HOUSING
-Top Priority?
-Repeal Urstadt Law?
-Mandatory Affordable Housing
All of the candidates see affordable housing as one of the most critical issues facing New York City.
Despite a recent real estate boom, the citywide vacancy rate for rental apartments is 2.9 percent, the lowest in the last 15 years. Nearly a quarter of renters pay more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing. And 23 percent of all renters - more than 725,000 people - live in overcrowded apartments. The city also has a record number of homeless people, about 35,000 people in the city’s shelters, 25 percent more than four years ago.
The state has control over the city’s rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments. The Urstadt Law, passed in 1971, gives the state control of the rent regulation laws affecting more than half of rental apartments in the city. Some believe it should be repealed.
In order to build affordable housing in the city, some officials have proposed requiring developers to make a certain percentage of their buildings affordable. While the city currently offers subsidies to encourage developers to do so, it does not mandate it.
When he was Bronx Borough President, Fernando Ferrer says he helped created 66,000 homes. Now, he has outlined an ambitious $8.5 billion plan to create or preserve 167,000 affordable housing units over the next ten years.
“When I am mayor, we will build our way out of this crisis,” Ferrer said. “Brick by brick. Apartment by apartment. House by house. Those aren't just words in a speech. They're the work of my life.”
Ferrer wants to require developers to set aside 30 percent of housing units for middle- and low-income individuals in targeted areas. He says this will create an additional 15,000 homes. Financial incentives will be made available to developers who set aside an additional 20 percent of units for affordable housing. Ferrer wants to raise taxes on vacant land.
Ferrer supports the repeal of the Urstadt Law, which gives the state control of the rent regulation.
Ferrer supports mandatory affordable housing in new development. His housing plan calls for 30 percent for low to middle-income housing.
C. Virginia Fields has outlined a plan to build 100,000 new apartments over the next 10 years.
She wants to make affordable housing units mandatory in particular communities that are seeing dramatic increases in rents. Fields also advocates giving financial bonuses to developers in residential districts outside of Manhattan.
Fields also wants to utilize vacant land to build new housing. “I think it is important too to look at the inventory of city-owned land and to make sure that we are not selling that at market-rate prices,” she said at a recent forum.
Fields supports the repeal of the Urstadt Law, which gives the state control of the rent regulation.
Fields supports mandatory affordable housing in new development. She said it depends on the neighborhood and the real estate market, but that she would support "as high as 30 percent" affordable housing.
Gifford Miller has proposed a $7.2 billion plan to preserve and construct more than 169,000 affordable units over the next ten years. (Read Miller's housing plan.) In order to achieve this goal, Miller promises to:
- Invest $2.66 billion to preserve 85,000 units of affordable housing
- Invest $4.5 billion over to build 64,000 new units of affordable housing for low, moderate, and middle income New Yorkers, including to 9,090 units of supportive housing for seniors and the disabled.
-Create 20,000 new units of affordable housing by using Affordable Housing Impact Statements to require aggressive use of inclusionary zoning and expanding the 80-20 program.
Miller also promises to give a rent tax credit to all households that make under $100,000 a year, but don't currently qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. A household earning $100,000 or less and paying a $1,000 monthly rent would get a $360 credit, under the plan.
Miller supports the repeal of the Urstadt Law, which gives the state control of rent regulations. “There is no reason, no reason, that we should have to go up to Albany and bargain with some upstate senator for our homes,” Miller said at a recent forum. “It is wrong.”
Although Millers supports inclusionary zoning and as Speaker of the City Council has implemented rezonings of areas that create 20 percent of new development as affordable, he said he is opposed to mandatory requirements.
At a recent forum, Miller said, "If you set the set-asides too high in a mandatory what happens is that nobody builds at all. So there really isn't a difference between an effective voluntary plan and an effective mandatory plan, because if the percentages work on the dollars for people then they'll take advantage of them."
If elected, Anthony Weiner promises to develop a comprehensive plan for affordable housing that will encompass the entire city. He believes that all rezoned residential areas should include 20 percent affordable housing, but he also wants to create a special designation for “middle-class housing.”
“It is not enough merely to have inclusionary zoning that says 80 percent at market and 20 percent for low-income people,” Weiner said at recent forum. “We need to create a third category of housing for middle class New Yorkers.”
Weiner supports the repeal of the Urstadt Law, which gives the state control of rent regulations.
At a recent forum, Weiner said he would favor housing development with "60 percent at market rate, 20 percent for middle-income families like mine and 20 percent for those making somewhat less."
Michael Bloomberg set out a plan to build 68,000 new homes. So far, the administration says 26,000 new apartments are already under development.
Bloomberg also proposed the creation of a New York City Housing Trust Fund, which will use $130 million in Battery Park City Authority revenues to construct or preserve 3,000 units of affordable housing.
Bloomberg’s position on the repeal of the Urstadt Law - which gives the state control of the rent regulations - has changed over time. In the past, he said he supported the repeal. However, he now says that the law should not be repealed because the city cannot afford to administer the rent regulation system that the state currently administers.
(Read Bloomberg’s housing plan)
Although Bloomberg supports inclusionary zoning and as mayor has implemented rezonings of areas that create 20 percent of new development as affordable, he has not proposed mandatory requirements.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Candidates Vie Over Affordable Housing And Homelessness Prevention Plans
- The Mayoral Candidates On Housing (Forum)
- Homeless Programs That Are Working, So Far
- The Latest Rent Increases
- Repealing the Urstadt Law
Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Great Ground Zero Heist
By DEBRA BURLINGAME
June 7, 2005; Page A14, Wall Street Journal
On Memorial Day weekend, three Marines from the 24th Expeditionary Unit who had been wounded in Iraq were joined by 300 other service members for a wreath-laying ceremony at the empty pit of Ground Zero. The broken pieces of the Twin Towers have long ago been cleared away. There are no faded flags or hand-painted signs of national unity, no simple tokens of remembrance. So why do they come? What do they hope to see?
The World Trade Center Memorial will break ground this year. When those Marines return in 2010, the year it is scheduled to open, no doubt they will expect to see the artifacts that bring those memories to life. They'll want a vantage point that allows them to take in the sheer scope of the destruction, to see the footage and the photographs and hear the personal stories of unbearable heartbreak and unimaginable courage. They will want the memorial to take them back to who they were on that brutal September morning.
Instead, they will get a memorial that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the yearning to return to that day. Rather than a respectful tribute to our individual and collective loss, they will get a slanted history lesson, a didactic lecture on the meaning of liberty in a post-9/11 world. They will be served up a heaping foreign policy discussion over the greater meaning of Abu Ghraib and what it portends for the country and the rest of the world.
The World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex will be an imposing edifice wedged in the place where the Twin Towers once stood. It will serve as the primary "gateway" to the underground area where the names of the lost are chiseled into concrete. The organizers of its principal tenant, the International Freedom Center (IFC), have stated that they intend to take us on "a journey through the history of freedom" -- but do not be fooled into thinking that their idea of freedom is the same as that of those Marines. To the IFC's organizers, it is not only history's triumphs that illuminate, but also its failures. 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. 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.
The public will be confused at first, and then feel hoodwinked and betrayed. Where, they will ask, do we go to see the September 11 Memorial? The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation will have erected a building whose only connection to September 11 is a strained, intellectual one. While the IFC is getting 300,000 square feet of space to teach us how to think about liberty, the actual Memorial Center on the opposite corner of the site will get a meager 50,000 square feet to exhibit its 9/11 artifacts, all out of sight and underground. Most of the cherished objects which were salvaged from Ground Zero in those first traumatic months will never return to the site. There is simply no room. But the International Freedom Center will have ample space to present us with exhibits about Chinese dissidents and Chilean refugees. These are important subjects, but for somewhere -- anywhere -- else, not the site of the worst attack on American soil in the history of the republic.
More disturbing, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. is handing over millions of federal dollars and the keys to that building to some of the very same people who consider the post-9/11 provisions of the Patriot Act more dangerous than the terrorists that they were enacted to apprehend -- people whose inflammatory claims of a deliberate torture policy at Guantanamo Bay are undermining this country's efforts to foster freedom elsewhere in the world.
The driving force behind the IFC is Tom Bernstein, the dynamic co-founder of the Chelsea Piers Sports and Entertainment Complex who made a fortune financing Hollywood movies. But his capital ventures appear to have funded his true calling, the pro bono work he has done his entire adult life -- as an activist lawyer in the human rights movement. He has been a proud member of Human Rights First since it was founded -- as the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights -- 27 years ago, and has served as its president for the last 12.
The public has a right to know that it was Mr. Bernstein's organization, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, that filed a lawsuit three months ago against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Human Rights First that filed an amicus brief on behalf of alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, an American citizen who the Justice Department believes is an al Qaeda recruit. It was Human Rights First that has called for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the alleged torture of detainees, complete with budget authority, subpoena power and the ability to demand that witnesses testify under oath.
In fact, the IFC's list of those who are shaping or influencing the content and programming for their Ground Zero exhibit includes a Who's Who of the human rights, Guantanamo-obsessed world:
• Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the world-wide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld's refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is "irresponsible and dishonorable."
• Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.
• Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.
• George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib "hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself."
While Gov. George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and LMDC are focusing their attention on the economic revival of lower Manhattan, there has been no meaningful oversight with respect to the "cash cow of Ground Zero." Meanwhile, the Freedom Center's organizers are quickly lining up individuals, institutions and university provosts with this arrogant appeal: "The memorial to the victims will be the heart of the site, the IFC will be the brain." Indeed, they have declared the World Trade Center Memorial the perfect "magnet" for the world's "great leaders, thinkers and activists" to participate in lectures and symposiums that examine the "foundations of free and open societies." Put less grandly, these activists and academics are salivating at the prospect of holding forth on the "perfect platform" where the domestic and foreign policy they despise was born.
Less welcome to the Freedom Center are the actual beneficiaries of that policy. According to the New York Times, early renderings of the center's exhibit area created by its Norwegian architectural firm depicted a large mural of an Iraqi voter. That image was replaced by a photograph of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson when the designs were made public. What does it mean that the "story of humankind's quest for freedom" doesn't include the kind that is fought for with the blood and tears of patriots? It means, I fear, that this is a freedom center which will not use the word "patriot" the way our Founding Fathers did.
The so-called lessons of September 11 should not be force-fed by ideologues hoping to use the memorial site as nothing more than a powerful visual aid to promote their agenda. Instead of exhibits and symposiums about Internationalism and Global Policy we should hear the story of the courageous young firefighter whose body, cut in half, was found with his legs entwined around the body of a woman. Recovery personnel concluded that because of their positions, the young firefighter was carrying her.
The people who visit Ground Zero in five years will come because they want to pay their respects at the place where heroes died. They will come because they want to remember what they saw that day, because they want a personal connection, to touch the place that touched them, the place that rallied the nation and changed their lives forever. I would wager that, if given a choice, they would rather walk through that dusty hanger at JFK Airport where 1,000 World Trade Center artifacts are stored than be herded through the International Freedom Center's multi-million dollar insult.
Ground Zero has been stolen, right from under our noses. How do we get it back?
Ms. Burlingame is a member of the board of directors of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines fight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
A Fitting Place at Ground Zero
By RICHARD J. TOFEL
June 9, 2005; Page A16, Wall Street Journal
A year ago tomorrow, a new institution called the International Freedom Center was formally designated by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. as one of the four cultural institutions for the World Trade Center site, all to be operated under the aegis of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation.
But some ask why such an institution -- including museum exhibition spaces, an educational and cultural center already boasting commitments from nine of New York City's, the nation's and the world's leading universities, and a robust service and civic engagement program all devoted to advancing the cause of freedom -- should be placed at Ground Zero. It is a serious question, and it deserves a thoughtful response.
The answer can be found in our society's proudest traditions and its deepest aspirations.
First, of course, the World Trade Center site must include a fitting and powerful memorial. And so it will. Michael Arad and Peter Walker's "Reflecting Absence" will transform the footprints of both of the Towers into "voids," each nearly an acre in size, and including perhaps the largest continuous man-made waterfalls in the world, surrounded by a veritable forest in the middle of the nation's third-largest business district. The Memorial will dominate the site, and provide its soul.
Then there will be the Memorial Center, a museum devoted to the events of September 11 itself, with exhibit space roughly equal in size to that at the International Freedom Center. The Memorial Center will tell the stories of the day -- of heroism and sacrifice, of rescue and service, of courage and resolution, of memory and loss. It is the Memorial Center that will contain the iconic artifacts of September 11.
That is necessary, but not sufficient.
As envisioned in Daniel Libeskind's master plan for the site's redevelopment, the International Freedom Center's building will serve as a buffer between the sacred Memorial and the hustle and bustle of the surrounding city, including the thousands of people who will move each day in and out of Santiago Calatrava's spectacular new transit hub.
But the International Freedom Center itself will do much more than that. It will serve as a complement to the Memorial, bringing a universal "narrative of hope" to a place where hope is imperative.
In a world awash in so-called watershed moments, September 11, 2001, was the beginning of a new era, the end of what President Bush called the post-Cold War "sabbatical." Many of the meanings and lessons of September 11 will not be fully clear for years, but as the president reminded us in his second inaugural address, "We have seen our vulnerability -- and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder -- violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom."
Freedom, we have learned time and again, is not a gift from our parents to be put on a shelf and admired. It requires work in our own time, work each of us can do and all of us must do.
Nor is the story of freedom one which began in America -- or one that can end here. Ambassador Martin Palous, who fought for freedom in his own Czechoslovakia, now serves the free Czech Republic, and is also one of the more than 35 scholars of freedom who have advised the International Freedom Center, put it this way:
"9/11 is a story of courage, hope, and freedom: the courage to make the decision to go into the buildings to save someone, the hope to start anew after disaster, the wish to base our society on free will in the context of a pluralistic public sphere. It was a moment of truth in the story of freedom, and it connects the United States with democratic revolutions around the world, which share this quality of believing in the possibility of new beginnings." Out of the tragedy of September 11 came a renewed civic spirit, and the International Freedom Center will work to sustain that. This is work that can unite people of goodwill everywhere.
To be sure, the International Freedom Center will host debates and note points of view with which you -- and I -- will disagree. But that is the point, the proof of our society's enduring self-confidence and humanity. Moreover, the International Freedom Center will rise above the politics of the moment. It will not exist to precisely define "freedom" or to tell people what to think, but to get them to think -- and to act in the service of freedom as they see it. And it will always do so in a manner respectful of the victims of September 11.
Judge Learned Hand may have put it best in the speech he gave in a New York City park during one of freedom's darkest hours, in the midst of another generation's greatest test: "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women."
Ground Zero is precisely the right place to make this stand and leave a legacy for our children and generations to come. No less than Abraham Lincoln told us so, and at no less a place than Gettysburg. One hundred and forty-two years later, many Americans remember what was done there, but nearly all know what was said there. Lincoln did not speak at Gettysburg of Little Round Top or Pickett's Charge. He talked about the future, and here is what he said:
"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."
Mr. Tofel is president of the International Freedom Center.
>
Hundreds gathered in the Capitol rotunda in Washington D.C. this summer, beneath the painting of George Washington and allegorical figures representing the 13 colonies, to mark the 200th birthday of the painter who created it, Constantino Brumidi. Several senators spoke, paying tribute to a man who, Senator Hillary Clinton said, "came to this country to find a better life and, in the greatest tradition of our nation made an indelible mark on our history."
But while Washington has heralded Brumidi, New York, the site of his other major American work, has been less kind. Brumidi's paintings grace the interior of Our Lady of the Scapular and St. Stephen's Church on East 28th Street. But despite 40 years of effort by preservationists, the building is still not a designated landmark. Many in the community, including those of us on Community Board 6, hope the bicentennial of Brumidi's birth will spur the city Landmarks Preservation Commission to act. We think the church is worthy of preserving and would like to see the process that began with Landmarks hearings in the 1960s, move forward.
The delay at St. Stephen's, as the church is popularly called, brings into focus a problem facing landmarking in New York. All too often the landmarks commission, perennially short of staff and money, does not act until a crisis is at hand. The case of St. Stephen's also serves as an example of the limits on what the community boards can do in such instances. A Romanesque brownstone church, St. Stephen's was designed and built from 1850 to 1854 by noted architect James Renwick, who also designed St. Patrick's Cathedral on Fifth Avenue, Grace Church in Greenwich Village and the original building of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. But it is the interior of St. Stephen's that is truly remarkable. Light pours through 100 stained glass windows created by Meyer of Munich, Germany. And then there are the Brumidi's. These include murals - such as a large crucifixion scene over the altar - and paintings depicting a variety of religious themes, including the Stations of the Cross. Brumidi also employed trompe l'oeil. What seem to be sculptures of figures such as David on closer examination turn out to be paintings. Similarly what on first glance looked like columns and stonework throughout the church were actually paintings. Much of this work, though, was covered over in the 1940s.
As he worked at St. Stephen's, Brumidi was also busy at the Capitol, creating not only the paintings in the rotunda but other works in the building, including much of the frieze of American history. Brumidi finished his painting at St. Stephen's but died in 1880 before he could complete his Capitol frieze.
Beyond its artistic merit, St. Stephen's played a role in New York's religious and political life. In 1860, it was the largest Catholic parish in the country with 24,000 members. The pastor at the time, Edward McGlynn, had an interest in the arts and brought Brumidi to the church. Later McGlynn became active in social and economic issues of the day, taking positions that ran counter to the teachings of the Catholic Church at the time. This led to his excommunication and departure from St. Stephen's.
So, given such an illustrious architectural, artistic and social history, why hasn't the landmarks commission acted on the designation? After all, no one has publicly come out in opposition to the idea.
For one thing, the building has not been in any immediate danger. My experience with the Landmarks Preservation Commission is that it rarely rejects a building for landmarks designation after holding a public hearing. Even if there is not enough support to landmark the building, the commission will usually not vote to deny the application -- unless the owner wants to tear the structure down. This seems to largely be a question of staff and money. Even in good financial times, certain city agencies get the short end - and the Landmarks Preservation Commission is among them. In the case of St. Stephen's, the Archdiocese of New York, which owns the building, has never expressed any interest in altering or destroying it. And so the landmarks commission has never been forced to act.
And landmarking St. Stephen's poses at least one major problem. The hearings in the 1960s dealt with designating the exterior of the building a landmark, but much of the current research and interest in the building centers on the interior, particularly the murals. The city's landmarks law does allow that interiors or parts of interiors of buildings be designated as landmarks - but, perhaps because of constitutional concerns about the separation of church and state -- not if the building is an active house of worship. And mass is still held at St. Stephen's every day.
A campaign is underway to raise millions of dollars needed to restore the murals. Some of the framed paintings have already been restored. Apparently there are some federal funds available to restore interiors of houses of worship - as long as the money goes to art and architecture, rather than promoting religion. Protecting the exterior of the church by designating it a landmark might generate publicity that would help the fundraising campaign for the murals.
This year, two things sparked renewed interest in getting landmark status for St. Stephen's. One is the Brumidi bicentennial. The 200th anniversary of his birth seemed to present a good opportunity for honoring Brumidi's work and doing what we could do, within the bounds of the law, to protect it. The other is that the archdiocese has been closing schools and merging churches. Although they have not said they have any plans to close St. Stephen's - which is already the result of a merger between two congregations - the downsizing has renewed concerns about the fate of St. Stephen's
Responding to these events, the community board examined the issue for about two or three months earlier this year. Then, we passed a resolution endorsing landmarks designation for the facade of St. Stephen's, supporting the restoration work on the murals, and urging that the interior be landmarked if St. Stephen's ever ceased to be a church. Our interpretation of the law is that the restriction on landmarking for churches, synagogues, mosques and so on only concerns active houses of worship. If the congregation was no longer in the St. Stephen's building -- even if the archdiocese still owned it -- we feel the interior would be eligible for landmarking, but I guess that would be for the lawyers to determine.
As much as the community board supports landmarking for the church, our role, unfortunately, is limited. The city charter gives the community boards only the authority to recommend. Our resolutions have the power to express the point of view of the community but they do not have the power of law.
This is in contrast to changes in land use or zoning, the city's process -- the Unified Land Use Review Process, or ULURP -- requires that the community board review and pass resolutions supporting or opposing the recommended change. The city does not have to follow our recommendation but the very fact that it is required by law to get our opinion gives our viewpoint more influence than it would otherwise have.
Decisions on landmarks, though, are not part of this process. The community board does not have to be consulted.
Any courtesy or consideration the Landmarks Preservation Commission gives to the community boards is voluntary on their part. Community Board 6 has passed resolutions asking that landmarks be put under some sort of review similar to ULURP where an application would have to go to the community board for recommendation before landmarks ruled on it. This would require that they have our input, but, unfortunately, this idea hasn't gone anywhere. In the meantime, we do try to consider any landmark decisions that arise in our area.
We have had more success with the so-called Certificate of Appropriateness, which comes into play when an owner wants to make changes to a landmarked building. Owners applying for one are told to first go to their community board. This is a voluntary process and a new policy, but, as far as we are concerned, it is working so far.
Despite the limits on our role in designating landmarks, we do get involved. St. Stephen's is one example. Another is Stuyvesant Town. Met Life, which owns the housing complex, is opposed to making the development a landmark, including the outside green spaces, or ovals. The community board did vote to landmark, but the Landmarks Preservation Commission has not yet put it on their calendar. When they do act on this, on St. Stephen's and on other landmarks issues on the East Side, we at Community Board 6 hope they will consider our recommendations.
Gary Papush is chair of the parks and landmarks committee of Community Board 6 on Manhattan's East Side.
Â