In his 2006 State of the City address, Mayor Michael Bloomberg made it clear that housing is a priority for his second term. He said he would emphasize affordability. As rents continue to rise across the city and statistics show people are spending more of their income on rent, this is certainly something most New Yorkers want to hear.
“New York’s future depends on our ability to make sure that middle and working class families can afford to live here,” Bloomberg said. “That’s why we fought for the $400 property tax rebate… It’s why I will be asking the State Legislature to extend the rebates for the remainder of my term. And it’s why we are creating the most ambitious affordable housing initiative in New York City history.”
The mayor was referring to his $400 property tax rebate to homeowners and his $7.5 billion plan to build and preserve 165,000 apartments that middle-income and low-income people can afford.
The mayor has other initiatives in housing that he can point to as proof that he takes housing seriously. During his campaign last year, hardly a day went by when the mayor did not announce some new effort to address a problem in housing. Housing groups had been aggressively pushing many of those initiatives long before the mayor got around to them.
Some advocates say city officials have responded to their proposals and acted effectively – and they look forward to more of the same during his second term.
In an email, a spokesperson for the city said, “The Bloomberg Administration is always glad to hear and discuss housing concerns and policy with advocates, tenants, and residential owners. We have a very positive and ongoing dialog with housing advocates. While we may not agree with all their proposals, and views also differ among the advocacy organizations, we all share a goal of building and preserving more affordable housing in New York City.” A member of a landlords lobby group told me that his group had noticed the city’s discussions with advocates. He raised an eyebrow.
A good recent example of that dialog is probably the Targeted Code Enforcement Program (TCEP). About a year ago, advocates led by the Association for Neighborhood Housing and Developmentbrokered a deal with city housing officials that provides comprehensive inspections of problem buildings. That deal itself stemmed from a council bill.
“We’re seeing a lot of violations and we’re seeing landlords wanting to repair their buildings as a result of being targeted by council members and community groups,” said David Greenberg of the Association for Neighborhood Housing and Development. “And for landlords immune to that kind of pressure the city is suing them.”
Marc Greenberg at the Interfaith Assembly on Homelessness and Housing said the code enforcement initiative was one of a number that show “good faith.” He also cited the mayor’s New Housing Market plan and his rent subsidy program called Housing Stability Plus, despite its problems, as evidence of concern and attention to housing and homelessness.
“I think in each of these cases there has been a good faith gesture and now it’s up to advocates to work with the administration to come up with the rest,” he said. “There’s clearly an openness to continue the dialogue.
“Frankly, this is the way government should be. It should work in partnership with the non-profit sector. Now we have to hold up our end of the relationship.”
Other advocates, however, are not nearly as optimistic. The main reason is that the city’s largest stock of affordable housing –- rent stabilized apartments -– is evaporating. And the mayor is doing virtually nothing about it.
“He’s totally ignoring it,” said Michael McKee, of Tenants Political Action Committee. “It doesn’t make any sense. Maybe he hasn’t thought it through.”
And the problem is compounded by the loss of subsidized housing, too, McKee said. Many people are waiting anxiously to see what the courts say about whether a landlord must continue to accept the federal Section 8 rent subsidy from a tenant in a rent stabilized apartment.
In those apartments, leases automatically renew, ostensibly under the same terms and conditions as the original lease. So, if a landlord accepted Section 8 from the outset, tenant lawyers have argued, they should have to continue accepting it. But changes in federal law, landlord attorneys argue, make it clear that landlords should not have to continue accepting Section 8 when a lease renews.
Courts have ruled both ways and a ruling on the issue is expected any day now from the appellate court that oversees Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.
A member of a landlord lobby group said his organization is awaiting the higher court decision on this issue with great expectations. He said landlords oppose renewing Section 8 because the bureaucratic problems landlords experience dealing with Section 8 are a nightmare. That is a real problem with Section 8 – even advocates call it the program they “love to hate.”
But it is not hard to see that if landlords do not have to renew Section 8 leases, they will effectively force thousands of people to move: No one receiving Section 8 could afford to stay in the apartment – they would face a huge rent increase, hundreds of dollars. And they would, of course, lose their Section 8 if they chose to stay in the apartment. In the city, Section 8 has a waiting list that has been closed for more than a decade. And it is important to bear in mind that when people vacate rent stabilized apartments, the landlord can raise the rent substantially for a new tenant – and decontrol it if the rent hits $2,000 or greater.
McKee said a court ruling in favor of landlords would be a disaster for low-income tenants who receive Section 8.
“If the courts rule in favor of landlords, a lot of people are going to get evicted,” he said. “We’re all holding our breaths to see what happens.”
The mayor has turned a deaf ear, too, to other subsidized housing programs that are being lost. In the last few years, as many as half of the 80,000 or Mitchell-Lama rentals in the city have gone or are in the process of becoming market-rate apartments. The state Mitchell-Lama program, which helped developers build apartments through tax rebates and other incentives, allows landlords to buy out of the program after a set period – 20 years, for example. Many are doing so.
One change in state law would allow the city to effectively address both of these issues: Giving the city home rule on rent regulation laws. Changing the state law would allow the city to write its own laws on housing, stricter than those proposed by state legislators. Bloomberg supported home rule once, then changed his mind. Again, advocates are mystified.
“This is the first mayor who doesn’t owe anything at all to the real estate lobby,” McKee said. “He’s not beholden to them at all. I am just speculating, but I think the problem is that, in his world view, rent regulation is not a good thing.
“When Bloomberg wanted control of the schools, he talked about it every day and he proved all the pundits wrong. He should make the same effort on home rule.” But, McKee said, Bloomberg seems uninterested in discussing that or other issues related to rent regulation.
Some advocates criticize the mayor for what they see as his neglect of effective programs to help the homeless.
“If Bloomberg really is serious about homelessness prevention why does he continue to de-fund legal service programs and neighborhood stabilization programs?” said Larry Wood, organizer at Goddard Riverside Community Center in Manhattan (and a member of the board of directors of the organization for which I work.) He was referring to the annual budget negotiations between City Council and the mayor’s office, when the mayor’s budget zeroes out funding of legal services, which he calls a "mindless dance."
“Homelessness prevention programs -- both preserving the tenancies and preserving those units that become deregulated –- are cost effective and keep people out of the shelter system and from becoming a much bigger burden for the city,” said Wood.
So, while Bloomberg has impressed some with his commitments to solving housing problems, he has a long way to go to convince others.
Joe Lamport is the assistant director of the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, a coalition of community housing organizations. Â
The City Planning Commission recently spent a whole day listening to testimony on the proposal by the Yankees to build a new stadium in the Bronx. Neighborhood residents came out in droves and the construction unions sent their troops. After a flat no vote by Bronx Community Board 4, a conditional approval by Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion, and an upsurge of protest by parks advocates, it remains to be seen whether the Yankee project will meet the fate of the failed Jets stadium in Manhattan that went down to defeat last year. The City Planning Commission will soon cast its vote.
While city planners give the impression they are neutral guardians of the public interest, when it comes to sports stadiums emotions always seem to befog the faculty of reason. Stadium plans bring out the fans and their rivals. Team owners appeal to home-town boosters, and elected officials wear the team T-shirts to prove their loyalty. After the cheering is over, however, planners have to do what they are charged to do by the city charter: look at the costs and benefits, and what makes sense for the health and welfare of city residents.
In the interests of full disclosure, I confess that I’m not just a dispassionate planner. I grew up a Brooklyn Dodgers fan. This branded me for life as an advocate for the underdog and may explain why I wound up specializing in community-based planning. I will never forget the elated feeling when my dad took me to see Peewee Reese and Roy Campanella play in a stadium only a short trolley ride from our apartment.
On the other hand, I’m not at all nostalgic for the Dodgers. They’re gone and will never come back, neither as a minor league team or a basketball franchise. Jackie Robinson Houses now provides needed housing where Ebbets Field used to stand, and so be it. I may never come around to really liking the rich man’s team from the Bronx, but in today’s baseball world is there any team that isn’t managed by and for the pin-striped suits?
Fine. No nostalgia for the Dodgers and no more Yankees-bashing. Now I can just think like a city planner and judge the Yankee proposal in terms of 21st century New York and its needs. The main criterion for judging the proposal should be how it meets the city’s needs for sports and recreation, which are essential elements of public health. Too often planners look at stadiums as commercial facilities and job generators, and fail to connect stadium planning with planning for parks and recreation.
To start with, there seem to be some good things about the stadium plan. While the Yankees will take 22 acres of parkland, they and the city will replace it with 28 acres, including several spanking-new ball fields. Their designs make at least some connections with the surrounding neighborhoods, which long have been neglected by Yankee management, and the Yankees are throwing some of their super-profits back into the neighborhoods.
On the other hand, the parks seem to do more for the Yankees than they do for Yankee fans living in the Bronx. Charles V. Bagli and Timothy Williams recently raised these questions in their New York Times article.
New York is buffeted by epidemics of diabetes, obesity and childhood asthma as opportunities have shrunk for kids to play in parks and on streets and sidewalks. As the population grows and new housing gets built, the city has no plans to add significant public spaces and parks. Instead, as the Parks Department budget is continually gutted, commercial uses are welcomed into parks to help pay for maintenance. New “open spaces” are more often private, decorative malls than active places for public gathering. For example, the proposed Brooklyn Bridge Park is now becoming a commercial and residential waterfront enclave. The Jets were encouraged to build a stadium in Flushing Meadows Corona Park. And the alternative locations considered by the Yankees were both in Bronx parks: Van Cortlandt Park and Pelham Bay Park.
In the Bronx, the big parks tend to be in the north, while the largest concentrations of population and chronic asthma and obesity are in the south. City schools have ridiculously few facilities for sports and recreation. Too many New Yorkers find their only relationship to sports is sitting in front of a TV instead of going out for a pick-up game at a local park. Professional sports don’t help, but rather encourage more passive, immobile (albeit noisy) spectators. Ball parks serve high-priced junk food. But when I was a kid I could watch Duke Snyder hammer a home run out onto Bedford Avenue and also play stickball on streets that weren’t flooded with cars.
Oops, I’m lapsing into nostalgia!
Back to planning, the real question is how much will the new Bronx park space encourage active recreation (that actually burns calories) by the people who need it? It’s not just having the open space but making sure it’s accessible and programmed for the people who need it. The old parks are intensively utilized for a variety of active and passive recreational activities and there’s certainly need for improvement. But the new parks seem to be largely for organized team sports serving young athletes, mostly male, from throughout the city and region, leaving the local kids to fend for themselves. For the locals, some of the new parks are going to be hard to get to. One is to be on a waterfront cut off by an expressway. The two proposed rooftop parks could pose access problems.
Another health issue has to do with parking. The Yankees propose 4,500 additional parking spaces. This will lead more people to drive to games and fewer will take mass transit. Since the stadium is surrounded by neighborhoods that have some of the highest childhood asthma rates in the city, shouldn’t dependence on auto use be decreasing? And where is the bicycle network?
What about the new jobs that will be created? Here the discussion seems always to go back into the emotional realm. In his recent book, “Job Scam,” Greg LeRoy summed up the results of just about every economic study on stadium economics: “The projections made by team owners and their paid consultants in support of stadium subsidies are little more than vague or arbitrary promises about job creation and economic stimulus. These cost-benefit analyses rest on faith-based economics: proponents ask the public, in essence, to believe that the subsidies will pay off.”
Much has been said about the more than $200,000 million of city and state subsidies backing the Yankee plan, but I’ve not seen any projection of the long-term costs to the city of housing the team. The Yankees will pay no rent, property taxes or taxes on construction. How many billions of dollars of lost revenue will that add up to over a 40-year period? Will Yankee charity and the minimal spinoff for local businesses make up the difference?
Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion wants a written Community Benefits Agreement to seal the deal for local jobs. This is a bit late in the game, and if it does happen, once the construction is done the Bronx may be left with not much more than a handful of seasonal low-paying service jobs, maybe even less than the present level.
No matter. You gotta believe!
Tom Angotti is Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Hunter College, City University of NY, editor of Progressive Planning Magazine, and a member of the Task Force on Community-based Planning.Â
With Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s inauguration behind us, the debate now begins in earnest about the issues he will tackle in his second administration. As he considers what to do, Mayor Bloomberg would do well to consider London’s example.
Some of the issues facing Mayor Bloomberg are clear – since the election he has vowed several times to build new affordable housing and aggressively focus on Lower Manhattan redevelopment. New Council Speaker Christine Quinn may have a few ideas of her own, of course, as do many other politicians and advocates around the city who would like the mayor to put his overwhelming electoral mandate to work on their behalf. Neighborhood revitalization efforts will be at the top of many lists, while others will likely focus on a congestion charge scheme like the one that has proven so successful in London. Such initiatives would all leave a mark on New York, but in isolation – and without a broader vision – their long-term impact would ultimately be limited.
A bolder approach would borrow another big idea from across the pond – the London Plan. More formally known as London’s Spatial Development Strategy, this land use planning document articulates a coherent, long-term vision that says where development should occur, and what it should look like. What is truly unique about the London Plan, however – and what makes it noteworthy for policymakers in New York – is the way it links to and is supported by other strategic plans covering topics like transport, noise, waste management, air quality, economic development and energy. To borrow a term from British policy debates, London’s strategies emphasize “joined up” thinking, with each individual strategy reflecting and supporting key themes found in other policy documents.
In the London Plan, for example, London Mayor Ken Livingstone announced he wants developers to build high density, energy efficient, mixed-use complexes near existing transit hubs, and he is using his planning control powers to make sure this occurs. By concentrating development, the Mayor makes it easier for Londoners to walk or bike to bus stops and London Underground stations. In other words, his land use plan is also a transportation and energy conservation plan, complementing his congestion charge program, while simultaneously reducing traffic noise and improving the city’s air quality. It is hardly rocket science, and in the world of urban planning these ideas are fairly commonplace. But whereas most cities employ this technique on a spot basis – say to revitalize one small neighborhood – in London the mayor wants to make it work citywide.
The London Plan also ventures into energy policy by requiring new developments to generate electricity on-site using renewable energy technologies. In doing so, the mayor is reinforcing his economic development strategy by focusing on making London the hub of a new urban energy business sector in Europe.
Strategic planning is nothing new to New York City – or to Michael Bloomberg. The world-renowned 1929 Regional Plan demonstrably shaped how our city grew, and we still benefit from the system of bridges, tunnels, highways, parkland and natural preserves that resulted from that original planning effort.
More recently, Mayor Bloomberg has issued a bold solid waste plan, helped New Yorkers reclaim waterfront access, and worked to expand commercial development in Brooklyn. He partnered with local residents to create a “vision plan” for a more livable Hunts Point and extended bikeways so New Yorkers can safely pedal to work. (The latter idea proved particularly important during the December transit strike, when thousands of New Yorkers took their bikes out of storage to get around the city, despite the frigid temperatures.) These initiatives articulated a clear vision by the mayor and his team about how to improve our city.
What is missing, however, are the links that make the London Plan an important tool for that city’s future. New York’s new waste plan could have emphasized both export and the use of locally available recyclable materials as the basis for new manufacturing jobs here. Plans for “big box” stores delight many New Yorkers – but aggravate others – because they frequently are proposed for areas like Red Hook, where limited public transit access forces shoppers to drive, increasing local traffic congestion. Brooklyn’s proposed Atlantic Yards development has far more public transit options, but there has been no discussion of how clean, on-site energy systems for this massive complex could help address the looming electricity crisis identified by Mayor Bloomberg’s 2004 Energy Task Force.
None of these issues are mutually exclusive, but because city agency responsibilities are narrowly defined, new development proposals often advance within a policy or planning vacuum.
A “New York Plan” would thus represent a seismic shift in how New York City is managed. Residential and commercial development would not stop, but would instead be directed to specific neighborhoods on terms that better reflect the city’s long range interests – not just the developer’s parochial financial interests and “as-of-right” prerogatives.
In other words, a New York Plan would help the city achieve sustained economic growth, less traffic and a cleaner environment, while providing City agency heads with a mandate and platform to deliver it. As in London, such a plan could galvanize public support around a vision of our city’s future, and create a powerful legacy befitting Mayor Bloomberg’s historic second term opportunity.
Stephen A. Hammer, a consultant on energy and environmental issues who studied urban planning at the London School of Economics, teaches a course on urban energy policy at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
Â