki faced heated criticism for his action. Two World Trade Center Memorial Foundation board members resigned in protest. Some critics charged he was curbing public debate and setting back the rebuilding process.
Since it was designed specifically for the site, plans for the Freedom Center will never be realized. Its planners expressed "deep disappointment" after the decision, calling it a "setback to one of the most ambitious and promising service and civic engagement programs in this country."
The plans also called for a performing arts center designed by Frank Gehry's company. Initially, the Joyce Theater, a dance venue, and the Signature Theater Company, which features plays, were slated to share that building. Both are located elsewhere in the city and wanted to expand into Lower Manhattan.
Last year, the Signature left. In this case, the problem was logistics. According to the Times, the Bloomberg administration determined that having two institutions share the space was driving up costs and creating logistical problems. When the city offered to move the Signature into another location in the area, the company accepted without hard feelings.
The prospect for any performing arts center, though, remains somewhat vague. Discussing the Gehry building, the World Trade Center Web site, run by developer Larry Silverstein's company, said, "Funding details for the project have yet to be worked out, and construction cannot start until 2010 or 2011 because the site will be occupied until then by a temporary exit from the PATH train."
The city had said it would raise money for the center -- but not until the memorial and museum managed to amass $350 million needed for that project. Now that goal has been met, but as Downtown Express reported in April, there is no indication the city government is seeking support for the performing arts building. "
Meanwhile, Avi Schick, chief executive of the Empire State Development Corporation, has proposed -- in what he said was just an " idea or a concept" -- moving the performing arts center from the trade center site to the land above the subway station now being built at Fulton Street and Broadway.
Kate Levin, commissioner of the city Department of Cultural Affairs, has said the city and Lower Manhattan Development Corp. are working on a feasibility study for the theater, but there is no indication of when it will be completed.
"The performing arts center continues to be put on the back burner, and that's a huge mistake," Julie Menin, chairperson of Community Board 1 told Downtown Express.
The revised plans for the entire site, due to be presented to Gov. David Paterson later this month, could provide further indication of whether rebuilding officials think arts still have a place at Ground Zero.
When the Drawing Center withdrew from the project amid concerns over content control, it was left without a home in Lower Manhattan. But administrators still feel they made the right decision.
"We're still looking for a space in Lower Manhattan," said Gold. "We looked at additional sites down by the seaport, and we're continuing to look. New York is a very complicated real estate market. It's hard."
According to Gold and others in the arts world, space has been a major problem for cultural institutions in Manhattan. Many have the means to grow but can't find a place to do it. And arts advocates said that because of the economy, many cultural groups are facing greater fiscal pressures in recent days, making it hard even for successful institutions to afford Manhattan real estate.
The Drawing Center wanted to be at the trade center site not because of some specific link to 9/11, but because they valued the location. Its decision to withdraw is looking even wiser as the rebuilding process remains complicated and slow.
"We weren't specifically wed to that site because of what its holds," Gold said. "It was a wonderful opportunity that turned out not to be such a great opportunity. I don't think we're giving up anything by not being there."
As for Signature, the city proposed that it move to a space planned for the site of Fiterman Hall, the Borough of Manhattan Community College building currently undergoing decontamination. That sites future, like so much near ground zero, also remains in doubt.
Signature, though, thinks the move away from the trade center site still makes sense.
"The city said it was going to be too costly to do it, and I think they're right," said James Houghton, artistic director of the Signature, told the Times last year. "Frankly, it's refreshing to get this straight talk about it. I don't think anyone wants to build a $700 million performing arts center."
Â