Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Development

Overdevelopment: Planning, Not Rezoning, Is The Answer


In New York City’s quiet suburban-like neighborhoods far from Times Square and Wall Street, there’s lots of buzz these days about “overdevelopment.” Homeowners in these low-density enclaves are worried developers will start building to the maximum allowed by zoning, which in some cases can mean two houses in the place of one or even an apartment building here and there. The Bloomberg administration has responded by downzoning “to preserve neighborhood character” in some 42 areas of the city. Downzoning reduces the potential for development while upzoning allows more development.

New York Times correspondent Janny Scott recently repeated the common orthodoxy about what’s behind the downzonings. She said it was: “A swelling population, an overheated real estate market and the biggest building boom in 30 years.” This is how it’s perceived by many out in the neighborhoods. But growth pressures are only part of the picture.

According to New York City Councilmember Tony Avella, chair of the Zoning and Franchises Committee and a long-time critic of “overdevelopment,” while the current zoning in many low density neighborhoods is “totally inappropriate and hasn’t been changed in years, there is a correlation between overdevelopment and lack of planning. We need to totally revamp the way the City of New York does planning.” Avella is a supporter of the Campaign for Community-based Planning and is working on legislation that would change the way planning is done.

Community Planning Not Rezoning

The real problem with downzoning to stop overdevelopment, or upzoning to encourage development, is that they both avoid any serious planning, both in each neighborhood and in the city as a whole. They don’t allow local residents and businesses to address serious concerns they have with everything from housing needs to traffic, because zoning regulations are limited to use and density controls.

Imagine if the city were to take seriously the question of building housing to meet the present and future needs of New Yorkers. The city’s planners might do some projections and then work with every neighborhood in the city to see how they could accommodate their fair share of the need. This is exactly what was done in Seattle during the four-year term of Mayor Norman Rice. The State of Washington mandated a city-wide growth management plan, and the mayor then organized a team of planners to work with 38 neighborhoods, each of which developed its own plans. Every one of the neighborhood plans accommodated their share of the city-wide growth needs, and none refused to do so, mainly because they were empowered to determine how and where the growth would occur. Overdevelopment wasn’t a problem because every neighborhood had its proportionate share in development.

But it remains to be seen how many of the same neighborhoods in New York City complaining about overdevelopment are willing to support planning. For example, do the Staten Islanders who backed recent downzonings there recall that there was once a sensible plan for Staten Island that would have concentrated growth on the island, preserved open space, and prevented the inefficient low-density sprawl that has multiplied traffic and McMansions everywhere? The South Richmond Plan was introduced in 1971 by then State Senator John Marchi, but got beaten back by those who cried – yes, you got it – “overdevelopment.”

The South Richmond Plan was an early version of what the American Planning Association has popularized as “Smart Growth” – concentrating development around existing areas with density and infrastructure. While the term can be interpreted to mean many different things, it’s a concept that could be applied in New York if indeed there were the will to plan. Growth could be allocated in places around the city where it made good sense – building on existing densities and using infrastructure that’s already in place.

How Smart is Downzoning?

But is the downzoning in low-density neighborhoods part of Smart Growth? Or is it just adding pressure to other neighborhoods that are reeling from intense development pressures and facing huge affordable housing and service shortages? In fact, the biggest development pressures in the city aren’t in Bayside and Riverdale but in neighborhoods closer to the overheated downtown real estate markets -- Chelsea, Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Long Island City, and Harlem, for example, where single-family homes are already rare.

If overdevelopment brings excessive densities, the real issue is what constitutes “excessive?” It’s all relative. If there is any place in the city where densities might be considered too high it’s the centrally-located neighborhoods where upzonings are now concentrating more development. There is no magic formula for balancing growth and open space, but New York City is widely known to have one of the lowest ratios of open space per capita, especially in the more developed parts of Manhattan and the outer boroughs.

If our city planners were really concerned about excessive density and an overloaded infrastructure they wouldn’t be upzoning these areas so that more high-rises can be stuffed onto blocks that already have little “light and air” – features that zoning was supposed to safeguard. These are the neighborhoods that lack open space, have the worst air quality and noise, and have to deal with overcrowded subway platforms and buses.

It’s not just a matter of taking advantage of existing infrastructure but abusing the infrastructure. A blind fixation with development at all costs has produced a void in the public discussion about the problems faced by the city’s infrastructure – for example, solid waste and public transportation systems. It’s automatically assumed these systems will handle new growth because they’re so large, but every one of them is stretched and the costs of expanding these systems are high. Contrary to development advocates, high density isn’t necessarily any more efficient than low density. Economies of scale that come with higher densities can actually change to diseconomies of scale, and lead to a deterioration of the environment and the health prospects of residents.

Overdevelopment, An Election-Year Code Word?

Isn’t what the Bloomberg administration doing “Smart Growth?” Perhaps lurking in the far reaches of City Hall there lies such a rational motivation. But those who follow the poll numbers might wonder if the strategy has more to do with gaining support for Manhattan Mike in the outer borough homeowner neighborhoods with high voter turnouts. Could the pre-election tax rebate to homeowners and continuing favorable property assessment be part of a bigger strategy along with downzoning?

A statement by City Planning Commission chair Amanda M. Burden may give us a clue. Burden was quoted in the October 10 New York Times: “If you allow the character of a neighborhood to be eroded, the people who live in that neighborhood will leave the city.” Here we have a new version of the “white flight” thesis that contributed to the post-war ideology of suburban development in the U.S. The myth then was that central cities deteriorated mainly because whites left for the suburbs. But white flight was more an effect than a cause – the interstate highway system (the largest public works project in the world) and federal mortgage insurance (which prohibited loans in non-white neighborhoods) were the triggers to suburbanization and the ensuing racial apartheid.

Today the suburbs aren’t exploding as they were then, and New York City is awash in new investment. In the last few decades whites have continued to move out of the city but their neighborhoods have remained intact. They have been largely occupied by working families of diverse ethnicities. In some neighborhoods, however, there have been widespread abuses of zoning and building codes as housing has been illegally subdivided to accommodate new immigrant populations. But the problem isn’t flight to the suburbs, it’s how to re-make New York City’s homeowner neighborhoods so they can provide more safe and affordable housing for New Yorkers. If white flight changes voting patterns, that’s another matter.

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. 

 

East River Access From The Lower East Side


After many years of effort a greenway of parks and paths rings most of Manhattan now – with some notable exceptions. One such exception is the Lower East Side.

The Lower East Side used to have spectacular access to the East River, thanks to the East River Park, built by master planner Robert Moses in 1939, and including a walkway built on bulkheads over the river, offering breathtaking views. But repairs and improvements were sporadic and piecemeal, and, in the summer of 2001, divers inspecting it found structural weakness in the retaining wall. Before the July 4 hordes could descend on the river to view fireworks, the city blocked off almost all of the walkway.

Three years after the city deemed the path as unsafe, a sturdy eight-foot chain link fence blocking access to the waterfront looked like a permanent fixture. Because of post-9/11 budget constraints and a lack of community advocacy or business interest, it seemed unlikely that fixing the esplanade along the river would happen soon, if ever.

But, in a surprising turn, this long-neglected section of Manhattan’s greenway is slated to come back to life. It will take two more years and a whopping $69 million, but the heavy equipment is already there, working away.

No great public outcry had greeted the closing of river access. This was not the West Side with high-priced residential and business interests and vocal, connected constituents. On the East Side below 14th Street, the Jacob Riis, Lillian Wald and Baruch public housing projects are adjacent to the park across the FDR. It is interesting to note that most of the gaps in the Manhattan greenway are similarly adjacent to low-income neighborhoods.

Rosie Mendez, who has won the Democratic primary for the City Council district that includes East River Park, worked for the district's Councilmember Margarita Lopez (who is leaving that office because of term limits). Mendez says that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani refused to put money in the budget for infrastructure. When the promenade closed, "the mayor said she [Lopez] should get capital money to do the repairs," says Mendez, even though "infrastructure is what the city has to do, and it was a lot of money." That wasn't the kind of money that Lopez could get. Council members' discretionary funds get stretch thinly among schools, libraries, parks, and nonprofits.

Until recently, the community had other things on its mind, according to Richard Ropiak of Community Board 3. "Several other things the board focused on have been addressed," he says, "Drugs, housing, public safety. Once you solve major, visible things, you can focus on other things, such as parks." And that's the board's "prime focus" now, he says.

The community board has the power of advocacy, not the power of the purse. Now, with the mayor making parks and a greenway around Manhattan a priority, the park has funding as well. Rosie Mendez credits Bloomberg for allocating the money for the work to be done on the promenade. Plans are underway to complete the greenway all around Manhattan.

The infusion of funds for the promenade below 14th St. came two years ago in the mayor's fiscal year '05-'06 budget, says Nancy Barthold, assistant commissioner for capital projects in the parks department. No state or federal money has gone into the project, and it's a big one for the city. "Our typical project is a playground for between $500,000 and $1 million," says Barthold. Planning began in 2004 and the actual work started at the beginning of this year.

Still, it's going to be 2007 before anyone sees much river up close. It's a process with complicated and expensive steps, says Barthold. Before new pilings could be built, Con Ed had to move an old oil line and move live underground wires. The company bears the cost of such work, says Con Ed spokesperson Joe Petta.

As they finish 500-foot sections, the contractors building the pilings can move in and rip up the old structure, says Barthold. The barges and heavy equipment just south of 14th St. have made a torn-up landscape, but that's construction. Some $54 million is going to the bulkhead construction. The actual building of the promenade with benches, plantings, and lights will cost $13 to $15 million. That part of the project is currently being sent out for bids. Barthold says it should be done in the summer of 2007, though the Parks Department website says 2008.

That's not the only improvement East River Park has seen. In the past two years, the park has gained refurbished ball fields (funded through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which was created to rebuild lower Manhattan after 9/11), playgrounds and a rebuilt outdoor amphitheater (which had been the first home of Shakespeare in the Park). There are working public toilets and plans for more.

But much of the park—the largest in lower Manhattan--lives in a state of dishabille. A grassy patch turns brown. Another, greener lawn rarely gets a mowing. A broken water fountain falling into a sinkhole has had a tidy little chain link fence around it for years. Bikers and walkers now traverse a noisy path up against the FDR that is always either dusty or flooded. That's the way it will remain until the promenade reopens.

The shabbiness doesn't stop the streams of people. Runners, dog walkers, parents with strollers, skateboarders, bicyclists, and family gatherings pulse through the paths and picnic areas. Chain link, noisy construction and disrepair don't stop people from crossing over the FDR Drive. The neighborhood doesn't wait for the park that will be. It uses the park that it has.

 

Campaign 2005: Disaffection With Bloomberg Among Homeless Advocates


With the general election just weeks away, homelessness features highly in the campaign. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a significant political problem on the issue: Homelessness is at record highs, having increased significantly, as much as 25 percent, during his term. A new study (in pdf) by the Vera Institute, commissioned by the city, sheds new light on homelessness in the city. But policy changes that Bloomberg's deputies have implemented appear to have done little. Now, advocates are considering how a Fernando Ferrer administration might address the problem.

Although Ferrer's campaign has released a plan to build considerably more affordable housing than Bloomberg has committed the city to build, which is the long-term solution many agree, homeless people are more immediately affected by the city's homeless assistance policies. And under Bloomberg, advocates have seen a continuation of the recalcitrance that marked the years of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Under Giuliani, the city had to be forced by court order to implement even the most basic improvements to the city's homeless shelters and homeless policies. Giuliani's departure opened a door for Bloomberg and advocates to call a truce to litigation that had led to 52 court orders over more than two decades. A special master's panel was created to review the city's homeless policies and make recommendations.

But late last year, that truce unraveled. Among other things, the city introduced a new housing subsidy that is full of giveaways to landlords, in the eyes of many advocates, and is forcing low-income New Yorkers into rundown apartments with mice and vermin and other violations of the city's Housing Maintenance Code.

It was obvious the truce was dead last month: The city and advocates were back in court as the city sought to deny shelter to people that the city deems ineligible -- in other words, people the city does not consider homeless. Both sides claimed victory after Justice Helen Freedman decided the city could deny some people shelter, but only after assuring the people had housing of some sort.

The problem with the city's new policy is simple: The city regularly makes mistakes when it reviews people for eligibility. In its submission to the court last month, attorneys for the Legal Aid Society showed that even at the city's new and improved intake center, families are mistakenly found to be ineligible.

Anyone who has been to a "job center" (the new name given to welfare offices) can vouch for the rigor and attention caseworkers give to people's cases: Those aren't among their strengths. As I assisted a single mother with three children in a center one day, a copy of the application was riddled with errors. Everything from birth dates for the children to the home telephone number was wrong.

Revealing these errors is not as easy as it may appear, either. People seeking the help are at a distinct disadvantage when any disputes arise between themselves and caseworkers. Pointing out errors is a delicate matter, particularly to caseworkers who are obviously overworked and, probably, underpaid. Some advocates insist that that combination is strategic on the part of the city. One city official told me that homelessness was not nearly as problematic as advocates make it out to be.

The court date last month is hardly the last for advocates and the city. Bloomberg has made it clear that he hopes to eliminate the court orders that partly govern the city's homeless policies, though he has not said it in exactly those words.

"That's the way they're spinning it," said Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless. "The mayor has said he wants to 'end the litigation.' They really want to eliminate the court orders."

How a Ferrer administration would handle these issues is unclear. But Bloomberg's latest turn to limit access to city shelters by deeming people ineligible is not winning him support among housing advocates.

In 1996, Giuliani did the same thing, Markee pointed out (the court stopped the practice after about a month). It led to a temporary dip in the numbers of people in shelters. That could win Bloomberg political points among people who would look only at the bottom line: How many people are in city shelters and what is the trend? That's generally what appears in newspaper headlines and the sound bites on TV news, but it really says (and does) very little about the daily nightmare homeless people experience.

"If you make it harder to get shelter, then sure, you'll have fewer people applying," Markee said. "They would like to be able to deny shelter because it's a dollars and cents issue. If they could close the door, they'd save money."

Joe Lamport is the assistant director of the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, a coalition of community housing organizations.  

Campaign 2005: Disaffection With Bloomberg Among Homeless Advocates


With the general election just weeks away, homelessness features highly in the campaign. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a significant political problem on the issue: Homelessness is at record highs, having increased significantly, as much as 25 percent, during his term. A new study (in pdf) by the Vera Institute, commissioned by the city, sheds new light on homelessness in the city. But policy changes that Bloomberg's deputies have implemented appear to have done little. Now, advocates are considering how a Fernando Ferrer administration might address the problem.

Although Ferrer's campaign has released a plan to build considerably more affordable housing than Bloomberg has committed the city to build, which is the long-term solution many agree, homeless people are more immediately affected by the city's homeless assistance policies. And under Bloomberg, advocates have seen a continuation of the recalcitrance that marked the years of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Under Giuliani, the city had to be forced by court order to implement even the most basic improvements to the city's homeless shelters and homeless policies. Giuliani's departure opened a door for Bloomberg and advocates to call a truce to litigation that had led to 52 court orders over more than two decades. A special master's panel was created to review the city's homeless policies and make recommendations.

But late last year, that truce unraveled. Among other things, the city introduced a new housing subsidy that is full of giveaways to landlords, in the eyes of many advocates, and is forcing low-income New Yorkers into rundown apartments with mice and vermin and other violations of the city's Housing Maintenance Code.

It was obvious the truce was dead last month: The city and advocates were back in court as the city sought to deny shelter to people that the city deems ineligible -- in other words, people the city does not consider homeless. Both sides claimed victory after Justice Helen Freedman decided the city could deny some people shelter, but only after assuring the people had housing of some sort.

The problem with the city's new policy is simple: The city regularly makes mistakes when it reviews people for eligibility. In its submission to the court last month, attorneys for the Legal Aid Society showed that even at the city's new and improved intake center, families are mistakenly found to be ineligible.

Anyone who has been to a "job center" (the new name given to welfare offices) can vouch for the rigor and attention caseworkers give to people's cases: Those aren't among their strengths. As I assisted a single mother with three children in a center one day, a copy of the application was riddled with errors. Everything from birth dates for the children to the home telephone number was wrong.

Revealing these errors is not as easy as it may appear, either. People seeking the help are at a distinct disadvantage when any disputes arise between themselves and caseworkers. Pointing out errors is a delicate matter, particularly to caseworkers who are obviously overworked and, probably, underpaid. Some advocates insist that that combination is strategic on the part of the city. One city official told me that homelessness was not nearly as problematic as advocates make it out to be.

The court date last month is hardly the last for advocates and the city. Bloomberg has made it clear that he hopes to eliminate the court orders that partly govern the city's homeless policies, though he has not said it in exactly those words.

"That's the way they're spinning it," said Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless. "The mayor has said he wants to 'end the litigation.' They really want to eliminate the court orders."

How a Ferrer administration would handle these issues is unclear. But Bloomberg's latest turn to limit access to city shelters by deeming people ineligible is not winning him support among housing advocates.

In 1996, Giuliani did the same thing, Markee pointed out (the court stopped the practice after about a month). It led to a temporary dip in the numbers of people in shelters. That could win Bloomberg political points among people who would look only at the bottom line: How many people are in city shelters and what is the trend? That's generally what appears in newspaper headlines and the sound bites on TV news, but it really says (and does) very little about the daily nightmare homeless people experience.

"If you make it harder to get shelter, then sure, you'll have fewer people applying," Markee said. "They would like to be able to deny shelter because it's a dollars and cents issue. If they could close the door, they'd save money."

Joe Lamport is the assistant director of the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, a coalition of community housing organizations.  

Governors Island


This series, in partnership with Open House New York, looks at the physical city since the birth of the preservation movement.

Name a problem that can be solved with real estate and inevitably someone offers up Governors Island.

School crowding?

Let us "move parts of City University to Governors Island, thereby freeing up classroom space," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The United Nations' need for a more modern facility?

"Governor's Island should be designated the new home of the United Nations," Peter Fleischer wrote in 2001.

Bringing the Olympic Games to New York?

Build a stadium on the island. "What better way of priming the pump for New York City's 2016 bid than by offering this utterly spectacular site," wrote Michael Sorkin, director of the City College Urban Design Program.

So far, none of these plans approach reality - but neither do any of the other proposals for Governors Island. With much of the island a designated landmark district, it could emerge as a shining example of how the city can both preserve the past and enhance its future. But if the planning falters, it could instead illustrate, once again, just how hard it is to build anything in New York.

A SLOW START


The Admiral's House, a landmarked building on Governors Island, features an elegant interior, which is also landmarked. President Ronald Reagan, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and then President-elect George Bush held a summit meeting here in December 1988.

Back in 2003, when the federal government transferred Governors Island to the city and state, officials vowed to move quickly to create facilities that would benefit New Yorkers. "We're not going to spend the next ten years debating what should happen here," Randy Daniels, then the state's secretary of state and board chair of the preservation corporation, said at the time.

But by this spring, with progress seemingly stalled, Daniels had lost his optimism. "It takes two years to clear your throat in New York," he told the Times.

And earlier this month, Daniels prepared to leave the board, saying "We can make this something really special. We truly don't know what it will be but we have a general idea of what it can be."

Today, more than two and a half years after the federal government sold the island to the city and state for $1, the tranquil island -- with its stunning views, green spaces and historic buildings -- still remains largely off limits to space starved New Yorkers, except on summer weekends and during the Open House New York event in October.

To try to move things forward, the Governors Island Preservation and Education Corp. (GIPEC, pronounced gee-pec for short) recently set a timetable, aimed at having a plan in place and ready to go by late 2007 or early 2008. The corporation also announced a public meeting for October 19 and provided general concepts for Governors Island.

Will this work? "Hope springs eternal," said Robert Pirani, executive director of the Governors Island Alliance, a coalition led by the Regional Plan Association.

THE PLANNING PROCESS

Ever since the Coast Guard announced it was leaving the island in 1996, the 172 acres off the Battery have been a fantasy island for New Yorkers.

Casino or Shakespearean Theater?

The owners of Copenhagen's famed Tivoli Gardens mulled putting a huge entertainment extravaganza there. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani wanted to gamble on a casino, while real estate moguls salivated at the prospect of high rises with water views on a crime-free island 15 minutes from Wall Street. Those plans died, some on their own, some because of federal restrictions on the land.

Earlier this year, the preservation corporation called for suggestions from the public about what to do. By June about 100 ideas had come in. "Some people went out of the box," said Peter Fleischer, senior vice president of GIPEC, "Some people focused on one building, others on the whole island."

A partnership of nine organizations proposed Harbor 360, an environmental education and research facility on Buttermilk Channel. It would include a boat building and repair shop run by the Harbor School, which is a small public high school, and CUNY research facilities. The plan gets its glitz - and perhaps some of its financing - from a two-acre scale model of New York Harbor that would allow people to get their feet wet and experience different aspects of the waterfront.

Others see Castle William, a circular fort, as home to the New Globe Theater, which has ties to the Shakespearean theater in London of the same name. An aquatic park and places for cutting edge technologies are also being considered, along with some CUNY facilities, though probably not an entire new campus. Carter Craft, director of the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, said he would like to see things "that create an opportunity for New York City kids -- and urban kids in general -- to get outside," while Pirani envisions a "large flexible green space."

Iconic Island, Innovation Island

Faced with this cacophony of ideas, the preservation corporation came up several concepts, such as "Iconic Island" and "Innovation Island." All would preserve the historic buildings and rebuild much of the southern part of the island, home to such icons of mid 20th century America as a Burger King and a Super 8 motel. All call for a mix of uses. Hotels - probably not a Super 8, though -- seem an essential ingredient, as are conference centers. The "concepts" also call for parks, education, research, hotels and arts facilities. They differ in emphasis and in how dense the new construction would be.

But the plans provide few details. "I want to underscore the word 'illustrative,'" said Daniel Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development and board chair of the Governors Island corporation. "We don't have a plan. I see this as an interesting range of possibilities to get people thinking more concretely."

PROMISE AND PROBLEMS

It is a long road from concept to reality. Any big project in New York faces obstacles and this one faces more than most.

 

Assets as Liabilities

 

Many of the island's advantage complicate matters. Perhaps its greatest feature - being "an island at the center of the world" as a publicity brochure puts it – presents a transportation headache. Any plan to develop Governors Island would have to provide ferry service that, in Pirani's words, is "frequent, flexible and safe."

Another singular attraction - the 92-acre landmark district — also poses difficulties. It contains 62 buildings, constructed from the mid 19th to the early 20th century, whose exteriors must be preserved. In three of them, the interiors must be kept as well, and some landscaping also has landmark status.

Many see the landmarked buildings that once housed sailors eventually housing students. Smaller buildings could serve as bed and breakfasts or add to the growing list of New York boutique hotels.

"I don't think anyone thinks preservation restrictions are the real problem," said Fleischer. "These buildings are wonderful, and they should be preserved."

In addition, the National Park Service has 22 acres on the island, including Fort Jay and Castle William, which are largely intact. The service has not yet decided what to do with this, though an expert on the island suggested that the onetime cellar in Fort Jay could make a great place to store wine.

 

Government Restrictions

 

The federal government did not give up Governors Island without setting lots of restrictions. People in Washington, it is said, wanted to make sure that Donald Trump didn't take over the island.

And so the transfer agreement states that any plan must include 40 acres of parkland, 20 of them contiguous. There has to be a waterfront esplanade. The development cannot include permanent residences, industrial uses, casinos, parking or electric power generating beyond what is necessary to meet the island's own needs.

"It is clearly a site that is so encumbered with public restrictions that it's very difficult to develop," Kathryn Wilde, president of the New York City Partnership, a business group, told the New York Sun. "You're not going to see a private for-profit proposals that is very aggressive."

But others view the guidelines as essential. "They're necessary to protect the public interest," said Craft. "If you allow residential development, it's only a matter of time before it becomes a private enclave…a floating Tudor City."

The island is also supposed to be environmentally friendly. Already, workers there drive about in small electric powered vehicles.

 

Finances

 

But it may be easier to make the island environmentally self-sustaining than financially self- sustaining. The idea is that commercial development would fund public amenities. Other money could come from the School Construction Authority or from dormitory funds - assuming, of course, the final plans include schools or dormitories. "What's going to be required is a concept that passes the market test," Daniels said. "This is not a load that the government can carry."

The city has committed itself to putting up $15 million for capital improvements this year. The state is expected to put up a similar amount.

But that is a drop in Buttermilk Channel. Paul Kelly, interim president of the preservation corporation, told the board that infrastructure improvements would cost between $212 million and $368 million. Just repairing the old buildings would cost $60 million. "These are not repairs that can be waited on," he said. "If they're not done now, the buildings will further deteriorate."

And while the improvements have a price tag, the advantages the government could reap from putting up the funds could be priceless. Business needs to see the state and city come forward, according to Pirani. "To meet the confidence level that research indicates the private sector is looking for, they have to put money on the table," he said.

 

Politics

 

Bloomberg and Pataki have sung the praises of Governors Island. But some involved with the planning wonder whether the politicians have had the deep commitment needed to push the project through - and get the money for it. "In many ways it has fallen off the central radar screen both for the city and the state," Albert Butzel, president of Friends of Hudson River Park, told a reporter last spring. "I don't see any really strong advocates within government."

The state commitment remains in doubt with Pataki set to leave office in January 2007. But some see reason for optimism at the city level.

With the hopes for the Olympics dashed and the West Side Stadium officially dead, the man behind those schemes, Doctoroff, heads the Governors Island corporation and has promised to "push for a sense of urgency." People say he has already made a difference.

"It's clear that Dan Doctoroff has made this a priority," said Pirani. "That's going to be an asset."

Perhaps. But only if he manages to break his losing streak.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Governors Island Preservation and Education Corp
The city-state entity that runs the island

Governors Island Alliance
A coalition of organizations working to celebrate the island, create parks and public spaces, and ensure appropriate reuse of its historic structures.

Governors Island National Monument

"New York's' Next Great Place" (.pdf format)
The findings of a workshop on the island, held in June 2004 by the Governors Island Alliance.

"The Many Faces of Governors Island"

Governors Island
An exhibition of photos by Lisa Kereszi and Andrew Moore. Includes a slide show.

What Should We Do With Governors Island?
An on-line discussion sponsored by the Gotham Center

 

Mayoral Issue Grid: Development



Mayoral Issue Grid

DEVELOPMENT
-Nets Arena in Brooklyn?
-New Stadium for Yankees?
-New Stadium for Mets?

For the last three years, Michael Bloomberg made the city's 2012 Olympic bid and a proposed stadium on the West Side of Manhattan a major part of his administration's agenda. All of the Democratic candidates for mayor opposed the stadium. But when leaders in Albany rejected the stadium and New York did not get the Olympic bid, the plan died.

But there are others projects that have not generated the same amount of controversy.

In downtown Brooklyn, developer Bruce Ratner has proposed a 21-acre, $3.5 billion project which will include a Frank Gehry designed basketball arena for the Brooklyn Nets. The plan also calls for housing as well as commercial and retail space. The developer recently signed a "community benefits agreement" with neighborhood representatives that promises that 50 percent of the 4,500 rental units will go to low and middle-income residents, with 10 percent of these set aside for seniors. It also sets aside 35 percent of the jobs for minority workers and another 10 percent for women.

The New York Yankees and the New York Mets have also proposed building new stadiums. Although the stadiums will be paid for by the teams, taxpayers will have to pay for various "infrastructure improvements" to make them usable.

At Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, the city will provide $135 million and the state will pay $70 million for parking garages along 164th Street and for some road work.

At the Mets stadium in Queens, the city will contribute a total of $105 million to cover infrastructure and planning for the baseball stadium, and the state will pay $75 million to cover infrastructure improvements.

Fernando Ferrer

In the past, Fernando Ferrer said he supported the Atlantic Yards project that would build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets basketball team, because it also includes affordable housing and a commitment to give jobs to local residents.

"I happen to like 50 percent affordable housing," Ferrer said at a forum in June. "I happen to like the idea of a "community benefits agreement" that if this mayor were serious about in this entire city, with the stroke of a pen we'd bring down unemployment."

In October, Ferrer came out against the Atlantic Yards project. He told the Daily News editorial board that it shouldn't be the "mother of all real estate deals" and that it should be made "human-size." In a debate with Bloomberg, he called it the "the twin brother of the West Side stadium boondoggle," arguing that the percentage of affordable housing units developed has dropped from 50 percent to 30 percent.

Ferrer has not offered a clear opinion on the stadium for the Yankees. (His campaign has not responded to a request for a position.) Although Ferrer has said that the current stadium should be preserved as a historic landmark. "I've never believed they should leave that stadium," Ferrer said. "It's a perfectly fine place to watch a baseball game."

When the proposed Mets stadium was unveiled as part of a revamped Olympic plan, Ferrer said he supported it.

In a recent interview, he said he would support a Queen's stadium of the New York Jets, but not at taxpayer expense.

"I think it's a good idea. I'd commit a lot of my time persuading them to come here, but I wouldn't commit a city dollar," Ferrer told the Times Ledger. "If there are legitimate infrastructural improvements - for example, roadways - those are things that legitimately need improving. But if you want me to pay for part of a stadium, I wouldn't do it even for my beloved Yankees."

Michael Bloomberg

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been an outspoken proponent of the Atlantic Yards project that would build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets basketball team. The plan also calls for housing and new commercial and retail space.

""The $3.5 billion project will create 8,500 permanent new jobs, 4,500 mixed-income apartments, substantial new commercial, retail, open space and host the first major league sports team to play in Brooklyn since the Dodgers," said Bloomberg.

Bloomberg also supports the proposal for a new Yankee stadium in the Bronx and a new Mets stadium in Queens.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Eminent Domain: What The Supreme Court Ruling Means
Zoning Instead of Planning in Williamsburg and Greenpoint
Big Projects And Bad News
NYC's Proposed Stadiums and Arenas
The Sports Economy
NASCAR: The Largest Proposed Sports Stadium of Them All

 

Mayoral Issue Grid: Housing



Mayoral Issue Grid

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.

Fernando Ferrer

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.

(Read Ferrer’s housing plan)

Ferrer supports mandatory affordable housing in new development. His housing plan calls for 30 percent for low to middle-income housing.

Michael Bloomberg

In September 2005, Michael Bloomberg expanded his original $3 billion plan to build 68,000 new homes by 2008 to a to a $7.5 billion plan to build and preserve 165,000 units by 2013. So far, the administration says 28,500 new apartments have been preserved or funded to be constructed.

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

 

9/11: Will The Lessons Learned Help New Orleans?


Four years after 9/11, the nation is facing another disaster, not on 16 acres but over an entire city. What have we learned about land use planning in the aftermath of 9/11 and will any of it apply to the rebuilding of flood-floored New Orleans? I think there are five major lessons.

1. Leadership Matters

Leadership matters in the immediate response to such tragic events. Local, state and national leaders set the standard for the rescue efforts when they show they care about the victims, and demonstrate their commitment by personally engaging in the response. Even long-time enemies of Rudolph Giuliani admired his courage and caring, qualities that also were found in the widespread relief efforts by individuals and civic groups from around the world. In New Orleans we are watching arrogant officials point fingers at each other while they blame the victims and shift the burden to poorly equipped civic groups.

2. Public Discussion Helps

Major disasters elicit solidarity and sympathy with victims that in turn can stimulate healthy public discussion and debate about plans to rebuild. In the first year after 9/11, the press was filled with ideas from all over the world about how to rebuild lower Manhattan and Ground Zero. Coalitions like the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York, Rebuild Downtown Our Town (R.dot), NY New Visions, and the Labor Community Advocacy Network organized extensive discussions and contributed many innovative ideas. So strong was this outpouring that when the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) commissioned its first plan for the World Trade Center site in 2002, it received an overwhelming thumbs down from the public because it was too much about office space and not enough about people. The LMDC changed its plan somewhat and held an international competition to chose a new design. Architect Daniel Libeskind’s conception was chosen and it incorporated some key ideas from the civic discussion.

In New Orleans, the public mood is hardly ripe for constructive engagement like this, though it is sorely needed. Major questions such as whether to rebuild or relocate the city, and what the new city should look like, require serious study and deliberation. Many people are rightfully outraged at the government response to Katrina and are even less likely to lend legitimacy to a top-down plan advanced by those who neglected the victims. This may well encourage the White House, state and local governments to forge ahead on their own and continue to ignore a public they know mistrusts them.

3. Property Matters

Within a week of 9/11, developer Larry Silverstein, who owns the largest lease on the World Trade Center site, declared his intention to rebuild the Twin Towers as an act of defiance against terrorism (and no doubt good for his property). This idea was shunted aside by even Silverstein’s strongest supporters, including Governor George Pataki, who understood the public mood of mourning and outpouring of sympathy with the victims. Michael Bloomberg, soon to be the mayor-elect, expressed reservations about dumping 11 million square feet of office space back on the trade center site. Bloomberg reminded us that when it was built, the trade center depressed real estate values in lower Manhattan, and midtown is the largest business district (and would become even larger with his rezoning of the West Side).

But talk about buying out Silverstein, or swapping the Port Authority’s land at Ground Zero with city land at the airports, went nowhere. Silverstein persisted, moved ahead with his building program, and got $7 billion in insurance money. 7 World Trade Center is almost completed. He and his architect David Childs untwisted Libeskind’s Freedom Tower into a look-alike of one of the original towers. And it’s not clear that any of the cultural facilities or the memorial will be significant enough to make it the mixed-use development that the public overwhelmingly favored. The new World Trade Center is shaping up to look like yet another office park.

In New Orleans, the biggest property owners may well call the tune as well. Press reports say that many of the refugees don’t want to go back. Those who have no property have nothing to go back to. Those that owned homes will probably have no place to go for many months, if not years. But there were valuable commercial properties and homes in the city’s historic district, and these owners, who are more likely to have had flood insurance, will want to rebuild and probably have the most political influence. The oil and petrochemical industries will no doubt want to rebuild. The problem we face is that for them to fulfill their wishes, we will have to fork over many billions of dollars in subsidies to de-contaminate and flood-proof the city. A government that gave massive tax cuts to the rich should have no problem with this as long as it helps their core constituency, the “deserving rich.” (This was the same government that cut public infrastructure spending in the region, which increased the city’s vulnerability to flooding.) In the end, the oil and petrochemical industries might go on welfare permanently and a rebuilt New Orleans might be little more than a reproduction of its former self for tourists, heavy on theme parks and shopping malls.

4. The Impact On The Environment Must Be Dealt With

In New York we learned that refusing to recognize the environmental impacts of disasters can cause serious illness and death. After 9/11 federal EPA head Christie Todd Whitman declared that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe, a statement consistent with Mayor Giuliani’s call for people to go about business as usual. It turns out that the White House had more to do with that declaration than the EPA experts. As a result, residents and workers who were exposed to toxic particulates face long-term risks of cancer and respiratory disease.

New Orleans was an environmental disaster in the first place, the center of a region of petrochemical industries known as Cancer Alley, built in a vulnerable flood plain without adequate protection. We now know the flood waters had extremely high levels of coliform bacteria, but more than a week after the flooding, officials could not say what chemicals were in this toxic brew.

Since global warming may increase the likelihood of storms like Katrina, perhaps the most important element of post-disaster planning should be to address this phenomenon. But as long as the Bush administration continues to deny that global warming is a reality, it will become more difficult to plan for future disasters.

5. Immigrants Suffer

In the post-9/11 atmosphere of anti-immigrant prejudice, immigrants are the least able to take advantage of relief and rebuilding funds. We will never know how many immigrant workers and business owners were too afraid to approach authorities after 9/11 to seek help. And the enormous outpouring of international solidarity after 9/11 did not translate into a planning process that seriously incorporated ideas and energy from across the globe. In New Orleans, the Mexican, Vietnamese and other immigrant communities may be the most silent victims, especially given the role of many of the federal, state and local law enforcement officers who were given orders to shoot-to-kill.

6. Race Matters

Finally, the most difficult issue in New Orleans was but a minor matter in New York City: racism. There was a disproportionate absence of New York City’s multi-racial majority in the public and private forums that led to the plans for rebuilding lower Manhattan. Prominent black architect J. Max Bond, Jr. told The New York Times in October of 2003, “If there had been a greater variety of people, someone would have questioned the program.”

But in New Orleans race and poverty are center stage. Even normally conservative TV news channels had no trouble seeing that those left behind were black and poor. They were not included in the disaster planning and didn’t have the means to get out in time. They were the victims of chaos and military-like search-and-destroy missions, and are branded “looters” so they can serve as scapegoats for government incompetence at every level. Will they be invited to the table when plans are made for the future of New Orleans?

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. 

Campaign 2005: Three Ways The Next Mayor Could Improve The Waterfront


The transformation of the waterfront may seem remarkable to those who live in Manhattan and Brooklyn, but what is most remarkable about it is how little is happening in the other three boroughs. A couple of scattered improvements include the new Hunts Point Riverside Park on the Bronx River and the new esplanade along the Upper Bay, and Kill van Kull on the North Shore of Staten Island. But much more should be done – and could be done, if the next mayor focused on three ways to create real momentum for improving the waterfront.

1) Make Albany and Washington DC work for New York

Part of what makes the waterfront such complicated terrain is that it is governed by state and federal laws and agencies. For too long this regulatory complexity has been looked at as a limitation rather than an opportunity.

For instance, the Water Resources Development Act that was approved by the United States House of Representatives in July authorizes federal funds for waterfront improvements throughout the nation. In our area, Perth Amboy, Carteret and Bayonne are all named beneficiaries, but little is named in New York City other than Flushing Bay and, for the first time, Newtown Creek.

Federal money could do much for the East River, where miles of crumbling esplanade are restricting access, or even Pugsley Creek, which is proof that not all parks are actually park-like. The same kind of federal aid that is going to restore the New Jersey Meadowlands would go a long way to help Jamaica Bay, whether solving the mystery of the disappearing marshlands or creating access along the east side of the bay where communities are walled off by JFK Airport.

In Albany, legislative leaders have hatched a bond issue to appear on the ballot this fall that hopes to authorize billions for transportation projects statewide. There are a handful of intelligent projects, such as the $19 million proposed for the Bronx River Greenway. But there is nothing for the Brooklyn Waterfront Greenway, nothing to address the chronic traffic congestion in our central business districts, nothing that addresses the movement of goods in the city. Perhaps most unfortunate is the neglect of water transit, another missed opportunity.

2) Focus mayoral agencies on constructing community improvements alongside their new and expanding facilities

Both the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Sanitation have massive capital projects in various stages of planning or development. The environmental agency has set the bar high with their work at the Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant, which includes not just cost over-runs (covered well by the daily newspapers), but also (ignored by the press), a canal walk along Whale Creek, a little-known arm of Newtown Creek. Such a community improvement, when developed alongside an infrastructure improvement, illustrates the balance that public agencies throughout the nation are increasingly taking to help offset the traditionally negative impacts such facilities have on local communities.

A logical next step would be for the agency to look at similar improvements alongside the gargantuan retention basins being built to capture the combined sewer effluent which pollutes our waterways during heavy rains.

A more pressing public works project is the planned retrofit and expansion of the city’s marine transfer stations by the Department of Sanitation. The long term solid waste management plan approved in June constitutes a giant step towards a smarter garbage policy. The importance of this work cannot be overstated, because since Fresh Kills landfill was closed by the last mayor (who did not take the time to create another plan), the amount of funding that New York City taxpayers are spending to support the transportation of garbage is even greater than the amount we are spending through the city budget to support New York City Transit subways and buses.

Looking ahead, this case offers two lessons for the next mayor.

The first is to work openly with community and interest groups to address pressing public issues. In the case of the solid waste plan, the Organization of Waterfront Neighborhoods led the way towards a more enlightened policy that places a greater emphasis on water and rail-based transit and eliminates thousands of miles of truck trips each day. Affiliated groups such as the Waste Prevention Coalition helped create pressure not just for more intelligent transportation, but also a different way of looking at garbage – we could reduce the 13,000 tons of residential waste we produce each waste.

Lesson two is that even your own agencies, Mr. Mayor, may not be able to do what you expect of them. Virtually every community activist has a war story to tell involving Sanitation pick-up schedules, or performance, and while these stories are increasingly tempered with good news about low-sulfur diesel fuel, or collaborative district managers who send a truck right when it is needed, history shows that the Department of Sanitation’s expertise is in pick-up and transportation, not recycling, not waste reduction, and certainly not the design or construction of facilities which anyone would call community friendly. In developing the long term solid waste management plan the city brought in the Economic Development Corporation to shepherd the project, but one has to wonder whether an organization classified as ”quasi-governmental” is the appropriate one to lead and manage perhaps the most expensive and complicated multi-borough construction project started since the wave of new sewage treatment plants came along more than 30 years ago.

Nevertheless, the new solid waste plan could also be a citywide waterfront revitalization plan if the next mayor makes it a point of focus.

3) Harness State-ruled Agencies such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to work more constructively with and for the city

The city's relationship with the Port Authority is too narrowly defined. While some say the Port Authority is merely an automatic teller machine for city or state elected officials, the reality is that the agency has much more to offer the city than just cash.

The current administration missed a tremendous opportunity during the negotiation over the leases for JFK and LaGuardia Airports. While the income to the city from the leases is laudable, both Flushing and Jamaica Bays are complicated environs that the city hasn't done enough to steward or revitalize.

For an agency charged with planning and developing facilities for the movement of goods, it is obvious the Port Authority could also meaningfully contribute to the development of the city's solid waste management plan -- if they were asked.

Perhaps much of this tradition of limited engagement stems form the fact that the Port Authority is governed by a board appointed in Trenton and Albany. New York City has no voice on the board, and no power to make appointments. The next administration should seek to change this.

Waterfront Improvement Districts?

The common thread in all these recommendations -- getting more out of Washington DC and Albany, using the capital projects of mayoral agencies to fund community amenities, and engaging the Port Authority in more strategic and direct collaboration -- is that the waterfront needs a massive infusion of resources and funding.

If the rezoning of Greenpoint and Williamsburg is the wave of the future, then will the price of creating public waterfront access be limitless creation of luxury residential development? Hopefully not.

Perhaps the next mayor will look at the success of our Business Improvement Districts and create Waterfront Improvement Districts that are funded, at least in part, by tolls on bridge crossings. After all, it is ironic how the very areas where these bridges grace our shores are also the areas that need the most waterfront improvements.

Carter Craft, an urban planner, is program director of the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance. 

Block Parties, Street Fairs, Street Festivals


The graffiti block party on August 24th in Chelsea, which featured the painting of graffiti on nine imitation subway cars (life-sized but just two inches thick) by artists with names like T-Kid, Tats Crew, Min and Fuzz, was different from most street fairs in New York City in several ways. For one thing, a federal judge with a sense of humor had ordered it to go forward. The city had revoked its permit, after Mayor Michael Bloomberg had criticized the event for "encouraging people to hurt this city,” arguing that it would inspire people to deface real subway cars.

"By the same token, presumably,” Judge Jed Rakoff wrote in reversing the ban, “a street performance of 'Hamlet' would be tantamount to encouraging revenge murder."

It was also different because the entire block – 22nd Street between 10th and 11th Avenues -- was filmed by MTV and television news crews, and because both ends of the block had a big sign that said, “Warning: Anyone possessing spray paint, markers or other graffiti paraphernalia is subject to fine and arrest,” but that did not stop a crowd of young men in hip hop clothing, some wearing T-shirts that said “Graffiti Changed My Life,” from reverently lending their markers to the veteran graffiti artists for their autographs – excuse me, their tags.

But the graffiti block party was different, above all, because there was not a single sign-up table for a credit card, not one van with slabs of sweaty sausages on its mobile grill, not even tables full of underwear and socks for sale.

Block parties, street fairs, street festivals – there are a half dozen of them every summer weekend, there is at least one happening each week from May to November.The Saturday after the graffiti block party, which was organized by hip-hop clothing designer Marc Ecko, New Yorkers could attend:

  • the Gramercy Park Neighborhood Festival, on Third Avenue from 14th to 23rd Streets
  • Our Lady of Pompei Church Festival, on Bleecker Street from Sixth to Seventh Avenues
  • the Federation of East Village Artists HOWL Festival on Tompkins Square Park and St. Marks Place from Avenue A to First Avenue

 

And then on Sunday:

  • the Daytop Village Street Festival on Madison Avenue from 42nd to 57th Streets
  • the Church of the Good Shepard/Third Avenue Merchandise Fair on Third Avenue from 23rd to 34th Streets
  • Brighton Jubilee on Brighton Beach Avenue from Coney Island Avenue to Corbin Place, Brooklyn

 

If New York City’s first street festival was organized way back in 1884 on East 116th Street, by the Church of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, the flowering of block fairs dates from the 1970s and 1980s, a result of the birth of neighborhood block associations in communities throughout the city.

So, if so many neighborhoods are so different, why are so many of the street fairs so exactly the same?

The reason for the monotony is simple. Many street fairs are managed by one organization, Mardi Gras Festival Productions.

Mardi Gras makes it easier both for the sponsoring organizations and for the vendors, by navigating what turns out to be a formidable permit process.

New York City street fairs are regulated by the Street Activity Permit Office of the Mayor’s Community Assistance Unit. The managers of any fair that takes place on more than one block or on more than one day must apply for approval to that office no later than December 31st of the previous year. Those block fairs that last only one day and take place only on one block can apply to the local community board. Manhattan’s Community Board 8, which includes the Upper East Side and Roosevelt Island, has recommended that the city approve 50 block parties this year in its area alone.

Mardi Gras helps the vendors obtain the necessary individual state and city permits they need. It also sells the vendors booths in the fairs it organizes -- and, if vendors buy a booth at more than one fair, they get a discount, which is why the same vendors appear in festival after festival. Mardi Gras also manages an aggressive corporate sponsorship program which is why you see the same oversized oddly-shaped plastic souvenir drinking glasses in festival after festival.

Many of the smaller block fairs are organized by neighborhood associations, and function as their main annual fundraiser, the money used to plant trees, fix lights and otherwise improve the quality of life in their communities. If they are enjoyable -- if they help the neighbors feel part of a community, and promote the neighborhood to the rest of the city -- so much the better. But their primary purpose is to make money.

The vendors are happy with this arrangement, the sponsoring organizations are happy, even the public is happy, judging by the crowds.

But not everybody is happy. The local merchants and residents along University Place in Greenwich Village were so sick of another identical fair week in and week out disrupting the normal street life that they circulated a petition against them.

And I am not happy that so many of the city’s street festivals have become nearly identical. I suppose it is wrong to denigrate Mardi Gras for doing to street fairs what developers and retailers have done to the rest of the city; after all, nobody is surprised to be able to board the 86th Street cross-town bus by the Banana Republic on Third Avenue and exit that bus by the Banana Republic on Broadway – or to cross a street to go from the Starbucks at 25 Astor Place to the Starbucks at 51 Astor Place, two of more than 150 identical Starbucks in Manhattan alone.

But there are plenty of street festivals that remain distinctive, some of them annual events. There are the grand spectacles, such as the lively Lunar New Year's Day parade in Chinatown , and the festival of the Giglio, in which 100 men carry an entire orchestra on their shoulders through the streets of Williamsburg.

And then there are the modest block parties, real neighborhood affairs managed not by Mardi Gras but by the neighborhood groups themselves. My wife and I reside in Yorkville, and one Saturday in June we attended a block party on East 87th Street to raise funds for the school at St. Joseph’s Parish. St. Joseph's has deep roots in Yorkville -– it started before the Civil War as a place of worship for an orphanage and became the church for Yorkville’s burgeoning German community in 1874 -– and this was evident in the June fair. A boy who attends St. Joseph’s school staffed a table selling used books. Another table functioned as a one-day “St. Joseph’s CafĂ©” –- full of goodies baked by the school’s parents or donated by local stores. There were children’s rides and a dunk tank. There was not one single place to purchase a tacky souvenir glass. It felt much better to attend a block party that was clearly a part of its neighborhood, and buy a book to support a neighborhood institution, than it would have to eat a sickening sausage at a roving shopping mall.

Marcus Banks is a librarian at the New York University School of Medicine.  

Mayoral Issue Grid: Housing



Mayoral Issue Grid

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.

Fernando Ferrer

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.

(Read Ferrer’s housing plan)

Ferrer supports mandatory affordable housing in new development. His housing plan calls for 30 percent for low to middle-income housing.

C. Virginia Fields

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.

(Read Fields’ housing plan)

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.

A. Gifford Miller

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."

Anthony Weiner

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

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

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years