(photo: Michael Applebaum/Mayor's Office)
Inwood opponents of a luxury tower widely touted as bringing affordable housing to the community are exhibit A in “Bill de Blasio Versus NIMBYism,” a Gotham Gazette article published October 7.
But as one of several grassroots organizations who fought this project, we at Inwood Preservation are disappointed in the undeservedly negative and inaccurate picture of sincere citizen involvement the story painted, characterizing us as forces of inertia and citing newspaper editorial boards that repeat the mayor's spin on the "deal" that was reached on the 4650 Broadway project.
The thousands of residents who petitioned and won City Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez’s vote against the spot upzoning welcome more housing at rents they can afford, and in buildings that fit the overall character of the area. The luxury tower offered neither.
The biggest myth of the Sherman Plaza project was that the developers agreed to reserve 50 percent of their units as affordable housing in exchange for upzoning that would have allowed up to three times the floors of neighboring buildings and a doubling of the number of luxury units. But as residents found out with the Rheingold development in Bushwick, such promises go out the window if the property is sold. Once the property is upzoned, though, the higher height, and the luxury units, remain.
Regardless of the promises, many Inwood residents would be priced out of the affordability ranges allowed under de Blasio’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) plan, and would not be guaranteed access to rent the new “affordable” units, which would be filled through a citywide lottery. The mayor’s plan calls for MIH developers to set aside 20 percent of their units as “permanently affordable” for families of three making about $32,600, which is roughly the median income for Inwood. However, if the zoning had been approved, the developer could exploit the program and switch to a more expensive option—30 percent of units reserved for families making about $65,200. Doing so would effectively price out the majority of Inwood residents. (This is not to mention the additional units bringing it up to the vaunted “50 percent affordable”—the developer offered testimony that the figure included 20 percent of units for families making approximately $90,000 to $110,000.)
The ripple effects of this proposed development, already being felt in some big anticipatory property sales nearby, would have been disastrous, leading to widespread tenant displacement. Inwood owes its existence as a working class enclave to its relatively large stock of rent-stabilized housing. This housing has been disappearing for many years. As one of our members testified to the City Council in July, his 145-unit building, just three blocks from the proposed tower, had lost over 80 percent of its stabilized units between 2007 and 2014. Three other buildings within five blocks of the site also had deregulated more than 50 percent of their units in the same period. That’s a loss of hundreds of stabilized units in an area of only a few blocks in a seven-year period.
Local activists have been working in conjunction with our Community Board to look for particular patterns of abuse, as landlords employ various legal and illegal forms of harassment to force out long-term tenants, convert to higher market rates and decimate the stock of affordable housing in the neighborhood. A massive tower with luxury apartments renting at sky-high rates just down the street would only increase the pressure to deregulate. And of course once one spot upzoning occurs, more developers would come in with similar proposals, leading to more destabilization for existing residents. Just where are these displaced tenants supposed to go? Not into luxury towers.
The problems with the mayor’s MIH plan are citywide and many communities join us in calling for revision to protect existing low-income tenants and housing stock. But other issues often dismissed as NIMBYism are simply part of good—and actually already called-for—planning. The Sherman Plaza developers, for instance, did not produce a proper Environmental Impact Statement and misrepresented or left off important facts in their environmental assessment.
A few examples: The first is obvious to anyone who tries to travel up Broadway, past the proposed site by Ft. Tryon Park and along the area’s one through street up to Marble Hill and the Bronx. Besides being already clogged with normal traffic trying to cross the bridge, there are multitudes of trucks and buses going to a large MTA bus depot and Sanitation Department 4-district depot at the island’s northern edge. Inwood’s underground infrastructure for water, sewers, and more is, on average, more than 100 years old and strained. Studies have shown toxic substances in the soils under the property. The sheer size and height of the building would have blocked views of the landmarked park and the Cloisters and cast shadows on it. The historic Packard car showroom building facade and interior, designed by Albert Kahn, would have been destroyed.
We wonder why Mayor de Blasio doesn’t hear what his constituents all over the city are telling him, in unison: that, yes, we need more affordable housing, but the first priority is to do a serious job of retaining all existing affordable units, and any new development should be environmentally sustainable and designed to fit in within the context of the existing community.
***
Maggie Clarke is a co-founder and Suzy Parker is a member of Inwood Preservation, which organizes and shares key information through Facebook. On Twitter @InwoodPres.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Mayor de Blasio at ABNY (photo: Edwin J. Torres/Mayor's Office)
If Bill de Blasio wants to be the Education Mayor, he needs to do better than this.
In Friday’s “Equity and Excellence” address sponsored by the Association for a Better New York before a generally well-heeled, overwhelmingly white audience, de Blasio discussed a list of programs that he’s largely been repeating for over a year.
We’ve heard it before and surely he can claim credit for planting seeds: Pre-K for All, Literacy for All, Algebra for All, Computer Science for All, AP for All, etc. Yet in most cases these are pilot programs with full implementation and assessment dates roaming well past the end of a possible second term for this mayor.
He claimed specious test score improvements long-disavowed by the State Education Department and others since last year’s and this year’s assessments were so markedly different. His speech even failed to mention the mayor’s signature Community Schools initiative and he rarely brought up Chancellor Carmen Fariña, perhaps signaling disappointment with both.
But more than that was missing.
The speech was notable for avoiding every hot button education issue facing the city, however relevant to his theme. Except for a guarded, meandering response to an audience question, the mayor never mentioned charter schools. Similarly, only when asked did the mayor defend Specialized High Schools like Bronx Science and Stuyvesant, never casting doubt on their unbalanced racial makeup and the selection process that he criticized during his 2013 campaign.
Never addressed were the opt-out movement, the Common Core, or State programs for “Renewal” and “Receivership” directed at struggling schools. Not once, in a speech on equity(!), was desegregation, diversity, or race called-out as an appropriate subject for mayoral attention.
Having been beat up on these issues, the mayor has backed down. His education agenda has been reduced to bromides about workforce and college preparation, creating strawmen he is ostensibly correcting, and – in his only shoutout to former Mayor Bloomberg – continuing to ensure school safety.
To be sure, the current Department of Education has made major changes in structure and practice. Superintendents and Field Support Services Centers have largely replaced Networks as mainstays of school support and oversight. School Report Cards are notable for de-emphasizing test scores, the Discipline Code has been revised so that restorative justice practices take priority over suspensions, and opportunities for positive parent/school interactions are way up.
But none of these, not the “for Alls” and not organizational tinkering, are worthy of an Education Mayor. Issue avoidance doesn’t build a legacy. The time for de Blasio to craft a vision that delivers on Equity and Excellence on a scale this city deserves, that its children deserve, is way overdue. “Racial and Economic Inequity” should be the topic of the mayor’s next education speech. Until then, he is thinking small and only repeating himself.
***
David C. Bloomfield is Professor of Education Leadership, Law, and Policy at Brooklyn College and The CUNY Graduate Center. The third edition of his book, American Public Education Law, is out now. On Twitter @BloomfieldDavid.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
photo: Friends of Elizabeth Street Garden
In response to City Council Member Margaret Chin’s op-ed column in Gotham Gazette published Oct. 6; from Friends of Elizabeth Street Garden President Jeannine Kiely and D. Kristin Shea:
Council Member Margaret Chin is our only elected official who supports developing Elizabeth Street Garden. She seems dead set on “winning” development of the Garden at all costs, even if it means giving up the opportunity to build five times more senior affordable housing at another nearby location within our community. In her attempts to sway public opinion, Council Member Chin has repeatedly released misleading information.
Allow us to correct the record:
FACT: NOT A PUBLIC PROCESS
Chin says she is “proud of the public process” and the “substantial amount of public review.” But her decision to build on Elizabeth Street Garden was a backroom deal at City Hall, without proper public review or discussion.
FACT: COMMUNITY IGNORED, DESPITE TREMENDOUS SUPPORT
Since learning about this secret deal in 2013, Manhattan Community Board 2 has held four public hearings, and overwhelming sentiment has been for saving the Garden, including support from every local elected official other than Chin and 16 parks and community organizations.
The Garden brings joy to thousands, including many seniors who live nearby. That’s why Mayor de Blasio, the city’s housing agency (HPD), and Chin received 5,000 letters in support of the Garden — far more than the “hundreds of letters” cited by HPD — and only one in support of the housing proposal from an organization that receives thousands of dollars each year through Chin.
FACT: BETTER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALTERNATIVES EXIST
Chin claims that “identifying sites for affordable housing...can be a monumental challenge.” CB 2 took up that challenge and identified several alternative sites, including a vacant lot on Hudson and Clarkson streets where five times more senior housing can be built. Because this site was previously committed for parkland, it will not be available if Elizabeth Street Garden is destroyed.
In addition, a proposed project at 550 Washington St., currently being rezoned, will have 476 affordable units, including 178 for seniors.
We agree with Council Member Chin and the mayor that parking lots are “ripe for affordable housing development” and, therefore, encourage consideration of the garage on 2 Howard St. located in the heart of Little Italy, but outside the height-restrictive Special Little Italy District.
FACT: CHIN’S PROMISE THAT RESIDENTS CAN “AGE IN PLACE” IS MISLEADING
All residents of CB 2 receive preference for 50 percent of any senior housing built in the district, which extends from 14th Street to Canal Street and the Hudson River to Bowery. Remaining units would be available to anyone in the five boroughs. Preference is via lottery and applies only to the first round of rentals. Therefore, if 60 units were built on the Garden, as few as 30 residents currently living in all of CB 2 would live there, and possibly none from Little Italy.
FACT: 5,000 SF OF “PUBLICLY-ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE” IS A RUSE
The City is asking for proposals to create “lawns, trees, walks and planting and seating areas with a variety of sun and shade conditions, and also to provide for continuation of current educational and recreational programs and events,” all in an area the size of a basketball court, surrounded by seven-story buildings. When asked about building on Elizabeth Street Garden, former Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe said, “It’s a very small site. You’d be shortchanging either one. I think the site is barely large enough for housing. You might be able to have a little sitting area.”
Ultimately, privately-owned public spaces often end up “inaccessible or devoid” of “amenities that attract public use,” or may be converted into retail space in the future, as Chin supported on Water Street.
Mayor Bill de Blasio is right when he said “Every New Yorker deserves access to clean, safe green spaces, no matter what neighborhood they live in.” Had Chin acted upon her declaration that “Communities must be consulted about changes coming to their neighborhoods,” Elizabeth Street Garden already would be a public park.
Instead of allowing politics to determine policy, we encourage Council Member Chin and the de Blasio administration to work with CB 2 and our elected officials to build more affordable housing and to preserve the precious little public green, open space we have left, for our seniors, our children and all the residents of our community.
***
by Friends of Elizabeth Street Garden President Jeannine Kiely and D. Kristin Shea. On Twitter @elizabethstgrdn. (Both Kiely and Shea are members of Community Board 2 but are not writing on behalf of CB 2.)
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.